Bronze vs Silver

WitchQueen Annie·Mar 28, 2017·2 votes·4,312 views

Lets say hypothetically, we staged a game of 5 Bronze vs 5 Silvers...

However, there's a catch.

The 5 Bronze will be from the top 5% of Bronze I, top 5% MECHANICALLY (highest Kill Participation, CS)

The 5 Silvers are 5 average Silver MMR between Silver I and Silver V.

Who wins?

Now if the Ranked system was working properly, the Silvers should win. After all, people stuck in Bronze deserve to be Bronze because even though they may have good mechanics, they suck somehow. SURELY the average MMR of all of Silver (picking 5 players) should beat the best mechanical players in Bronze....

RIGHT?????

23 Comments

KVbqbFsC8eMar 28, 20175 votes

I'd imagine the Bronze team. But don't fool yourself, nobody is stuck in Bronze because of the ranking system, which this forum is suddenly circlejerking over. Anybody who deserves a higher rank than Bronze will easily be able to get out of it.

WitchQueen AnnieMar 28, 20171 votes

[{quoted}](name=The Big Piece,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=vhwAKQOe,comment-id=0001,timestamp=2017-03-28T05:29:42.586+0000)

I'd imagine the Bronze team. But don't fool yourself, nobody is stuck in Bronze because of the ranking system, which this forum is suddenly circlejerking over. Anybody who deserves a higher rank than Bronze will easily be able to get out of it.

I agree with you. The average Silver hardly plays safe and as soon as 1 or 2 Bronze lanes get a kill or two, the Silver will likely collapse.

But why though????

I mean... if Bronze really deserve to be Bronze... then shouldn't they lose?????

I mean, I feel this shows some kind of a problem with the system...

The WhamboozlerMar 28, 20174 votes

Those two teams are likely so even in skill that the answer is this...

Whichever team accidentally wins the early-game aggressive plays that BOTH teams will attempt to make, and then snowballs off it will likely win. Comebacks rarely happen anymore... and skill isn't really an issue between high bronze and lowish silver... so the winner will be whichever team gets the first kill or two and starts the enemy team raging and tilting. Then they'll play like crap while the enemy snowballs off that early, lucky kill.

Alternately, the winner will be the team that has the larger premade. Communication wins.

WitchQueen AnnieMar 28, 20171 votes

[{quoted}](name=Angry Old Man,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=vhwAKQOe,comment-id=0003,timestamp=2017-03-28T07:41:08.329+0000)

Those two teams are likely so even in skill that the answer is this...

Whichever team accidentally wins the early-game aggressive plays that BOTH teams will attempt to make, and then snowballs off it will likely win. Comebacks rarely happen anymore... and skill isn't really an issue between high bronze and lowish silver... so the winner will be whichever team gets the first kill or two and starts the enemy team raging and tilting. Then they'll play like crap while the enemy snowballs off that early, lucky kill.

Alternately, the winner will be the team that has the larger premade. Communication wins.

I'm assuming there are no pre-mades.

I agree that the skill level (between top Bronze and average Silver) seems pretty close (maybe the top 5% of Bronze may even be better MECHANICALLY).

But isn't this a problem?

I mean, if Silver > Bronze... then should the average Silver be able to confidently defeat top tier Bronze? And if not... then why does it take hundreds of games to get seperate them?

The WhamboozlerMar 29, 20171 votes

It takes hundreds of games BECAUSE there is so narrow a skill gap between them.

Low Silver players aren't much better than high bronze ones. Thus, high bronze players can and do beat silvers all the time... but they aren't good enough to beat them more often than they lose to them... not usually. If a bronze player has a winrate of say... 50.1% he will TECHNICALLY climb, provided he can maintain that rate... but it's gonna take a LONG DAMNED TIME. If a bronze player is so much better then the normal bronzies and can manage a winrate like 60% or 70% he'll rank out of bronze much quicker... but odds are that guy didn't get placed in bronze in the first place.

You have to be several rankings higher than the one you're playing in to consistently stomp and climb in ranking THAT fast. Especially at lower rankings where your team can and will throw games, make mistakes and play like they have NO IDEA what they're doing half the time. Some low silver players are just bronze players that got lucky. Most of them, honestly.

WitchQueen AnnieMar 29, 20171 votes

[{quoted}](name=Angry Old Man,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=vhwAKQOe,comment-id=000300000000,timestamp=2017-03-29T09:48:49.648+0000)

It takes hundreds of games BECAUSE there is so narrow a skill gap between them.

