: Not true, because the Link here has plenty of downvotes, which makes a point more than you can apparently. When a Moderator that posts the new content for Little Legends Egg Guide has the most downvotes of close to 150 downvotes, your nonsense does not concern me. There are around 78k views on the following Link, with only 110 comments. So if you thought everyone getting ripped off was commenting, then you can think again wise guy, because you're wrong. Not to mention many in disagreement with the gambling system. I don't need upvotes, there is plenty of that with the same statements as I have. I don't care about the personal crybabies, the facts are what matter here son. {{champion:3}} https://boards.na.leagueoflegends.com/en/c/teamfight-tactics/p7QvZW11-little-legends-series-egg-guide
> [{quoted}](name=UnstoppableMaybe,realm=NA,application-id=RaE1aOE7,discussion-id=rNhiKk7R,comment-id=000400000000000000000000,timestamp=2019-07-18T01:45:23.593+0000) > > Not true, because the Link here has plenty of downvotes, which makes a point more than you can apparently. When a Moderator that posts the new content for Little Legends Egg Guide has the most downvotes of close to 150 downvotes, your nonsense does not concern me. There are around 78k views on the following Link, with only 110 comments. So if you thought everyone getting ripped off was commenting, then you can think again wise guy, because you're wrong. Not to mention many in disagreement with the gambling system. I don't need upvotes, there is plenty of that with the same statements as I have. I don't care about the personal crybabies, the facts are what matter here son. > {{champion:3}} > > https://boards.na.leagueoflegends.com/en/c/teamfight-tactics/p7QvZW11-little-legends-series-egg-guide Your post just shows the boards hate riot. They will downvote riot posts en mass and upvote any complaints of the game as long as the complaints aren’t completely asinine. The fact that you still manage to get downvoted in such an environment just shows how piss poor your points are. How do you fail so hard?
: The votes don't mean anything, I took the vote risk when I came into Riot's League of Legends Forums, and released the truth directly where their fanbase and hardcore players are. It doesn't matter your opinion at this point, because if you have more questions, then you didn't put enough effort in to find you're wrong if you thought how the gambling system works is reasonable, as there's even evidence in the Link that shows players having spent up to $200 for Little Legends. Also I went back to the Forums and found several other posts of recent that dislike the gambling system. If you can't find those at the very least for yourself, that's your own fault for not being capable. Lastly, even if I posted hundreds of comments with proof which I pretty much did with all the Links, including the main Link with 7k views, you still would be likely to deny the facts, so there's nothing serious about you on the subject.
> [{quoted}](name=UnstoppableMaybe,realm=NA,application-id=RaE1aOE7,discussion-id=rNhiKk7R,comment-id=0004000000000000,timestamp=2019-07-18T01:14:26.900+0000) > > The votes don't mean anything, I took the vote risk when I came into Riot's League of Legends Forums, and released the truth directly where their fanbase and hardcore players are. It doesn't matter your opinion at this point, because if you have more questions, then you didn't put enough effort in to find you're wrong if you thought how the gambling system works is reasonable, as there's even evidence in the Link that shows players having spent up to $200 for Little Legends. Also I went back to the Forums and found several other posts of recent that dislike the gambling system. If you can't find those at the very least for yourself, that's your own fault for not being capable. Lastly, even if I posted hundreds of comments with proof which I pretty much did with all the Links, including the main Link with 7k views, you still would be likely to deny the facts, so there's nothing serious about you on the subject. The league forums hate riot. People will upvote anything and everything which brings up legitimate concerns about the game. You are just getting downvoted because your posts are just so damn asinine that no one can take you seriously. Every point you have made has fallen apart to even the lightest scrutiny. That is why everyone is able to so easily disprove anything you say. Even the link you handpicked proved you are full of shit.
: You're insane not to accept the truth at this point, and you can find tons of people who agree in the following Links below whether you like it or not. Of course some disagree, but it's clear a majority agree, or there would be better feedback for Teamfight Tactics. At this point, you seem like 1 of those managers at work afraid to admit the truth of their issues, and don't look to improve because their so stubbornly ignorant. You're insanity not to accept the truth is not my problem, the truth is here whether you like it or not. So we're done here, and I guess insane people like you trying to defend an absurd gambling system is to be expected from "Riot fans" correct? Yeah there's no need to call you out any further, I already gave the truth. You can have your opinion though, so enjoy your nonsense then. Also notice how you're asking all the questions, and I have all the answers, that's because you're just a rookie. https://boards.na.leagueoflegends.com/en/c/teamfight-tactics/p7QvZW11-little-legends-series-egg-guide https://boards.na.leagueoflegends.com/en/c/teamfight-tactics/4KQOc3It-little-legends-insane-gambling-system-for-1-legend-2-chance-at-legendary-and-200-wasted
> [{quoted}](name=UnstoppableMaybe,realm=NA,application-id=RaE1aOE7,discussion-id=rNhiKk7R,comment-id=00040000,timestamp=2019-07-17T13:30:25.941+0000) > > You're insane not to accept the truth at this point, and you can find tons of people who agree in the following Links below whether you like it or not. Of course some disagree, but it's clear a majority agree, or there would be better feedback for Teamfight Tactics. At this point, you seem like 1 of those managers at work afraid to admit the truth of their issues, and don't look to improve because their so stubbornly ignorant. You're insanity not to accept the truth is not my problem, the truth is here whether you like it or not. So we're done here, and I guess insane people like you trying to defend an absurd gambling system is to be expected from "Riot fans" correct? Yeah there's no need to call you out any further, I already gave the truth. You can have your opinion though, so enjoy your nonsense then. Also notice how you're asking all the questions, and I have all the answers, that's because you're just a rookie. > > https://boards.na.leagueoflegends.com/en/c/teamfight-tactics/p7QvZW11-little-legends-series-egg-guide > > https://boards.na.leagueoflegends.com/en/c/teamfight-tactics/4KQOc3It-little-legends-insane-gambling-system-for-1-legend-2-chance-at-legendary-and-200-wasted All of your topics are filled people pointing out why you are an idiot. Even the one topic of yourself that you handpicked has more downvotes than upvotes which begs the question how bad are the topics you aren't willing to link. Your claims don't hold any water and fall apart to even the slightest scrutiny.
: How Greedy Does Riot Seem After Their Little Legends Gambling Offers (Vote Scale)!?
> [{quoted}](name=UnstoppableMaybe,realm=NA,application-id=RaE1aOE7,discussion-id=rNhiKk7R,comment-id=0001000000000000000000000000000000000000,timestamp=2019-07-17T10:13:22.888+0000) > > True but technically Grand Theft Auto Online is free to play as well, because it comes free with the single player experience. The excuse of why League of Legends should charge more is not only your pure insane nonsense, but Grand Theft Auto Online can easily depart from the single player experience since it's technically free to play, and in this respect, it blows League of Legends out of the water! Grand Theft Auto Online has made more profit than League of Legends has, and it also has nothing similar to Little Legends awful greedy desperate gambling system. Plenty already agree with me on multiple other Forum posts, so you not in agreement is only a small fraction. Not to mention Poke'mon Go is also based on a free to play experience. > > On top of that, War-Frame even if it made more, would not be desperate enough to sell something as greedy and simple as Little Legends like Riot has done. War-Frame has pets to, but they actually do far more. You can post anything you want, but at least I posted the truth of the situation, and I have several who agree, and more! So what now then, since you can't deny the facts or the truth successfully at this point. > {{champion:4}} > > Also denying their Little Legends gambling system being greedy and desperate would be foolish, and not only this, but it's not my company, so I also don't have to care. > {{champion:68}} {{champion:115}} GTA sold the game for full price first and then tacked on microtransactions after the fact. Once they pulled as much money out of consumers as they could with a full priced game, then they went free to play to milk even more revenue out of microtransactions. That is a far greedier model than league which was free to play from day 1. Also, where are the "plenty" of people who agree with you? You can't just make that stuff out of your ass. Even if you can find a few handful of idiots who agree with your asinine comparisons, that doesn't make them any less asinine.
: Your free to play comment to defend the cost absurdity is no longer relevant, because War-Frame is free to play as well, but it doesn't charge you up to $200 for something as rubbish, cheap, greedy, and desperate as a simple Little Legend. As someone who prefers quality, even if its fairly simple, this is just trash compared to what Riot should be capable of. I am not falling for it. You can no longer justify defending Riot with the excuse of it's free to play, because War-Frame is as well, but it doesn't rip you off. Now you can't say "but it's free to play," without seeming a bit insane and wasting time with nonsense. (More on War-Frame in the Link below if you want your mind blown by an epic creative vision that doesn't rip you off!) https://boards.na.leagueoflegends.com/en/c/teamfight-tactics/4KQOc3It-little-legends-insane-gambling-system-for-1-legend-2-chance-at-legendary-and-200-wasted
> [{quoted}](name=UnstoppableMaybe,realm=NA,application-id=RaE1aOE7,discussion-id=rNhiKk7R,comment-id=00010000000000000000000000000000,timestamp=2019-07-16T09:23:37.726+0000) > > Your free to play comment to defend the cost absurdity is no longer relevant, because War-Frame is free to play as well, but it doesn't charge you up to $200 for something as rubbish, cheap, greedy, and desperate as a simple Little Legend. As someone who prefers quality, even if its fairly simple, this is just trash compared to what Riot should be capable of. I am not falling for it. You can no longer justify defending Riot with the excuse of it's free to play, because War-Frame is as well, but it doesn't rip you off. Now you can't say "but it's free to play," without seeming a bit insane and wasting time with nonsense. > > (More on War-Frame in the Link below if you want your mind blown by an epic creative vision that doesn't rip you off!) > https://boards.na.leagueoflegends.com/en/c/teamfight-tactics/4KQOc3It-little-legends-insane-gambling-system-for-1-legend-2-chance-at-legendary-and-200-wasted With a fraction of the playerbase. Warframe simply does not have the playerbase to apply it's financial model to something like league or tft.
: There's a difference, and you made my point more clear haha! The Poke'mon company is not selling Poke'mon for $200 with an absurd gambling system, Period! You collect the Poke'mon, and you can evolve them, but the individual Poke'mon itself is not a $200 gamble. Also, Poke'mon started out much cheaper before it worked its way up to $60, and what you get for $60, is content that can last with more to do with it than a useless Little Legend. Your ramble about the "bundle deals" does not matter, because we're talking about the standard content of the game, which is the core problem here. Teamfight Tactics standard Little Legends content prices is absurd, and not even the best in the world do that for games that have a strong reputation and popularity! There are lots of games earning way more profit than League of Legends if you look up their Net Worth, and it's clear Riot's recent decisions has impacted its sales, but not terribly. It's not my company, so I also don't mind if any nonsense of theirs continues. The truth is here. If a company is going to charge me $200 for content to gamble for, then it better be selling me content in comparison to DLC, with contents nobody else can get for something like Grand Theft Auto Online, unless they participate in the gamble, which at around $200 the person would likely have the Limited time offer DLC (for example). Content in GTA Online is immersive, and if they charged $200 for a DLC nobody else can get without gambling, I would buy that, but not for a useless Little Legend..... Riot definitely crossed the line on terms of greed and desperation when they decided to charge around $200 to find a Little Legend the player is likely looking to unlock, especially since the Little Legend a player might want, may cost them the equivalent of an entire Console, with multiple games and contents! They can still change this, and if they do, at least they can rid of their new title, "Greedy and desperate Riot," because it's clearly obvious at this point.
