Why is elo boosting bad?

bbyOni·Jul 26, 2015·7 votes·845 views

title?

12 Comments

Poptart EvelynnJul 26, 20157 votes

Because those players didn't earn their rank and having skilled players on those accounts screw everyone else of their elo since the system already judged where they belong currently?

StratJul 26, 20156 votes

The biggest reason for me personally is that people who didn't earn their rank are getting to higher ranks - this is cheating others of the feeling of accomplishment when they get to a certain rank since they could have just as easily paid for it.

However, the biggest real reason is that boosted players ruin games. If you have a Bronze/Silver player who doesn't know the basics of the game playing in a Plat/Diamond match, you end up having a really shitty and boring match - the Bronze/Silver player goes 0/15, the enemy team gets super fed, the game ends quickly without any real strategy.

It doesn't matter if the Bronze/Silver player is on my team or the enemy team, easy win or easy loss are both boring. I care less about winning and more about having an interesting and close match.

Edit: Also, please don't downvote the OP. He's asking the question out of curiosity in an objective manner.

bbyOniJul 26, 20151 votes

Isn't that a testament to the elo system being so bad as to be affected by 4 random people on your team rather than individual merit? I'm not for elo boosting, but honestly it wouldn't exist if the current system didn't already enable it.

StratJul 27, 20151 votes

but honestly it wouldn't exist if the current system didn't already enable it.

It would certainly still exist. Do you really think the "unfairness" (I'll get to that) of the matchup system is the only reason, or even the main reason, people use Elo boosting?

affected by 4 random people rather than individual merit

Okay, lets discuss this. I agree with you when you say the current system is highly flawed. The problem is that it is literally the best possible system that can be used. This may not sound right, but let me explain.

Question - how do you measure individual merit? Sure, you can measure KDA, gold earned, damage done, wards placed, towers taken, etc. But what if you have a strategy that has a tangible effect on the game that affects none of these statistics? Then an "individual merit" system would prevent you from using this game winning strategy despite its value.

An example? Let's say you come up with a "distraction Shaco" strategy. The strategy consists of rushing Mobi boots and max CDR, and placing your boxes all over the map while farming to "keep up." You still have less gold than everyone else, but you spend the game distracting 3+ other players so that the rest of your team can take the objectives. You even die a few times, so you go 0/3/2 or something. An individual merit system would rate you badly (low gold, low KDA, low damage done, etc.)

Another question - how do you decide which statistics contribute the most to winning games? Okay, maybe we can figure out some sort of scaling based on how games are won in that particular Elo with the particular champ you're playing. But that fails to take into account the ~5766503906250000000000 (rough calculation) possible team compositions in the game that would affect how games are won. Let's say we continue using the scaling while ignoring team composition.

So I'm playing, say, Kha6. Kha'zix's statistics say that kills are worth the most. But the game's gone badly, so everyone's ahead. I haven't fed, but I can't really enter team fights without dying instantly. So the best strategy for me is (theoretically) split pushing. But I know that kills gives Kha'zix the most Elo. So instead, I go around hunting kills, seeking to up my Elo. We lose the game due to my selfishness, but if I'd split pushed we could have won. Sure, a rational person would know the best way to gain Elo is to choose the winning strategy, but people are selfish in this game, and don't think rationally when it comes to their Elo.

So how do you measure someone's individual ability to win games? Well, as it turns out, statistically speaking whether or not they won or loss the game, regardless of other stats, ends up being a good measure. Individual games and streaks will fuck things up, but over a large number of games (50+) it ends up being reasonably accurate.

Sorry for the long post.

bbyOniJul 27, 20151 votes

Just ask yourself how the character system works. Dying is never good no matter how much a support says "well i'm just a support", and i'm just going on hunch but when you feed less you're more likely to win, just a hunch. The after game stats look at literally everything. From damage dealt to kda to the turret downs. These stats combined also give a clear representation of your contribution to the game. Simply meandering about in the game not doing anything can be detected by the system, as every afker can tell you.

Now lets say I go with your Shaco example. Let's say your teamates are absolutely retarded and have no idea what you're doing, and simply start flaming your stupid ass for feeding, instead of just pushing while enemy is distracted. Your performance is now a detriment to your team and those 4 random peoples inability to understand what you're doing has now ruined your plans for how you want to win. Thereby proving my point that your performance is now a reflection of 4 random people and not your own.

Your Khazix example is completely off because kills are never more important on one character than any other. Kills are just a method of obtaining gold. Any champion that is fed will do their job better. Not every champ is a carry and rely on gold but those champions can still participate in kills/assist/and objectives like any other. Contribution is more than just k/d/a. Its also amount of cs you have by a certain time, wards cleared/placed.

Individual ranks will likely dissipate the issue of having people go "top or feed" or be completely inefficient at any one role because now your contribution is what gives you rank, not merely the fact that you won. Now when you play support you have an incentive to get those assist, place those wards, make those plays for that turret, because its actually counted, and not just some after game stat that goes unsung.

"problem is that it is literally the best possible system that can be used."

Doubt it. I'm not informed enough right now but I'm sure there are better ranking systems in place for other games that work way better than this.

Also, before i forget. The reason i see individual rankings stopping the elo boosting issue in what is suppose to be "solo" queue matchmaking, is simply the fact that once the person who has boosted their account get smashed countless times for not being up to par with their competition, not only will their less than stellar performance not be a detriment to 4 others who actually belong at that rank but it deters them from doing it again because getting stomped repeatedly for sucking, I imagine, isn't the most fun thing to pay for.

