Commend player to not lose LP

Nidken·Feb 25, 2017·3 votes·1,081 views

Too often, for a large number of us players, either we carry, or we do not carry hard enough.

Please introduce a feature where the winning team is able to commend 1 player from the opposing team to lose 50% less LP from a loss if they believe the loss was not deserved.

The system would encourage players to play well and stay positive with everyone within the game.

The system would see the majority of its use in situations where the game seemed unwinnable because teams were disproportionately matched.

To avoid abuse:

option only available in solo queue
only available if queued solo
not available for master/challenger players
player can only be commended once every x amount of losses
4 (or 5 if necessary) players must choose to commend opponent

20 Comments

jaymc1130Feb 25, 20171 votes

Players would just trade commendations but it is an interesting idea.

Would still be better if they used the champion mastery system the way I had originally intended when I conceived of it and use the end game performance score to manipulate LP/MMR gains and losses, it'd be more objective that way.

NidkenFeb 25, 20171 votes

How would players trade commendations?

jaymc1130Feb 25, 20171 votes

{quoted}

How would players trade commendations?

The population in higher levels is pretty small, we often run into players we know and even our friends. I would automatically commend certain people on pure bias and they would do the same for me. It'd be a lot like win trading (see athene) which is against the ToS and is a punishable offense.

NidkenFeb 25, 20171 votes

For this scenario to be the case:

player must not be in master/challenger
4/5 or 5/5 players on your team must know said player
4/5 or 5/5 players must agree to commend said player
you must win the game
player has not recently been commended

Remember that the person is still losing LP. Also, if need be, reduce the eligible audience to sub diamond.

The likelihood here seems too slim.

jaymc1130Feb 25, 20171 votes

{quoted}

For this scenario to be the case:

player must not be in master/challenger

4/5 or 5/5 players on your team must know said player

you must win the game

player has not recently been commended

Remember that the person is still losing LP. Also, if need be, reduce the eligible audience to sub diamond.

The likelihood here seems too slim.

It's not the margin that's important. Anything to mitigate LP losses in high diamond would be a prized tool with how clamping works. As such it would be abused if players are allowed to choose and vote for another player. The very element of choice is what allows it to be abused.

Still a cool thought though.

NidkenFeb 25, 20171 votes

The element of choice is what allows it to be abused? What do you mean? Isn't that the sole reason why it is difficult to abuse. You need every single person on your team to commend 1 player.

It is practically impossible for all 5 people on your team to be on your friends list in a solo queue game. This possibility would fade completely if you looked at the amount of people sub d5. Only option for abuse I see at the moment is "bro commend my mate ill gift you", but that is it.

jaymc1130Feb 25, 20172 votes

{quoted}

The element of choice is what allows it to be abused? What do you mean? Isn't that the sole reason why it is difficult to abuse. You need every single person on your team to commend 1 player.

It is practically impossible for all 5 people on your team to be on your friends list in a solo queue game. This possibility would fade completely if you looked at the amount of people sub d5. Only option for abuse I see at the moment is "bro commend my mate ill gift you", but that is it.

Nah the element of choice is what makes it easy to abuse.

It's probably easier to understand if we stop using this end of the spectrum and slide to the opposite end.

Consider: It's a long match, 45 minutes, the Darius who's been pissed for the last 10 minutes and blatantly been trolling now decides to just afk and announce it in all chat. 10 minutes later the game ends and the team with 5 players pulls out the narrow come from behind victory. The whole team chooses to commend the Darius who trolled and afked and allowed them to win. A person who has now broken the ToS had been rewarded for doing so.

This is why something like this won't ever work in actuality, you can't even allow players to have the OPTION to reward a toxic and negative player for being toxic as this only encourages more toxic behavior (and almost all of leagues systems already do this, promote toxic behavior in game over team play and good sportsmanship).

It would be abused at both ends of the spectrum in ways that harm the overall health and competitive integrity of the game (not that it has much competitive integrity to begin with).

NidkenFeb 25, 20174 votes

I see

"ill int if you commend me"

That would be a major problem. Thanks for sharing.

AptestFeb 25, 20171 votes

if this manipulates LP it has no effect in the long run. if it manipulates MMR it pollutes the direct measurement of WOR which is the basis of the present matchmaking system.

jaymc1130Feb 25, 20171 votes

{quoted}

if this manipulates LP it has no effect in the long run. if it manipulates MMR it pollutes the direct measurement of WOR which is the basis of the present matchmaking system.

Matchmaking uses MMR exclusively in its algorithm, nothing else.

MMR itself is a formalized expression of win ratio.

