: For Season 10 - Riot needs to be honest with themselves about the state of matchmaking.
It is a meta issue, not a matchmaking one. You will never fix the problem tunnelvisioning on matchmaking and trying to make any changes without fixing the meta will only make things worse.
Jamaree (NA)
: My problem is them going full nuclear on the guy for clear what is the sake of money is the problem. I doubt he would have gotten even half the backlash he did if he said something like "Trump is dumb." or some mess. I do agree that people are trying to change the narrative a bit though.
> [{quoted}](name=Jamaree,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=hGeUJkk9,comment-id=0002,timestamp=2019-10-10T06:36:54.548+0000) > > My problem is them going full nuclear on the guy for clear what is the sake of money is the problem. I doubt he would have gotten even half the backlash he did if he said something like "Trump is dumb." or some mess. > > I do agree that people are trying to change the narrative a bit though. Except "trump is dumb" is far from the same level of offense since there isn't really any rioting and looting going on. I would say a far better comparison would be something along the lines of the black-lives-matter/blue-lives-matter issue except cranked up to 12. Considering what happened to prominent sports figures like Kapernick, I really wouldn't doubt esports figures would have faced the same level of punishment if the esports scene back then was as large and the Baltimore riots were worse.
mack9112 (NA)
: Numerous other games you play are also partially owned by Tencent. They invest in alotta stuff dude.
> [{quoted}](name=mack9112,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=32HFhIQu,comment-id=0000,timestamp=2019-10-10T05:06:23.456+0000) > > Numerous other games you play are also partially owned by Tencent. > > They invest in alotta stuff dude. We could always turn to ea...yeah couldn't say that with a straight face.
: I feel bad for Riot's PR team right now.
Eh, i'm sure riot's pr team is use to dealing with the r%%%%%ed aspects of the league community. Keep in mind, idiots were accusing riot of censoring "Hong Kong" despite Hong Kong Attitude being plastered in large print all over the stream before either the blitzchang or the rockets incident. If anything, without the blizzard incident, the conspiracy theorists wouldn't have been as loud and riot's pr team would have been put in an even harder spot in deciding whether or not to acknowledge them. Now, it is a big enough issue that the pr team can actually comment on it and put the issue to rest.
KazKaz (OCE)
: Worlds just isn't doing it this year...
Wait, did we ever hit these numbers for play-ins? Thought stream veiws have been up across the board. The meta sucks but the teams are closer than before which is why there is so much hype this year.
DrDubb (NA)
: Lol I'm done with you, there's no reasoning with you. You keep going to the "world revolves around you" notion, when I make no comment to even suggest this. Grow up, I'm not going to respond again. You keep making about in game mechanics and how every game is so random... but really stats prove otherwise. I understand "20 games" is a small sample size. I really don't understand your point, nor do I want to. You're just arguing to argue without proving any points. "Other people say what I said. I want even try to explain" Then gtfo of my post pls:) other people have it under control!
> [{quoted}](name=DrDubb,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=q6MknWal,comment-id=000d000000000000000100000000000000000000,timestamp=2019-10-05T01:38:41.307+0000) > > Lol I'm done with you, there's no reasoning with you. You keep going to the "world revolves around you" notion, when I make no comment to even suggest this. Grow up, I'm not going to respond again. > You keep making about in game mechanics and how every game is so random... but really stats prove otherwise. > I understand "20 games" is a small sample size. I really don't understand your point, nor do I want to. You're just arguing to argue without proving any points. "Other people say what I said. I want even try to explain" Then gtfo of my post pls:) other people have it under control! That's fine, you are clearly far too stubborn to listen to reason. You have been presented with more than enough evidence your model is bullshit but you are too far up your own ass to accept that you are wrong.
DrDubb (NA)
: Players winrates do spiral out of control, it's called a smurf account. Why are you being matched with masters at all if they're not in you or your duo's league? that's not right, sounds like the game weighted that game against you. Which is my point. You say it's "mathematically impossible" but I'm seeing not math, or even LOGIC to back it up. I think you're using the term wrong. I think you meant to say, "I don't think it's possible". And you claiming matches are so volatile, but also snowball quickly and become one sided fast are contradictory of each other.
> [{quoted}](name=DrDubb,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=q6MknWal,comment-id=000d0000000000000001000000000000,timestamp=2019-10-04T07:45:37.105+0000) > > Players winrates do spiral out of control, it's called a smurf account. > > Why are you being matched with masters at all if they're not in you or your duo's league? that's not right, sounds like the game weighted that game against you. Which is my point. > > You say it's "mathematically impossible" but I'm seeing not math, or even LOGIC to back it up. I think you're using the term wrong. I think you meant to say, "I don't think it's possible". > > And you claiming matches are so volatile, but also snowball quickly and become one sided fast are contradictory of each other. Smurf accounts don’t spiral out of control. They always regress towards 50% once they hit the correct mmr. Also, I didn’t bother outlining the logic because it is already being explained to you by other people in this topic. The key to understanding matchmaking is realizing that there are 10 players every game, not just yourself. There is nothing inherently special about your account, matchmaking treats every account the same way. As a result, the only way to maintain any semblance of balance in the hypersnowball meta we are in is for matchmaking to pull 10 players of the same skill (and average skill for duo queue). In any other model, such as the one which you are proposing, the inherent imbalance between both team would make snowbally even worse and lead to lopsided win rates of accounts that gets worse as we move away from 1200 elo. I would encourage you to reread some of the points brought up by other people here instead of just dismissing anything that goes against your own views. They will help you build a more complete idea of how matchmaking works and in turn make it obvious why a model like the one you are proposing is impossible to apply on a large scale.
DrDubb (NA)
: When I look at stats, and the 3 players are blatantly better in all regards, that's how you tell. When I look at stats and every person on their team has a hard time staying positive in their match history, and every player on my team has been d \oing well in their match history, that's how I can tell. I stated that this was an "unintentional result" of the current matchmaking system. I don't believe the matchmaking is trying to "figure" anything out.
> [{quoted}](name=DrDubb,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=q6MknWal,comment-id=000d00000000000000010000,timestamp=2019-10-04T06:09:20.195+0000) > > When I look at stats, and the 3 players are blatantly better in all regards, that's how you tell. When I look at stats and every person on their team has a hard time staying positive in their match history, and every player on my team has been d \oing well in their match history, that's how I can tell. > I stated that this was an "unintentional result" of the current matchmaking system. I don't believe the matchmaking is trying to "figure" anything out. That doesn’t mean anything because everyone was playing against different players. I wouldn’t do very well if I faced master players for the past 10 games but that doesn’t mean I am worse than someone with better stats in bronze. Also, you can’t have matchmaking “unintentionally” create the issues you are describing and still keep so many players win rate between 40-60%. That is simply mathematically impossible. Matches are already so volatile that if the teams aren’t relatively even at the start, players win rates would spiral out of control on both the high and low end.
DrDubb (NA)
: When the matchmaking stacks a team with ALL blatantly better players, wouldn't you say that has nothing to do with meta?
> [{quoted}](name=DrDubb,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=q6MknWal,comment-id=000d000000000000,timestamp=2019-10-04T04:06:36.040+0000) > > When the matchmaking stacks a team with ALL blatantly better players, wouldn't you say that has nothing to do with meta? How would matchmaking even figure that out in this meta? Games are too volition to determine the better player until after the game starts and a human goes over the replay. Measures like w/l, kda, cs lose meaning in this meta. The variance in any player’s individual play from game to game is wider than the mmr bracket of each game. As a result, it is impossible to predetermine games.