> [{quoted}](name=UnstoppableMaybe,realm=NA,application-id=RaE1aOE7,discussion-id=rNhiKk7R,comment-id=000100000000000000000000,timestamp=2019-07-15T21:06:54.321+0000) > > There's a difference, and you made my point more clear haha! > > The Poke'mon company is not selling Poke'mon for $200 with an absurd gambling system, Period! You collect the Poke'mon, and you can evolve them, but the individual Poke'mon itself is not a $200 gamble. Also, Poke'mon started out much cheaper before it worked its way up to $60, and what you get for $60, is content that can last with more to do with it than a useless Little Legend. Your ramble about the "bundle deals" does not matter, because we're talking about the standard content of the game, which is the core problem here. Teamfight Tactics standard Little Legends content prices is absurd, and not even the best in the world do that for games that have a strong reputation and popularity! There are lots of games earning way more profit than League of Legends if you look up their Net Worth, and it's clear Riot's recent decisions has impacted its sales, but not terribly. It's not my company, so I also don't mind if any nonsense of theirs continues. The truth is here. > > If a company is going to charge me $200 for content to gamble for, then it better be selling me content in comparison to DLC, with contents nobody else can get for something like Grand Theft Auto Online, unless they participate in the gamble, which at around $200 the person would likely have the Limited time offer DLC (for example). Content in GTA Online is immersive, and if they charged $200 for a DLC nobody else can get without gambling, I would buy that, but not for a useless Little Legend..... > > Riot definitely crossed the line on terms of greed and desperation when they decided to charge around $200 to find a Little Legend the player is likely looking to unlock, especially since the Little Legend a player might want, may cost them the equivalent of an entire Console, with multiple games and contents! They can still change this, and if they do, at least they can rid of their new title, "Greedy and desperate Riot," because it's clearly obvious at this point. Charging everyone $60-100 is far worse than giving people the option of paying $200 in an otherwise free to play model. Gamefreak’s model is far greedier than riot’s model. Also, riot isn’t charging you anything, you are playing the game for free. It is charging other players with deeper pockets $200 to keep the game free for players like you and me. This is the best model for free to play players like ourselves because we get all of the core aspects of the game for free instead of having to pay $60 like in Pokémon or gta.
: I honestly do not believe that TFT is ready for a Ranked Queue in its current state.
I don't think anyone believes TFT is ready for ranked. The only reason ranked is being rolled out is because that will accelerate the game's development and get it into an acceptable situation faster.
: They already have in the UK (like I already mentioned), and the US President has already announced they will overlook it at some point if he's still in office when he gets to it. So the answer to that question is for sure they will, we just don't know for certain when that will be for the US. Also I already stated that Poke'mon sells better for cheaper, with a similar concept of abilities and characters to collect. The only difference is that Poke'mon is turn based, but it has the potential to be a Moba as well due to its large roster over the years. I can tell you right now if they increase Skin prices, and they don't change the Little Legends gambling system, there are tons of people as shown in the Link who will not buy them. Why would they, when they don't do anything for gameplay or strategy? Since they don't do much, how much they charge for Little Legends is like they take the buyers for absolute idiots. I did not compare Mc Donalds to League of Legends how you are implying it, but I clearly made it an example as similar to Poke'mon or League "on terms of how successful they are," and that they aren't setting ridiculous prices like League has done, having buyers pay up to $200 or more just to get the Little Legend they want (since it's a gambling chance when you buy the Egg). It would be truly asinine to deny this, because what I have said is true, and not speculation. I would pay for an Egg if I at least knew I was getting what I wanted, or the chances were higher than 2% obviously.
> [{quoted}](name=UnstoppableMaybe,realm=NA,application-id=RaE1aOE7,discussion-id=rNhiKk7R,comment-id=0001000000000000,timestamp=2019-07-15T09:01:50.351+0000) > > They already have in the UK (like I already mentioned), and the US President has already announced they will overlook it at some point if he's still in office when he gets to it. So the answer to that question is for sure they will, we just don't know for certain when that will be for the US. > > Also I already stated that Poke'mon sells better for cheaper, with a similar concept of abilities and characters to collect. The only difference is that Poke'mon is turn based, but it has the potential to be a Moba as well due to its large roster over the years. I can tell you right now if they increase Skin prices, and they don't change the Little Legends gambling system, there are tons of people as shown in the Link who will not buy them. Why would they, when they don't do anything for gameplay or strategy? Since they don't do much, how much they charge for Little Legends is like they take the buyers for absolute idiots. I did not compare Mc Donalds to League of Legends how you are implying it, but I clearly made it an example as similar to Poke'mon or League "on terms of how successful they are," and that they aren't setting ridiculous prices like League has done, having buyers pay up to $200 or more just to get the Little Legend they want (since it's a gambling chance when you buy the Egg). > > It would be truly asinine to deny this, because what I have said is true, and not speculation. I would pay for an Egg if I at least knew I was getting what I wanted, or the chances were higher than 2% obviously. The US government doesn't follow through with what the president announces. If anything, the congress is actively trying to avoid discussing the majority of the racist and misogynistic things that Trump posts on a daily basis. Also, they will always implement it in a way which benifits the lobbyists with the deepest pockets so there really isn't any reason to believe they will handle the lootbox issue the correct way. Also, where do you get the idea pokemon sells cheaper? They sell overpriced games every 2 years and make an absolute killing off of it. Look at all of the controversy surrounding sword/shield right now. The game is inferior to most $40 games and yet gamefreak is selling it for $60 because they know they can jack up the price and make a killing. Or how about Let's go pikachu/eeve? It was a shallow watered down game even for pokemon standards and did GF lower the price? Hell no they sold it for a full $60 with the pokeball plus bundle coming at $100. Gamefreak charges everyone a premium on lackluster games simply because of the pokemon name.
: You are misguided then, because companies don't make more profit by increasing prices where the competition sells better for cheaper. Increasing the price won't increase profit not only because a majority would not buy them, but increasing prices is not how a production makes the most profit. I will inform you that it's quality and smart prices that make the most profit, and it's always been this way for most businesses that are the most successful around the world. What, did you think Mc Donalds was selling burgers for $500 everywhere? Did you think Poke'mon was throwing Poke'mon in a gambling chest where you don't get what you want after wasting your time and effort? Well then you would be wrong. If that's how you feel overall though, then I am happy not to buy anything from you either haha! I am against the gambling system, and won't be dumb enough to succumb to it, neither should you. Congress is looking further into the situation to ban it because of the problems with the gambling system.
> [{quoted}](name=UnstoppableMaybe,realm=NA,application-id=RaE1aOE7,discussion-id=rNhiKk7R,comment-id=00010000,timestamp=2019-07-15T00:31:49.876+0000) > > You are misguided then, because companies don't make more profit by increasing prices where the competition sells better for cheaper. Increasing the price won't increase profit not only because a majority would not buy them, but increasing prices is not how a production makes the most profit. I will inform you that it's quality and smart prices that make the most profit, and it's always been this way for most businesses that are the most successful around the world. What, did you think Mc Donalds was selling burgers for $500 everywhere? Did you think Poke'mon was throwing Poke'mon in a gambling chest where you don't get what you want after wasting your time and effort? Well then you would be wrong. > > If that's how you feel overall though, then I am happy not to buy anything from you either haha! I am against the gambling system, and won't be dumb enough to succumb to it, neither should you. Congress is looking further into the situation to ban it because of the problems with the gambling system. What company is selling anything better for cheaper? When it comes to cosmetics in a moba game, there simply is not enough competition to drive the prices down which is why riot is making so much money charging high prices on skins. Comparing pricing strategies for mcdonalds and league is completely asinine when there are so many differences in each market. Also, do you honestly expect the US congress to deal with loot boxes correctly? Their solutions will always favor the lobbyists with the deepest pockets.
: How Greedy Does Riot Seem After Their Little Legends Gambling Offers (Vote Scale)!?
Little legends and other aesthetic items are exactly the type of things I want riot to charge players for. They can pull tons of money from whales while providing a free game for players like myself without effecting competitive integrity. If anything, I want riot to increase the price of the skins in the base game to make all champions free.
: Why is TFT getting Ranked Rushed?
Because there is no reason not to do it. They have the framework down and I doubt it took much time to add it so why not test ranked with the rest of the game mode? Just let’s them know problems sooner than if they waited.
: So Can Riot Finally Admit the Kayle Rework was an Utter Failure?
Kayle’s Rework is fine. Very low ban rate, average/slightly above average winrate, slightly below average pick rate. She hits pretty close to what a niche champion stats should be.
: can someone explain how tft is NOT gambling with extra steps?
It is as much “gambling” as crits are in the base game.
Kai Guy (NA)
: > 1) mmr loss would be absorbed by the leaver to keep the ladder balanced MMR is not zero sum. Let me walk over why I am objecting to this idea. Far as I can see there are 3 core ways to implement this feature. The leaver shoulders the full MMR loss. The Team with an afk sees a reduced loss of MMR. The enemy team has lower MMR gains for beating a team with an afk, that MMR Is distributed back to 4 non afk players on losing team. **Leaver eats full MMR for team.** Why do i think this fails in a MMR systems. Each players K is tracked individually which is why you don't see zero sum MMR systems. K reduction impacts MMR gains and Losses. This will hurt players with more games a lot worse then some one with few games because of K. To make a fairly dramatic example, if leaver is at 50% reduction and his teammates are all a uniform high K? Then he lost 9 games worth of MMR. For this player to get back to their MMR prior to that game the need to generate a net gain of 9 wins. It also creates further negatives because potentially your looking at a pretty high Drop in raiting thus change to probability expectations. Leaving is now the same as losing 9 matches back to back. This is not accurate to Riots system but in a Chess Elo system where K starts at 32 and reduces to 16? 144 Elo points are lost. Class intervals are 200 points in Elo. Logistical distribution expectations for 144 point gap are 70-30. A lower K means the system has higher confidence in a accounts rating. So that 1 match moves this player into a MMR range where expectations are they should beat the average player 7 out of 10 times. **Next. Standard Loss of MMR for leaver but Teammates don't lose for the match.** This is straight forward. It inflates the MMR system. MMR values are meant to be generated by wins and losses in relation to the probability distribution used and the Arbitrary values devs set. By freezing the rating your effectively adding how ever much MMR 4 players stood to lose to the system that's not being generated by wins and losses or in relation to the distribution model. This creates inflation because you add MMR to your system that's not being generated by wins and losses or probability expectations. **The enemy team has lower MMR gains for beating a team with an afk.** As I mentioned early. I feel Leavers are just the same as any other form of toxic behavior. Feeder inter, arrogant players who wont work with team and demand team works around them. What ever it is that forces a team to lose because of 1 players behavior are all the same imo. its a loss. I have this view because hey that's exactly how the system treats it. Win or loss then adjust. The in game is not a issue for Elo systems. It wont care, doesn't matter. In game stats or how awesome your 1 play top was are irrelevant. Win, Loss,(in some games Draw) in relation to who your Vsing Then put this data into a Probability system and start generating expectations then self correct until your system expectations consistently reflect reality. This is Elo in a nutshell. So why punish the wining team for havening the good fortune to encounter a specific type of toxic behavior when literally any other game losing toxic behavior generates the exact same result? Why bother to care so much? See... you have to advertise your solution so players have confidence in your system. Black boxes scare people. This is probably the best way to implement a reward to the team with an AFK that wont make a negative impact. Its easier to balance with a formula to account for all 9 players various K factors so you don't have inflation but you are punishing the winning team with a lower reward for behavior 100% outside of their control. Ok. so this is a reply to 1. 2) it is a catch all for leavers, etcetc Again, you can have players in your game that make it a 4v5. Its not a great catch all and honestly not all afk and leavers should be treated the same. 3)it isn’t an effort issue, riot could easily implement the change in 2 days since it is not difficult from a technical standpoint. Adding the change will not take away resources I see Mathematical issues for this in relation to MMR, not that its difficult to implement something. Its not about if riot can hotfix patch it in, or if they don't have a team for MM. Its that I cant comprehend a good way to implement this fix in a form that adheres to good Elo system logic. Basically its not a fix if it fixes nothing? For me. 1 game = Huge loss streak RNG is bad. Inflating MMR is bad. Punishing winning team is bad. I need some logical math that explains how you implement this in a way that would make sense. if its easy then show me how because I cant comprehend a good way to implement it. Not saying its impossible, just the ways I can see it being done are all failures. I tried to come up with one. I was thinking about possibly modifying We variable generation and looking at system expectations of what that players impact shoulda been on a match and trying to account for it. But... The variance of K factors and the fact riot does not share their systems values made this beyond my ability to build to my satisfaction. Also it just ended up punishing the 5 man team with lower MMR gains every time I ran it. (effectively I was subtracting the AFK players MMR value from his Team MMR average then generating new We variables off new Team Averages. All it did was soften the impact of a loss and make winning 4v5 worth more.)
