Quote Originally Posted by PEACH View Post
I've always found where people consider "good" to be interesting, since it massively depends on who you are comparing it to. The fact that a lot of times, pre 1400 (e.g. 90% of the playerbase) isn't considered "good", and sometimes even pre 1600 (about the top 2-3%) isn't considered good, is really interesting to me. While I can understand the "I'm already playing with people who are stupid sometimes, so the people below my Elo have to be really bad concept," at some point it seems like you have to say "yeah, 90% of the people actually playing ranked games probably aren't all mediocre or worse."
It's mostly the type of games you find. For example, 1400 is still the level of elo where a single strong player can practically 1v5 games. That won't happen much in 1600s or 1800s anymore. Classic pubstompers are still incredibly potent in 1400s.

Peoples' map awareness and warding habits are still extremely inconsistent (to be fair, it never becomes reliable in solo queue but the higher you go, the higher the chance that peoples are competent at it) and in general, the kind of mentality you apply to "elo hell" still functions in 1400.

That's why I find it hard to call 1400 players "good"; Mejai's is still a strong item in 1400s, stealth champs are absolutely devastating in 1400s and you can't count on your lane coming to help you in the jungle with a ping in 1400s. 1400s tend to be very conservative about Baron and Dragon also (except for the other extreme, the Baronists, who try to force a Baron starting from 15 mins on the grounds that "it's probably not warded").