I agree, and the proposed solution which is to limit point gains/losses to one point per game feels like throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Specifically, convergence takes a long time, the result of which is that a very good player on e.g. a new account (smurf) will end up being the cause of a lot of unbalanced games for an awful long time.
Having played a lot of ranked LoL, I saw a few recurring but irrational gripes players had with the Elo based system:
- "I get matched with bad teammates and they drag me down". On average your teammates are the same Elo as you. All players get their fair share of games where they are/aren't the underdog side. On average, it averages out. Deal with it.
- "I've been stuck at the same Elo for ages but I should be higher". Nope, Elo only cares if you win or lose. It doesn't care about kill/death ratio, creep score or how many ganks you pull off. Focus on winning more. Incidentally, focusing on winning instead of secondary metrics like kills/CS was one of the biggest mindset differences between high/low Elo players.
"I should be higher Elo but I play support roles so can't climb". It may be true that you climb slower but here's the rub - think of your matchups as you being compared to the enemy team's support player. The other four roles on each team are actually a constant factor (by symmetry arguments you could not consistently find that your four teammates are any better/worse than the enemy support player's teammates). As a result, the only remaining factor in the statistical equation is you weighed up against the enemy support player. If you can provide even a slight statistical advantage towards winning vs them then you will climb the Elo ladder.
> As a result, the only remaining factor in the statistical equation is you weighed up against the enemy support player. If you can provide even a slight statistical advantage towards winning vs them then you will climb the Elo ladder.
An alternative explanation is that the skill ceiling is lower for support players.
Being a low skill player playing exclusively with and against other low skill players sucks. Imagine playing doubles tennis where all four players hit the ball directly into the net 80% of the time. Win or lose it would be an unpleasant experience. I think that's the root of many people's frustration with ranked matchmaking in e-sports games.
I mentioned this in another comment, but I think if e-sports wants to become truly culturally significant the games will need to figure out how to more elegantly bridge the gap between ranked and unranked play, and how to make it fun to play at low skill levels. I don't think it's a coincidence that Fortnite has done both.
Having played a lot of ranked LoL, I saw a few recurring but irrational gripes players had with the Elo based system:
- "I get matched with bad teammates and they drag me down". On average your teammates are the same Elo as you. All players get their fair share of games where they are/aren't the underdog side. On average, it averages out. Deal with it.
- "I've been stuck at the same Elo for ages but I should be higher". Nope, Elo only cares if you win or lose. It doesn't care about kill/death ratio, creep score or how many ganks you pull off. Focus on winning more. Incidentally, focusing on winning instead of secondary metrics like kills/CS was one of the biggest mindset differences between high/low Elo players.
"I should be higher Elo but I play support roles so can't climb". It may be true that you climb slower but here's the rub - think of your matchups as you being compared to the enemy team's support player. The other four roles on each team are actually a constant factor (by symmetry arguments you could not consistently find that your four teammates are any better/worse than the enemy support player's teammates). As a result, the only remaining factor in the statistical equation is you weighed up against the enemy support player. If you can provide even a slight statistical advantage towards winning vs them then you will climb the Elo ladder.