> [{quoted}](name=Kai Guy,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=GKl3KfgN,comment-id=00000001000200000000000000000000000000000000000000000005,timestamp=2019-06-26T17:02:47.566+0000) > > If the system can eat it then its not a problem. The reason i am worried is that having a constant source of RNG inflation that triggers unpredictably will add Extra points to the system until it has become a large enough Issue for MM to be impacted. I care about inflation not for values that cause 0 problems but for when values stand to break things. You are taking away rng from not losing games with leavers on your team. Inflation can be easily solved as before. > Already mentioned it a few times but upping the value for a loss massively for the one behavior that's not always a player fault is completely unacceptable as an option to me. > > This is not just a random opinion. I am looking at Aprad Elo's provided Probability charts here for logistical distribution. Leaver forgiveness that comes at the cost of some one losing massive MMR is seeing what's effectively a one sided slant for K at a hyper exaggerated level on a leaver because your multiplying that loss in a range of value that can easily be 4.5 to 9 games worth of value. You stated your OK with this. I am not. But giving losses for leavers is? Leaver loss protection is better than the alternative. > Look i can be wrong as obviously I don't know riots numbers but if its at 32 or 16. Common values used for K, then potentially that's 320 points if its my worst case fear of 9 players + self at high K worth of Loss. So going off the system expectations for that, the leaver before the game vs the leaver after the game assumptions for % to win drop to 86% to 14% with logistical distribution. MM then would be looking to place that guy with players 324 points below them as if it was fair when his MMR prior to that woulda set the system expectations to be almost 9 to one odds vs his new MM range. > I don't think that's healthy for the game. Obviously I am being dramatic and using the worst case to illustrate it. A more reasonable value 96 points generated from 6 lower K value would be 64% to 36%, which is still unfair MM imo. Worth the price. > Point is... this **rewards a leaver **with easier games. If its a huge gap your basically throwing a smurf into MM. Its easy to abuse if its implemented badly especially because LP system riot has added on top of MMR reacts to MMR change at a slower rate. > > > So for some one who wants to climb and gets dicked getting to their correct range takes longer and it comes at the cost of throwing them into easier games... just to make other players feel a little better about the 1 behavior that's not always a players fault. Smurfs make new accounts or buy bronze ones to play against weaker players. Leaving games is not an efficient way to move mmr into a lower bracket because the account will just get banned by leaver buster. This won't help people trying to get into lower elo brackets. > So then we get back to... Well detect negative rage case leavers VS accidental ones... Ok? If we can do that you and I are talking about 2 options. 1. we do it your way and hit them with a larger loss in points for the game, and have to try and balance it to not damage MM quality 2. We do it my way and get rid of the player whos being toxic from game completely. Stricter Behavior system can just do a Que ban with a smaller honor loss and function instantly to making the game more competitive and only serves to increase Match quality. To deal with players perceptions you send an alert letting them know hey rage quitter A has been banned from rank for that behavior. Does leaver buster detect leaver vs accidental ones? I see no reason why this system should not identify leavers the same way as leaver buster which riot is already okay with. > Dropping the context for behavior systems overall and makeing this soly about leavers I don't see any way that my preference is not specific to the issue of leavers, and frankly find it to be very easy to implement lower tolerance. > > Leaver forgiveness might have a place in the game if the system can Eat the # and you just leave folks sitting pretty at starting MMR and apply a reasonable # to the leaver account. I'd like to see the math that says it wont be a problem. Because getting put to games massive below your skill IS a problem. Breaking systems ability to generate reasonably accurate matches IS a problem. While they are theoretical problems in a vacuum, they are not problems in the specific situation that league is in now. One account eating a large mmr drop is not a problem compared to the current system where everyone loses mmr for a leaver on the team. Getting put below your skill level is a problem but that is done by getting a new account, not getting your current one banned by leaver buster. When you take into account the systems already in place, adding a leaver forgiveness will only make the game better.
Nea104 (EUW)
: > [{quoted}](name=haaaaaaalp,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=PXmnufL4,comment-id=000600000000000000000000,timestamp=2019-06-26T02:23:09.560+0000) > The graph shows a team who was snowball out of control. First 6 minutes means nothing as tower fortifications are on for the majority of that time and players have not gotten their first back buy. Once fortifications falls and lanes can legitimately go after tower plates, that is when the snowballing happens. So you say: * one team is ahead and stays ahead for the first minutes, but doesn't count (?) * the other team was behind and all of a sudden gets a huge lead, ofc by magic (?) * so they were behind, but I still will call it "snowballing" (?) * even if they simply were evidently better, recovering after a bad start and stomping the other team. You're inconsistent, contradictory, and you don't even know what "snowballing" means. And yet you try to justify everything with it. Probably you're just trolling, but it's still sad.
> [{quoted}](name=Nea104,realm=EUW,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=PXmnufL4,comment-id=0006000000000000000000000000,timestamp=2019-06-26T17:53:52.412+0000) > > So you say: > > * one team is ahead and stays ahead for the first minutes, but doesn't count (?) > * the other team was behind and all of a sudden gets a huge lead, ofc by magic (?) > * so they were behind, but I still will call it "snowballing" (?) > * even if they simply were evidently better, recovering after a bad start and stomping the other team. > > You're inconsistent, contradictory, and you don't even know what "snowballing" means. And yet you try to justify everything with it. > Probably you're just trolling, but it's still sad. Snowballing happens after turret protection goes down. That is when the turret plate gold makes the game snowball out of control. The game you showed was an even game until the turret plates came up for grab.
D357R0Y3R (EUW)
: Why isn't the design team being held responsible for this game's state?
People are too busy blaming other aspects of the game. We wasted 2 months qqing about position based ranked which had nothing to do with poor quality of games. Now, people are shocked that games still suck when position based ranked got removed. When akali's rework came out, there were tons of people trying to defend it's design and giving bullshit excuses like her numbers were just overtuned and there was nothing wrong with the design. Instead of acknowledging that she needed to be reverted on the spot, people kept thinking the next change would fix her and encouraged riot to waste resources trying to balance the new akali. For all of the crap people gave akali's old design, it was never nearly as problematic as the current one and would have been a better alternative to keep in the game until another rework was made.
Nea104 (EUW)
: > [{quoted}](name=haaaaaaalp,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=PXmnufL4,comment-id=0006000000000000,timestamp=2019-06-25T23:47:52.079+0000) > > Except that has nothing to do with the matchmaking algorithm. We are in a hypersnowballing meta where 2/3 of the games are stomps no matter how closely matched the teams are. The problem has nothing to do with matchmaking and the more people tunnelvision on matchmaking, the longer it will take for the actual problem to be addressed. That's an old attempt to justify one-sided matches, proved wrong tons of times. Snowballing is a factor, agree, but matches are one-sided mostly because players with worse skills are matched against players with better skills. Btw, in the 21-40 match, the **losing** team even started with an **advantage**, untill minute 6; look at the graph: https://matchhistory.na.leagueoflegends.com/en/#match-details/NA1/3074586937/452140?tab=overview Told you, yours is an old attempt.
> [{quoted}](name=Nea104,realm=EUW,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=PXmnufL4,comment-id=00060000000000000000,timestamp=2019-06-26T00:22:11.671+0000) > > That's an old attempt to justify one-sided matches, proved wrong tons of times. > Snowballing is a factor, agree, but matches are one-sided mostly because players with worse skills are matched against players with better skills. > > Btw, in the 21-40 match, the **losing** team even started with an **advantage**, untill minute 6; look at the graph: https://matchhistory.na.leagueoflegends.com/en/#match-details/NA1/3074586937/452140?tab=overview > > Told you, yours is an old attempt. The graph shows a team who was snowball out of control. First 6 minutes means nothing as tower fortifications are on for the majority of that time and players have not gotten their first back buy. Once fortifications falls and lanes can legitimately go after tower plates, that is when the snowballing happens.
Nea104 (EUW)
: > [{quoted}](name=Barakalicious,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=PXmnufL4,comment-id=00060000,timestamp=2019-06-25T17:07:58.448+0000) > > This thread is literally full of conspiracy theorists lmao.. the type of people who believe we never went to the moon. Your last **5** games: 21-40 45-32 31-19 27-28 43-28 1 balanced, 1 almost (say), **3 stomps**. Do you think such a terrible algorithm would ever be acceptable, for a normal company in any business field? I understand many people are not that into statistics or even well educated, but this is just about being averagely smart.
> [{quoted}](name=Nea104,realm=EUW,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=PXmnufL4,comment-id=000600000000,timestamp=2019-06-25T18:57:10.540+0000) > > Your last **5** games: > 21-40 > 45-32 > 31-19 > 27-28 > 43-28 > > 1 balanced, 1 almost (say), **3 stomps**. > Do you think such a terrible algorithm would ever be acceptable, for a normal company in any business field? > > I understand many people are not that into statistics or even well educated, but this is just about being averagely smart. Except that has nothing to do with the matchmaking algorithm. We are in a hypersnowballing meta where 2/3 of the games are stomps no matter how closely matched the teams are. The problem has nothing to do with matchmaking and the more people tunnelvision on matchmaking, the longer it will take for the actual problem to be addressed.