DrDubb (NA)
: But that's not what I am experiencing. It's not that just one team snowballed and the other team didn't have a chance to come back, that's not the problem with what's happening. The problem is that it was predetermined in champ select which team would snowball by the matchmaker blatantly stacking a team to be better INSTEAD of balancing out the teams. I blatantly see this happening.
> [{quoted}](name=DrDubb,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=q6MknWal,comment-id=000d0000,timestamp=2019-10-04T03:01:23.595+0000) > > But that's not what I am experiencing. It's not that just one team snowballed and the other team didn't have a chance to come back, that's not the problem with what's happening. > The problem is that it was predetermined in champ select which team would snowball by the matchmaker blatantly stacking a team to be better INSTEAD of balancing out the teams. I blatantly see this happening. The Mets is far too volition for matchmaking to predetermine anything. The “better” team is simply losing too many games due to the snowbally nature of the meta.
Dasdi96 (NA)
: > [{quoted}](name=haaaaaaalp,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=0Eca6rUb,comment-id=0005,timestamp=2019-10-04T01:29:07.307+0000) > > He is very weak pre-6 and can’t do much beyond one shot a single target even if he does get rolling. Not with his constant undodgable poke.
> [{quoted}](name=Dasdi96,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=0Eca6rUb,comment-id=00050000,timestamp=2019-10-04T01:30:36.924+0000) > > Not with his constant undodgable poke. Which deals half as much damage and costs twice as much mana as a standard mage’s combo.
Dasdi96 (NA)
: I am getting so sick of this AP malphite shit.
He is very weak pre-6 and can’t do much beyond one shot a single target even if he does get rolling. Instead of focusing on counterplay when he gets his items, press your edge before he gets there.
: So win rates don’t mean anything. Ban rates don’t mean anything Pick rates don’t mean anything And gameplay doesn’t mean anything. Soooooo HOW ARE WE SUPPOSE TO JUDGE ANYTHING
> [{quoted}](name=The thigh guy,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=9nFFdfVl,comment-id=0002,timestamp=2019-10-04T01:11:20.701+0000) > > So win rates don’t mean anything. > Ban rates don’t mean anything > Pick rates don’t mean anything > And gameplay doesn’t mean anything. > > Soooooo HOW ARE WE SUPPOSE TO JUDGE ANYTHING They matter for balance, they just don’t matter for matchmaking. MMR matters for matchmaking. Winrates/pickrates/banrates matter for game balance and design. Simple enough.
DrDubb (NA)
: Ranked Matches Feel Predetermined
Meta snowballs far too hard to be pre-determined. Weaker teams are constantly winning off of snowballing small leads into stomps to the point that I doubt any system can predict the outcome of games before they start.
Nea104 (EUW)
: > [{quoted}](name=Kai Guy,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=KEFFbONc,comment-id=0001,timestamp=2019-10-03T21:13:33.056+0000) > > You are just trying to explain how a **flawed** system works. Even if you're correct, the system still is not fine. * That game ended **11 - 29** , with a **10k+** gold difference (25 minutes, btw). It has been a disgusting stomp, and everyone could have told that just by looking at the initial team rosters. Since Riot is not fixing anything, and since this kind of one-sided matches are so **frequent**, it's all intentional.
> [{quoted}](name=Nea104,realm=EUW,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=KEFFbONc,comment-id=00010000,timestamp=2019-10-03T21:58:48.881+0000) > > You are just trying to explain how a **flawed** system works. Even if you're correct, the system still is not fine. > > * That game ended **11 - 29** , with a **10k+** gold difference (25 minutes, btw). > > It has been a disgusting stomp, and everyone could have told that just by looking at the initial team rosters. Since Riot is not fixing anything, and since this kind of one-sided matches are so **frequent**, it's all intentional. That isn’t the matchmaking system. Every game in this meta is a huge stomp.
: League isn't the most played because its good, its the most played because its beginner friendly (way more casuals than tryhards in the world btw) and WAS (big emphasis on this) ran by a great company. Its much more action-based and much less strategy-based than pretty much the only other MOBA around at its release: DotA. All of the other beginner friendly MOBAs were ran by horrible companies that ran them into the ground, like HotS and Smite. DotA is by far the better game at this point. Its pretty much always had better competitive presence, viewership, and even prizepool (you can't begin to argue that Riot can't afford to give their players respectable prizepools at this point). However, it takes a LOT of practice to get into, which is why a lot of people play LoL over DotA. There's also the very stupid assumption that because you play LoL, you HAVE to choose LoL and LoL alone; that DotA is evil and deserves no recognition because LoL. Before there was a real argument for LoL>DotA, but now the only argument for LoL is accessibility. Matchmaking is terrible, gameplay is now terrible, competitive scene is now terrible...just everything about LoL is bad now. ____________________ If you want proof of how DotA is good but people don't have the attention span to learn it, look at how many people go to try DotA and immediately dismiss it because they can't handle the controls, which are BARELY different, and can't handle fighting for last hits over denies.
> [{quoted}](name=WoonStruck,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=INimzeAa,comment-id=0007,timestamp=2019-09-23T00:16:03.098+0000) > > League isn't the most played because its good, its the most played because its beginner friendly (way more casuals than tryhards in the world btw) and WAS (big emphasis on this) ran by a great company. Its much more action-based and much less strategy-based than pretty much the only other MOBA around at its release: DotA. All of the other beginner friendly MOBAs were ran by horrible companies that ran them into the ground, like HotS and Smite. > > DotA is by far the better game at this point. Its pretty much always had better competitive presence, viewership, and even prizepool (you can't begin to argue that Riot can't afford to give their players respectable prizepools at this point). However, it takes a LOT of practice to get into, which is why a lot of people play LoL over DotA. There's also the very stupid assumption that because you play LoL, you HAVE to choose LoL and LoL alone; that DotA is evil and deserves no recognition because LoL. > > Before there was a real argument for LoL>DotA, but now the only argument for LoL is accessibility. Matchmaking is terrible, gameplay is now terrible, competitive scene is now terrible...just everything about LoL is bad now. > > ____________________ > > If you want proof of how DotA is good but people don't have the attention span to learn it, look at how many people go to try DotA and immediately dismiss it because they can't handle the controls, which are BARELY different, and can't handle fighting for last hits over denies. Dota also has a big problem of valve not caring. Matchmaking in dota is worse, problematic champions are allowed to stay problematic longer, and the competitive scene outside of ti sucks. The way valve dealt with the tnc situation in china major is an absolute embarrassment to any competitive esports scene. The main driving force behind dota is that it is a better game than league and ti is far better than worlds can ever hope for but everything around it is falling apart much worse than anything in league is. Oh and scripting is a larger problem.
: Guaranteed Loss Matchmaking
In the current meta, there isn’t.
Zemasu (EUW)
: Riot still don't get a thing about little legends
You don't seem to understand how little legends work. You aren't the target audience and you aren't suppose to buy them. Riot doesn't care if you don't spend money on them because someone else will spend 4x the money you would have spent.