Low Silver players aren't much better than high bronze ones. Thus, high bronze players can and do beat silvers all the time... but they aren't good enough to beat them more often than they lose to them... not usually. If a bronze player has a winrate of say... 50.1% he will TECHNICALLY climb, provided he can maintain that rate... but it's gonna take a LONG DAMNED TIME. If a bronze player is so much better then the normal bronzies and can manage a winrate like 60% or 70% he'll rank out of bronze much quicker... but odds are that guy didn't get placed in bronze in the first place.

You have to be several rankings higher than the one you're playing in to consistently stomp and climb in ranking THAT fast. Especially at lower rankings where your team can and will throw games, make mistakes and play like they have NO IDEA what they're doing half the time. Some low silver players are just bronze players that got lucky. Most of them, honestly.

Okay, but even if the above is true (Bronze can beat Silver, but not most of the time, there is a relatively narrow gap)...

Why is it that mostly everyone is saying... "The top 5% mechanically of Bronze will probably beat 5 average Silvers..."

I mean, Silver is still the higher elo. So why is the top 5% of a lower elo considered to have a better chance of winning than the average of a higher elo?

Assuming most of the time Silvers will win, shouldn't we be confident in saying the Silvers in my hypothetical will win?

The WhamboozlerMar 30, 20171 votes

Because it's pretty hard to lose a division. Silver 5 players are mostly bronzies who got lucky enough times in a row to ditch bronze, but can't manage to climb further. It's hard to get demoted out of silver if you maintain a relatively average winrate... but they're certainly not exceptionally skilled and I wouldn't say they're likely much better than bronze 1 players... especially not "good" bronze 1 players.

Most people are likely siding with the bronzies because you specifically said "the top 5%". Well... the best bronze players are probably going to reach silver eventually... if not soon. They're also probably more determined to win, given that they can and WILL lose rank if they mess up too much, while Silver 5's are infamously prone to tilt, ragequit and so on because they know they can't sink much lower. Back when falling out of a division was easier, it wasn't like this... but I'm reasonably certain that it is now.

The "best" bronze players will probably beat the bottom of the barrel silvers. Yes. But that's because you specified that they are the "best" bronze players. There's so little skill difference between the two rankings overall that the superior players will likely win... and you mentioned in this hypothetical scenario that the bronzies are "top 5%" while the silvers are just your average team of solo queue schmucks. The bronzies are more likely to win because in your set up you basically said that they are the more skilled team.

If the point you were trying to make is "the ranked system is wrong if these bronze players are ranked lower but can win"... um... you kinda ruined your point. The best bronze players WILL likely get out of bronze. The top 5% of bronze only need to play enough to reach silver. Nothing is stopping them. They're good enough. Sure, it might take a bit if they're unlucky... but they WILL get out and likely surpass those lowbie silvers if they are, in fact, the top % of people from their division.

A better way to make your point would be to say "would an average team of bronze 1's be able to beat an average team of silver 5's". Because honestly... yeah. The win rate of that in either direction is probably VERY close to 50%, yet the bronzies are bronze and the silvers "outrank" them. They got lucky. If they're stuck in silver 5 they're not really all that GOOD... they just got lucky.

WitchQueen AnnieMar 30, 20171 votes

[{quoted}](name=Angry Old Man,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=vhwAKQOe,comment-id=00030000000000000000,timestamp=2017-03-30T02:19:48.047+0000)

Because it's pretty hard to lose a division. Silver 5 players are mostly bronzies who got lucky enough times in a row to ditch bronze, but can't manage to climb further. It's hard to get demoted out of silver if you maintain a relatively average winrate... but they're certainly not exceptionally skilled and I wouldn't say they're likely much better than bronze 1 players... especially not "good" bronze 1 players.

Most people are likely siding with the bronzies because you specifically said "the top 5%". Well... the best bronze players are probably going to reach silver eventually... if not soon. They're also probably more determined to win, given that they can and WILL lose rank if they mess up too much, while Silver 5's are infamously prone to tilt, ragequit and so on because they know they can't sink much lower. Back when falling out of a division was easier, it wasn't like this... but I'm reasonably certain that it is now.

The "best" bronze players will probably beat the bottom of the barrel silvers. Yes. But that's because you specified that they are the "best" bronze players. There's so little skill difference between the two rankings overall that the superior players will likely win... and you mentioned in this hypothetical scenario that the bronzies are "top 5%" while the silvers are just your average team of solo queue schmucks. The bronzies are more likely to win because in your set up you basically said that they are the more skilled team.