Kai Guy (NA)
: > 1) mmr loss would be absorbed by the leaver to keep the ladder balanced MMR is not zero sum. Let me walk over why I am objecting to this idea. Far as I can see there are 3 core ways to implement this feature. The leaver shoulders the full MMR loss. The Team with an afk sees a reduced loss of MMR. The enemy team has lower MMR gains for beating a team with an afk, that MMR Is distributed back to 4 non afk players on losing team. **Leaver eats full MMR for team.** Why do i think this fails in a MMR systems. Each players K is tracked individually which is why you don't see zero sum MMR systems. K reduction impacts MMR gains and Losses. This will hurt players with more games a lot worse then some one with few games because of K. To make a fairly dramatic example, if leaver is at 50% reduction and his teammates are all a uniform high K? Then he lost 9 games worth of MMR. For this player to get back to their MMR prior to that game the need to generate a net gain of 9 wins. It also creates further negatives because potentially your looking at a pretty high Drop in raiting thus change to probability expectations. Leaving is now the same as losing 9 matches back to back. This is not accurate to Riots system but in a Chess Elo system where K starts at 32 and reduces to 16? 144 Elo points are lost. Class intervals are 200 points in Elo. Logistical distribution expectations for 144 point gap are 70-30. A lower K means the system has higher confidence in a accounts rating. So that 1 match moves this player into a MMR range where expectations are they should beat the average player 7 out of 10 times. **Next. Standard Loss of MMR for leaver but Teammates don't lose for the match.** This is straight forward. It inflates the MMR system. MMR values are meant to be generated by wins and losses in relation to the probability distribution used and the Arbitrary values devs set. By freezing the rating your effectively adding how ever much MMR 4 players stood to lose to the system that's not being generated by wins and losses or in relation to the distribution model. This creates inflation because you add MMR to your system that's not being generated by wins and losses or probability expectations. **The enemy team has lower MMR gains for beating a team with an afk.** As I mentioned early. I feel Leavers are just the same as any other form of toxic behavior. Feeder inter, arrogant players who wont work with team and demand team works around them. What ever it is that forces a team to lose because of 1 players behavior are all the same imo. its a loss. I have this view because hey that's exactly how the system treats it. Win or loss then adjust. The in game is not a issue for Elo systems. It wont care, doesn't matter. In game stats or how awesome your 1 play top was are irrelevant. Win, Loss,(in some games Draw) in relation to who your Vsing Then put this data into a Probability system and start generating expectations then self correct until your system expectations consistently reflect reality. This is Elo in a nutshell. So why punish the wining team for havening the good fortune to encounter a specific type of toxic behavior when literally any other game losing toxic behavior generates the exact same result? Why bother to care so much? See... you have to advertise your solution so players have confidence in your system. Black boxes scare people. This is probably the best way to implement a reward to the team with an AFK that wont make a negative impact. Its easier to balance with a formula to account for all 9 players various K factors so you don't have inflation but you are punishing the winning team with a lower reward for behavior 100% outside of their control. Ok. so this is a reply to 1. 2) it is a catch all for leavers, etcetc Again, you can have players in your game that make it a 4v5. Its not a great catch all and honestly not all afk and leavers should be treated the same. 3)it isn’t an effort issue, riot could easily implement the change in 2 days since it is not difficult from a technical standpoint. Adding the change will not take away resources I see Mathematical issues for this in relation to MMR, not that its difficult to implement something. Its not about if riot can hotfix patch it in, or if they don't have a team for MM. Its that I cant comprehend a good way to implement this fix in a form that adheres to good Elo system logic. Basically its not a fix if it fixes nothing? For me. 1 game = Huge loss streak RNG is bad. Inflating MMR is bad. Punishing winning team is bad. I need some logical math that explains how you implement this in a way that would make sense. if its easy then show me how because I cant comprehend a good way to implement it. Not saying its impossible, just the ways I can see it being done are all failures. I tried to come up with one. I was thinking about possibly modifying We variable generation and looking at system expectations of what that players impact shoulda been on a match and trying to account for it. But... The variance of K factors and the fact riot does not share their systems values made this beyond my ability to build to my satisfaction. Also it just ended up punishing the 5 man team with lower MMR gains every time I ran it. (effectively I was subtracting the AFK players MMR value from his Team MMR average then generating new We variables off new Team Averages. All it did was soften the impact of a loss and make winning 4v5 worth more.)
> [{quoted}](name=Kai Guy,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=GKl3KfgN,comment-id=00000001000200000000000000000000000000000000000000000003,timestamp=2019-06-25T21:02:26.490+0000) > > Yea.. but MMR is again not zero sum. So what ever riot uses for their WE and K is going to eat into the points lost by the leaver RNG and pretty brutally if that player is in the right range. More uncertainty is added to the ladder by this which creates mismatches down the road. So its not a solution to me. > I admit that just leaving the MMR alone for 4 players might work.. but id need the math that proves it is not in the long term add enough extra points to the system to throw of probability expectations between similarly rated accounts via inflation. While MMR doesn't have to be a zero sum change, the point is that it can be changed to be a zero sum when needed to stop inflation. Riot doesn't really care about mmr inflation so when servers go down and they implement server wise loss forgiveness, they give the winning team half mmr gain and the losing team no mmr loss. This obviously leads to mmr inflation but riot doesn't care about mmr inflation so they just let it happen and don't bother making mmr a zero sum gain. However, you specifically said you cared about mmr inflation so I showed you how the model can be adopted to prevent mmr inflation. No matter which side of the fence you want to sit on, there is a solution while still providing leaver forgiveness. If you agree with riot that mmr inflation doesn't matter and their current system is fine, then we don't need to address the issue. If you do not agree with riot and you believe mmr inflation is an issue, we can make the adjustment as I outlined above to prevent mmr inflation. > I was clear, I don't consider something that throws a huge loss streak onto a player as an acceptable or reasonable solution. Even as a stop gap. It is better than the current system. > The.. we just hurt the toxic ones? Ez solution. remove them from game, no need to damage their MMR. Get rid of the player. This stops the behavior far better as a stop gap mesure > > Leaving is the 1 toxic behavior that happens outside of control, its stupid to exaggerate its punishment with a MMR hit. > > Like I keep saying my friend. We really are not going to see eye to eye here. You think this is fine. I don't. You have your reasons. I have mine, mine are built from considering what it does to the ladder to impact MMR unrelated to wins and losses with abrupt spikes that don't properly reflect the natural results of a game. > > I don't want a perfect solution. I talk about how I want better behavior systems because they make a better game. Trying to find the math to keep the MMR fair and protect ratings for 1 "toxic" behavior is a waste of time. > > Again just making the leaver eat it is something that's 100% unacceptable as a solution to me. That's not something ima compromise on. Provably rage quit or left to just fk teammates? Get them outta the que. Be public. make that an expectation and have high player faith in leave buster as a system to lower # of instances of leavers. A softer Ban for some one who leaves for a non toxic reason that wont impact honor, and just removes folks from the competitive ranked que is for me by far the superior stop gap and its really easy to implement. > > Dramatically dicking some one over because of an ISP, Power, Pc bug, Client issue, financial limitations, or just an emergency life situation is not going to fly with me. Some players will take months to recover from the MMR drop, not everybody has the free time like myself to spend a day playing games. > > I don't care if its LP that's hit. You can impliment that. Let the leaver eat lp… but... well that solves nothing other then tricking players into feeling better about having a leaver with no impact to MM what so ever. > > > We really might just have to agree that we disagree here man. I am not gonna sign off on fat MMR drops. I don't see it as a viable solution. > > > Its just a feel good measure of a stop gap to dump it on some ones lap, one that I can see creating problems down the road. > > if the topics player behavior systems (leaveing is a behavior of players, one of the only toxic ones that can be an accident) Then I do think its 100% to talk about them collectively because that's the context of the conversation even if it started more narrow. > > So I have my stop gap solution, its easy. Its not via MMR its Via behavior. That's how I see a quick and effective fix to the problem that's not generating long term issues. Again: Soft inters, feeders, etc are all other problems which require different solution. However, their existence does not justify riot not also looking into solutions for leavers in ranked. You need to block out the urge to include them in a discussion about leaver forgiveness, they are irrelevant to the discussion at hand and are just distracting you from the issue. Stop bring up toxicity or player behavior. All you are doing is spamming the discussion with off topic points. I know it is an issue that matters deeply to you. However, you need to resist the urge to go off topic.
: > [{quoted}](name=Subdue,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=PXmnufL4,comment-id=0008,timestamp=2019-06-25T14:37:21.168+0000) > > You're absolutely right. The matchmaker is rigged against you. > > Clearly it knew that person was going to feed intentionally because... well okay it probably didn't know that. > > Clearly it knew those people were going to ban your champ because... well okay it probably didn't know that either. > > Clearly it knew those people were going to go afk because... well okay it probably didn't know that either. > > Clearly it knew those people were general trolls and feeders because... well damn it probably didn't know that either. > > Sorry, how again is the matchmaking system rigged against you? Your really shitty attempt at passive aggression aside, the MM is 100% stacked against you. It doesn't want you to have a 50% win rate, it will always try to put you on a losing team because if you win it means you should advance in rank. The game tries to force you to have around a 48.5% win rate if I recall correctly. I wouldn't be surprised in the slightest if riot had some sort of predictive algorithm that would match you with idiots.
> [{quoted}](name=CarpeConundrum,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=PXmnufL4,comment-id=00080000,timestamp=2019-06-25T15:18:07.792+0000) > > Your really shitty attempt at passive aggression aside, the MM is 100% stacked against you. It doesn't want you to have a 50% win rate, it will always try to put you on a losing team because if you win it means you should advance in rank. The game tries to force you to have around a 48.5% win rate if I recall correctly. I wouldn't be surprised in the slightest if riot had some sort of predictive algorithm that would match you with idiots. The game doesn't force you to have anything. It isn't even mathematically possible to force everyone to have a 48.5% winrate when 5 people win and 5 people lose every game.