Kai Guy (NA)
: I don't mind the paywall, imo cosmetic in nature so that's fine. I just don't want it to be a RNG paywall. I strongly dislike that. Idiots in the community will always be idiots in the community. Customer service jobs generate misanthropes for a reason. You know how may folks think food profit margins should only be at 50% of the products ingredient cost? One misfire and your in debut cuz your overheads not being covered. Tell some one an appetizer on the menu has 85% profit margin and man folks get tilted. End of the day most people only want what benefits themselves.
> [{quoted}](name=Kai Guy,realm=NA,application-id=RaE1aOE7,discussion-id=96mFEwIq,comment-id=000200000000000000000000,timestamp=2019-09-07T05:09:10.031+0000) > > I don't mind the paywall, imo cosmetic in nature so that's fine. I just don't want it to be a RNG paywall. I strongly dislike that. i guess that is just down to preference. I prefer a lower price point with rng as opposed to a higher one although I don't mind one way or the other. Just keep cosmetics paid content so we don't have to deal with idiots qqing about not getting enough free stuff every time daily missions change or crap like that.
Kai Guy (NA)
: Then sell them like skins + chromas and have the level be something that grows from playing and not rng $ throwen at it. Hell make Lil legend skins for extra revenue. Halloween is just around the corner. Riot can have Lil legends be a alternative stream of income with out making the entire thing free with out the RNG. If this comes as a higher RP to it, I feel its a fair trade off over the # of rolls needed to get what you like from RNG.
> [{quoted}](name=Kai Guy,realm=NA,application-id=RaE1aOE7,discussion-id=96mFEwIq,comment-id=0002000000000000,timestamp=2019-09-06T17:30:18.488+0000) > > Then sell them like skins + chromas and have the level be something that grows from playing and not rng $ throwen at it. > > Hell make Lil legend skins for extra revenue. Halloween is just around the corner. > > Riot can have Lil legends be a alternative stream of income with out making the entire thing free with out the RNG. > If this comes as a higher RP to it, I feel its a fair trade off over the # of rolls needed to get what you like from RNG. What will that accomplish? All you will do is get the community to get greedier and ask for more free stuff next month. We went though this when riot started to give out skins for free. The community cannot be trusted to act rationally when it comes to anything related to money. Remember, these are the same idiots who convinced themselves riot was being greedy for NOT trying to take back gemstones they accidentally gave away. Just keep little legends behind a pay wall and avoid all of the headache.
Kai Guy (NA)
: I dislike the current model. To much like EA.
> [{quoted}](name=Kai Guy,realm=NA,application-id=RaE1aOE7,discussion-id=96mFEwIq,comment-id=00020000,timestamp=2019-09-06T07:20:30.145+0000) > > I dislike the current model. To much like EA. Doesn't mean we should make things even worse.
Kai Guy (NA)
: Add an EXP to Little legends that grows with getting 1st place.
They will until riot stops supporting it due to not generating enough money from little legends. Realistically, the best thing for tft is to keep gameplay fully free and little legends fully paid content. Look at what happened with skins when riot moved away from fully paid content. The community just got greedier and greedier over time and expect more and more cosmetic content to be free. Giving the community free content paradoxically ended up being worse than simply keeping it behind a pay wall. Little legends are a small enough cosmetic feature that I don't think most tft players care if they are free and the headache of trying to make them partially free is simply not worth the trade off.
Jamaree (NA)
: Because with situation two, people will entice, bully, demand, coerce, etc, people to afk to not lose LP?
> [{quoted}](name=Jamaree,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=FLqo4c8N,comment-id=0000,timestamp=2019-09-04T02:15:37.104+0000) > > Because with situation two, people will entice, bully, demand, coerce, etc, people to afk to not lose LP? Players who want to win have the exact same motivations to bully, demand, coerse, etc, people on the other team to afk.
Jakra (EUW)
: Reminder: Loot boxes for Little Legends are completely unnecessary and counter intuitive.
TT and hots both failed because the gameplay sucked. There was no loot boxes attached to tt and it was still canned. TFT's future will always be dependent solely on the base gameplay and not the monetization model for useless cosmetics. Loot boxes existing won't kill tft. What could tft is if riot removed loot boxes and saw a dip from profits from little legends causing them to invest less time into tft's gameplay.
SEKAI (OCE)
: > [{quoted}](name=FOR JUSTICE,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=95ceEGAZ,comment-id=0002,timestamp=2019-09-03T03:11:58.246+0000) > > baseline MMR for all new accounts is silver 3 (shifted up slightly due to the new influx of players in gold this season). > > being that a silver 3 player can in fact matchmake with a gold 4 player, yes, by definition of how mmr works. The question then becomes, why are new players given Silver mmr? If Bronze used to be the pit and so new Ranked players were instead placed in Silver, then with the advent of Iron why is new Ranked players still placed in Silver and not in Bronze? Also, Silver 3 matching with Gold 4 is still pretty questionable. With the abundance of players between Silver 3 and Gold 4, it shouldn't even be a thing that happens beyond outliner and the occasional cases. Hell, I have no issues being matched with players who are mostly pretty close to my rank in odd hours, and in OCE too with our tiny playerbase, so I don't think it's even reasonable to assume matching Silver 3 with Gold 4 is all that cool on servers like NA.
> [{quoted}](name=SEKAI,realm=OCE,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=95ceEGAZ,comment-id=00020000,timestamp=2019-09-03T03:23:36.861+0000) > > The question then becomes, why are new players given Silver mmr? > > If Bronze used to be the pit and so new Ranked players were instead placed in Silver, then with the advent of Iron why is new Ranked players still placed in Silver and not in Bronze? > > Also, Silver 3 matching with Gold 4 is still pretty questionable. With the abundance of players between Silver 3 and Gold 4, it shouldn't even be a thing that happens beyond outliner and the occasional cases. Hell, I have no issues being matched with players who are mostly pretty close to my rank in odd hours, and in OCE too with our tiny playerbase, so I don't think it's even reasonable to assume matching Silver 3 with Gold 4 is all that cool on servers like NA. Because in you can't sustain a ladder where every new player is added at the bottom of the mmr. No matter what mmr you set as the entry point, that will become the middle of the mmr ladder in 1-2 seasons.
: Why am I doing placements with 500+ games d4 hardstucks ?
The other players in that mmr range aren’t any better. They on average are only maintaining a 50% winrate against the “hardstuck” players.
: > [{quoted}](name=haaaaaaalp,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=X2bAk39T,comment-id=00000002000000000000,timestamp=2019-08-26T07:16:41.687+0000) > > That is just bullshit. Akali had 4.1% pick rate and 50.6% winrate prior to her rework. That puts both her pick and win rate right smack in the middle of all 140 champions. She had received many buffs prior without breaking her and was easily balanced just by shaving some numbers off of her kit. The biggest problem pre-rework akali had was when riot put too much sustain onto her passive making her too good against melee laners but that was fixed with a simple numbers nerf. > > The old akali has never been as problematic as the current iteration and her banrate was consistently a half or a third of her pick rate (as opposed to the current iteration running banrates 2x and even 3x her pick rate). I don't know where you are getting this 4.1 pick rate from since that is not true https://www.leagueofgraphs.com/champions/stats/akali/middle Her play rate was around 2% for almost ever. Also ban rate does not mean a champ is unfun. Like 80% of bans are because a champ is good. Only a small part of bans are because people hate a champion. Pls stop lying about Akali,
> [{quoted}](name=boricCentaur1,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=X2bAk39T,comment-id=000000020000000000000000,timestamp=2019-08-26T15:59:25.231+0000) > > I don't know where you are getting this 4.1 pick rate from since that is not true > https://www.leagueofgraphs.com/champions/stats/akali/middle > > Her play rate was around 2% for almost ever. > > Also ban rate does not mean a champ is unfun. Like 80% of bans are because a champ is good. > Only a small part of bans are because people hate a champion. > Pls stop lying about Akali, Change your settings to all roles. She was played mid and top prior to rework, using only her mid stats is dishonest and only captures half of her pick rate. Also, banrate in a vacuum doesn’t mean anything but ban rate in relation to pick and winrate says a lot. Akali had a very low ban rate despite average pick and winrate prior to her rework. Her new banrate are far out of perportion to her solo queue performance.
