Originally Posted by namora
First off, I never stated anything about aggression and passivity or patience. I merely stated that the difference in play style is vastly different and as such needs to be viewed differently. If you want to go into this detail, low elo players do generally make more mistakes and play aggressively and higher elo players are more disciplined and experienced while making less mistakes. Low elo players will generally* jump on every mistake made at the risk of making one of their own. Higher elo players are disciplined enough to wait for you to make the right mistake, and experienced enough to know what it will look like, therefore capitalizing on their profit. In low elo players, you're looking for who managed to capitalize on mistakes and make few of their own. In higher elo players, it's already done and so you have to look at them in comparison to their allies/opponents.
This is again wrong. High elo players will take advantage of every little mistake you make. They do not trade mistakes. You mess up, they will take advantage of it. They will take advantage of things you didn't even know we're mistakes.
There isn't a play style difference between the higher elo and low elo. It's how you capitalize on mistakes being made. If a 1900 Ap mid plays like. 1500ADC he will get jumped on at every mistake possible.
The only saving grace you have is you are assuming the enemy jungler is playing smart and is able to pick up the slack, forcing the lane to be a bit more passive from the fear of ganks. You can bet though when they have ward coverage if you step out too far they will take any little edge they can get
In a 5v5 team game, the rating system works efficiently, but solo/duo queue are not the same as a 5v5 team. This bolded statement right here is why I won't continue this section. This elo system is only the best for 1:1 situations and solo/duo queue have more dimensions than that.
I italicized the only important part of what you said in that section, because it's different than what you said previously.
There are 2 aspects to this. First I didn't communicate my though correctly. What I meant to say was I have never seen a more accurate system for judging individual skill(over a period of time) in a 5v5 game, than in the elo system we have here.
Furthermore, no system will ever judge individual skill in a 5v5 environment better than in a 1v1 environment even if the system was designed to evaluate individual performance during 5v5 games
it will still more accurately and more quickly get a reading in a 1v1 environment. Once I offered a $50 riot card to disprove that idea. But it was a trick question. It simply goes against game theory. 1v1 will always be faster and more accurate. That doesn't mean you can't get a reading in 5v5, just it will take longer to isolate your impact, and there will always be a little noise as far as pinpointing your rating. But it can figure out your rating within 50 points. So it's not broken.
I'd also like to ask a hypothetical question. If at your elo, 2 players who are duo queueing happen to find themselves in a situation where there is an emergency(for all intensive purpose let this emergency be legitimate, such as the house is on fire) they must attend to during the game. They leave and you're sitting at 3v5 against formidable opponents(who are rated near your level). What are your chances of winning, on the assumption that nothing is impossible?
I'm not gonna go into the game theory of finding you chance of winning based on how you develop an edge in that situation. You have constructed a situation that it's safe to say you will lose(specifically the part that says the opponents are equal skilled)
What's your point though? Is this your proof that elo isn't a good representation of your skill?
I'm going to teach you a poker term today known as EV. Expected value. In short, its how much you are expected to win in certain situations, over a period of time if your big hands get drawn out against weaker hands, say you go all in with AA 5 different times and each time you are against a weaker hand (55, 94, JJ etc) and you lose all 5 times. This is known as running negative EV, -EV. same thing the other way. If you win a few times when you should of lost more often that is running +EV. Over time this EV will always balance itself out, when you can't control any more action, you will lose 20% of your 80/20 splits. Win 60% of your 60/40 flips. Over a short period you might be +EV or -EV but you will always end up at EV(in poker it generally takes about 200,000 hands to have an accurate reading of your skill. To balance EV out)
Here's how it applies to league. Your teammates and opponents you have no control on whether or not their internet dies. House is on fire, baby fell out of the tree again, whatever. You get into a game and whatever is gonna happen will happen. This might cause you to unfairly lose elo in that game.
This is known as running below EV, or running -EV. In the short term you can have some streaks where you get a dc on your team a few times. You can also lump trolls, spontaneous ragers, god awful players(truly god awful. Not just you are upset he lost lane and you weren't able to catch him up) into this system of EV. And you simply have to accept it will balance out. Keep track of how many games below EV you are if you have to. But over a 100 games you wiki see you will be pretty close to EV as far as that stuff goes.
The one big difference between poker and league. While you will always have an equal number of bad beat beats to suck outs(percentage wise). This is not the case in league. Because you control an aspect(yourself) if you never dc, rage, troll. Play like Helen Keller, you will always be +EV. Bad things over the long run will to them more than you. Causing you to gain elo from the total pool of dcs