Kai Guy (NA)
: > 1) mmr loss would be absorbed by the leaver to keep the ladder balanced MMR is not zero sum. Let me walk over why I am objecting to this idea. Far as I can see there are 3 core ways to implement this feature. The leaver shoulders the full MMR loss. The Team with an afk sees a reduced loss of MMR. The enemy team has lower MMR gains for beating a team with an afk, that MMR Is distributed back to 4 non afk players on losing team. **Leaver eats full MMR for team.** Why do i think this fails in a MMR systems. Each players K is tracked individually which is why you don't see zero sum MMR systems. K reduction impacts MMR gains and Losses. This will hurt players with more games a lot worse then some one with few games because of K. To make a fairly dramatic example, if leaver is at 50% reduction and his teammates are all a uniform high K? Then he lost 9 games worth of MMR. For this player to get back to their MMR prior to that game the need to generate a net gain of 9 wins. It also creates further negatives because potentially your looking at a pretty high Drop in raiting thus change to probability expectations. Leaving is now the same as losing 9 matches back to back. This is not accurate to Riots system but in a Chess Elo system where K starts at 32 and reduces to 16? 144 Elo points are lost. Class intervals are 200 points in Elo. Logistical distribution expectations for 144 point gap are 70-30. A lower K means the system has higher confidence in a accounts rating. So that 1 match moves this player into a MMR range where expectations are they should beat the average player 7 out of 10 times. **Next. Standard Loss of MMR for leaver but Teammates don't lose for the match.** This is straight forward. It inflates the MMR system. MMR values are meant to be generated by wins and losses in relation to the probability distribution used and the Arbitrary values devs set. By freezing the rating your effectively adding how ever much MMR 4 players stood to lose to the system that's not being generated by wins and losses or in relation to the distribution model. This creates inflation because you add MMR to your system that's not being generated by wins and losses or probability expectations. **The enemy team has lower MMR gains for beating a team with an afk.** As I mentioned early. I feel Leavers are just the same as any other form of toxic behavior. Feeder inter, arrogant players who wont work with team and demand team works around them. What ever it is that forces a team to lose because of 1 players behavior are all the same imo. its a loss. I have this view because hey that's exactly how the system treats it. Win or loss then adjust. The in game is not a issue for Elo systems. It wont care, doesn't matter. In game stats or how awesome your 1 play top was are irrelevant. Win, Loss,(in some games Draw) in relation to who your Vsing Then put this data into a Probability system and start generating expectations then self correct until your system expectations consistently reflect reality. This is Elo in a nutshell. So why punish the wining team for havening the good fortune to encounter a specific type of toxic behavior when literally any other game losing toxic behavior generates the exact same result? Why bother to care so much? See... you have to advertise your solution so players have confidence in your system. Black boxes scare people. This is probably the best way to implement a reward to the team with an AFK that wont make a negative impact. Its easier to balance with a formula to account for all 9 players various K factors so you don't have inflation but you are punishing the winning team with a lower reward for behavior 100% outside of their control. Ok. so this is a reply to 1. 2) it is a catch all for leavers, etcetc Again, you can have players in your game that make it a 4v5. Its not a great catch all and honestly not all afk and leavers should be treated the same. 3)it isn’t an effort issue, riot could easily implement the change in 2 days since it is not difficult from a technical standpoint. Adding the change will not take away resources I see Mathematical issues for this in relation to MMR, not that its difficult to implement something. Its not about if riot can hotfix patch it in, or if they don't have a team for MM. Its that I cant comprehend a good way to implement this fix in a form that adheres to good Elo system logic. Basically its not a fix if it fixes nothing? For me. 1 game = Huge loss streak RNG is bad. Inflating MMR is bad. Punishing winning team is bad. I need some logical math that explains how you implement this in a way that would make sense. if its easy then show me how because I cant comprehend a good way to implement it. Not saying its impossible, just the ways I can see it being done are all failures. I tried to come up with one. I was thinking about possibly modifying We variable generation and looking at system expectations of what that players impact shoulda been on a match and trying to account for it. But... The variance of K factors and the fact riot does not share their systems values made this beyond my ability to build to my satisfaction. Also it just ended up punishing the 5 man team with lower MMR gains every time I ran it. (effectively I was subtracting the AFK players MMR value from his Team MMR average then generating new We variables off new Team Averages. All it did was soften the impact of a loss and make winning 4v5 worth more.)
> [{quoted}](name=Kai Guy,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=GKl3KfgN,comment-id=00000001000200000000000000000000000000000000000000000001,timestamp=2019-06-21T22:36:49.099+0000) > > Like I said I feel we wont see eye to eye. > > If you don't provide numbers or an alternative I don't see then I don't intend to change my mind simply because you feel it wont cause damage, I strongly feel it will and have tried to represent why. Even if you if agree I hope I at least made my logic behind my opinion clear here. > > Punishing winners for beating a leaver is BS when they still get full MMR for beaing tilted inters or any other free win from toxic behavior. So stealing back some of the MMR from them is not a valid option to me. > > Throwing a massive wrench in somebodys climb because of leaveing when its just the 0 effort way to greif a team? There is no justifiable reason because folks can just go zero effort and play to lose. 5 losses is a big deal and again If its the full weight of their teams MMR loss then it can be higher then 5 games worth. I am not cool with 5 much less 7-8 games of MMR loss. 1. its bullshit unfair when soft inters get away with 1 game to punish some one whos net shits out 500% higher. 2. It can be easily abused by folks looking to drop MMR to pub stomp which I dislike. > > Fine if we don't see eye to eye. Both the above is unacceptable as a solution for me. > > Of the 3 discussed what am not 100% on is inflation. But I hate to see any MMR added that's not related directly to wins/losses. Feel free to show the math that the system can eat it and I really don't mind changing my mind. Also that's... a cheat statement given that Riot does not share system data so https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/research/project/trueskill-ranking-system/ is totally fine to discuss as I consider it a viable MMR system. > > Also...that's a bit of a chore. As I tend to enjoy seeing you as a poster I am willing to check it my self and grind away studying the system till I can say with confidence if the system can eat it or not. Just need your word that if I do take the time for this and can prove it that your willing to change your viewpoint and you have mine that I will let you know if I am the one who had it wrong. > > As long as I know its reasonable or possible for A mmr system then logically I assume it can be moved over to other ones. I just don't like suggestions that screw with the probability distribution and I feel inflation does exactly that. > > Yea? then we don't punish the exceptions as badly? im ok with this... but.... there's an assumption here that a system can be made that can accurately tell the two different cases here. So its back to what I said a few days back. > > Back to my point.. why don't we just remove the shitheads from the game then? A system that can tell a bad luck DC from some one whos rage quitting or greifing is exactly what i'm talking about with better player behavior systems. It is really not that hard to avoid mmr inflation. Team A has a leaver, team B wins. Team b gets whatever mmr you feel fair (you can use elo, trueskill, or whatever system you want it doesn't matter). The players on team A who are not queuing with a leaver gets no change in mmr. Anyone who is queued with the leaver gets a standard mmr loss. Finally, the leaver's MMR change is calculated as total change from every player on team A minus total change from every player on team B. Under this system, the total mmr change for games with a leaver is 0 across the 10 players so there is no mmr inflation. It is very easy to implement, improves ranked play, and still preserves the notion that mmr changes are based on which nexus falls You are trying too hard to find a perfect solution when all we need is a stopgap. Soft inters, feeders, etc are all other problems which require different solution. However, their existence does not justify riot not also looking into solutions for leavers in ranked. You need to block out the urge to include them in a discussion about leaver forgiveness, they are irrelevant to the discussion at hand and are just distracting you from the issue.
Rock MD (NA)
: > [{quoted}](name=haaaaaaalp,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=kzbBTL1o,comment-id=0002,timestamp=2019-06-23T23:23:29.797+0000) > > The differences seem more like the question being asked didn't translated well between each language. The NA players were answering what champions they felt was not fun to play against and the chinese players were answering what champions were not interactive to play against. The specific words were probably close approximations on a superficial level but didn't properly convey the same meanings. > > I would be more interested to see how these answers translated into what people banned in china (since it is the only server that most stat tracking websites don't readily have information for). No. They asked which felt the least fair. If you look at the differences in playstyles, it's understandable why they'd think slow paced, control style gameplay are unenjoyable. NA players, being the extraordinarily pseudo-passive players they are (I fall asleep every time I watch an amateur competitive tourney), don't like anything that can prevent them from playing passively. This includes things that run them down if they misposition. Chinese players are very aggressive and, as described by MULTIPLE streamers, pick fights at level 1, and their favorite champions (Lee Sin is a particular favorite for this reason) are ones that can lv1 5v5. Naturally, it would make sense that champions that discourage all interaction are the ones they feel are the least fair to play against.
> [{quoted}](name=Rock MD,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=kzbBTL1o,comment-id=00020000,timestamp=2019-06-24T00:55:28.628+0000) > > No. They asked which felt the least fair. But they had to use different wording from each language which is likely a big factor in the difference in answers. I can easily see the quote riot gave of "[insert champion is] fair to play against" being translated to "[insert champion] is fair to interact with" when translating to another language. That is why I would like to see stuff like banrates across the different servers since translation is not a factor.
Rock MD (NA)
: What China knows about the game that NA doesn't
The differences seem more like the question being asked didn't translated well between each language. The NA players were answering what champions they felt was not fun to play against and the chinese players were answering what champions were not interactive to play against. The specific words were probably close approximations on a superficial level but didn't properly convey the same meanings. I would be more interested to see how these answers translated into what people banned in china (since it is the only server that most stat tracking websites don't readily have information for).
Kai Guy (NA)
: > 1) mmr loss would be absorbed by the leaver to keep the ladder balanced MMR is not zero sum. Let me walk over why I am objecting to this idea. Far as I can see there are 3 core ways to implement this feature. The leaver shoulders the full MMR loss. The Team with an afk sees a reduced loss of MMR. The enemy team has lower MMR gains for beating a team with an afk, that MMR Is distributed back to 4 non afk players on losing team. **Leaver eats full MMR for team.** Why do i think this fails in a MMR systems. Each players K is tracked individually which is why you don't see zero sum MMR systems. K reduction impacts MMR gains and Losses. This will hurt players with more games a lot worse then some one with few games because of K. To make a fairly dramatic example, if leaver is at 50% reduction and his teammates are all a uniform high K? Then he lost 9 games worth of MMR. For this player to get back to their MMR prior to that game the need to generate a net gain of 9 wins. It also creates further negatives because potentially your looking at a pretty high Drop in raiting thus change to probability expectations. Leaving is now the same as losing 9 matches back to back. This is not accurate to Riots system but in a Chess Elo system where K starts at 32 and reduces to 16? 144 Elo points are lost. Class intervals are 200 points in Elo. Logistical distribution expectations for 144 point gap are 70-30. A lower K means the system has higher confidence in a accounts rating. So that 1 match moves this player into a MMR range where expectations are they should beat the average player 7 out of 10 times. **Next. Standard Loss of MMR for leaver but Teammates don't lose for the match.** This is straight forward. It inflates the MMR system. MMR values are meant to be generated by wins and losses in relation to the probability distribution used and the Arbitrary values devs set. By freezing the rating your effectively adding how ever much MMR 4 players stood to lose to the system that's not being generated by wins and losses or in relation to the distribution model. This creates inflation because you add MMR to your system that's not being generated by wins and losses or probability expectations. **The enemy team has lower MMR gains for beating a team with an afk.** As I mentioned early. I feel Leavers are just the same as any other form of toxic behavior. Feeder inter, arrogant players who wont work with team and demand team works around them. What ever it is that forces a team to lose because of 1 players behavior are all the same imo. its a loss. I have this view because hey that's exactly how the system treats it. Win or loss then adjust. The in game is not a issue for Elo systems. It wont care, doesn't matter. In game stats or how awesome your 1 play top was are irrelevant. Win, Loss,(in some games Draw) in relation to who your Vsing Then put this data into a Probability system and start generating expectations then self correct until your system expectations consistently reflect reality. This is Elo in a nutshell. So why punish the wining team for havening the good fortune to encounter a specific type of toxic behavior when literally any other game losing toxic behavior generates the exact same result? Why bother to care so much? See... you have to advertise your solution so players have confidence in your system. Black boxes scare people. This is probably the best way to implement a reward to the team with an AFK that wont make a negative impact. Its easier to balance with a formula to account for all 9 players various K factors so you don't have inflation but you are punishing the winning team with a lower reward for behavior 100% outside of their control. Ok. so this is a reply to 1. 2) it is a catch all for leavers, etcetc Again, you can have players in your game that make it a 4v5. Its not a great catch all and honestly not all afk and leavers should be treated the same. 3)it isn’t an effort issue, riot could easily implement the change in 2 days since it is not difficult from a technical standpoint. Adding the change will not take away resources I see Mathematical issues for this in relation to MMR, not that its difficult to implement something. Its not about if riot can hotfix patch it in, or if they don't have a team for MM. Its that I cant comprehend a good way to implement this fix in a form that adheres to good Elo system logic. Basically its not a fix if it fixes nothing? For me. 1 game = Huge loss streak RNG is bad. Inflating MMR is bad. Punishing winning team is bad. I need some logical math that explains how you implement this in a way that would make sense. if its easy then show me how because I cant comprehend a good way to implement it. Not saying its impossible, just the ways I can see it being done are all failures. I tried to come up with one. I was thinking about possibly modifying We variable generation and looking at system expectations of what that players impact shoulda been on a match and trying to account for it. But... The variance of K factors and the fact riot does not share their systems values made this beyond my ability to build to my satisfaction. Also it just ended up punishing the 5 man team with lower MMR gains every time I ran it. (effectively I was subtracting the AFK players MMR value from his Team MMR average then generating new We variables off new Team Averages. All it did was soften the impact of a loss and make winning 4v5 worth more.)
