Why do the first games have to give +-48 ELO, and normal gains loss is like 12-13?

WHY? Who the **** designed this? I thought they had realized their mistake after Season 1. Yet I see the same retarded valuation of first games.

Why do 2 losses suddenly equal a 100 ELO loss? WHY?
There is ABSOLUTELY NO REASON for this retarded system to remain in place. 12-13 points loss or gain is fine, four times that IS NOT.

It gives all the players chance to climb ladder faster. At the very beggining of your rankeds you will meet "worse" people then higher. You can carry the games easily there, if you belong at the higher elo and you can also go down faster, if you belong there.

I must say i like the system, because climbing up to 2000 would be impossible if you would start at 1200 and got 12 for every game. Now you can turbo up to 1700 within 10 games.

Or you can lose a game(s) to reasons absolutely outside your power (leavers (tech problems or whatever), intentional/unintentional feeders, just trolls (troll builds or whatever).

The current system allows for the random factor to have way too much influence.
Now, I'm not a 2k player or anything, not even remotely. But judging by my last seasons performance, I should be in the 1300-1400 range (I had a bad streak in the end so ended the season at ~1190 or so iirc). I, for the most part, have the best scores for my role on the team (not saying I don't have my derp moments. Last ranked game was a terrible failure on my part.) I can fulfill all roles (though I dislike tanking, and I don't own the newest/best junglers, so I try and get others to fill that part if they have the better picks.)

My point is, considering the low ELO difference between my current rating and my (imo) "deserved" rating, It is extremely hard (impossible if the opponents have a clue) to "solo carry" my way out of it. And this unreasonably huge ELO loss on the placement matches isn't helping.

And you say it's impossible to go from 1200 to 2000 with small gains? WoW had essentially this same system (you only started at 1500 (this was before the system became what it is now). And you gained ~14-15 per equal win, more vs superior opponents. And it was perfectly fine.

There is still no reason for the system to remain in its current state. You can get lucky and get boosted past your "real ELO" or you can be unlucky and fall way behind. Both ways is bad. It's too reliant on luck. Smaller gains would separate the "good" from the "bad" in smaller steps, but putting them 100 elo apart after just one game is insane (assuming both parties are in placement).

I noticed too, that overall, especially at lowers levels of play this game has just too much randomness in it.

For every on good game where both teams can truly say "gg" you have atleast 4 facestomps where you win without doing anything, because the enemy is so bad and wouldn't win even if you went afk for the next 10mins OR you are getting owned so badly that no matter how hard you try you will still lose to that fed irelia/gp who happens to have 10/0 from top lan.

So this leaves this elo system with about 80% of randomness in it. And this comes to show, as in season 1 I earned myself platinum. Which should put me somewhere in the Top0.2% as some red with mentioned when he talked about the rewards regarding season ending.

With roughly 41k player in EUNE ladder I "should" be ~Top100, but the last games just were a disaster so I am somewhere at the 3000-ish place. I always try to go mid AP and 9/10 i will win it. But my win rate stays around 50%.

Why ? Because you can't carry ultra bad players in this game.

And I know what I'm talking about. I've been playing this game for a long time now. Since the release of Poppy iirc.

Completely agree with ^

In fact I just had a game with a rumble solo top, he was saying stuff like 'omg i gat gank u no help me'

Of course after 10 minutes, he proceeded to go 0/11 and by the time talon came to our lanes he was 1 shotting us, our jungle rammus was doing everything to help him but when he's pushed to their tower there's nothing he can do to gank, this rumble of course had no wards placed anywhere either.

Also saw in Hotshot and saintvicious' streams that there's some players at their elo (1800 or so for sv, not sure about Hotshot) who play as bad as 1000 elo people.

My biggest problem with the system is the highest elo person gets first pick, and carries on from there. This usually means me and my friend get stuck playing jungler/support, wtf can I do to co-ordinate ganks when my lane partner has 30 cs by 15 mins.

BUMB, 20 elo + or - the first 10 wins would be plenty.