: > [{quoted}](name=Anime Fizz,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=X2bAk39T,comment-id=000000020000,timestamp=2019-08-26T01:16:22.558+0000) > > "more problematic" > > Around 50~51% wr on its last iteration (with a fairly decent skillcap for mains). > > Kind of low pickrate. > > Close to 0 ban rate. > > So a good champ for mains without being so bad to play against that it needed to be banned every game. > > Not saying it was the pinnacle of good design, but man it was a lot more healthy than the current akali. Almost no pickrate,could NEVER be buffed or changed without breaking her, 0 banrate since she was bad. Like are you trolling. Like she had a winrate that was ok because she could carry easily without much skill she could snowball very hard.
> [{quoted}](name=boricCentaur1,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=X2bAk39T,comment-id=0000000200000000,timestamp=2019-08-26T02:13:01.956+0000) > > Almost no pickrate,could NEVER be buffed or changed without breaking her, 0 banrate since she was bad. That is just bullshit. Akali had 4.1% pick rate and 50.6% winrate prior to her rework. That puts both her pick and win rate right smack in the middle of all 140 champions. She had received many buffs prior without breaking her and was easily balanced just by shaving some numbers off of her kit. The biggest problem pre-rework akali had was when riot put too much sustain onto her passive making her too good against melee laners but that was fixed with a simple numbers nerf. The old akali has never been as problematic as the current iteration and her banrate was consistently a half or a third of her pick rate (as opposed to the current iteration running banrates 2x and even 3x her pick rate).
: > [{quoted}](name=haaaaaaalp,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=YAQMBKVq,comment-id=000000000000000000000000000000000000,timestamp=2019-08-23T05:45:25.127+0000) > > Ranked and mmr are very different when accounts have low games. MMR for new accounts start at around the 50% mark of the ranked ladder and move up or down. Rank starts at iron and moves up. If a player is already bronze after just 12 games, it means that they won their early games which have a higher K value so they are at or above the 50% mark of the ladder in terms of mmr (which depending on the server is usually high silver but can be gold 5 for some). > > When riot initially adopted the ranked system over elo back in 2013, notice how they describe it. They claimed they wanted to give "greater sense of progression for newcomers" and when they refereed to hiding the mmr, they claimed they wanted to "move away from focusing on a single number as the core indicator of a player’s skill." This should tell you all you need to know as to what riot designed MMR to do and what riot designed ranked to do. They are for two very different goals and over the past years, riot has implemented more ways for accounts, especially ones with low games played, to have vastly different mmrs and ranks. This is especially apparent in new accounts which have MMR in the high silver range meaning they can show up in low gold games while having ranks in the iron or bronze ranks. > > Also, I cannot emphasize this enough. Stop bringing up rank in a discussion about mmr. Rank is completely meaningless for matchmaking. You just described what mmr and rank represent for new accounts. So what this says is that after enough games your rank and mmr even out. So when I see the lower ranked people they normally have very few games under their belts and that explains why I would get people with such lower ranks. So now that you've explained MMR helps new accounts, MMR differs from ranked in new accounts, my question remains.... Why not use actual rank to pair with people? I get your view of ranked as an achievement due to the fact that MMR gives a greater sense of progression to new comers (new accounts). Your point of riot wanting to move away from focusing on a single number as the core indicator of a player’s skill means there was and is other methods of determining skill, like for example...RANKS lol. A pro team won't pick someone up based on their MMR?, they probably grab people off tournament success, high rank, and/or visual proof of their skills. I don't think anyone ever has become a pro off MMR unless they were top tiered ranked and there are secret levels of MMR that go past the constructs of the ranking system so I would say that it might be a factor in determining someone with very few games true skill but over time it somewhat evens out within reason. It actually seems like a system that benefits smurfs that have very high rank in other accounts... Accounts with a high amount of games are typically evened out with their MMR anyways and are paired with me it's only when I see new accounts that lower ranks join my games<< You can't argue that the higher your MMR goes...the higher your rank goes can you?? I don't think you can because even though both may have different mechanics on how they work, they both go up the same way.....by winning and being a factor in the wins to the degree that you win unwinnable games to those of lesser skill.
> [{quoted}](name=MustardTigerMK,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=YAQMBKVq,comment-id=0000000000000000000000000000000000000000,timestamp=2019-08-25T02:47:03.131+0000) > > You just described what mmr and rank represent for new accounts. So what this says is that after enough games your rank and mmr even out. > > So when I see the lower ranked people they normally have very few games under their belts and that explains why I would get people with such lower ranks. > > So now that you've explained MMR helps new accounts, MMR differs from ranked in new accounts, my question remains.... > > Why not use actual rank to pair with people? Because that would lead to more unbalanced games. Ranked is not a measure of skill and functions poorly for matchmaking reasons. > I get your view of ranked as an achievement due to the fact that MMR gives a greater sense of progression to new comers (new accounts). Your point of riot wanting to move away from focusing on a single number as the core indicator of a player’s skill means there was and is other methods of determining skill, like for example...RANKS lol. No, ranks have never been a way to determine skill. There are other methods for determining skill used across other games such as elo, mmr, true skill, etc. However, rank/lp is not one of those methods for determining skill. >A pro team won't pick someone up based on their MMR?, they probably grab people off tournament success, high rank, and/or visual proof of their skills. I don't think anyone ever has become a pro off MMR unless they were top tiered ranked and there are secret levels of MMR that go past the constructs of the ranking system so I would say that it might be a factor in determining someone with very few games true skill but over time it somewhat evens out within reason. It actually seems like a system that benefits smurfs that have very high rank in other accounts... SKT was originally formed by taking a bunch of players with the highest mmr they could find. That being said, pro play exists outside of the ranked solo ladder so I'm not sure why that would be relevant. > Accounts with a high amount of games are typically evened out with their MMR anyways and are paired with me it's only when I see new accounts that lower ranks join my games<< > > You can't argue that the higher your MMR goes...the higher your rank goes can you?? I don't think you can because even though both may have different mechanics on how they work, they both go up the same way.....by winning and being a factor in the wins to the degree that you win unwinnable games to those of lesser skill. As time goes on, mmr and rank get closer but matchmaking has to work for everyone, not just those players with many games.
: Riot, since you clearly don't understand, let me tell you exactly what you're missing.
They realize you don't want them. They also realize there are other people who will pay money for them whether or not you are happy.
: Instead of gutting a champion because of pro play, how about just banning them?
