Does the concept of elo hell exist in competitive games?

Does the concept of elo hell exist in competitive games?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=A30Bt29i5KM
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

yeah pokemon showdown

No, only retards think Elo hell exists, if you aren't good enough to effect a noticeable change on the outcome of the match, then you are perfectly ranked for your skill level.

Yes.

ELO hell is usually the lower ELO levels where skill is highly variable therefore the skill of your teammates and enemies is unpredictable rather than higher ELOs where skill is more stratified.

Compare it to one hand of poker versus several thousand hands. You don't know who is lucky and who is skilled.

Yes, let's say there's five divisions and you're in the 2nd one (1 being the lowest), people will tell you to "lol git gud at carry them" - in order to do this and make up for your shitter team you'd need to play at the level of a division 4 or 5 yet the result would still be 3.

Elo was made for 1v1 and I don't know who the fuck thought they could extrapolate it to team based games

People will tell you "lol git gud and carry them"

Phone autocorrect is killing me

Depends on your definition of elo hell

ELO hell is shitter speak for being put at the skill bracket you play at.

if you solo queue then yes, it most definitely exists

Also keep in mind each game you play, the less they'll count, so if you're shit then later git gud, you need to play like a god or get carried in a ton of games just to progress.

ELO is comparative ranking through winrate.

If you can think of a better way that can compensate for team synergy please let me know, but in the end it is just win or lose.

Yes, when it comes to team based games.

Usually once you go too low, the players will start becoming so bad that you cannot carry them unless you are very very good at the given game, at which point it's up to luck whether you get enough good games to get back out of it.

elo hell is the word baddies use to describe themselves not being able to cut above the average

so have a moving average and only include the last thousand games.

In 1v1 it's indicative of skill level, in a team based game it gives no shits about personal performance. I'm not even touching ranked in dota because it just boils down to which team fed the enemy carry the least, not which carry is best

yes, undeniably so.

Mostly because it's related to team based games where one person cannot, by definition, carry an entire team. Sure if you're really good you can definitely sway the progress of a game, and if you're a popular streamer, like the ones that always show off "escaping elo hell it's just you lol!", people will listen to you and it will be significantly easier.

I've seen people make dota 2 accounts after playing for a year, and have their MMR double before plateauing. I've seen people go from bronze 3 in league to gold 1 after making a new account to re-do placements.

It exists, people say it doesn't, but there's a level deep down that it's truly almost impossible to escape from. Hell it's in CS:GO too. It's called nova.

People forget what the point of ranked is, it isn't to just increase that magic little number beside your name and boost your internet cred. It's there so you can get better at the game. If you aren't winning enough then you aren't carrying enough. People also seem to forget that chances are the enemy team is generally as skilled as you and your teammates, sure you'll get some bad allys but you'll also get some bad opponents.

>Single player competitive game
>Elo Hell
I know Showderp uses that term often to make fun of bottom elo players but it's not quite what it means.

This, I can easily climb out of bronze in LoL. If you can't, then get better.
It depends on a role though, solo support can't carry games as effective as jungle or mid.

This was the problem I always ran into. I used to wonder if I made a new account that I hadn't spent so much time dicking around on if I wouldn't have got ranked higher.

I probably would have but fuck that, DOTA games are shit anyway.

To a certain extent. Lets take DotA for example. If you're Dendi you're never going to be stuck at 1k. However, if you're a 2k player and get stuck at 1k, yes. You clearly don't know enough to pull yourself out of hell, but your teammates a opponents know even less. If you're in ELO hell, you're saying you're king of the retards, and you deserve to be placed higher away from the retards.

elo is made for 1v1 it doesn't work too well in team based fps and not at all in mobas

so the loser made more mistakes and the winner made less mistakes.

you're still grading win/loss

If you could find a way to numerically identify the "drag" on the team that might be helpful in only reducing that person's ranking, but there is no guarantee your numerical assesment will accurately identify the problem, especially if the drag on the team is the person who lets the allies die in teamfights before vulching a kill, ending up with the most kills and damage on the losing team..

Was thousand what you meant to say? There's a forecasting method I forgot the name of (weighted moving averages?) that could work: I'm pulling these numbers out of my ass but:

(Average of 40th to 100th last played games).5*(average of last 20 games played).3*(average of last 10 played games).*2
As opposed to
(Average of last 100 played games)

You forget that the enemy team will also be extremely bad at those ranks, meaning you can effect and even greater change if you are actually good. As I said earlier, ranked doesn't exist for you, it doesn't exist so that you can feel like a big man, it exists to mach people of similar skill so the can increase their ability to play the game, when I play ranked I don't care if I win or lose, I care if I played the best I could and learned something from the match, winning is just icing on the cake.