> [{quoted}](name=Kai Guy,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=GKl3KfgN,comment-id=0000000100020000000000000000000000000000000000000000,timestamp=2019-06-19T21:44:26.194+0000) > > MMR is not zero sum. Let me walk over why I am objecting to this idea. > Far as I can see there are 3 core ways to implement this feature. The leaver shoulders the full MMR loss. The Team with an afk sees a reduced loss of MMR. The enemy team has lower MMR gains for beating a team with an afk, that MMR Is distributed back to 4 non afk players on losing team. > > **Leaver eats full MMR for team.** > Why do i think this fails in a MMR systems. Each players K is tracked individually which is why you don't see zero sum MMR systems. K reduction impacts MMR gains and Losses. This will hurt players with more games a lot worse then some one with few games because of K. To make a fairly dramatic example, if leaver is at 50% reduction and his teammates are all a uniform high K? Then he lost 9 games worth of MMR. For this player to get back to their MMR prior to that game the need to generate a net gain of 9 wins. > > It also creates further negatives because potentially your looking at a pretty high Drop in raiting thus change to probability expectations. > Leaving is now the same as losing 9 matches back to back. This is not accurate to Riots system but in a Chess Elo system where K starts at 32 and reduces to 16? 144 Elo points are lost. Class intervals are 200 points in Elo. Logistical distribution expectations for 144 point gap are 70-30. A lower K means the system has higher confidence in a accounts rating. So that 1 match moves this player into a MMR range where expectations are they should beat the average player 7 out of 10 times. None of this is a bad thing. It is something that the mmr ladder can handle, it doesn't create inflation, and it improves the overall ladder integrity. > 2) it is a catch all for leavers, etcetc > Again, you can have players in your game that make it a 4v5. Its not a great catch all and honestly not all afk and leavers should be treated the same. However, most afker/leavers should be treated in this way. You can make exceptions for the cases which shuldn't > 3)it isn’t an effort issue, riot could easily implement the change in 2 days since it is not difficult from a technical standpoint. Adding the change will not take away resources > > I see Mathematical issues for this in relation to MMR, not that its difficult to implement something. Its not about if riot can hotfix patch it in, or if they don't have a team for MM. Its that I cant comprehend a good way to implement this fix in a form that adheres to good Elo system logic. Basically its not a fix if it fixes nothing? > > For me. 1 game = Huge loss streak RNG is bad. Inflating MMR is bad. Punishing winning team is bad. I need some logical math that explains how you implement this in a way that would make sense. if its easy then show me how because I cant comprehend a good way to implement it. Not saying its impossible, just the ways I can see it being done are all failures. One leave causing 5 games of mmr drop is completely fine, it doesn't inflate mmr and it doesn't punish bad teams. It is more than worth the tradeoff for giving allies with leavers no loss in mmr.
Kai Guy (NA)
: Well my friend it seems may have a fundamental disagreement here. That's aight, I don't mind if we don't have the same viewpoint. Its shown up in my comments but I feel the issues far more then just Afkers/leavers and that systems to be looked into are Player behavior not MMR. Treat the illness not a symptom. Its not that I think riots MMR is flawless. I fairly vocal on my issues with some things they do and feel there are 2 easy to implement QOL changes can be made. First, Adjust duoing to be MMR or remove it from solo completely. The range riot lets que is far to wide for MM to make a quality match imo. Second. Do not give players a Title or Tier after provisional games. Have it be unlocked after the minimum # of expected games for accurate distribution. Far as a better "competitive" que experience I lean to ranked 5s as a que type with stricter rules to play. But for me this afker issue is... just the lowest effort trolling available and I thus truly don't think isolating it and trying to find a specific fix to AFK beyond leave buster is worth the effort. I also don't trust players to not attempt to abuse it if you did make it which could result in having to roll back the changes if it makes a negative impact on ladder quality. I don't feel it makes any realistic impact or is remotely a good starting point to improve the games quality. And hey. I can be wrong. Your welcome to show some math or provide a scheme that I am not aware of. > It takes away noise and makes the mmr system for 4 players in exchange for making it less accurate for the leaver. That is a good trade off. 9 players not 4. Given to MMR a leaver who causes a loss looks the same as some one running it down mid or a very bad player sticking around and just costing their team a win... I don't understand the need for it to be treated as some special case of greifing. You may disagree, but I feel it just will be abused if its known to protect LP/MMR because some players will actively throw teammates under the bus to protect their Raiting. This lack of faith in players is the same reason I don't think riot should implement Stats. People will pad to protect rating at the cost of a game.I am aware this might just be personal bias but I just don't think folks wont abuse systems for personal gain. This is human nature imo and applys to pretty much everything, so its far beyond Leauge. For me. I simply consider an afker costing you a game the same as any toxic behavior costing a game. You lost the match and thus MMR. End of the day Its fixable with 1 win. Odds are good that Your going to be compensated by a toxic enemy player at some point to get that win and MMR will be balanced out. Flooding extra MMR to the system to only account for subset of negative behavior does not sound ideal. You think it lowers the noise but I feel the exact opposite. Its 1 sided MMR gain generation so its inflation to the system. It adds more noise in almost any implementation I can think of. MMR is meant to represent system expectations for a win built off results of a match. I don't like anything that adds MMR that's not related to win%. "Leaver" MMR is extra 1 directional MMR gains. I cant comprehend any way to make it functional with out inflation issues To deal with frusturation of leaves. The two ways I feel riot can go are player perception or Better Behavior systems. I think perception solutions are bullshit. Visibly show your adding some LP back? Feels good, makes no impact on MM. Why bother if its just leavers imo. any reason why a LP refund should function off all punished toxic behavior rather then just Leavers? Soften the impact. Stats/refunding LP just... make folks feel better. wont make any changes to the game. hence better behavior system. And that's not a refund or perception. Has to remove players. A stricter judgment in ranked games compared to normal is a good start. Being very proactive in alerting players your punishing negative behaviors and building confidence in your behavior systems matters. The game is better if toxic behavior is removed rather then just sunk a little farther down the ladder. Its more competitive when a majority of players make the decision to give it their best effort. If you can explain how to not negatively impact class intervals built off MMR and why Leavers are more special then a Feeder, weak teammate, first time X champion Etc I am curious to learn. I just don't think rewarding folks with MMR that's not off their actual match results 1 directionally fails in the long run. If its all directions equally then it can be implemented and I doubt it breaks anything. But 1 way is inflation and that's not ideal imo. Could work in a population system. something made of percentiles of player population. but off a probability system I don't see it being viable implementation cuz MMR is not zero sum to deal with the RNG aspects of high system uncertainty. and again... seems like a waste of effort because end of the day I still think its better to just remove the people who make the issues then soften the impact of the issue after the fact. and I can talk along time about various schemes to implement and all but as you want to stay on topic of Leavers. How do you stop inflation if you refund MMR with out removing MMR from the "winning" team? if your going to change the probability expectations for the system 1 directionally how does that reflect ratings more accurately? Some Variation of RN=Ro+K(W-We) is gonna be used. What variable do you want to add MMR to? Just throwing it into RN after the game seems terrible to me. Id probably do WE myself. Make it shift to reflect the toxic player on a team lowers the systems expectations for other teammates to win. but you'd need the system to properly catch toxic players, at which point their removal is a better option.
