Kai Guy (NA)
: First up, https://na.op.gg/summoner/userName=Puffin+Chucker+ I don't see any plat or diamond player in your visible history. Not much can be done if one of them is a smurf because the only thing reflected on an account is that accounts personal history. Real talk my man, you probably will not get a rioter to comment. I like nerdy things like game designe and systems behind things. So unlike a lot of posters I have taken some time to study and learn about MMR systems. I am not at all an expert on the topic... if i was id work in the industry ^.^but I feel like I am gonna be more helpful then people who just make up their opinion on the topic with out researching it. So here comes a Wall. You need to keep in mind that the entire Tier system has (almost) nothing to do with MM. Its not used by the system to build games. I say almost because The way Riot built "Duo Queing" creates issues. Its restriction for ranges are off tiers not MMR. How its implemented, It wont break the game or ladder, like you said when people get outclassed they get stomped and its not fun. Duoing does make problems from a strict Quality standpoint but as its not breaking the system and the player base really enjoy it so Riot stands to lose more player satisfaction if they change it.The simple fix is to make duoing off the same MMR range MM considers Fair to pull from, and also would probally need some tweaks for the Sections of the ladder that represent player populations under 1% of the games base. Now that the exception is out of the way, a massive majority of the time the actual tiers don't matter and its silly people think they are instantly a good marker for accuracy on any 1 players skill. 10 placement games gives you a tier. Your going to see people go on about win rates and win streaks but most the time they don't know wtf they are talking about. MMR is a balance. its not starting at 0 either. Every new account in a season has the same balance. The reason its not 0 is because you want players to be able to go down on the ladder at get put into lower skill games any time they struggle at the starting value. If you cant move them down, they stay in that range for MM and basically are expected to just always struggle. People who don't know the system make a big deal about win streaks or win rates. I'm going to try and help you see win% and "streaks" impact in action and what your going to actually want to look for, Consistency over time is a huge deal. Lets make some numbers up and show some principles behind the system. Lets call the starting value 1400 points. The Adjustment formula for MMR systems is some derivative/modification of Arpad Elo's Rating system. He used Rn= Ro + K(W-We) Alone that kinda looks like gibberish, So here is what those variables represent. _RN _is your new rating at the end of a game. _RO _is your rating befor the game was played. _K _is used to represent uncertainty (if you meet any one who talks about MMR and they don't know what a K factor is that person has not done even a single google search on the topic and should not be trusted as an accurate source.) _W _is the result of a match. Win, loss, draw. In league we only have win or loss. _We _is what the system thinks the result of a match would be. Abbreviated, you can say that this is created by looking at Ro of players. So in action, im going to use the number I made up early, 1400 for RO. So Rn = 1400 +36(1-0) RN= 1436. Now when you play your next game your R0 will be 1436 and your RN is going to change off the result of the next game, win or loss. The numbers im using for K I picked arbitrarily**, K factor is a massive impact on the quality of a match maker and MMR system,** you do not want to ever do what I just did and have it be random. 1 is a positive value because you won the game, this number again was randomly selected by me. 0 was used because I believe that's what the system would use if it feels a game was 100% fair... Now I might be wrong about that, but honestly 100% fair basically never happens so even if i goofed up its fine to just treat this as another arbitrary number im using here. Like i said not an expert so i will try to account for personal mistakes. There is are few ways to make We.. I don't know what riot uses so I wont get into it to much... because id just explain a lot that means very little. Apard on the topic of _We _provided 2 formulas for its creation. We= N X P(Dc) is one, We = ΣPi is another. Why I am using made up numbers here to illustrate the adjustment being used because variables are hard for most people, myself very much included.** What is awesome is that the concept is actually pretty simple and easy for any one to understand. After playing a game if Win you go up in rating if you Lose you go down. ** As players, our rating is not meant to be some law or absolute measurement of skill but rather you can take it to be a Range of skill. When accurate its ment to set an expectation for your averaged performance of bad and good games. Humans are expected be inconsistent. Because people can improve (and in league people can get worse as well, game balance constantly shifts by paches) you never lock a player into a MMR. You let it always be able to move so that trends in playing result in shifting players the direction they trend. K factor is a variable, its made to change over time. When its a very high value, you see people move around more dramatically. Like in my example, if k was 100 that player would be Rn = 1500. but a loss would be 1300. K changes largely for 2 reasons. Some ones up higher on the ladder into a MMR range you think players are becoming skilled, you lower it so that folks don't get to far up off luck. The other one is because people have played decent # of games. you now feel that they are nearing the MMR range that represents their skill and you don't want them to climb or sink as fast so you can consistently place them into games using MM around their skill. As each win adds to your balance and each loss removes, what you see is events like this. **A player with a 75% win rate!