How "fair" is the matchmaking system?
As much as I would like to say I dislike the idea of someone joining ranked just because they feel like they need to do it; I can't pick and choose who I play with in Soloqueue. However with that being said I do expect a certain standard of play from people within a certain elo. Things to consider as baseline benchmarks:
- How well your teammates can respond to incoming enemy ganks
- How well your teammates can individually cs in lane
- How well can your teammates snowball a lead
- How well can your teammates close out games
- How well can your teammates play from behind
- How well can your teammates coordinate
- How well can your teammates play the map in objectives.
These are things im sure crosses everyones mind within the instant they step into a ranked game, they play according to these preconceived expectations. Maybe your in a really low elo where players dont lane well, so you wanna capitalize on that and make it hard for them to cs. Maybe you know in the elo you're in players cannot respond to gank pressure well, you wanna just camp someones lane, etc. You play accordingly to how you expect players to play and even stack up to their respective opponents.
So how frustrating is it when your teammates do not actually perform up to standards of that division; when their play is bronze tier/feeding and all you can do is try your best to stay ridiculously positive, objective, relevant and attempt to snowball? How mentally difficult is it to experience such games in streaks of odd trends where in almost every game multiple roles on YOUR team are consistently doing horrible, even despite you doing your best to make an impact in the game? How frustrating is it to just coe out of lane almost every game to see that you're the only one with a slight lead, maybe even big but everyone else is doing the extreme polar opposite and the game is practically 1v5 or 2v5?
Personally its very frustrating and I really wonder how I get paired with such players. Theres this odd trend I notice when I either go on win streaks or lose streaks, no matter how small or large they are. Usually when im on a win streak (two or more wins), I get paired with players that have recently won their matches, the more I win the better my teammates get (literately in their match history they are winning by large margins on good streaks). This is extremely satisfying at times . You start to feel like your being paired with competent players, that your games here on out will be all about team coordination and not just deficiency in raw skill every single game in the early game. However I feel this is an illusion to the reality which is if I am on a losing streak, be it slight or massive I get paired with players that have recently lost, and as you lose more they get progressively worse as well.
Whats even worse is that if you happen to lose on a winning streak, lets say just one game the quality of your teammates vastly decreases, as if it's to say your being paired with "average" players in your elo. So my thing is, does the matchmaking system really base teams off MMR for Ranked soloqueue or does it pair winners with winners and losers with losers? Moreover if this is the case, why isnt every game as balanced as possible, not taking this streak approach and accounting players recent wins/losses as a relevant factor in terms of that players "momentum" and overall potential impact for the game? Why does it not give each side a fair chance based on RECENT historical evidence, to give players more fair matches and opportunists to win a game in all stages?
Because as it stands right now thats all Soloqueue feels like, after having played nearly 600 ranked games this season, fighting tooth and nail to enter Gold V, dropping from Silver 1 to silver 4 multiple times and climbing back up. Ranked feels like the rollercoaster ride of games, it's increasingly becoming one sided in how well you can expect a team to do. Not sure if smurfs have a huge role to pay in this, or if tilt affects players so much that being on a team with people who have consistently lost recently really puts you at a much greater risk of losing. But it certainly feels like this is the case.
I think a new system needs to be introduced, rating players by their MMR is not good enough for the ranked experience, having games be so one sided due to the sheer strength of individual players, and their streaks in the first 10-15 minutes is contrary to what this system should be trying to accomplish. A lot of these players who end up losing dont even seem to be able to rationalize their losses, their matchups, builds. It's so odd, and I can't even get mad at them I'm just sorely disappointing and am in disbelief that it can get this one sided (in terms of skill, knowledge,etc) so frequently. If players are consistently getting dumpstered early so hard they clearly are not the same caliber of player and do not deserve to have the same MMR. The system needs to take into account the performances of players on certain champions as well. Champions they win on a lot and champions they lose on a lot and recommend to the player picks that fit their strengths in champ select, while advising not to use certain champs. The team should be aware of weak lanes as well DURING champ select. This is becoming more of a team game, we should know if your Mid Lane Ahri is historically a weak ahri player so we can strategize appropriately.
Ranked needs to change in a lot of ways, it isnt just casual, it's really a more serious side of League that should be taken a bit more seriously to be as fair as possible. Lanes that lose ridiculously hard for reasons such as inexperience or sheer lack of skill should not be overly common in games that are supposedly had between players of similar MMR. Taking into account recent match history could help the system identify intangibles that impact the game heavily such as tilt or smurfs.