StratJul 27, 20151 votes

when you feed less you're more likely to win, just a hunch

Sure, I agree, but what if it's offset by other things? And how much do these other things offset it? Sure you can just attach "value" to these other things, but some things aren't easily measured (e.g. the "distraction Shaco" strategy I mentioned, how do you measure "enemy time wasted"?)

Your performance is now a detriment to your team

No, now you're discussing the theory of the situation. This is irrelevant to the argument - we're assuming your team understands the strategy (it's a high Elo game and the strategy was proven in the "recent" world championship). The strategy can't be measured, despite having a strong impact.

I'm NOT arguing it's a good strategy (protip: it's stupid) but if it was a good strategy (and this is certainly a possibiity) a performance-based ranking system would struggle to reward it. In fact, most likely it'd punish it, even if it was a great strategy.

The after game stats look at literally everything

LOL. I'm sorry, you're in Silver Elo, you can't even pretend to begin understand this when people at that Elo don't even know the basics of the game. There are so many unmeasured factors that impact the game. Simple example even you could understand; what about who you die to? A 8/3/2 jungler can have objectively performed worse than an 8/6/2 jungler with IDENTICAL stats (damage done, wards place, etc.) apart from deaths. How? Imagine the 8/3/2 jungler died 3 times to the Riven top in the early game, and the 8/6/2 jungler died 6 times to the support Soraka in the early game. Maybe both junglers scored a kill each time they died. I'm pretty sure you can understand that feeding a top Riven in the early game is going to fuck a game over a lot more than a support Soraka in the early game, especially if the act of trading a kill in the bot lane left your bot lane in a 2v1 bot and they scored a second kill 30 seconds later without you.

kills are never more important on one character than any other

Sorry, bullshit. Try getting early game 5 kills on a tank champion, then try getting 5 kills on a carry assassin. Tell me which one ends up having a larger impact. Different people scale better with gold and EXP, especially early on in the game (also known as "snowballing"). And the fact that you think kills are only a source of dold tells me a lot about how little you understand about the game.

Kills deny the enemy gold (farming time), reduce map pressure (defense and offense of objectives) and demoralize the enemy team emotionally (this is legitimately part of a strategy game).

Now when you play support you have an incentive to...

There's plenty of incentives to do it - you know, winning the game? It has a massive impact on the game, so massive that I often have to offer to play support when there's no support mains in the queue because I know I have a much better chance of winning with someone who's average at support (me) than if I played my best role.

it deters them from doing it again because getting stomped repeatedly for sucking

This literally already happens, so that's not a valid argument.

their less than stellar performance not be a detriment to 4 others who actually belong at that rank

Sure, but I'd much rather deal with the occasional boosted player than receive an unfair reward for playing unusual strategies.

bbyOniJul 28, 20151 votes

"(e.g. the "distraction Shaco" strategy I mentioned, how do you measure "enemy time wasted"?)"

Enemy time wasted is the cs they are not obtaining per minute. Its xp not being gained as they chase shaco around the map. The strategy's effectiveness can be measured in the the objectives not gained by the enemy.

"Kills deny the enemy gold (farming time), reduce map pressure (defense and offense of objectives) and demoralize the enemy team emotionally (this is legitimately part of a strategy game)."

Kills as you describe are essentially the same function as this shaco strategy because it's aim is to do exactly the same which is stop enemy team from gaining advantages.

"LOL. I'm sorry, you're in Silver Elo, you can't even pretend to begin understand this when people at that Elo don't even know the basics of the game."

Don't see what me being silver has anything to do with a logical discussion of the game. And btw plat isn't anything to be pompous about, its like saying your'e better because your the smartest kid, in special ed. Also this account is my smurf and i got s3 off promos... Game knowledge also doesn't equate to mechanical prowess. So don't fuckin scoff at me like you're some fuckin solo queue god. You're plat.

and what do you mean by basics of the game? Wave control? Proper farming? Champion abilities? Itemization? Identifying your advantages/disadvantages? Lane matchups? Don't just use a blanket statement for a concept that has many variables. A wrong blanket statement at that. Because if you literally mean i don't know the basics such as moving my champ, looking at the hud, or pinging then i would still be in b5 or not even ranked.

"Simple example even you could understand; what about who you die to? A 8/3/2 jungler can have objectively performed worse than an 8/6/2 jungler with IDENTICAL stats (damage done, wards place, etc.) apart from deaths. How? Imagine the 8/3/2 jungler died 3 times to the Riven top in the early game, and the 8/6/2 jungler died 6 times to the support Soraka in the early game. Maybe both junglers scored a kill each time they died. I'm pretty sure you can understand that feeding a top Riven in the early game is going to fuck a game over a lot more than a support Soraka in the early game, especially if the act of trading a kill in the bot lane left your bot lane in a 2v1 bot and they scored a second kill 30 seconds later without you."

This example is situational just like all your other examples. And your'e still looking at it from the current systems standpoint. Why would it matter that top lane fed the riven in a ranking system that isn't taking into account just the loss and nothing more. You do understand that when you lose under this system your whole match is a waste of time considering everything you did had no value towards your rank and only affects your understanding of how to prevent it next time but there is no real representation of this gained knowledge. An indivual ranking system could take into account the loss, farm at x, kda, objectives and give a reasonable picture of your contribution.

"Sure, but I'd much rather deal with the occasional boosted player than receive an unfair reward for playing unusual strategies."

In an indivual merit systems your strategies are rewarded even more so than this one. Considering the current system wont take into account anything but your loss or win.