>lower ELO levels where skill is highly variable
keep telling yourself that scrub

>which team fed the enemy carry the least, not which carry is best
Those mean the same thing. Your enemies being bad is factually equivalent to you being good.

First one should be last 70 played games, beyond tired

match*

Well frankly, in this game for example, you are only 10% of the people affecting the outcome

You would have to do 5 people's job in order to win a game for certain

Your individual score wouldn't be as high when you get higher in rank, but when it would balance out to more of each 20% of the team contributing about an equal amount

Your winrate wouldn't increase because the opposing team would be better as well, but you would lose more fairly

Elo hell is personal and it manifests once the player reaches a point where they can't improve enough/fast enough to continue climbing the ladder.

there is no universal Elo hell, only retards who can't hit gud believe this.

what a surprise, the phone poster has retarded opinions

>Does the concept of elo hell exist in competitive games?
>I'm not shit, everyone around me is
That's basically it.

Here is my experience with League of Legends.

Back in season 2 I hit 30 and decided to jump straight into ranked without really knowing much about how to farm (last hitting) positioning and other basic things. No surprise that my rank went to shit. My champion mechanics were not bad but everything else was garbage.

Back then you started out at 1200 elo. I dropped down to 490. This is basically Bronze 5 with 0LP. I noticed that under the 700 elo mark I would get matched with the worst players. Not only did you have players with shit mechanics but you also got the kids that thought they were Diamond but that their rank was shit because everyone in their team sucked.

This is the cancer and to true problem when it comes to elo hell. Its the people who will bitch and moan so hard at everyone that they will end up tilting everyone else. The people that would get first blood, and then die because off one stupid mistake, rage at the whole team and then just intentionally feed the other team. In the best cases you would have someone who would just ragequit leaving you to play 4v5. It sucks but you can sometimes manage.

Not only did you have to deal with shit players but you would often get stuck with players that had shit connection. I had to take a 3 month break because I had 4 games in a row where I got stuck with a teammate that did not connect the whole match. In one of the cases it was 3 people in total that did not connect (2 in my team and 1 in the other).


Yes if you are skilled enough it is easy to get out but most of the time the people down there are not really that skilled nor do they understand the game so getting out is extremely hard. Not only that but the fact that you play with shit means that there is very little you can learn from the other players. For me it took me about 6 months to get back into the 1200 elo ( mid silver).

How the fuck is Electric Light Orchestra hell? Are you some faggot Sup Forums hipster?

>Place 2200 in Overwatch
>Solo que my way to 3400 as Zarya and Ana

You just have to pick overpowered characters and carry your team. There is no such thing as elo hell.

I'm saying that a game 2000 games ago doesn't have any relevance to the player's current skill or use of meta.

So only count the most recent games. 1000 is a decent number but still allows for mobility.

>can't actually counter any arguments
>durr hurr ur dumb

You don't understand.

There's the point where everybody's shit and if you're good you can carry them, and then there's them being so bad that you cannot. It's mostly in games that discourage being able to solo carry in the first place, and it gets to the point where either your team shits the bed and you lose, or the enemy team shits the bed harder and you win. At that points it's as if your team is actively trying to lose you the game. You know, more than usual, to the point where you can't carry properly, and if you win, it was because the enemy team was bigger retards, not because you carried anything.

So plays more games.


And no, skill is not "highly variable", everyone is trash

>Elo was made for 1v1
The funny thing is that there are people here who will say you're wrong because they aren't familiar with the rating system for competitive chess.

>arguing on Sup Forums
what are you, 12? You aren't changing anybodies minds

Personally never been a fan of them, but I don't DISLIKE them per se.

Always been more of a Foreigner/Blue Oyster Cult kinda guy.

ELO Hell is a mindset thing moreso than anything and it exists in all games that feature some sort of ranking.
At some point you will lose more and more, it's just how ELO is designed. Losses weigh more heavily on your mind than victories, so you could be winning 5/10 games but still feel like you're just winning 3/10.
I'm cushy in high diamond in SC2 right now, barely dropping any MMR, but every time I sit down and play it feels soul crushing , because I have a shitty 54% winrate.

What I'm trying to say, I guess, is that ELO Hell exists and that it's all in your head.

>Pick overpowered characters
You don't even need to do that.
I purposefully got myself placed low on an alt so I could play with a silver friend, all he did was complain about terrible teammates.
He played Junkrat in most of the games.
I decided to see if I could solo my way up and managed to hit master as Rein in a few days.
There's so many bronze to GM videos out there that you'd think elo hell shitters would realize by now.

>Elo was made for 1v1 and I don't know who the fuck thought they could extrapolate it to team based games.
Fucking this, why is it a thing in ANY team based games?