Tahm was just as bad if not worse in solo queue. Same could apply to 80-90% of the pro play champions that got nerfed.
GigglesO (NA)
: Stat Tracking...
You already have stat tracking for free from any one of the free third party apps or just going on the api yourself. You are paying rp for the mastery emote, not stat tracking.
: > [{quoted}](name=haaaaaaalp,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=YAQMBKVq,comment-id=0000000000000000000000000000,timestamp=2019-08-22T13:44:40.038+0000) > > You talk about rank but you keep forgetting rank is not a measure of skill. I don't care about who got what rank, that is meaningless when looking at individual players. Rank only matters when you talk about the population in general. > > New accounts start around the average mmr of the ladder which is probably in high silver right now. However, their ranks are set to iron which creates a huge gap between their mmr, a measure of skill, and rank, a measure of achievement. Also, accounts which played games last season had their mmr soft reset while their rank just went down an entire tier. This basically means that looking at ranks for accounts for 12 games is completely meaningless because there is a huge difference between the player's skill and their rank after only 12 games. > > Take a minute. Stop looking at ranks. Stop posting about ranks. Stop thinking about ranks. They are useless for this discussion and you need to just stop. Are you like dumb or something? Everyone on my team was unranked last season FYI. You're telling me a bronze player unranked last season with 12 games played and a 42% WR has a gold or higher MMR? I'm also saying that maybe rank should be looked at and maybe they should match make based off rank? How is MMR calculated? Is it not the amount of games you win? It seems very similar to the LP system...you win games your LP goes up.... you win games your MMR goes up. Can you explain exactly how they differ other than one is an achievement and one is a measure of skill... where is your proof of this? Where did you get the idea that mmr is strictly a measure of skill and ranks are achievements? I've literally never heard that but I know usually your mmr is on par with rank or slightly higher. After a certain amount of games if you maintain a plat mmr you'll eventually be plat with a plat mmr (unless you continue to progress) If anything rank and mmr seems exactly alike and rank reflects your mmr to a certain degree give or take a few rank tiers. Can you maybe provide an example of someone in bronze with a plat mmr? With 1000 games played? Probably not.
> [{quoted}](name=MustardTigerMK,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=YAQMBKVq,comment-id=00000000000000000000000000000000,timestamp=2019-08-22T23:24:38.091+0000) > > Are you like dumb or something? Everyone on my team was unranked last season FYI. > > You're telling me a bronze player unranked last season with 12 games played and a 42% WR has a gold or higher MMR? > > I'm also saying that maybe rank should be looked at and maybe they should match make based off rank? > > How is MMR calculated? Is it not the amount of games you win? It seems very similar to the LP system...you win games your LP goes up.... you win games your MMR goes up. > > Can you explain exactly how they differ other than one is an achievement and one is a measure of skill... where is your proof of this? > > Where did you get the idea that mmr is strictly a measure of skill and ranks are achievements? I've literally never heard that but I know usually your mmr is on par with rank or slightly higher. > > After a certain amount of games if you maintain a plat mmr you'll eventually be plat with a plat mmr (unless you continue to progress) > > If anything rank and mmr seems exactly alike and rank reflects your mmr to a certain degree give or take a few rank tiers. > > Can you maybe provide an example of someone in bronze with a plat mmr? With 1000 games played? Probably not. Ranked and mmr are very different when accounts have low games. MMR for new accounts start at around the 50% mark of the ranked ladder and move up or down. Rank starts at iron and moves up. If a player is already bronze after just 12 games, it means that they won their early games which have a higher K value so they are at or above the 50% mark of the ladder in terms of mmr (which depending on the server is usually high silver but can be gold 5 for some). When riot initially adopted the ranked system over elo back in 2013, notice how they describe it. They claimed they wanted to give "greater sense of progression for newcomers" and when they refereed to hiding the mmr, they claimed they wanted to "move away from focusing on a single number as the core indicator of a player’s skill." This should tell you all you need to know as to what riot designed MMR to do and what riot designed ranked to do. They are for two very different goals and over the past years, riot has implemented more ways for accounts, especially ones with low games played, to have vastly different mmrs and ranks. This is especially apparent in new accounts which have MMR in the high silver range meaning they can show up in low gold games while having ranks in the iron or bronze ranks. Also, I cannot emphasize this enough. Stop bringing up rank in a discussion about mmr. Rank is completely meaningless for matchmaking.
Lapis (OCE)
: What's so different between how pro players play, and how challenger players play in soloQ?
Ping makes a pretty large difference in a moba like league. Solo queue in general doesn't follow pro play but servers with very low pings such as korea tends to have the same champions doing well as in pro play since a lot of korea is on very low ping.
: > [{quoted}](name=haaaaaaalp,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=YAQMBKVq,comment-id=00000000000000000000,timestamp=2019-08-22T03:19:40.325+0000) > > You have it backwards. MMR is a measure of your skill. Rank is a measure of achievement. Occasionally, rank and mmr are similar in which case a player's rank is similar to their skill level. However, these two values are not the same and you can easily see plat ranked players with mid to high diamond mmr who are more skilled than a diamond player with low diamond mmr. So I just played another game, I'll set the scene. I just made G2 after failing promos about 4 times, I win a game, lose a game, win a game, lose two now I'm at 0 LP. Explain why matchmaking did this and if you say MMR then I will likely snap lol I have a picture of it that I could email to anyone interested.... Tell me how this is balanced, G3, BRONZE1(12 games played 42% WR), Silver3(also 12 games played oddly enough), an Unranked, G2(myself) was one team and you could argue I lost a couple so maybe my mmr stinks and I'm paired with these guys, no worries the teams are probably balanced right and they have a bronze as well for some reason. Well if you think the other team would have some weights to them you'd be wrong because the other team consisted of G4(0LP so maybe low MMR I'll allow it), G3(had 1 game won in promos so on an upswing rlly), S1 (Also on promos with 1 win) G2(0LP), G3(1LP) So on what level is it balanced to have all gold players with a lot of games played against a bronze with 12 games, an unranked and a silver with 12 games? How does MMR come into play here and see this as balanced? Was the Twisted Fate with 0 games played with the champ Jungler have high MMR? Like Diamond MMR? Doubt it because he wasn't very good... This is also a very important game for me because I was about to be demoted if I had lost....which I did obviously. I was head and shoulders the best player in the game in terms of dodging and skill shots but I get demoted while they're being promoted. The matchmaking is hella broken clearly. Can you explain a Bronze 1 with 12 games being in a gold match? Like if we had a plat and he was duo for some reason or even a G1 something like this but come on.....Maybe they should stop using MMR because it's a bullsht formula and pair people with their respective ranks. If your skill is higher than your rank then you'll go up in rank and play at your skill level. Why are we match making off a magic formula that nobody understands and that I don't even think I have access to ? I don't see my imaginary rank on my in game client anywhere I just see my actual rank. It's complete bullsht and I recently got a chat restriction and magically enough I get two games within the span of 10 games played with silvers and bronzes on my team against stacked gold teams....Riot is a controlling giant baby who targets people out of spite and if you go against them they'll ban you or maybe lay some workplace harassment on ya...it's in their culture to be bullies pretending to be good guys....It's a money make scheme that so happens to have a fun element to it of playing a "game"