> [{quoted}](name=Kai Guy,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=GKl3KfgN,comment-id=00000001000200000000000000000000000000000000,timestamp=2019-06-18T21:28:18.256+0000) > > Well my friend it seems may have a fundamental disagreement here. That's aight, I don't mind if we don't have the same viewpoint. > > Its shown up in my comments but I feel the issues far more then just Afkers/leavers and that systems to be looked into are Player behavior not MMR. Treat the illness not a symptom. > > Its not that I think riots MMR is flawless. I fairly vocal on my issues with some things they do and feel there are 2 easy to implement QOL changes can be made. First, Adjust duoing to be MMR or remove it from solo completely. The range riot lets que is far to wide for MM to make a quality match imo. Second. Do not give players a Title or Tier after provisional games. Have it be unlocked after the minimum # of expected games for accurate distribution. > > Far as a better "competitive" que experience I lean to ranked 5s as a que type with stricter rules to play. > > But for me this afker issue is... just the lowest effort trolling available and I thus truly don't think isolating it and trying to find a specific fix to AFK beyond leave buster is worth the effort. I also don't trust players to not attempt to abuse it if you did make it which could result in having to roll back the changes if it makes a negative impact on ladder quality. I don't feel it makes any realistic impact or is remotely a good starting point to improve the games quality. > > And hey. I can be wrong. Your welcome to show some math or provide a scheme that I am not aware of. > > 9 players not 4. Given to MMR a leaver who causes a loss looks the same as some one running it down mid or a very bad player sticking around and just costing their team a win... I don't understand the need for it to be treated as some special case of greifing. > > You may disagree, but I feel it just will be abused if its known to protect LP/MMR because some players will actively throw teammates under the bus to protect their Raiting. This lack of faith in players is the same reason I don't think riot should implement Stats. People will pad to protect rating at the cost of a game.I am aware this might just be personal bias but I just don't think folks wont abuse systems for personal gain. This is human nature imo and applys to pretty much everything, so its far beyond Leauge. > > For me. I simply consider an afker costing you a game the same as any toxic behavior costing a game. You lost the match and thus MMR. End of the day Its fixable with 1 win. Odds are good that Your going to be compensated by a toxic enemy player at some point to get that win and MMR will be balanced out. > Flooding extra MMR to the system to only account for subset of negative behavior does not sound ideal. You think it lowers the noise but I feel the exact opposite. Its 1 sided MMR gain generation so its inflation to the system. It adds more noise in almost any implementation I can think of. > > > MMR is meant to represent system expectations for a win built off results of a match. I don't like anything that adds MMR that's not related to win%. "Leaver" MMR is extra 1 directional MMR gains. I cant comprehend any way to make it functional with out inflation issues > > To deal with frusturation of leaves. The two ways I feel riot can go are player perception or Better Behavior systems. > > I think perception solutions are bullshit. > Visibly show your adding some LP back? Feels good, makes no impact on MM. Why bother if its just leavers imo. any reason why a LP refund should function off all punished toxic behavior rather then just Leavers? > Soften the impact. Stats/refunding LP just... make folks feel better. wont make any changes to the game. > > hence better behavior system. And that's not a refund or perception. Has to remove players. A stricter judgment in ranked games compared to normal is a good start. Being very proactive in alerting players your punishing negative behaviors and building confidence in your behavior systems matters. > > The game is better if toxic behavior is removed rather then just sunk a little farther down the ladder. Its more competitive when a majority of players make the decision to give it their best effort. > > If you can explain how to not negatively impact class intervals built off MMR and why Leavers are more special then a Feeder, weak teammate, first time X champion Etc I am curious to learn. I just don't think rewarding folks with MMR that's not off their actual match results 1 directionally fails in the long run. If its all directions equally then it can be implemented and I doubt it breaks anything. But 1 way is inflation and that's not ideal imo. > > Could work in a population system. something made of percentiles of player population. but off a probability system I don't see it being viable implementation cuz MMR is not zero sum to deal with the RNG aspects of high system uncertainty. > > and again... seems like a waste of effort because end of the day I still think its better to just remove the people who make the issues then soften the impact of the issue after the fact. > > and I can talk along time about various schemes to implement and all but as you want to stay on topic of Leavers. How do you stop inflation if you refund MMR with out removing MMR from the "winning" team? if your going to change the probability expectations for the system 1 directionally how does that reflect ratings more accurately? > > > Some Variation of RN=Ro+K(W-We) is gonna be used. What variable do you want to add MMR to? Just throwing it into RN after the game seems terrible to me. > > Id probably do WE myself. Make it shift to reflect the toxic player on a team lowers the systems expectations for other teammates to win. but you'd need the system to properly catch toxic players, at which point their removal is a better option. A few points of clarification: 1) mmr loss would be absorbed by the leaver to keep the ladder balanced 2) it is a catch all for leavers, disconnect, adk, and any other situation where a player gets a loss because an ally is not there. You can’t fix all of those situations with player behavior modification, there will always be some 4v5. In those cases, you have to change something in the back end such as mmr adjustment 3) it isn’t an effort issue, riot could easily implement the change in 2 days since it is not difficult from a technical standpoint. Adding the change will not take away resources from riot doing all of the other things you want and therefore does not have to be mutually exclusive with your suggestions. The suggestion at hand is very easy to implement, can be done alongside everything you are suggesting, and would not inflate mmr. There is no real downside to adding a leaver variable in mmr, just some vague fear mongering about toxicity.
Kai Guy (NA)
: > We are talking about leavers and afkers and how lp and mmr should change during those times. Why do people afk and what can the devs address? 1. Bad internet. 2. Life interrupts. 3. Some one raged. 4. Some one gave up. 5 they are trolling/greifing. Personally I don't see much that can be done to prevent 1 or 2. I am all about what makes a better game. Riots player behavior systems need some TLC the most, imo. Problems from player behaviors like afking, flameing, rageing? This is not fixed by MMR changes as efficiently as behavior systems. MMR is off probability and tracked games. You shouldn't mess with MMR by adding free gains because it makes for inaccuracy's in ratings. Its an objective system where the core of your rating is supposed to be off your Probability expectations built from your history. LP is fine to change and give away... but again its not the ideal solution as it does not inherently fix the issue. It makes some folks feel better about the games but its not providing any real gains to players. What you seem to think is ideal, LP and MMR? It can be done. You can cushion the rating impact for players on an AFK. But its abusable the same way locking a troll pick in lobby to try and force some one to dodge is done. Some players are going to willingly throw teammates under the bus and try to exploit the system. We seem to disagree how often this would happen and that's just fine. Because I have a mathematical reason to dislike this concept. It widens the range of inaccuracy on MMR raitings for accounts over time which generates more mismatches. Because its 9 players gaining and 1 losing out. This alone is why I think the suggestion to impact MMR off AFK is bad. Its a 1 sided MMR generation. Games with stats onto of MMR like say OW ? Look at how when they added some subjective rating onto of the System and they make it add and remove rating. Needs to be balanced for both sinking and climbing. You don't want to push the ladder 1 direction with MMR inflation. So.. the better solution imo is improved player behavior systems. I think showing punishment clearly and rapidly for AFK behaviors is gonna send a clear message to player base and my belief is most players would feel validated enough with the knowledge that the bloke who trashed their game was removed. A step riot should take for player systems is to make a clear statement that the expectations for folks in ranked ques is to play to win so having the automation for Ranked Behaviors with additional rules and stricter boundaries would function very well in making the ranked experience better. Its not all that much work to make it so your system can make a Que biased ban for more minor infractions. PVP games have a lot of their quality impacted off players involved. Behavior systems should be a current priority. Inflating the ladders MMR is a bad idea.
> [{quoted}](name=Kai Guy,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=GKl3KfgN,comment-id=000000010002000000000000000000000000,timestamp=2019-06-17T19:06:02.844+0000) > > Why do people afk and what can the devs address? 1. Bad internet. 2. Life interrupts. 3. Some one raged. 4. Some one gave up. 5 they are trolling/greifing. Personally I don't see much that can be done to prevent 1 or 2. > I am all about what makes a better game. Riots player behavior systems need some TLC the most, imo. Problems from player behaviors like afking, flameing, rageing? This is not fixed by MMR changes as efficiently as behavior systems. If you can’t prevent the issues, the least you can do is make them impact less. > > MMR is off probability and tracked games. You shouldn't mess with MMR by adding free gains because it makes for inaccuracy's in ratings. Its an objective system where the core of your rating is supposed to be off your Probability expectations built from your history. Mmr relies on accurate data. Games with allies as leavers should not be counted against players as they only serve to add more confounding variables and cause mmr to be less accurate. > > What you seem to think is ideal, LP and MMR? It can be done. You can cushion the rating impact for players on an AFK. But its abusable the same way locking a troll pick in lobby to try and force some one to dodge is done. Some players are going to willingly throw teammates under the bus and try to exploit the system. We seem to disagree how often this would happen and that's just fine. Because I have a mathematical reason to dislike this concept. Troll picks is completely separate and not applicable to the current discussion. Dodging during the lobby and leaving after can be handled with different systems. > It widens the range of inaccuracy on MMR raitings for accounts over time which generates more mismatches. Because its 9 players gaining and 1 losing out. This alone is why I think the suggestion to impact MMR off AFK is bad. Its a 1 sided MMR generation. Games with stats onto of MMR like say OW ? Look at how when they added some subjective rating onto of the System and they make it add and remove rating. Needs to be balanced for both sinking and climbing. You don't want to push the ladder 1 direction with MMR inflation. It takes away noise and makes the mmr system for 4 players in exchange for making it less accurate for the leaver. That is a good trade off. > So.. the better solution imo is improved player behavior systems. I think showing punishment clearly and rapidly for AFK behaviors is gonna send a clear message to player base and my belief is most players would feel validated enough with the knowledge that the bloke who trashed their game was removed. > > A step riot should take for player systems is to make a clear statement that the expectations for folks in ranked ques is to play to win so having the automation for Ranked Behaviors with additional rules and stricter boundaries would function very well in making the ranked experience better. Its not all that much work to make it so your system can make a Que biased ban for more minor infractions. > > PVP games have a lot of their quality impacted off players involved. Behavior systems should be a current priority. Inflating the ladders MMR is a bad idea. Those are better but not mutually exclusive steps. Again, you will not fix everything with one change. You need a multitude of changes starting with changing how mmr is handled for leavers.
: Diamond 4 is inexcusable garbage, not worth it, and I blame the ranked system.
You aren't going to change people's mentality. Even if it was easier to fall out of diamond, the players know they can get back into it whenever they want. Also, hard reset will just make things worse. Season 1 ranked when everyone was at the same elo was ten times worse than anything that happens in diamond right now. Soft reset puts low diamond players into high gold low plat mmr range. If they can climb to diamond from there, they will have no problems climbing to diamond from silver. The only difference is that they make the game worse for others they play with along the way. There will always be a point where the good enough mentality takes over and there is nothing you can do to stop it from happening.
: I really wish Riot took Match Making Seriously because S9 is a complete pile of crap
Matchmaking is fine, the games are simply uneven due to the meta. Riot can spend as many dev cycles as they want on matchmaking, quality of games will not improve.
Kai Guy (NA)
: I worked to become hard to tilt. Realised its not a positive trait. But my teammates don't always get this. Players are fucking stupid, assholes instantly flame some one who does badly at any given point. I don't get it. You expect a Fair match to be 100% of your team is better? What is that? hows that fair or logical. Bruh (not your haaaalp. a generic and hypothetical rando. I happen to like you as a post most of alwayas and am happy to see ya on the boards.) some times people are gonna be outclassed and get destroyed. lets use some basic fucking logic and ask a easy question. Should the worst player on your team be able to beat the average member of your enemy team in a fair match?
> [{quoted}](name=Kai Guy,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=GKl3KfgN,comment-id=0000000100020000000000000000,timestamp=2019-06-17T08:18:49.939+0000) > > I worked to become hard to tilt. Realised its not a positive trait. But my teammates don't always get this. > > Players are fucking stupid, assholes instantly flame some one who does badly at any given point. I don't get it. You expect a Fair match to be 100% of your team is better? What is that? hows that fair or logical. > Bruh (not your haaaalp. a generic and hypothetical rando. I happen to like you as a post most of alwayas and am happy to see ya on the boards.) some times people are gonna be outclassed and get destroyed. > > > lets use some basic fucking logic and ask a easy question. Should the worst player on your team be able to beat the average member of your enemy team in a fair match? How is any of that relevant to the discussion at hand? The point is that we have an opportunity to make the game better. Sure people will be outclassed and people will flame but we aren't talking about either of those situations. We are talking about leavers and afkers and how lp and mmr should change during those times. League has many issues which will require many changes to fix. Lets take it a step at a time.
Kai Guy (NA)
: I just don't trust folks to not try to tilt and flame their teammates as passive aggressively as possible when they feel a match might be a loss to protect their LP at the cost of some stranger or for various boosters to abuse it on throw away smurfs. Edit. Like that's my main issue with a stat system added to league. I don't trust the playerbase to not just stat pad when they think its a lost game if it protected their Raiting. Most the time the best case stat pad is not remotely a good play.
> [{quoted}](name=Kai Guy,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=GKl3KfgN,comment-id=00000001000200000000,timestamp=2019-06-16T05:23:39.344+0000) > > I just don't trust folks to not try to tilt and flame their teammates as passive aggressively as possible when they feel a match might be a loss to protect their LP at the cost of some stranger or for various boosters to abuse it on throw away smurfs. > > Edit. Like that's my main issue with a stat system added to league. I don't trust the playerbase to not just stat pad when they think its a lost game if it protected their Raiting. Most the time the best case stat pad is not remotely a good play. I don't really care about flaming and don't think it is important enough to justify not improving the ranked ladder. Boosters abuse duo queue so the suggestion wouldn't really apply to them.
