We miss you Seyruun 
|
League of Legends General Discussion Thread
|
|
I'm very curious on what the new tier ratings are gonna be for Season Two.
UberTri Wrote:I'm very curious on what the new tier ratings are gonna be for Season Two.Whatever they are, I'm sure there are going to be a whole lot of people who think they should be higher. 
"There is no wealth like knowledge. No poverty like ignorance." Speaker Wrote:Whatever they are, I'm sure there are going to be a whole lot of people who think they should be higher. I imagine they'll make them more inclusive. It's actually quite poor, IMO, the way they've done it for seasons 1-2; currently, you only get a bronze badge if you're in the top 25%. When you compare it with the system in Starcraft II, which is the most obvious comparison, it's very different indeed: in SC2 the bronze league is the lowest of the low -- the bottom 20% (and soon to be home to one Terror Incognita, once he's finished his placement games...!) Because of this, there's a stigma to even being bronze, which in the grand scheme of things makes you quite a good player (1250-1400 puts you in the top 25%-10% of the ranked playerbase). I'm not saying they'll go completely for the SC2 model, but it wouldn't surprise me if the bronze category was shifted down to include those in the 1100-1200 bracket.
I suppose that would be one of the reasons to introduce all of those tiers. 40 separate tiers would make it fairly easy to split all of the players. But out of all of the level 30 players...how many of them actually play enough ranked games to get given a rank?
There's a decent chance this might not be arriving until Season Three. Impossible to say right now - Riot has gotten infinitely better about not advertising things until they are ready for release.
I agree that the current rating system is very poor. Here's the current breakdown: 52% Unranked 48% Bronze or higher (1250) 18% Silver or higher (1400) 10% Gold or higher (1520) 1% Platinum or higher (1900) There's too little of a gap between Silver and Gold, and too large of a gap between Bronze/Silver and Gold/Platinum. Worst of all is the majority of players who don't get any ranking whatsoever. A more logical system would look like this: Bronze: 0-30% of playerbase rating Silver: 30-55% Gold: 55-80% Platinum: 80-95% Diamond: 95-99.5% Master League: 99.5+% That's using the Starcraft II rating system terminology, but you get the point. The current system is poorly designed. At least it's better than in Season One, where Silver was the top 10% of the playerbase. There were three different ranks for the top 10%, and one rank for the bottom 90% - talk about designed for the high end users!
Sullla - I think the breakdown is closer to that of Season 1 than you have described. I'm pretty sure the data you linked to only takes into account summoners with visible (ie above 1200) Elos. All it says is that:
48% of people above 1200 are bronze; 18% of people above 1200 are silver; 10% of people above 1200 are gold; 1.2% of people above 1200 are platinum. Note that these values are not cumulative, so the 48% in bronze does not include those in silver, gold and platinum. But those who are below 1200 are not counted at all (presumably because there is no publicly available data for them). spellman Wrote:Oh manz. Time to reset my ELO? Just after I started doing Ranked? Last season, a few people did sprints - waiting until the end of the season had been announced, then playing enough ranked games to qualify for a medal. I'm pretty sure the percentages that Sulla quotes are broken. 155K is 48% of 325K; but the 338000th player on the 5x5 ladder has a 1200 ELO. In other words, those percentages only include players who are "above average". Three quarters of the league's summoners are unranked, rather than one half, etc. (Edit: Coke to v8mark) If I ran the zoo, I'd be looking for a medal scheme that rewarded players for playing more games. It would probably look like some low prestige level for players/teams that qualify with a minimal number of matches (my own circumstance: 8W 5L), and a higher prestige level for players who have done well in 50 ranked matches, 100 ranked matches, etc. VoiceOfUnreason Wrote:If I ran the zoo, I'd be looking for a medal scheme that rewarded players for playing more games. It would probably look like some low prestige level for players/teams that qualify with a minimal number of matches (my own circumstance: 8W 5L), and a higher prestige level for players who have done well in 50 ranked matches, 100 ranked matches, etc. Not only does that encourage mass grinding of games(ie. more 20 min surrenders) for "prestige", it doesn't tell the true story. So a player who floats in 1600-1700 with 500+ games is better then a player with <50 games who got to 1600-1700? |