> [{quoted}](name=MustardTigerMK,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=YAQMBKVq,comment-id=000000000000000000000000,timestamp=2019-08-22T13:36:35.519+0000) > > So I just played another game, I'll set the scene. I just made G2 after failing promos about 4 times, I win a game, lose a game, win a game, lose two now I'm at 0 LP. > > Explain why matchmaking did this and if you say MMR then I will likely snap lol > > I have a picture of it that I could email to anyone interested.... > > Tell me how this is balanced, > > G3, BRONZE1(12 games played 42% WR), Silver3(also 12 games played oddly enough), an Unranked, G2(myself) was one team and you could argue I lost a couple so maybe my mmr stinks and I'm paired with these guys, no worries the teams are probably balanced right and they have a bronze as well for some reason. > > Well if you think the other team would have some weights to them you'd be wrong because the other team consisted of > > G4(0LP so maybe low MMR I'll allow it), G3(had 1 game won in promos so on an upswing rlly), S1 (Also on promos with 1 win) G2(0LP), G3(1LP) > > So on what level is it balanced to have all gold players with a lot of games played against a bronze with 12 games, an unranked and a silver with 12 games? How does MMR come into play here and see this as balanced? Was the Twisted Fate with 0 games played with the champ Jungler have high MMR? Like Diamond MMR? Doubt it because he wasn't very good... > > This is also a very important game for me because I was about to be demoted if I had lost....which I did obviously. I was head and shoulders the best player in the game in terms of dodging and skill shots but I get demoted while they're being promoted. > > The matchmaking is hella broken clearly. Can you explain a Bronze 1 with 12 games being in a gold match? Like if we had a plat and he was duo for some reason or even a G1 something like this but come on.....Maybe they should stop using MMR because it's a bullsht formula and pair people with their respective ranks. If your skill is higher than your rank then you'll go up in rank and play at your skill level. Why are we match making off a magic formula that nobody understands and that I don't even think I have access to ? I don't see my imaginary rank on my in game client anywhere I just see my actual rank. > > It's complete bullsht and I recently got a chat restriction and magically enough I get two games within the span of 10 games played with silvers and bronzes on my team against stacked gold teams....Riot is a controlling giant baby who targets people out of spite and if you go against them they'll ban you or maybe lay some workplace harassment on ya...it's in their culture to be bullies pretending to be good guys....It's a money make scheme that so happens to have a fun element to it of playing a "game" You talk about rank but you keep forgetting rank is not a measure of skill. I don't care about who got what rank, that is meaningless when looking at individual players. Rank only matters when you talk about the population in general. New accounts start around the average mmr of the ladder which is probably in high silver right now. However, their ranks are set to iron which creates a huge gap between their mmr, a measure of skill, and rank, a measure of achievement. Also, accounts which played games last season had their mmr soft reset while their rank just went down an entire tier. This basically means that looking at ranks for accounts for 12 games is completely meaningless because there is a huge difference between the player's skill and their rank after only 12 games. Take a minute. Stop looking at ranks. Stop posting about ranks. Stop thinking about ranks. They are useless for this discussion and you need to just stop.
floo (EUW)
: > [{quoted}](name=haaaaaaalp,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=H7fWVua4,comment-id=000200000000000100000000,timestamp=2019-08-22T11:40:50.980+0000) > > Being hated for this long despite multiple changes means the kit is fundamentally broken. She is one of the few champions who can be weak in solo queue and still banned because of how terrible her design is. By that logic Yasuo has to have the most broken kit out there and yet he's being treated like Riot's wonderchild.
> [{quoted}](name=floo,realm=EUW,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=H7fWVua4,comment-id=0002000000000001000000000000,timestamp=2019-08-22T12:57:14.468+0000) > > By that logic Yasuo has to have the most broken kit out there and yet he's being treated like Riot's wonderchild. Oh, there is no denying he is just as bad. Technically, I think akali does outdo him a bit since she gets higher banrates at comparable winrates but yasuo maintains a higher winrate most of the time so it is hard to tell.
Lapis (OCE)
: > [{quoted}](name=haaaaaaalp,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=H7fWVua4,comment-id=0002000000000001,timestamp=2019-08-22T11:33:29.956+0000) > > A champion who has 20-30% banrate despite a 47% winrate is fundamentally broken. Ranked players would rather waste a ban on akali despite the fact that it will actively hurt their own winrate because of how much they hate akali. This is after countless changes to try to salvage akali's current kit. Her banrate is completely unacceptable given how much riot has tried to improve her design and paints the picture of a champion's design that is broken beyond repair. Being hated =/= being broken. She's annoying, sure, I'm not arguing against that.
> [{quoted}](name=Lapis,realm=OCE,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=H7fWVua4,comment-id=00020000000000010000,timestamp=2019-08-22T11:38:29.295+0000) > > Being hated =/= being broken. She's annoying, sure, I'm not arguing against that. Being hated for this long despite multiple changes means the kit is fundamentally broken. She is one of the few champions who can be weak in solo queue and still banned because of how terrible her design is.
: WHERE ARE OUR RORATING GAMEMODES RIOT
That is what tft is suppose to be. It just got too popular for riot to remove so they removed TT instead XD
Lapis (OCE)
: > [{quoted}](name=preternatural,realm=EUW,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=H7fWVua4,comment-id=00020000,timestamp=2019-08-22T11:05:20.820+0000) > > she is objectively broken, she's just severely skill gated. Objectively is a strong thing to claim when it seems that most of it is rooted in pure personal bias. From what I've seen, most people don't like her, they hate playing against her, therefore she is broken. But I'd welcome some facts and numbers to prove what I've seen wrong!
> [{quoted}](name=Lapis,realm=OCE,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=H7fWVua4,comment-id=000200000000,timestamp=2019-08-22T11:07:49.158+0000) > > Objectively is a strong thing to claim when it seems that most of it is rooted in pure personal bias. From what I've seen, most people don't like her, they hate playing against her, therefore she is broken. But I'd welcome some facts and numbers to prove what I've seen wrong! A champion who has 20-30% banrate despite a 47% winrate is fundamentally broken. Ranked players would rather waste a ban on akali despite the fact that it will actively hurt their own winrate because of how much they hate akali. This is after countless changes to try to salvage akali's current kit. Her banrate is completely unacceptable given how much riot has tried to improve her design and paints the picture of a champion's design that is broken beyond repair.
: Let's talk about Akali
Akali needs to be reverted. It was a failure from day 1 and I don't know why riot keeps trying to tinker with her current iteration. Her ult needs to be targeted again, her ms on her passive and her slow needs to go down, and her damage needs to go up. If they want to keep her aoe ability as a cone instead of a circle, that is fine but the rest of her kit is simply not healthy when put together.