Kai Guy (NA)
: It just makes Tiers a less accurate representations of skill at high uncertainty for no real gain other then making folks feel better after a match.... but not everybody actually gains anything for it as they might not see any impact depending on their current MMR. Wont help promo games. Wont help any one who already is at a range they wont see the extra LP. Does not really add quality or make anything more fair. Its far better to rapidly apply a punishment and alert the players that are impacted. I know riot doesn't like to rank shame folks but the pop up saying " _Player name _ Has been punished for (insert reason, lets use _afking_) " Would do far more to impact player perception then LP they may or may not even need.
> [{quoted}](name=Kai Guy,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=GKl3KfgN,comment-id=000000010002,timestamp=2019-06-15T21:00:34.941+0000) > > It just makes Tiers a less accurate representations of skill at high uncertainty for no real gain other then making folks feel better after a match.... but not everybody actually gains anything for it as they might not see any impact depending on their current MMR. > > Wont help promo games. > Wont help any one who already is at a range they wont see the extra LP. > > Does not really add quality or make anything more fair. Its far better to rapidly apply a punishment and alert the players that are impacted. I know riot doesn't like to rank shame folks but the pop up saying " _Player name _ Has been punished for (insert reason, lets use _afking_) " Would do far more to impact player perception then LP they may or may not even need. Yeah, I misread the suggestion. It should apply to mmr and lp, not just lp. It won't help with promo games but it will actually make the ladder better.
Jamaree (NA)
: > [{quoted}](name=haaaaaaalp,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=GKl3KfgN,comment-id=00000001,timestamp=2019-06-15T05:54:14.906+0000) > > That would be at worst a sidegrade and likely an upgrade. I don’t see how it would mess up the system as long as exceptions are made for duo queue or at the ends of the elo bracket where people see the same players every game. If by the same notion, wintrading is a problem, I don't see how this would be different.
> [{quoted}](name=Jamaree,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=GKl3KfgN,comment-id=000000010001,timestamp=2019-06-15T09:21:10.191+0000) > > If by the same notion, wintrading is a problem, I don't see how this would be different. Because wintrading isn’t a problem for everyone. There is only a small portion of the mmr ladder who can consistently queue into the same people so it wouldn’t be hard to just disable for abuse brackets. Hence, it is a sidegrade for some people and an upgrade for others. Ideally, it would effect mmr and lp so the people move into different brackets.
Jamaree (NA)
: > [{quoted}](name=KSGHook,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=GKl3KfgN,comment-id=,timestamp=2019-06-15T00:07:22.302+0000) > > 1. Leaving/AFKing/identified inting person loses 80% of the LP loss for the match. This fixes the zero sum problem, while also leaving the responsibility of the match result on the person that determined the match result. Not only would this make matchmaking MUCH less random / unfair, it would also disincentivize trolls and AFKers, since they'd only be hurting themselves. For people that have connection issues, it's still their decision to play ranked, and a decision that their 4 other team mates didn't get to participate in, so why should their team mates take 80% of the blame for their decision? It would also incentivize having the person who is doing the worst to leave to soften the blow to their allies which would in turn mess up the matchmaking in a different way. > 2. Gate the matchmaking based on people's actual rank. Regardless of whatever batshit results the MMR system is giving them, don't let games be put together where four Gold 4s are put against 1 Gold, 2 Silvers and 3 Bronzes. Regardless of what the MMR says, that game will 100% of the time be a blowout, and allowing it provides absolutely no value to anyone. I agree on this, either have the system based off MMR and have the rank in the back, showcasing rank by hiding MMR only pisses people off for no reason. > 3. Rather than requiring a majority to choose to remake in the first 3 minutes, the game should require a majority to choose to continue. The default of the game isn't a 4v5, so why should the default of the remake vote be? Also, absolutely nothing is more tilting than being forced to play a 4v5 during your promos because your teammates decided to troll during the remake vote Why? > 4. If people win a 4v5, they should get 20% more LP (splitting the LP of their AFK teammate). I hold this truth to be self-evident. Again, see part 1.
> [{quoted}](name=Jamaree,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=GKl3KfgN,comment-id=0000,timestamp=2019-06-15T00:10:02.757+0000) > > It would also incentivize having the person who is doing the worst to leave to soften the blow to their allies which would in turn mess up the matchmaking in a different way. That would be at worst a sidegrade and likely an upgrade. I don’t see how it would mess up the system as long as exceptions are made for duo queue or at the ends of the elo bracket where people see the same players every game.
KSGHook (NA)
: Changes Riot Could Implement That Would Immediately Improve The Ranked System
Ranks are less accurate measure of current skill than mmr. Making that change will only make ranked games worse.
: Short Off-Meta Story that the Nightblue situation reminded me of...
I think this is where we have to make a distinction between off-meta and soft inting. If someone is a roaming teemo main who got to his elo bracket playing that playstyle, there is nothing wrong with his playstyle. If someone plays standard to get to his elo and then shifts to another playstyle they know they are not as good at when teamed with streamers to get attention, that is a form of soft inting and those players need to be made an example of. That being said, I haven't been keeping up with the drauma much. Has anyone gone onto op.gg and tracked the player in question to find out what he normally plays.
KSGHook (NA)
: Could someone calmly explain why MMR is a good system to me?
Everyone has a different bar for what a “good” system would be so think a better way to think of it is that it is the best of many flawed systems.
Neriticc (EUW)
: Irelia nerfed 50 times, still highest ban rate in pro leagues globally.
Problem with balancing changes is that they can’t always address poor kit design. Her rework was just poorly thought out from the beginning. At the very least, her autoattack range should be 125 and balance numbers around that.
: The hypocrisy of boards as its best
The boards are calling for a nerf on an obviously overturned champion. How is that at all hypocritical?
: Morde 55% wr on day 1 in diamond +
He is an immobile Melee champion with long cast times. The only thing that would even make him marginally hard to balance is manaless waveclear. He is exclusively a numbers problem.
: You know the problem with your ranked system? It’s too damn complicated.
The ranked ladder measures where you are in comparison to the rest of the ranked population. There should be no such thing as a “harder” or “easier” ranking system. In every system, 2% of players get into the top 2%, 10% of players get into the top 10%, etc. How “hard” it is to get into a rank is determined by what the cutoffs are set as. If diamond is set to be top .5% of the ladder, that will make getting to diamond harder. If diamond is set to top 8% of the ladder, that will make it easier. The difficulty of the ranked ladder is determined by what % of players is allowed into every rank, not the ranking system. There is a very large problem with a simple elo ladder that you want because games at the start of the season would be meaningless and only games at the end of the season matter. If you remember the old elo ladder, rankings changed a lot throughout the season. One day, pobelter was topping the ladder at 2200 and a few months later, forellenlord was rounding 3000 elo. If someone plays ranked consistently at a top 2% level for the first 7 months of the season and then can’t play during the last two because they are too busy, they will drop into a bracket far below their skill level simply because he ladder moves and they don’t. The ladder doesn’t become any more or less forgiving, it just simply becomes less accurate. Players playing at the end of the season will have artificially high ranks and players playing at the start will have artificially low ranks.
: Since Riot refuses to properly nerf Top Kench what do you suggest?
I think the best thing would be to redefine the bar for nerfs to include the current Tahm. The current bar is 52% at 5x abr and 54% at below abr. Tahm is around 2x abr and below 53% so he doesn’t meat the bar for getting nerfed even though he clearly needs to be. I would say that the bar needs to be lowered to 53 or 53.5 at below abr going down to 51% or even 50.5% at 5x abr.
hGAldrich (EUW)
: matchmaking is rigged. Want a proof? Here it is
Those are the same Yasuo players. The meta just snowballs too hard right now. The same players who go 14-1 one game will go 1-14 the next.
: It is just me or does Riot prefer we watch rather than play the game ?
They use viewership to drive more people to play the game. Riot’s financial model depends on players actually playing the game. They don’t monetize viewership as much as they do skins.
: Seriously Riot fuck your rigged PROMOS
If anything, it is too easy to climb this season. There are far more players in plat and diamond this year than any previous years.
: How much fun is a rigged game?
Every game is 21/3 because we are in a hypersnowballing meta. It doesn’t matter what players you get, the game will be a stomp. Changing who gets put in a game is a waste of time, you need to fix the gameplay.
: So I looked at the bottom 20 winrates of champions
I like the current philosophy of Maine sure no champion is broken at any level of play. If someone becomes too strong in one category, riot will just nerf them even if it means being underpowered st other levels of play. Underpowered champions are much healthier for the game than overpowered ones so I would much rather riot keep certain champions weaker for solo queue or pro play if they dominate at the other levels.
: The balancing choices for Tahm Kench and Galio are becoming a Nightmare
Tahm hasn’t had much time to be balanced top. He was fine as a top laner on release and never felt hard to balance. It was just his support role that kept forcing changes which eventually made him a problem top lane. Once support Tahm is removed, top lane Tahm will be fine. If riot is really desperate, they can always just remove the defensive utility for devour and focus more on the offensive cc aspect of it (which is how top lane Tahm uses it mostly anyway). He is at a 13% banrate 8% pick rate 53% winrate. Those stats are overpowered but Don’t really follow an unhealthy pattern. I would say he fits more in line with something like teemo (who follows a similar ban/pick/win rate pattern when overpowered l) who is annoying but tolerable once his numbers are in line.
: > [{quoted}](name=haaaaaaalp,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=EqrmOyUc,comment-id=0001000000000000000000000000,timestamp=2019-06-06T06:03:27.321+0000) > > Resorting to memes now? I mean it's clear that you dont understand the absurdity of what you're saying. How should I retort? Continue to repeat myself? If you don't possess common sense enough to understand what you're saying, then you just don't. *shrug*
> [{quoted}](name=AnotherFeeder,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=EqrmOyUc,comment-id=00010000000000000000000000000000,timestamp=2019-06-06T08:25:58.771+0000) > > I mean it's clear that you dont understand the absurdity of what you're saying. How should I retort? Continue to repeat myself? If you don't possess common sense enough to understand what you're saying, then you just don't. *shrug* I don't know why you are lashing out at me because you don't understand how matchmaking works =/ Insulting me and being passive aggressive won't help you, take some time and educate yourself on what you are talking about first. That will serve you much better than hiding behind cringe-worthy retorts.
: Shouldn't 2 people be top and 1 bot now?
It mainly comes down to fortification being on top and mid turret and not on bot outer turret. The bot turret goes down much faster early on.
: > [{quoted}](name=haaaaaaalp,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=EqrmOyUc,comment-id=00010000000000000000,timestamp=2019-06-06T05:38:33.624+0000) > > No one is talking about the average mmr players. Someone plz haaaaalp this man.
> [{quoted}](name=AnotherFeeder,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=EqrmOyUc,comment-id=000100000000000000000000,timestamp=2019-06-06T05:49:38.939+0000) > > Someone plz haaaaalp this man. Resorting to memes now?
Show more

haaaaaaalp

Level 77 (NA)
Lifetime Upvotes
Create a Discussion