Can we talk about unranked (New) players in ranked?

I know silver and bronze are the shitholes where people who can't climb are thrown, but please, do not put overenthusiastic level 30 players in my ranked games. People joke about shit players in silver and bronze all the time, but there's a huge skill gap between new players and hardstuck players who have 1000+ games under their belts. We have iron, and *had* MMR for a reason. With MMR, you quickly figure out who's a smurf, and know where to put them. With iron, you put the shit players and new players with bad MMR/only bot games in a nice little box until they can improve enough to climb. Now, what I'm suggesting is we bring back MMR. This solves two problems: Account purchasing and matchmaking in silver. Purchased accounts usually have only bot games on them/TT, meaning they have really shit MMR. If a system like the one I was suggesting is implemented, that means smurfs who buy accounts that were leveled through botting have a much bigger climb to make. This fixes up stuff like people having unenjoyable TT matches because their teammates are bots, and discourages account purchasing, because: 1. People who buy accounts to get them boosted up need to fork out more cash. 2. Smurfs who want multiple gold accounts for the season skins to sell on those skin purchasing websites have a larger grind to make. 3. This will likely slap down the value of accounts for sale, and make it less profitable for people who bot and sell accounts for some money, and encourages them to at least play the game themselves to sell accounts with higher MMR. If you're constantly getting quadras and have an average 10 KDA in PvP from levels 1-30, you're obviously either smurfing or scripting. This means you'll have a higher winrate, and a higher MMR. The system can then place you in a ranked game for silver/gold, knowing you have the skill to keep up. Our current system is laughable. Here's a quick story to illustrate my thoughts on it. In the normal scope of non-pro players: You have the preschoolers (Iron), the kindergarteners (Bronze), the elementary school kids (Silver), the high schoolers (Gold), university kids (Plats), people going for a Master's degree (Diamond) and those going for a Ph.D. (Master players). Education system demands that all children aged three and up are thrown in elementary school. You are in a group with four other randomly selected students. The group changes every few months. Everyone receives their own individual test grades. If your group gets under the class average grade (50) you will get sent to the education tier below the one you are currently in. If you keep a perfect 50, you get to stay in your current tier. If you get above a 50, you and your friends graduate! By the way, it's also possible to get negative/>100 scores. Sounds fair, right? Except for the fact that you have three-year-olds in a grade eight course? Well, that's all right according to the adults, because to them, the material is easy. 2^2 is four. If you don't know that much, you need to stay in elementary school. However, when you have an infant who's three years old and doesn't even know what multiplication is, much less squaring, they're bound to be in the negatives. There are also the rare high school/university kids who've dropped out, and re-enrolled in elementary school for some personal reasons. The problem is, you're bound to get more three-year-olds than dropouts, because ALL three-year-olds start off in elementary school. With randomized groups, it's entirely possible you might either be the only one in the group with a positive score, or you might get group mates who are all drop outs, who carry you out of elementary school. This is not reflective of your learning. You might do eight hours of homework and studying a day, only to get thrown into kindergarten because four negative scores outweighed your own. It's not your fault. It's the government's, for not recognizing that a three-year-old who hasn't even learned how to speak proper sentences yet and throw frequent temper tantrums cannot keep up with the experience of older kids. Now, we can't get rid of the drop-outs or the three-year-olds, but what the government can do is ensure that they're in the right tier of education. Making a toddler go up against a young adult in a game of basketball in gym class would be ridiculous. The young adult has played several hundred games, while the toddler has just figured out how to walk. Even if we gave the toddler an advantage (for example, they get a big baseball bat to swing at the adult) most of the time, the toddler can't even lift the bat. Same thing for League. Just played a game where Garen had some slight rage issues and gave the level 30 Tryndamere four kills. I was playing Ashe, was like 1/2 ish and Trynd tried to 1v1 me. However, I was able to lure him under turret and ult him, after which he yielded up a 700g bounty to me. After we got Garen to go mid, Trynd repeatedly tried to 1v1 me under my turret, or with my team nearby. Needless to say, he spoonfed me and lost his team the game. We also had a formerly plat ASol who took a dump on the Zoe midlane. Nowhere in hell was that a fair matchup, and it shows that new players just can't keep up with experience.
Reportar como:
Ofensivo Spam Mau comportamento Fórum incorreto