** who played for all of 4 games? Ro + 36, Ro +36, Ro - 36, Ro + 36. Where you have the loss, this does not matter all to much because the ending mmr is going to be +72. One loss and one Win cancel out (not a realistic expectation, there is a good reason We is used in the adjustment. but this is fine in the boundaries of my example.) Meanwhile some one with a 52% winrate but who played 500 games? Net gain of 2 wins per 100 played so that guys looking at 10 wins. Comparing the two examples using my random starting value of 1400. 75% 4 game broski = 1476. The 52% 500 games played gent however is sitting at 1760. Everything's way more complicated then this, don't treat my example as remotely relevant to what riot is using. _Its just to show how the system rewards consistency of play far more then a small sample size of games or what order a win/loss comes in. _ So some basic theory on the topic of MMR. Your call over how reliable you feel I am as a source of information. In regards to Riot cant promise you accuracy but feel free to ask me any questions you'd like specifically addressed.
Well thank you for giving a good detailed reply. The Amumu from yesterday was plat 2 but I only looked at his profile quickly and it turns out that he is only plat 2 in ranked 3v3; I just didn't notice. So my bad. However that doesn't change previous games where silvers have been matched up against plats or higher which does happen. Although perhaps that happens when there is a duo. Though I have never duo'd with anyone higher than silver. I know there isn't any point in saying anything about smurfs. The closest answer I could ever get on why Riot doesn't stop them is that smurfs make them money. I am fairly certain that the matchmaking system knows who is a smurf and who isn't and it figures it out very quickly. So if your MMR gets high enough it may match you against a smurf rather than someone of a higher tier. Guess I could never prove that though. Ya I knew no one from Riot would answer. I have never seen them answer any question from someone who doesn't get enough upvotes, and they rarely answer on a topic that could bring them any heat. I also imagine that they just don't have enough employees to answer a lot more questions than they already do. So I did know that your tier has very little, if not nothing, to do with MM. I wasn't exactly sure how it worked but I knew that if you win your MMR goes up a bit and if you lose it goes down a bit, and that if you played hundreds of games with basically 50% win rate you would have a much higher MMR than someone who has only played 40. I just didn't have any idea what the numbers were. That whole system just doesn't make any sense to me though. The idea behind it which I think is: Because MM is based off MMR you are more likely to play against someone of your skill level than if it were just based off tier. That idea sounds alright, but my problem with it is that someone of a low tier who is on a win streak can play against someone of a much higher tier who is on a loss streak, and the low tier person will be punished for the loss (if they lose) just the same as if they were playing in their normal skill level. Where as if they had simply played against someone much closer to their tier they may have won. I know the amount of LP you get or lose changes but my point is you still lose it. And the other side of that is that the higher tier person gets the same reward for crushing some guys way lower than him as would get if he won a game at his normal tier (again the amount of LP changes but he still GETS it). An example of that would be some kid who is 14 playing hockey is doing really well and gets lots of goals over the last few games. Now the next game they take him out of his league and put him with the 16 year old kids while likewise taking some 18 year old kid who just a bad streak of games and putting him in the same game, but on the other side. Then everyone gets angry at the 14 year old kid if his team loses, and praises the 18 year old for winning. But what is the problem right? They both were playing close to the same skill level for the game before right? I know that example is kind of absurd but I don't see how a low tier player should be punished for losing against someone of a much higher tier. Especially when they could have just put him against players in his own tier. I do know that if you were to only put silver 3's against silver 3's you would get games where one team gets crushed because some player on that team has an amazing MMR, but he would quickly get out of that tier and move on up the ladder assuming that he is a good player and didn't just have a lucky game. That would be an unfair (kind of) game for the losing team because their opponent had a much higher MMR, but it would be a fair climbing system. Which makes sense to me rather than taking that player and matching him against people of much higher tier but who have the same MMR. Then he is far more likely to lose which would be a fair game (sort of), but not a fair climbing system. I suppose I should say that I am not saying this because I think I am an amazing player and have a great win rate and deserve to climb. It simply doesn't make sense to me to have the MM system the way it is. It seems like the system is designed to allow you to climb to high tiers as long as you have around a 50% win rate, but it will take hundreds of games to do so. Because if you win enough your MMR is higher and you will play against harder people which increases you chances of losing a lot more; rather than having someone go on a win streak until he plays against someone who is in his tier and who is also better than him. The current match making system isn't all that bad though. It rewards players who put hundreds of hours into playing ranked who have an average win rate, by letting them climb the ladder. Which is good because it would kind of suck to play hundreds of games where you are only 1 out of 10 people who can influence it and not see any progress at all. I still think you could do that though, if you matched games more evenly based on tier and not MMR. Anyway thanks for the great explanation of MMR the time you put in to answer my question!
