Debunking the "Feeders Holding Me Back" claim with one simple principle.

Another topic led me to make this post, as I drew upon partitionis pretii to make my point. Partitionis pretii, or separation of values, is a principle by which logical mathematical conclusions can be drawn simply by comparing relative values. The expectation is that facts about groups of things (usually people) will automatically "partition" them into groups together. Let's start with a classic example:

> x = 2+2+2+2+2 > y = 2+2+2+2+3 > Therefore, x does not equal y.

Partitionis pretii takes this principle and applies it to groups, "partitioning" groups based on certain statistics. Roman centuries (not groups of 100 years, but 100 soldiers in a cohort) were often arrayed this way, sorting each century by certain attributes to make each cohort easier to apply to situational shifts in combat. The notion was that men of a certain size were naturally going to move and fight together better than men of varying sizes.

Let's take the above example. Instead of a mathematical equation, partitionis pretii uses attributes. So let's remove the +'s and assume these are attributes; ages, perhaps.

> Group A has five children, ages 2, 2, 2, 2, 2 and 2. > Group B also has five children, ages 2, 2, 2, 2, 2 and 3. > Therefore, group B is not the same as group A. They will not remain together.

By natural assumption, the two groups aren't the same because one of them has a 3-year old, and the other does not. With me so far? Now, how does this apply to League?

Assumption: "If I'm a skilled player, but all my teammates are always feeding, I will remain forever at low ELO."

This is markedly false, and this principle tells us why.

> Five players play ten games of League. > In the first 8 games, the KDA for each player is: 0.2:1, 0.2:1, 0.2:1, 0.2:1, 0.2:1. > In the last 2 games, the KDA for each player is: 4:1, 0.2:1, 0.2:1, 0.2:1, 0.2:1. > Therefore, player 1 is not the same as players 2, 3, 4 and 5. He will not remain in this group.

Player 1 does not partition into this group. It just doesn't happen. It can't happen, because by natural course, he filters into a different group. In this case, a better group.

Because League sets your MMR based on performance, not win rate, player 1 is not going to remain with players 2, 3, 4 and 5 for very long. I know this for fact because my win rate is significantly higher than the obvious average of 50%, but my MMR is around 860 because my personal stats are rarely any good (as a consequence of playing entirely selfless).

Assumption: "No matter how good I am, if I get feeders every game, I'll never promote."

What does partitionis pretii say about this?

> Five players play 100 ranked games. > Four players are unskilled enough to lose 100 games. > One player wins 50 games. > Therefore, the one player is not the same as the other four. He will not remain with them.

Logically speaking, that player is not going to stay with this group. "Oh, but promos!" I hear you say. But that's just the thing. Apply it inversely.

> A player is currently in Bronze. > This player has a feeder in 100% of his games.

Can you tell me what must come next? There are two options.

OPTION A: > This player's opponents have feeders in 50% of their games. > Therefore, the player's opponents are not the same (thus not in the same partition, in this case League rank) as the player. They will not remain together.

OPTION B: > This player's opponents have feeders in 100% of their games. > Therefore, the player's opponents are the same as the player. They will remain together.

In other words, unless your average game looks exactly like the average game of every other player around you, statistically, they would already rank above you and you wouldn't have opponents. This means that, by default, every person who plays at your rank deals with, over the course of 100 games, the exact same issues you do. Some of them will promote, some will not. So what's the next logical operator in the partitioning process?

Well, personal performance is the one most look to. Again we have two options.

OPTION A: > You are skilled enough to average a 1:1 KDA. > Your teammates and opponents average a 1:1 KDA. > Therefore, you are the same as your teammates and opponents. You will remain together.

OPTION B: > You average a 4:1 KDA. > Your teammates and opponents average a 1:1 KDA. > Therefore, you are not the same as your teammates and opponents. You will not remain together.

In conclusion, based on this simple method of natural partitioning, we can conclude that if can't get out of a specific tier, it's because that's where you currently belong. You're going to have to improve your play if you want to claw out, and no amount of blaming feeders or noobs will change that, because everyone else is dealing with the exact same thing on average, else you wouldn't still be in this group.

If you think your performance is too strong for your current tier, re-evaluate, because there's something (perhaps intangible) you're not doing well enough.

You are Bronze because you are doing what Bronze players do. If you were doing what Diamond players do, you would be Diamond.