: > [{quoted}](name=haaaaaaalp,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=YAQMBKVq,comment-id=000000000000,timestamp=2019-08-21T04:18:06.595+0000) > > Ranked is not a measure of skill, it is a measure of achievement. MMR is a measure of skill. BROOOOO if you're in diamond you are more skilled than someone in plat on average, MMR also reflects your rank to a certain degree (I understand I've had plat MMR as a gold BUT I was on my way to plat aka my rank was about to reflect my skill but I failed promos) If anything I would say MMR reflects how many games you've won in a row or a winning hot streak. I think rank reflects your skills way more than MMR because it is skill that will drive you through the classic 5v1 games you get in promos which is an entirely different topic for me as to why you have to hyper carry to move up in rank, hard to carry as support and YES i know you can but typically I'm there to feed someone who will carry us to victory with me silently helping out with it. You're not going to see someone in bronze with a plat MMR, they might get a silver MMR but if they maintain that they'll achieve silver. MMR on average is slightly higher than your rank so that still shouldn't pair me with silver 4, 2, and an unranked against stacked 5 people in G3-2. Maybe they need to pair ranks together rather than MMR, I want to fight against and with people in Gold to prove I'm slightly better and climb to plat By the time I make promos I'm playing stacked plat teams with gold lowbees... hence matchmaking needs to change, I go on a winning streak and I'm a black sheep expected to carry against plats with gold ppl... MMR BS works both ways, you get lower ranks on your team, when you win you face HIGHER ranked people with the expectation of being able to carry people your rank..... BUT to say MMR isn't very similar to ranked or reflect potential rank is silliness so rank is a reflection of skill as well as an achievement ..
> [{quoted}](name=MustardTigerMK,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=YAQMBKVq,comment-id=0000000000000000,timestamp=2019-08-21T16:50:17.773+0000) > > BROOOOO if you're in diamond you are more skilled than someone in plat on average, MMR also reflects your rank to a certain degree (I understand I've had plat MMR as a gold BUT I was on my way to plat aka my rank was about to reflect my skill but I failed promos) > > If anything I would say MMR reflects how many games you've won in a row or a winning hot streak. > > I think rank reflects your skills way more than MMR because it is skill that will drive you through the classic 5v1 games you get in promos which is an entirely different topic for me as to why you have to hyper carry to move up in rank, hard to carry as support and YES i know you can but typically I'm there to feed someone who will carry us to victory with me silently helping out with it. > > You're not going to see someone in bronze with a plat MMR, they might get a silver MMR but if they maintain that they'll achieve silver. MMR on average is slightly higher than your rank so that still shouldn't pair me with silver 4, 2, and an unranked against stacked 5 people in G3-2. > > Maybe they need to pair ranks together rather than MMR, I want to fight against and with people in Gold to prove I'm slightly better and climb to plat > > > By the time I make promos I'm playing stacked plat teams with gold lowbees... hence matchmaking needs to change, I go on a winning streak and I'm a black sheep expected to carry against plats with gold ppl... MMR BS works both ways, you get lower ranks on your team, when you win you face HIGHER ranked people with the expectation of being able to carry people your rank..... > > BUT to say MMR isn't very similar to ranked or reflect potential rank is silliness so rank is a reflection of skill as well as an achievement .. You have it backwards. MMR is a measure of your skill. Rank is a measure of achievement. Occasionally, rank and mmr are similar in which case a player's rank is similar to their skill level. However, these two values are not the same and you can easily see plat ranked players with mid to high diamond mmr who are more skilled than a diamond player with low diamond mmr.
Dukues (NA)
: It's season 9.. who the fuck cares. omg... you lost with a shitty fucking duo bot? omfg.... no way dude....... I get it but at the same time it's literally been the same for forever???? People realllyyyyyyyyyy like to shit on duos for being a huge problem but it really isn't. The only time I could see bitching about it is in like master elo or high diamond. Other than that.... its really not something to cry about.
> [{quoted}](name=Dukues,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=kk4ORGhX,comment-id=0003,timestamp=2019-08-20T19:58:34.661+0000) > > It's season 9.. > > who the fuck cares. > > omg... you lost with a shitty fucking duo bot? omfg.... no way dude....... > > I get it but at the same time it's literally been the same for forever???? People realllyyyyyyyyyy like to shit on duos for being a huge problem but it really isn't. The only time I could see bitching about it is in like master elo or high diamond. Other than that.... its really not something to cry about. Duos have been a problem for 9 seasons. No reason to continue letting them in solo queue.
: which is better for the game. Buffing weak champions or nerfing strong champions.
Nerfs are better in most sitations midseason. Buffs can be used sparingly during pre-season.
: Why Riot might be buffing Yasuo
Yasuo is getting the most traction but the problem really isn't them buffing yasuo specifically, it is them buffing far too many champions in general. Champions like renekton, kled, and fiora didn't need their buffs in the past 2-3 patches either. Riot needs to focus more on nerfing overpowered champions instead of buffing balanced ones.
: > [{quoted}](name=haaaaaaalp,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=YAQMBKVq,comment-id=0000,timestamp=2019-08-20T14:29:42.480+0000) > > Because matchmaking is not the problem. We are in a hypersnowball meta where equally skilled players will take turns stomping each other. That can't be fixed with changes to matchmaking. That doesn't explain the clearly lopsided matches based off rank alone, just because a silver 4 goes on a 5 game hot streak doesn't mean he should be paired with me. The teams not being equally skilled seems to be the problem at lower elo over what the meta is.
> [{quoted}](name=MustardTigerMK,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=YAQMBKVq,comment-id=00000000,timestamp=2019-08-20T16:08:11.767+0000) > > That doesn't explain the clearly lopsided matches based off rank alone, just because a silver 4 goes on a 5 game hot streak doesn't mean he should be paired with me. > > The teams not being equally skilled seems to be the problem at lower elo over what the meta is. Ranked is not a measure of skill, it is a measure of achievement. MMR is a measure of skill.
HàrrowR (EUW)
: > [{quoted}](name=haaaaaaalp,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=xyenN0lR,comment-id=0010,timestamp=2019-08-20T07:15:55.162+0000) > > > That is why all of the defensive builds you suggest have such a lower winrate and buyrate than offensive builds. Do you have literally 1 source to confirm that buying {{item:3046}} {{item:3094}} has SUCH A LOWER WINRATE than {{item:3087}} {{item:3094}} That's just plain wrong, this is what i meant, you're such a meta slave that you think buying guardian angel and phantom dancer will drop your winrate to 0, yet in LECS people are winning with a damn SORAKA TOP WITH SMITE, GAREN BOT and TRISTANA MID. Also i'd take a 1%-2% lower winrate any day if it meant that i actually enjoy the game more, even though i'd say that for every game you lose cause you built less damage you'll win exactly the same amount of games because you built more defense
> [{quoted}](name=HàrrowR,realm=EUW,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=xyenN0lR,comment-id=00100000,timestamp=2019-08-20T18:38:49.205+0000) > > Also i'd take a 1%-2% lower winrate any day if it meant that i actually enjoy the game more, even though i'd say that for every game you lose cause you built less damage you'll win exactly the same amount of games because you built more defense That is just asinine to claim that it is fine for players to have to accept a lower winrate in ranked because riot can't probably balance offensive and defensive items. If you lose more games by building defensive, than building defensive is simply not the right answer.
: Why doesn't Riot do anything about matchmaking?
Because matchmaking is not the problem. We are in a hypersnowball meta where equally skilled players will take turns stomping each other. That can't be fixed with changes to matchmaking.
: So why does TFT still have ranked even though its nothing but pure rng?
Same reason why summoner's rift has ranked even though getting allies is completely RNG in this meta. RNG impacts single matches but evens out over the course of an entire season.
HàrrowR (EUW)
: People complain about damage but rarely build more than one or two defensive items.
It is the other way around. Players only buy 1-2 defensive items because damage outpaces defenses too much. That is why all of the defensive builds you suggest have such a lower winrate and buyrate than offensive builds.