Rioter Comments
Jamaree (NA)
: > [{quoted}](name=busfahrer09,realm=EUW,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=qbLA42cu,comment-id=00000000,timestamp=2019-04-10T02:01:05.320+0000) > > I'm stupid, can you tell me which site that is? ty I personally use na op gg.
> [{quoted}](name=Jamaree,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=qbLA42cu,comment-id=000000000000,timestamp=2019-04-10T02:57:04.769+0000) > > I personally use na op gg. It guesses what your mmr is but unfortunately it isn't really all that accurate.
Rioter Comments
Rioter Comments
: Probably, if they decided it wasn't allowed anymore, they wouldn't have any way to enforce it. Still, they need to do something in order to save the competitive integrity of their game. Matchmaking is bad enough even before you add smurfs and the people who they've elo-boosted to the mix.
Yes they do. They notice any scripts almost instantly, and will punish that but only ranked. Go script away in norms they don't care. But if they can notice scripts so fast they can figure out a way to notice smurfs. After all some guy that just hit level 30 and plays a champ that he has very low mastery points on, and gets nearly perfect farm, is clearly a smurf. All riot has to do is ban that account from playing ranked for a certain amount of time. It would be easy.
iShen (NA)
: LF high diamond duo for smurfing -jungler pref
Why are you weak? Smurfing ruins the game for so many people.
Lapis (OCE)
: Is duoing with a smurf bannable?
It should be bannable. If you want to play together, then just don't play ranked. Smurfs ruin the game for so many people.
Riot Jag (NA)
: Teemo changes temporarily on PBE for early feedback
Sounds to me like they took away a big piece of how much fun Teemo was: his mushrooms half healthing people who stepped in the wrong spot. Lets quote Riot: "To start, here are our goals: Give Teemo players MORE TEEMO (more poisoning, more sneaking!)" Then the first thing they say is that they are taking away a chunk of the main thing that makes Teemo, Teemo. Oh ya and his invisibility... I haven't tried him yet so maybe he is really fun, who knows?
: It's probably weaker on bruisers but now rangeds will abuse it, just like happened with the new DH. Welcome Cass. :)
No, with the healing it will be quite strong on bruisers. It gives them exactly what they want. Now they can build a little more tanky and get double the stacked damage of the old conqueror (35 buffed to 75) and still get true damage and get healing. It's way better.
: Did you read the same patch notes as I did? It clearly says the true damage dropped by 10 percent and you only heal for that 10% true damage
Perhaps you don't understand the patch notes. It said that it will turn 10% of [all] your damage into true damage and you heal for that amount. That means that you heal for 10% of ALL your damage dealt. Which, like I said, is very similar to a deaths dance. On top of that they also doubled the damage that you get from stacking conqueror from 35 to 75. So that's a big buff.
Spoo (NA)
: Would beg to differ. Big difference between 15% that turns on instantly and 10% that you have to stay in combat for. Each functions differently for different ideal situations of course but: * Endgame Dark Harvest easily can accumulate over the measely 80 ad/ap of a Death's Dance with but 3 souls. * Even arcane comet hits for over 100 (before the 20% ap scaling) end game meaning functionally it will easily grant you about the same damage increase as the raw AP granted from a deathcap (no passive). Not everyone can afford to sit in combat long enough to charge this up, it can no longer be charged on minions, pretty much means your going to have to trade your high AD hopes at some points for some defense,have something built into your kit, or get the jump on your opponent. * But over similar time frames having to take the time to charge this up puts the person at more risk so why not a bit more reward. * Since you are at higher risk, you either have defensive utility in your kit and stack the AD and gamble on your skill or you build in some raw defense thereby trading off your 10% bonus anyway.