If the point you were trying to make is "the ranked system is wrong if these bronze players are ranked lower but can win"... um... you kinda ruined your point. The best bronze players WILL likely get out of bronze. The top 5% of bronze only need to play enough to reach silver. Nothing is stopping them. They're good enough. Sure, it might take a bit if they're unlucky... but they WILL get out and likely surpass those lowbie silvers if they are, in fact, the top % of people from their division.

A better way to make your point would be to say "would an average team of bronze 1's be able to beat an average team of silver 5's". Because honestly... yeah. The win rate of that in either direction is probably VERY close to 50%, yet the bronzies are bronze and the silvers "outrank" them. They got lucky. If they're stuck in silver 5 they're not really all that GOOD... they just got lucky.

Ok well that makes more sense...

But if it was Silver 4 vs Bronze I? Would you say S4s are substantially better?

The WhamboozlerMar 31, 20171 votes

Luck is still a BIG factor through most of silver, but they'd certainly fare better than the S5's on average.

This entire scenario is pretty hypothetical and impossible to really prove or disprove but if I HAD to make a statement on it... I'd say that Silver 2 - Gold 4 are where you'd find a team of people who have the best chance of going even with the "best 5%" of bronze. Even then, it's an absurd scenario to imagine. A single plat or diamond smurf amongst the bronzies (and a diamond smurf would DEFINITELY be int he top 5% of bronze until they left it) would probably auto-win for their team. Likewise, there are gold 5's who got lucky or carried into gold and actually suck pretty hard... but not quite hard enough to get demoted from their division.

The simple fact is... your idea is REALLY hard to call because the top % of bronze players aren't gonna stay bronze. So they're an even match for... whatever division/rankings they're going to inevitably get stuck at. It's impossible to say. One might only make it to silver before he can't climb anymore... one might make it to plat or above. The conditions you put on the thought exercise make it really hard to gauge the most likely answer.

AlienPrimateMar 29, 20171 votes

I have frequent comebacks. You just have to keep a cool head and play safe. As long as EVERYONE can do that there is always a chance to win. If one person gives up then there is no chance but I always do my best to keep people motivated towards a win.

The WhamboozlerMar 30, 20171 votes

"EVERYONE". There is your problem.

The team that's doing poorly has 5 people in it and if even ONE of them tilts or starts raging their chances drop so hard. The team that is winning can have this problem too, of course... but it's FAR more common for people to start bitching, flaming each other or trying to piss blame at each other on the team that's behind. It snowballs from there.

For example... The top laner dies to an early gank and rages at his own jungler... Because he's tilted, or because he's an idiot or even because he's RIGHT and the jungler was farming blue when he got ganked and could have easily turned the gank around if he'd come in to help. It doesn't matter why he's doing it, because he's raging at his jungler now. The jungler is pissed off at him now, justified complaint or not, and stops ganking for him. Bot then asks for a gank because THEY are struggling. The jungler is pissed at the top laner for demanding ganks, so he assumes bot is being pissy at him too... or he tries but due to being behind, he fails to get anything and a laner dies. Now top is raging at him harder and calling him inept. Or he's salty that he "wasted his time" instead of power farming and in a bad mood because of the top laner, so he blames bot for doing something wrong. Or he just plain stops ganking entirely... leaving the whole team out to try. Now every lane is failing and the top laner is raging at the jungler and because the jungler isn't helping them, mid and bot jump on the jungler too. Everyone is too busy fighting over who is at fault that they all play like crap and then they lose. They're not even really "playing" at that point, they're just arguing over who's fault the loss that they have ALREADY DECIDED WILL HAPPEN is going to be.

This happens all the time and it's a huge reason why comebacks are rare. Because teams rarely stay calm, focused and collected when losing. Teams rage, and blame, and tilt, and give up. People afk, or just stop trying their best... or actively play stupidly because they don't care anymore. Even teams that don't rage tend to write games off as losses if they're going badly and stop trying as hard to win... because it's stressful to give it your all and lose. So even calm players will pull back from the game before it's over and wave it off. Remove themselves from it for their own emotional well-being. It's... just a thing that happens.

Comebacks happen... but god DAMN are they rare. Mostly due to simple human nature and the fact that the community is full to the brim of whiny, immature people that prefer crying and fighting over who is at fault for the problem to actually FIXING the problem.

kristopher205Mar 28, 20171 votes

The bronze team would most likely win.

WitchQueen AnnieMar 29, 20171 votes

{quoted}

The bronze team would most likely win.

I agree, the next question would be...

is this consistent with the integrity of the ranked system?

