Jump to content

Elo Is A Ladder Not A Scale


99 replies to this topic

#1 MadCat02

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The 1 Percent
  • 668 posts

Posted 18 September 2013 - 06:55 PM

The difference between elo hell and elo heaven is only 10% win rate ( League of legends 900-2500 elo is 10% difference) but a hell of skill gap

What elo does is push people who persistenly try to win to a higher level of competition

The more you win , the more likely you are to loose!

So if it seems like you winning only 55% of the games elo really isn't broken . Infact 55% is considered decent

If i learned anything from playing LOL and DOta the only way to get to the top 2% of the community is to work very hard

People who cry about loosing give up or rage and don't actually learn anything

You are a factor in every game and that 10% win rate difference will reflect your performance .

Edited by MadCat02, 18 September 2013 - 07:05 PM.


#2 Chavette

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Little Helper
  • 2,864 posts

Posted 18 September 2013 - 07:43 PM

Ladder is good word, but I imagine them more as layers, in the virtual jungle of mwo.




Posted Image

#3 AntiCitizenJuan

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,440 posts
  • LocationIn your base, killing your dudes

Posted 18 September 2013 - 07:51 PM

View PostChavette, on 18 September 2013 - 07:43 PM, said:

Ladder is good word, but I imagine them more as layers, in the virtual jungle of mwo.




Posted Image


This has been a very educational thread

#4 Grits N Gravy

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 287 posts

Posted 19 September 2013 - 12:29 AM

View PostMadCat02, on 18 September 2013 - 06:55 PM, said:

The difference between elo hell and elo heaven is only 10% win rate ( League of legends 900-2500 elo is 10% difference) but a hell of skill gap

Are you talking about the difference between someone who wins 60% of their games vs someone who wins 50%. Cause in that case the difference is a half game. ie 3/5 wins = 60% win rate Vs 2.5/5.

View PostMadCat02, on 18 September 2013 - 06:55 PM, said:

What elo does is push people who persistenly try to win to a higher level of competition

The more you win , the more likely you are to loose!

Elo tries to equalize play based on passed experience. The entire concept of Elo based match making is to placed skilled players in matches against each other. All things being equal, you should have 50/50 chances of winning. Elo based matchmaking tires to match players of equal skill. Thus, ensuing a 50/50 win rate. Which is why your win percentage will stabilize at 50% as your Elo score does.

View PostMadCat02, on 18 September 2013 - 06:55 PM, said:

So if it seems like you winning only 55% of the games elo really isn't broken . Infact 55% is considered decent
If i learned anything from playing LOL and DOta the only way to get to the top 2% of the community is to work very hard
People who cry about loosing give up or rage and don't actually learn anything
You are a factor in every game and that 10% win rate difference will reflect your performance .

Real Elo hell is defined by a mathematical imbalance in the computation of Elo scores. In Elo systems winners are award more points for beating someone of equal or higher ranking. Conversely, they lose more points for losing matches to equal or lower ranked opponents. An imbalance in the way scores are computed coupled with a limited pool of players can result in good players often being under ranked.

For instance lets look at player who maintains a 3/5 record or a 60% win rate. This player can easily be stuck in an Elo hell scenario which makes it near impossible for them to raise their Elo score. Simply put, the points gains from their wins do not cancel out their losses. Which means the player would need to maintain a greater win rate, longer than the win rates which, put people in a high elo bracket. For instance, our 3/5 player may need to raise his win rate in to 80% to get out of Elo hell.

This can occur if said player is near the top of their Elo bracket and doesn't get frequent matches of players with his or greater Elo scores; as a result of matchmaking criteria and a limited pool. It may also occur if the Elo brackets are large enough that players of significantly different scores are forced to play each other. In which case, the better player always has more to loose than they stand to gain. The lower ranked player always bets less points in a match. If a lower ranked player loses, his score doesn't drop as much as the higher ranked. The higher ranked player stands to gain less points from a win against a lower ranked opponent. This is a function of basic Elo scoring and is often not corrected for in games and creates the phenomenon know as Elo hell.

Elo scores are not a ladder as climbing up elo scales are impeded by the mathematical phoneme of Elo hell and basic probability. First Elo scores are very easily gamed if you know what your doing. Most Elo scores have a K factor which adds weight to the players first 10-20 games. Maximizing your advantage in order to win those first games is the best way to get a high elo score. This can easily be done in MWO, by playing good mechs, and dropping in a group of 4.

Secondly, lets take your example of someone with a 55% win ratio as being good. The difference between someone with a 50% and a 55% win ratio is one game, 11/20 Vs 10/20. That margin is so narrow that pure chance can not be ruled out, especially when we have lose Elo matchmaking. The same is true when we look at someone with a 60% win ratio Vs a 50, 2.5/5 games 3/5. A half game makes some elite? It's more likely chance and advantaged play.