Except that you can stack the new conqueror almost instantly because it stacks on abilities as well as basic attacks. When it is fully stacked it constantly gives you that damage whereas something like dark harvest or comet will only give you that damage once until the cooldown comes off. I know that not everyone will use it, but any champ that builds even a little tanky will get a big damage bonus and healing bonus, because they will be able to survive the 2 seconds that it will take to stack it. I tested it on a few champions and for someone like Yasuo in late game, it will give around a bonus 60 true damage per basic and the same for healing. Then you have the bonus true damage and healing from all your abilities as well; which adds a couple hundred more true damage and healing per rotation. I guess we will have to see how it plays out, but it seems way to strong. Although Riot loves true damage so I don't think they will nerf it even if it was...
: Patch 9.4 Notes
So conqueror...at max rank it is a free deaths dance that gives 10% bonus true damage and healing instead of the normal 15% healing. That seems way to strong. There isn't a single other rune out there that gives the equivalent of a full item. If you compare it to electrocute which is one of the damage runes, it just gives around 300 damage depending on their tankiness. Most top champs were taking the old conqueror, but now I can't see a reason for any top champion to take anything but conqueror.
: A lot of them stream, that's riots advertising $$$.
> [{quoted}](name=Aametherar,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=B3v0IvMf,comment-id=0002,timestamp=2019-02-19T03:28:03.858+0000) > > A lot of them stream, that's riots advertising $$$. Yes, that makes sense. I guess that is Riot showing their garbage side.
Rioter Comments
Rioter Comments
Rioter Comments
xAcidik (NA)
: ADCs SHOULDN'T have to change their builds to counter tanks. That's literally what they are supposed to do. For Vayne specifically, she was designed to counter tanks even harder than other ADCs. You cannot take an example of an ADC doing their job and use it as a reason they need a nerf.
> [{quoted}](name=xAcidik,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=eL0a4Owy,comment-id=0016,timestamp=2019-02-04T01:52:11.971+0000) > > ADCs SHOULDN'T have to change their builds to counter tanks. That's literally what they are supposed to do. For Vayne specifically, she was designed to counter tanks even harder than other ADCs. You cannot take an example of an ADC doing their job and use it as a reason they need a nerf. They should have to change their build as much as anyone would to counter someone that is fed. The same way you would build armour to counter a fed AD character. My point is that they if they don't have to build armour penetration to counter a tank then they don't lose any damage against anyone else. Which reduces counter-play. Basically the build an ADC has to counter a tank should be different from the build that would counter their opposing ADC.
kargish (EUW)
: You should change the title to "Vayne". The post has no other context.
> [{quoted}](name=kargish,realm=EUW,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=eL0a4Owy,comment-id=000b,timestamp=2019-02-02T22:28:43.288+0000) > > You should change the title to "Vayne". The post has no other context. No, I used Vayne as an example because she is the main culprit but I talking about everyone who can now get a large amount of their damage done as true damage now. Like most ad top laners and ad junglers who feel like building conquer, and all adc's that want to build infinity edge. My point is, if you read my post, that champions don't have to deviate from their preferred build path to counter a tank. It makes tanks far less useful.
: Well there are certain scenarios for certain adcs. You don't pick Jhin into a tanky enemy team, just like how you don't pick Ashe into an assassin enemy comp. Vayne struggles very hard in the late game. You should be abusing that. There's nothing wrong with true damage, as long as it isn't free and easy to acheive. Unless you want a repeat of season 7 tank meta.
> [{quoted}](name=Cotten Eyed Joe,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=eL0a4Owy,comment-id=000c,timestamp=2019-02-03T00:56:26.810+0000) > > Well there are certain scenarios for certain adcs. You don't pick Jhin into a tanky enemy team, just like how you don't pick Ashe into an assassin enemy comp. Vayne struggles very hard in the late game. You should be abusing that. There's nothing wrong with true damage, as long as it isn't free and easy to acheive. Unless you want a repeat of season 7 tank meta. I agree that you should counter pick with the right adc, but almost no one has to build armor pen anymore because of the availability of true damage. At least that's what it feels like. So their build is not hindered at all to counter a threat.