AlienPrimateMar 29, 20171 votes

The top 5 players mechanically in bronze are all there for a different reason. If you are the best 5 players in your rank and you are not moving up then something else is holding you back. That something else is most likely attitude. If someone on their team starts 0-2 they automatically give up saying ff at 20 and start playing like crap meaning they are exactly where they belong in rank. There is more to the game than just being better at the game. You have to also have a better mentality.

WitchQueen AnnieMar 29, 20171 votes

{quoted}

The top 5 players mechanically in bronze are all there for a different reason. If you are the best 5 players in your rank and you are not moving up then something else is holding you back. That something else is most likely attitude. If someone on their team starts 0-2 they automatically give up saying ff at 20 and start playing like crap meaning they are exactly where they belong in rank. There is more to the game than just being better at the game. You have to also have a better mentality.

Then why isn't this forum CONFIDENT in saying that the Bronze in my scenario would lose then?

if they TRULY deserve to be in Bronze (lower than Silver) and their characterisation as Bronze is FAIR... then why don't we have the confidence to say...

"Hey they may be best top 5% mechanically in Bronze and may even play better than the average Silver, in fact, I've seen many such bronze who play batter... but their ATTITUDE and lack of game sense will ensure CERTAIN defeat here because I trust in Rito's ranking system."

Why are people not saying this?

Because there is a fundamental (whether correct or incorrect) lack of faith in the ranking system. As soon as I say... "Hey THESE Bronze in my scenarios, they are top 5% mechanics in their tier" and "the Silvers are average Silver MMR"... you immediately doubt.

"Hmmm... you know... the Silvers might lose."

AlienPrimateMar 29, 20171 votes

If you put the 5 best bronzies together against average silvers then chances are, those bronzies will be better mechanically than the silvers. They should all win lane giving them no reason to flame each other and give up.

WitchQueen AnnieMar 29, 20171 votes

{quoted}

If you put the 5 best bronzies together against average silvers then chances are, those bronzies will be better mechanically than the silvers. They should all win lane giving them no reason to flame each other and give up.

So why aren't those people in Bronze and the other group in Silver?

Shouldn't Silver be rightfully better than Bronze?

AlienPrimateMar 29, 20171 votes

Because the chances of getting someone who is having a bad game on your team in bronze is fairly high and the flame train rolls forward.

SinsertaMar 28, 20171 votes

Bronze. I'm in Silver. I'd know. The mid laner gets two kills "Gg I'm carrying" goes top to try to kill the full tank Maokai. Awk.

ItsOrvalMar 28, 20171 votes

Not really how it works. Average silvers are still trash, anything bronze is trash.

Trash vs trash = trash wins.

Baby GhoulMar 29, 20171 votes

The only difference between Bronze and low Silver players is that Silver players don't play all 130 something champions in ranked, Bronze players do. They have a main. They stick to it, and learn. Bronze players just like being good at killing things is what I've noticed.

The skill gap between Bronze and Silver is almost nonexistent, but this game isn't just about skill. It's about game knowledge. You can climb really high if you understand the game well enough. LoL can be pretty complicated.

WitchQueen AnnieMar 29, 20171 votes

[{quoted}](name=Baby Ghoul,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=vhwAKQOe,comment-id=0005,timestamp=2017-03-29T10:18:13.774+0000)

The only difference between Bronze and low Silver players is that Silver players don't play all 130 something champions in ranked, Bronze players do. They have a main. They stick to it, and learn. Bronze players just like being good at killing things is what I've noticed.

The skill gap between Bronze and Silver is almost nonexistent, but this game isn't just about skill. It's about game knowledge. You can climb really high if you understand the game well enough. LoL can be pretty complicated.

I'm not sure about this though.

While I was in Bronze, my cheese starts of running a Thunderlords Vladimir or relying on the Level 6 100-0 Annie Flash Kills worked more often than not, and it was entirely possible to hard carry many of these games with absolute ease.

In Silver, I feel like I actually have to try and there's a real chance the team will irreparably lose the game at 20 minutes.

It does feel, at least to me, that there is a gap.

WitchQueen AnnieMar 29, 20171 votes

Ok someone just explains to me how these things are logically consistent:

Top 5% of Bronze are better (mechanically) players than average Silver players (or at least, have a high chance to be better in general)
People in Bronze (all of Bronze) deserve to be in Bronze because Silver players are better than Bronze players
The Ranking system is fair, it appropriately sorts people by mechanics, game knowledge, attitude, win/loss probability...
5 top 5% mechanical Bronze players can and WILL defeat 5 average Silver players