Really all Elo matchmaking does is prevent the to 10% of players from beating up on the bottom 10%. Disseminating skill from an Elo system as implemented from a system like MWO, or LOL or DOTA is specious at best. It's really only good for blocking out the top and bottom 10% of your game.

Edited by Grits N Gravy, 19 September 2013 - 12:39 AM.


#5 PEEFsmash

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Philanthropist
  • Philanthropist
  • 1,280 posts
  • LocationLos Angeles

Posted 19 September 2013 - 12:36 AM

View PostChavette, on 18 September 2013 - 07:43 PM, said:

Ladder is good word, but I imagine them more as layers, in the virtual jungle of mwo.




Posted Image


PEEFsmash should have been put in the Kaffe+Chavette tier originally, but I'll accept an edit =]

#6 Narcissistic Martyr

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Veteran Founder
  • Veteran Founder
  • 4,242 posts
  • LocationLouisville, KY

Posted 19 September 2013 - 07:45 AM

So... my 51% win rate means I don't suck as bad as I think I do? I can live with that.

#7 Jman5

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Littlest Helper
  • Littlest Helper
  • 4,914 posts

Posted 19 September 2013 - 07:55 AM

One of these days I'll lone-wolf my way up to Elo level Squirrel Monkey. Until then I will continue practicing.

#8 VXJaeger

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Wrath
  • The Wrath
  • 1,582 posts
  • LocationFinland

Posted 19 September 2013 - 07:59 AM

My winrate is 67%...no wonder my team gets totally reapd often when I go playing alone without my buddies.

Edited by VXJaeger, 19 September 2013 - 08:02 AM.


#9 Divine Retribution

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Shredder
  • Shredder
  • 648 posts
  • LocationArizona

Posted 19 September 2013 - 08:48 AM

A 55% win rate is above average, a 50.1% win rate is theoretically above average, because in a PvP game the average should be 50%. Unfortunately those games where one side drops minus one or more players messes up the perfection that is 50%.

Now to pat myself on the back, because that's what this thread has already turned into.
*pat pat pat*
I know I'm better than a hummingbird because I can go in the front yard and swat one with a tennis racquet if I so desired(not that I would, unless pigeons were renamed to hummingbirds). So I'm above the picture, like where divine retribution might originate from..... whoa, mind blown!

Edited by Divine Retribution, 19 September 2013 - 08:54 AM.


#10 MaddMaxx

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Survivor
  • Survivor
  • 5,911 posts
  • LocationNova Scotia, Canada

Posted 19 September 2013 - 09:14 AM

View PostAntiCitizenJuan, on 18 September 2013 - 07:51 PM, said:


This has been a very educational thread


Yes, but now I have to figure where the hell I fit in that Jungle. :wub: LOL!

P.S. Oh wait a minute. I am there already. It is Me and Kaffe. :D

Edited by MaddMaxx, 19 September 2013 - 09:22 AM.


#11 Enigmos

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 1,290 posts
  • LocationPhiladelphia

Posted 19 September 2013 - 10:02 AM

View PostGrits N Gravy, on 19 September 2013 - 12:29 AM, said:

Secondly, lets take your example of someone with a 55% win ratio as being good. The difference between someone with a 50% and a 55% win ratio is one game, 11/20 Vs 10/20. That margin is so narrow that pure chance can not be ruled out, especially when we have lose Elo matchmaking. The same is true when we look at someone with a 60% win ratio Vs a 50, 2.5/5 games 3/5. A half game makes some elite? It's more likely chance and advantaged play.
When you have played in excess of 8600 matches and your wins are more than 400 greater than your losses you can bet it will be a while before your ELO changes much.

#12 Homeless Bill

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The 1 Percent
  • The 1 Percent
  • 1,968 posts
  • LocationA Box Near You

Posted 19 September 2013 - 10:18 AM

I'm actually kind of curious as to what the bell curve of win-loss ratios look like. It'd be even better if they could separate it out by 4-man wins and solo wins (I'd really be curious to see the difference between those two ratios).

View PostChavette, on 18 September 2013 - 07:43 PM, said:

Ladder is good word, but I imagine them more as layers, in the virtual jungle of mwo.




Posted Image

View PostChavette, on 12 August 2013 - 12:46 PM, said:

I'm at the top of the jungles' food chain.

I'm right up there with the scariest, meanest and leanest, buffest and toughest gorillas hanging on highest branches of the mwo rainforest hiearchy, gazing straight down into your insecure ppc/lrm boater souls.