: You're still missing the point: compared to previous seasons and even other games, complaints about the matchmaking are far more common. Want me to total it up? Sources will be [HotS general boards](https://us.forums.blizzard.com/en/heroes/c/general-discussion) and [HotS competitive boards](https://us.forums.blizzard.com/en/heroes/c/competitive-discussion) for HotS, and [the search function set to search every board](https://boards.na.leagueoflegends.com/en/search?query=Matchmaking&application_id=PEr1qIcT&created_from=now-1d&content_type=discussion) for LoL. Within the last 24 hours from 7:10 A.M CDT on 8/18/2019, there has been one complaint about matchmaking on the HotS boards. Within the last 7 days, there have been 3 total complaints about matchmaking. I'll humor you and go back a month, only to find 12 posts total criticizing matchmaking. Same query for LoL though, 23 within the first month alone... only on the first three pages of the search. Within the past week, we've got 18 complaints on the first page. Within the past day, 7... reduced to 5 if you don't include tenuous ones or the ones that'll surpass 24 hours in 2 hours. Unlike LoL, the HotS design team has actually addressed complaints, proving they care enough to... well, fix a common issue, even if they may not have solved the problem. What has LoL's design team done about the innumerable (literally; Riot's 'sort by age of post' function is useless so I don't know how many posts I've missed) complaints? Nothing at all. I could get into the fact that their acknowledgement in and of itself has likely caused the massive downturn in posts about matchmaking on their boards, but... hey, why would I need to? I just have to ask you, when do you stop being an apologist and start thinking about what people have to say? Even if I'm the only one able to articulate shit like this, everyone else has been **saying** it. I'm acting as an amalgamation of what they have had to say. Claims that the matchmaking is fine and _not_ rigged despite countless pieces of evidence to say otherwise is naïve. You're defending them with proof you don't have, with evidence you don't have and with knowledge that's both flawed and _not your own._ You don't even have any examples, because you _know_ they're flawed: you'll post about how the five people on your team and the enemy team are perfectly-matched with a screencap, and someone else posts about a Bronze 4 on their Gold 2 team w/ their own screencap. None of us know the statistic used to determine that "matchmaking" and, weirdly, they don't seem intent on showing it to us. It's indicative of something more nefarious. If it's so easy to prove us wrong, why won't they just... say... replace LP with MMR? Or show us the two side-by-side? Or show us both on a match-by-match basis? Or release the source code for the matchmaking? If their matchmaking does work as you say it does then there's no reason for them to be afraid of releasing it to the public, if people already know how it works. ...or maybe they do change it to suit their own ends? Seems like the logical conclusion. The same system that matches a full Gold team against a full Gold team is the same one that matches a full Bronze team against a full Gold team. None of us have our MMR -- a statistic -- to look at and compare, we only have a pseudo-statistic (LP, divisions and leagues) that doesn't even do the job it's meant to!
> [{quoted}](name=Inari Fox Orrion,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=7nxXMkx4,comment-id=000000000002000000010000000000000000,timestamp=2019-08-18T12:23:27.525+0000) > > You're still missing the point: compared to previous seasons and even other games, complaints about the matchmaking are far more common. Want me to total it up? Sources will be [HotS general boards](https://us.forums.blizzard.com/en/heroes/c/general-discussion) and [HotS competitive boards](https://us.forums.blizzard.com/en/heroes/c/competitive-discussion) for HotS, and [the search function set to search every board](https://boards.na.leagueoflegends.com/en/search?query=Matchmaking&application_id=PEr1qIcT&created_from=now-1d&content_type=discussion) for LoL. > > Within the last 24 hours from 7:10 A.M CDT on 8/18/2019, there has been one complaint about matchmaking on the HotS boards. Within the last 7 days, there have been 3 total complaints about matchmaking. I'll humor you and go back a month, only to find 12 posts total criticizing matchmaking. Same query for LoL though, 23 within the first month alone... only on the first three pages of the search. Within the past week, we've got 18 complaints on the first page. Within the past day, 7... reduced to 5 if you don't include tenuous ones or the ones that'll surpass 24 hours in 2 hours. > > Unlike LoL, the HotS design team has actually addressed complaints, proving they care enough to... well, fix a common issue, even if they may not have solved the problem. What has LoL's design team done about the innumerable (literally; Riot's 'sort by age of post' function is useless so I don't know how many posts I've missed) complaints? Nothing at all. > > I could get into the fact that their acknowledgement in and of itself has likely caused the massive downturn in posts about matchmaking on their boards, but... hey, why would I need to? I just have to ask you, when do you stop being an apologist and start thinking about what people have to say? Even if I'm the only one able to articulate shit like this, everyone else has been **saying** it. > I'm acting as an amalgamation of what they have had to say. > > Claims that the matchmaking is fine and _not_ rigged despite countless pieces of evidence to say otherwise is naïve. You're defending them with proof you don't have, with evidence you don't have and with knowledge that's both flawed and _not your own._ You don't even have any examples, because you _know_ they're flawed: you'll post about how the five people on your team and the enemy team are perfectly-matched with a screencap, and someone else posts about a Bronze 4 on their Gold 2 team w/ their own screencap. None of us know the statistic used to determine that "matchmaking" and, weirdly, they don't seem intent on showing it to us. It's indicative of something more nefarious. > > If it's so easy to prove us wrong, why won't they just... say... replace LP with MMR? > Or show us the two side-by-side? > Or show us both on a match-by-match basis? > Or release the source code for the matchmaking? If their matchmaking does work as you say it does then there's no reason for them to be afraid of releasing it to the public, if people already know how it works. > ...or maybe they do change it to suit their own ends? Seems like the logical conclusion. > > The same system that matches a full Gold team against a full Gold team is the same one that matches a full Bronze team against a full Gold team. None of us have our MMR -- a statistic -- to look at and compare, we only have a pseudo-statistic (LP, divisions and leagues) that doesn't even do the job it's meant to! It is asinine to claim there is "countless pieces" of evidence about matchmaking being rigged when no one has brought forth any evidence. Every post about matchmaking has been players bringing anecdotes that completely contradict eachother. Half of the conspiracy theorists claim that matchmaking is "rigged" to force them have a loss after every single win and the other half claim matchmaking is "rigged" to enforce streaks of wins and losses. Those two models simply cannot coexist. The truth of the matter is that it is mathematically impossible to create a matchmaking model to rig the system in the way players claim it is rigged. The problem that players are observing is due to league solo queue being in an extremely volatile meta. Small factors in the early and midgame are causing huge rippling effects lategame and the same players who go 10-0 one game are 1-9 the next. This is why so many games are stomps and players end up being thrown into mmr brackets they don't belong. Other mobas like hots or dota don't have the problem simply because their meta is not as volatile as league is (also, didn't blizzard give up on hots? Thought most people quit that game after blizzard pulled most of the key staff for other projects). Also, lets not pretend that any of the conspiracy theories will go away if they replace mmr. We had visible elo for 2 seasons and the exact same conspiracy theories. The entire ranked ladder is available through the api. Anyone who wants to take the time to look through and analyze the ladder can figure out that the ranked system is not rigged. However, no one wants to face the truth, they would rather just cry about everything conspiring against them.
Show more

haaaaaaalp

Level 79 (NA)
Lifetime Upvotes
Create a Discussion