Ye I was expecting them to remove that ridiculous first games decide factor...bad players can go up to 1700 elo and good players can have real bad luck and lose several games in row, basically halting their chances to get into high elo and discouraging ranked, at least solo queue. I myself lost same like season 1 very first game, so just played one more and left solo queue untouched ever since...hate randomness

The reason the first games are played at such high stakes ELO-wise is that the ELO-system will sooner or later get players into the ratings they should be playing at. Sure, you can lose your first 8 games and drop down to 800 rating (not unlike me in season one), but as long as you keep playing you'll eventually, sooner or later, reach the rating you're supposed to be at.

If a player who should be ranked ~1100 wins his first 10 games and rockets up to >1500, ELO decay effectively prevents him from turtling and keeping the rating without playing, hence again, sooner or later he'll drop to where he should be.

And no, this has nothing to do with the ELO hell we all know of. First of all, it doesn't even exist for everyone, just the 'above average' players (~1500).
A player with a true ELO of 1500 could probably not carry his team at 1200. A player with a true ELO of 2000 playing at 1200 certainly could carry his whole team occasionally, assuming there would be no leavers. He could be carrying all the way past 1700, up until about 1800 rating when he would be ~200 rating away from his true ELO, at which point the win/loss ratio drops to about 70% and keeps dropping further. Then at some point the w/l is 50%, and he's at his true ELO.

Now this true 1500 player could possibly carry his team at about 700 rating assuming he drops that low for any reason, but at 1200 he's too close to his true rating that this is no longer possible. Since people start at 1200, there can be people of all brackets playing with and against you, but as long as everyone just keeps playing they'll fall into their true brackets sooner or later.

This 'WoW-style-ELO' wasn't really realistic and fair. When I used to play (I stopped playing seriously a week into WoTLK), you got 2 rating for a win and lost over 25 for every loss. This was because the vast majority of players were stuck at ratings far below, and if they managed to win a high rated team they would get higher rewards obviously. This happened because the people you should be playing against were slooowly climbing up the ratings, now playing at 500 ELO below you because you started a week before they did. This, in turn, was because they didn't use the placement games. Players who were terrible at arena would start at 1500, and after losing their ten games would drop to about 1350-1400, which meant they would reasonably often be queued against people rated >2000 or even >2200 at slow hours. Needless to say, if you lost to those bad players, for any reason, you shouldn't have lost over ten games' worth of ELO.

tl;dr: if you play lots of ranked games, your rating will match your skill. Period. If your rating sucks, so do you.


Inb4 >9000 downvotes from bad players thinking they're good.

If there is a problem with these high-stake games and or to much randomness at the start (and I happened to agree there is)!?
..why don't we solve the problem:

As I see it there are 2 ways to make this work:

1) "Trail-rating"
-1.1 Let the first 10 games be against different elo's. Some how make a mathematical formula (I'm not good at formulas...but I guess RIOT has real good ppl for that kind of things) who gives that player a "trail-rating". After 10 played games you're then being placed into the normal ELO system depending on that rating.
-1.2 “Flag trails”
-1.2.1 Let there be a flag or something over a player in champion select so you know if he's a trail. Make the rating loss lower depending on how many trail players you have in your game when you lose. This will ultimately help only higher rating elo's to not get trolled.
-1.2.2 This will also make it harder to loose rating at start of a new season since all players are flagged as trails.

2) Let everyone start at 0 rating
-2.1 "10 first games"
-2.1a) Gain or stay – Make first 10 games be more important, but only in a positive way. If you win a game you gain ranking, if you loose a game, you stay on your former ranking.
-2.1b) Boosted ranking gained – This is the same idea as above, but you could make it work with a boosting the 10 first games too. That way you would get a more spread ranking ladder (if that’s what you want).
-2.2 "The only way is up"
If you make the ladder from 0, with no chance of losing rating so you get negative score, no one could ever say that they got into “ELO-hell” because of bad luck with noobs, trolls etc etc, everyone would start there. And everyone would have to carry themselves (and other upwards). And the worst thing that can happen is that you get a slower start in the climbing
I get that there will be randomness with this idea too, maybe even same amount of randomness, but all will get, and you won’t be punished as hard for it

Just my thoughts on how you might be able to solve it!
// Luthair