I used to believe in ELO hell in Overwatch but I befriended some guy who used to boost silver/bronze shitters to Diamond for money. I saw him do this consistently like 7 times in a row and one time he even got to Master which was higher than his actual account's rank.

He'd play with me when we were in the same range and got me from bronze to high plat. He offered to boost me up a little more to Diamond for free but I was scared because Blizzard is apparently harsh on account sharing and I've spent atleast $300 on loot boxes.

One day he told me he got an actual job and after that he stopped logging on. I miss him.

New players have an unknown skill at low ELO. The player could be a smurf and actually be a highly skilled player or the new player could be a child who doesn't even understand the basic game mechanics. Until both have played many games you cannot distinguish the two.

Just above starting ELO you have smurfs and players who are improving, as you get into higher rankings the players will all be more similar in competency as they approach the skill ceiling for most mechanics of the game.

I solo queued in halo 3 to 50 in 3 playlists (slayer, snipers, lonewolves)

its not a thing.

I do that on league, it's good money, you'd be surprised how much people are willing to pay. Not sure how practical it is on overwatch though, but I make about $200 per account from silver to diamond. $250 for bronze to diamond.

My roommate borders on Silver and Gold 1900-2100 and is constantly screaming about how his teammates are terrible and he's the only one doing anything. He also believes elo hell is real.

:thinking:

No. The people ranked high have shown time and time again they can progress the ranked system in a matter of a couple weeks from bottom to top. If everyone is such a shitter and you are supposedly better you should be wiping the floor with them and snowballing so hard that the other team doesn't even have a chance. Of course this means having to really play at your top level but that's what competitive play is all about. If you're going to bitch about it you're a scrub,

Why do people pay for boosts? They're just going to tank their rating when they play alone, I don't get it.

ELO isn't the only chess ranking system, it is just one of the older and more famous systems, it has the problem with number inflation where a moderately skilled person would have an ELO equal to a long dead chessmaster.

But you should have a method of ranking people for matchmaking. What system do you propose?

ELO is widely praised because it values winning against a skilled opponent as more weight than winning against a less skilled opponent. An expected outcome suggests the ELO rankings are correct so the ELO score will be adjusted less.

>50 for bronze to silver

Toppest of keks.

that being said I boost too and turn away bronze accounts getting like 10 lp per win sitting at 200+ games. Fuck that

ELO hell is a state of mind where you cannot motivate yourself to improve because you are surrounded by shit players, and you end up picking up their shitty habits.

Elo hell is very real but the people stuck in the shit brackets don't understand what it is. Because it's a team game you're going to have a variation in player skills, but the better you are, the more likely your individual effort is to impact on the outcome of the game. But as you approach a bracket full of players with similar skills you're less of an influence on the outcome of the game and your win rate approaches 50-50. So everyone's Elo hell is different.

Keep the "e-status" and play norms

Because they believe that they're trapped in "elo hell" and will pay exorbitant amounts of money to be able to realize that they're the trash.

I have four people on my team and we split the cash four ways, one guy plays exclusively bronze and silver, one guy plays gold, me and another play plat.

I play on my friends account once in a while, he's low silver and honestly it's the guys who are whining and shouting "WAH WAH ELO HELL" who consistently lose the game for their teams, they get salty, blame it on everyone else and destroy team morale. Like fuck, the world doesn't owe you anything, stop being so entitled.

Mr. Blue Sky is a pretty okay song

Its just a matter of maintaining a positive winrate over time, right?

Variance is totally a thing, but based on how many people whine about ELO hell, I would imagine that people are either drastically underrating the number of games needed, or overestimating their own skill.

I mean, at least as far as MTG goes, I would bet that my overall win percentage is at least 55isn percent, but I still scrub out fairly often.

Coaches will do wonders for you in a competitive game. If you play competitively and can get a high skilled coach you will improve very fast.

no ELO hell is where you have a large number of games that aren't fun because you had too much dead weight on your team.

Yes but the idea that's it impossible to get out of is not correct.

The fuck is elo

Exactly, elo hell is the system working as intended, I think ranking systems should place people slightly below where they actually belong so they can feel what actual progression is like, and when they get to their proper rank they can realize it's where they belong.

>There's so many bronze to GM videos out there that you'd think elo hell shitters would realize by now.

They never fucking will, realistically yes you can have a team so bad you couldn't win, but the cream always rises to the top eventually, if you're "stuck" in whatever rank because of "ELO hell" it's because that is where your skill level is at.

not an acronym like some of these anons would have you believe

True. I know in LoL that the game actually becomes fun when you reach a certain level where everyone knows at least the basics of the game. In lower divisions, people don't know how to finish games. They waste so much time.

A good-ass band.
youtube.com/watch?v=A30Bt29i5KM

ELO hell means you're trapped in a purgatory of low ranking. It would be playing 400 games at bronze, but only 100 games at silver before reaching gold and higher.