Going with the jungle analogy again? Still relevant:
Posted Image

Edited by Homeless Bill, 19 September 2013 - 10:25 AM.


#13 The Boz

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,317 posts

Posted 19 September 2013 - 10:44 AM

The problem is that Elo was designed for 1v1. You and you alone are responsible for how well your team plays, and you and you alone get the Elo gain or loss after the match has ended.
In MWO, your input is mathematically 1/12, but regardless of your personal performance, you gain or lose the same Elo as every other team member. Regardless of their performance.
That is way I do not see a bright future for this system in MWO.

#14 Enigmos

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 1,290 posts
  • LocationPhiladelphia

Posted 19 September 2013 - 10:46 AM

View PostThe Boz, on 19 September 2013 - 10:44 AM, said:

The problem is that Elo was designed for 1v1. You and you alone are responsible for how well your team plays, and you and you alone get the Elo gain or loss after the match has ended.
In MWO, your input is mathematically 1/12, but regardless of your personal performance, you gain or lose the same Elo as every other team member. Regardless of their performance.
That is way I do not see a bright future for this system in MWO.


It is a system designed for 12-mans.

#15 AntiCitizenJuan

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,440 posts
  • LocationIn your base, killing your dudes

Posted 19 September 2013 - 10:51 AM

MRW realizing I'm a basic canopy dweller

Posted Image

#16 The Boz

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,317 posts

Posted 19 September 2013 - 10:58 AM

View PostOriginalTibs, on 19 September 2013 - 10:46 AM, said:


It is a system designed for 12-mans.

http://en.wikipedia....o_rating_system
Because chess is a twelve-man team sport, right?

#17 Corbon Zackery

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Elite Founder
  • Elite Founder
  • 1,363 posts

Posted 19 September 2013 - 11:06 AM

You can use my stats as a baseline if your map stats look anywhere near mine your doing fine and should not doubt yourself. As for ELO well that was a bugged failure before the launch Right now there is a bug in the ELO that slots high ELO rated players into matches with several low ELO players. You see that River City is my worst map at 68% ratio. While forest snow, alpine peaks, Tourmaline, Canyon Network, All have close to 100% ratio.

Maps Statistics

Map Name Matches Wins Losses Ratio Time Forest Colony 128 56 70 0.80 10:22:38 Frozen City 116 50 65 0.77 10:29:36 Caustic Valley 121 51 70 0.73 11:44:14 River City 128 51 75 0.68 10:27:45 Forest Colony Snow 101 49 52 0.94 08:55:33 Frozen City Night 122 53 69 0.77 10:44:20 River City Night 127 54 72 0.75 11:01:08 Alpine Peaks 152 74 77 0.96 18:57:56 Tourmaline Desert 197 98 99 0.99 22:25:31 Canyon Network 94 46 48 0.96 09:04:31 Terra Therma 65 28 37 0.76 07:19:05

#18 Homeless Bill

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The 1 Percent
  • The 1 Percent
  • 1,968 posts
  • LocationA Box Near You

Posted 19 September 2013 - 11:08 AM

View PostThe Boz, on 19 September 2013 - 10:44 AM, said:

The problem is that Elo was designed for 1v1. You and you alone are responsible for how well your team plays, and you and you alone get the Elo gain or loss after the match has ended.
In MWO, your input is mathematically 1/12, but regardless of your personal performance, you gain or lose the same Elo as every other team member. Regardless of their performance.
That is way I do not see a bright future for this system in MWO.

The way it works definitely leaves some finesse to be desired, but over the long-term, it works just fine. After 1000 matches, all other variables have been eliminated - the only thing that all those rounds share in common is you as a player. It becomes clear what kind of an impact you have on your team. People don't just get "lucky" or "unlucky" for 2000 rounds.

If you're sitting below a 1.0 WLR after a considerable amount of matches (probably upwards of 500), you're less helpful to your team than the average player; if it's above 1.0, you're more helpful.

#19 Enigmos

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 1,290 posts
  • LocationPhiladelphia

Posted 19 September 2013 - 11:14 AM

View PostThe Boz, on 19 September 2013 - 10:58 AM, said:

http://en.wikipedia....o_rating_system
Because chess is a twelve-man team sport, right?


No, but because a team that drops together consistently provides a reasonable cumulative average for each member of it whereas a Player dropping with random PUGs will see a very wide range of skills in comparison.

#20 The Boz

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,317 posts

Posted 19 September 2013 - 11:50 AM

You assume everyone on the team is at the same level.
Furthermore, the Elo value that the team members end up with is the Elo value of them as a team, not as individual players.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users