Rioter Comments
: It's balanced dude. I know for a fact you wouldn't be here asking for the same shit if the afks were always on the other team and you were always allied with the smurf players. You win some and you lose some, sometimes it's fair, sometimes it isn't.
> [{quoted}](name=Demon DARK Wolf,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=fVkVkQpo,comment-id=0002,timestamp=2018-12-11T04:52:12.751+0000) > > It's balanced dude. I know for a fact you wouldn't be here asking for the same shit if the afks were always on the other team and you were always allied with the smurf players. You win some and you lose some, sometimes it's fair, sometimes it isn't. No, I still disagree. I don't want to play with smurfs on my team either. If I am going to climb ranked I don't want it to be because of some diamond guy carrying me. Same goes for afk's. Why would I want to play games that are no challenge. All I would ask is that the team with an afk doesn't lose lp.
: I'll answer both questions: For the first, it's "fair" because it's just as supposedly just as likely you'll encounter enemies with an AFK than allies. For the second, I've asked several times on boards and Riot Support, and they actually encourage smurfing. And why wouldn't they? If you buy the same skins on a different account, you're still lining their pockets. They have no financial incentive to crack down on it unless their play rate drops significantly in a way that can be directly linked to smurfs.
> [{quoted}](name=DeceasedL0ved0ne,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=fVkVkQpo,comment-id=0003,timestamp=2018-12-11T04:53:41.871+0000) > > I'll answer both questions: > > For the first, it's "fair" because it's just as supposedly just as likely you'll encounter enemies with an AFK than allies. > > For the second, I've asked several times on boards and Riot Support, and they actually encourage smurfing. And why wouldn't they? If you buy the same skins on a different account, you're still lining their pockets. They have no financial incentive to crack down on it unless their play rate drops significantly in a way that can be directly linked to smurfs. That kinda makes sense except for when you happen to go a lot of games on the bad end of having afk's and never seeing them on the enemy team. It's more of a pain when you lose promos to an afk and then the "fair" afk that comes along on the enemy team is during a game that doesn't really matter. I figured they wouldn't punish smurfing because they care more about money but it's a shame. There are a bunch of people getting stomped and losing ranked games so some guy can get some views on YouTube. Thanks for answering
Rioter Comments
Bazerka (NA)
: One question for you: How do you differentiate between players that were genuinely experiencing network issues (aka the AFK wasn't their fault) vs purposeful AFK's. As people we have an _easier_ time distinguishing this, but computers aren't nearly as good at this. The leaver buster identification could work, but keep in mind Leaver Buster aggregates trends **over time**, which we have actually solved for (see Loss Prevention). The hard part is we don't want to punish people for problems that are out of their control, but we have no way to determine that. Just some thoughts :). Good job on putting some critical thought in this!
Why does it make a difference why they leave in relation to their team losing LP? I understand that if their internet cuts out and the player gets banned or punished that is a huge pain and shouldn't really happen, but that is a different topic. Regardless of the reason they left, the rest of the players on their team shouldn't be punished with an LP loss. After all it is nearly impossible to win 4v5 against a competent enemy team.
Tssua (NA)
: AFK'S
At the very least Riot should stop the losing team that has the afk from losing LP. It is completely absurd to punish everyone for one dude's internet cutting our or just being a plane old toxic quitter.
Rioter Comments
: This actually looks pretty cool. I feel like it'll be a refreshing mode. You can still play regular(ish) league, but on a different map. It'll also be great for when you only have about 20-30 minutes and want to fit in a match without playing aram or risking a 40-60 minute summoner's rift match. {{sticker:slayer-pantheon-thumbs}}
What game are you playing that lasts 40-60 minutes?? Didn't that die in 2016
: Patch 6.1 notes
Riot: "Thunderlords decree synergyzes well with certain champion kits." Also "8-10 champions in every game use thunderlords." I think that should be more like all Champs not certain ones... 😂
Rioter Comments
Rioter Comments
: Just noticed...if void females are larger than void males, then what is a female {{champion:31}} size?
I'm pretty sure Cho' Gath is a girl...
Lyte (NA)
: Rewards for positive play
Check my chat! If you feel like it... I love it when people don't swear at you for every little thing you do wrong, so rewarding these nice people is awesome!

Puffin Chucker

Level 119 (NA)
Lifetime Upvotes
Create a Discussion