It is more likely in a LoL style ranking where you have to win 3/5 games and have to play another 100 games before that chance to advance appears. You might have a god winrate but if you only win 2/5 of those special games you're stuck in bronze for another 100 games.

>playing competitive

Found the problem

People saying that ELO hell does not exist, explain this.

I have a long time gaming buddy who I absolutely wreck in every genre 1v1, but hes at a higher division (Master) than me in Overwatch because he has a static team he plays with, while I only solo queue. (Platinum).

I get matches where its obvious people on my team or the other team simply don't give a fuck or are being retards and picking awful characters like torb and not contributing. Those are the teams you get stuck on in ELO hell and can't carry.

Ranking should always be personal skill, not team wins or losses.

>What system would you propose
For chess? ELO, because you're measured on the basis of games you win consistently, which is a fairly good indicator of skill for a single person. When you add other people into the equation, the internal validity of the measure drops accordingly.

From these posts I'm guessing it's a word for matchmaking rank? Who the fuck calls it "elo"

ELO was a system to evaluate the ranking of chess players.

Some retarded thought it was a good idea to adapt a 1v1 ranking system for a team based game.

>you're stuck in bronze for another 100 games.

??? What are you talking about it takes a handful of wins to get in your promos where you must win 3/5. If it takes you 100 wins to actually get a promo you deserve to be in that spot.

It does, but only if you play solo queue.
Ranked Overwatch is basically just an exercise in team stacking, the harder you stack the more you'll win.

I don't actually play LoL

I am speaking in generalities.

>The Elo rating system is a method for calculating the relative skill levels of players in competitor-versus-competitor games such as chess. It is named after its creator Arpad Elo, a Hungarian-born American physics professor.

>I wreck him in 1v1 but he's higher rank in a team game
I'm going take a guess and say he's got way higher technical skills than you and knows how to coordinate with a team, which is the most important part of something like Overwatch.
I've been against teams who my team can decimate easily in a straight up fight, yet they manage to consistently push by using ults and abilities at the right time to help each other.

...But you're playing a team game dumbass. Yes organized teams will always perform better, what's your point? Elo hell doesn't exist but it's always going to be harder in solo queue in a team game.

I feel like the whole idea of it is that people get stuck in low ranks because of how good some people are so they get better at the game despite being at the same rank as people who suck at the game.
In short it's common for low ranks in games to have people who are both braindead stupid and don't understand basic mechanics and don't care and people who are actually good at the game.
This coming from someone who's at 3.2k mmr in DotA and I can safely say people at it are very little better than people at 2k

He either has people on his team that are carrying his ass or you are overestimating your skill level, you also have to remember, skill isn't necessarily your ability to play the game in 1v1 scenarios, it can definitely help but being able to work as an effective team is just as important a skill. being able to predict when and where members of the enemy team is a skill. Not to mention premade teams aren't any easier than randos, they're can often be harder actually. When you play on a premade you only get laced against premades, meaning you will be playing against a team that probably has a core strategy, knows whos best at what roles, and is probably in communication with each other.

>Ranking should always be personal skill, not team wins or losses.
how do you rank by personal skill? How do you account for a person who has a low calculated skill but a very good winrate?

it's because he recognizes Overwatch is a team based game and plays with his team while you're retarded and ranked platinum

>my team is always x scrublord-shitranks and me, a superdouble awesomeplayer stuck in scrublord shitrank
>the enemy team is x+1 scrublord-shitranks
>I somehow still have ~50% winrate

ELO hell is what bad players tell themselves to convince themselves they aren't actually bad.

I am not aware of any team based game that uses ELO. Dota and LoL do not use ELO for example.

ELO hell only exists at the low skill bottleneck.

It does not exist at higher rankings.

Call the probability that a random player in your game is a shitter P. In a 5v5 game, assuming you yourself are not a shitter, the probability of having a one on your team is 4P, and the corresponding probability for the enemy team is 5P.

In order for ELO hell to exist, you have to explain how this is not a statistical advantage for your team.

>enemy team is so bad they do retarded newbie shit you don't expect and win

So it's for 1v1 games, why do people use the term to refer to MMR? The two are entirely different

varying degrees of shitterness

>not being competitive

Found the beta virgin who didn't play sports in high school

Reminder that Elo is a name and not initials, and thus it is not written in all caps

Ah.
At least regarding league, the thing where you get a free win in your promos was one of the best changes they ever made, in my opinion. It was always winning those best of X series that gave me trouble.
And yeah, I guess the added factor of having 4 additional people on your team messes with ranking in a way that makes variance much more of a problem. I'm no statistician though.

>player is so shit he can't read and adapt

It's called
git gud

Elo hell is what a shitter would say to explain why he is playing with shitters.