Unlike chess where you can play a 1900 opponent as a 1600 player and gain 70 or 80 Elo points, pairings for league opponents are more strict and the measurement for skill (MMR) is only about 20% as effective as ELO is in chess (1 of 5 players on a team, outside factors beyond your control influence your MMR, something that cannot happen in any other game that uses an ELO style system aside from all the recent mobas which all suffer the same systemic flaw of 1/5 instead of 1/1) so players in league are less often going to be facing significantly tougher opponents that afford them an opportunity to move quickly. This, in turn, further exacerbates the issue of skill measurement dilution (1/5 again, factors outside a player's direct ability to control) by again increasing the sample size of matches one needs to achieve an accurate ranking.

The reason my concept would work is because it rewards CONSISTENTLY excellent play and punishes CONSISTENTLY poor play. This means consistent players would reach accurate rankings more quickly (much much more quickly) while also taking into consideration individual performance metrics as well as W/L which is a team performance metric, making the ranking system and ladder itself more accurate and precise. It also has the side effect of reducing the grind time for consistent performers.

Wins and losses would still be the most heavily weighted factor (you wouldn't gain LP/MMR if you lost) but the player who had 4 afks in a row when he posted 4 consecutive S+ performances wouldn't get demoted and punished because his teammates use a Mexican ISP.

Pretty significant improvemt to overall ladder function and massive improvement in terms of player approval, which would spur game growth, increase profits, and reverse the trend of this game's rapidly declining brand.

NidkenFeb 25, 20171 votes

I made a post about this once upon a time. +/- up to 4 lp based on S,A,B,C,D.

One common complaint was that having your LP gain/loss depend on grading (to any degree) would change how people play.

A simple example is having a player who thinks the game is over so he begins to play in a way that he believes will score him the highest grade. This usually means he will scavenge a good KDA and focus on farming which often will distract the team from a possible win.

jaymc1130Feb 25, 20171 votes

{quoted}

I made a post about this once upon a time. +/- up to 4 lp based on S,A,B,C,D.

One common complaint was that having your LP gain/loss depend on grading (to any degree) would change how people play.

A simple example is having a player who thinks the game is over so he begins to play in a way that he believes will score him the highest grade. This usually means he will scavenge a good KDA and focus on farming which often will distract the team from a possible win.

Overall performance metrics, many of which are part of the mastery system, would actually prevent this from occurring. A metric is only considered a benefit if it assists the team to win. So deliberately making choices to "farm up" etc, would actually register as a negative benefit. The system already tracks champion movement on the rift and just farming away in the jungle or pushing a lane without ever pressuring an objective would register in such a way that taking those types of actions count against players, not for them. When we are talking individual performance metrics we are talking about a lot more than just KDA or CS rate. These are only two minor components. Warding habits, objective control, pathing, % kill contribution, back timing, and all sorts of things can also be quantified in meaningful ways and sacrificing 16 metrics to chase just one (farm, or whatever) at the end of a match would actually harm a player.

So all that argument is bs I've already disproved about a thousand times since I came up with champ mastery way back at the beginning of season 3. It's just nonsense people spout because they are ignorant and stick to the hive mind mentality. Any statistical systems analyst would be able to tell you the exact same things I am, it's all really basic stuff, but sadly people are pretty dumb.

RAT IN GAME UwU Feb 25, 20171 votes

This would never happen, or even be considered because it detracts from the team mentality in a team game.

When the Patriots win the superbowl, they don't choose to give the opposing team's quarterback a superbowl ring

you play as a team, and you either win, or lose as a team.

The idea of giving someone a lighter penalty for losing is basically participation ribbon level crap. Getting a ton of kills or CS doesn't mean you'd have won on any other team.

Riots matchmaking system is garbage yes, but it is not fixed by this solution, if someone is truly THAT good they will win lane, help their teammates win lane eventually or come back from losing lanes, or any combination of things to pressure the enemy team, and they will lead them to victory.

just barely losing while being a team leader also doesn't mean that you should get a break on the LP loss, you all lost together, and unless you want the winning team to take a win reduction as well, it makes no sense to give a loss reduction to someone.

jaymc1130Feb 25, 20171 votes

{quoted}

This would never happen, or even be considered because it detracts from the team mentality in a team game.

When the Patriots win the superbowl, they don't choose to give the opposing team's quarterback a superbowl ring

you play as a team, and you either win, or lose as a team.

The idea of giving someone a lighter penalty for losing is basically participation ribbon level crap. Getting a ton of kills or CS doesn't mean you'd have won on any other team.

Riots matchmaking system is garbage yes, but it is not fixed by this solution, if someone is truly THAT good they will win lane, help their teammates win lane eventually or come back from losing lanes, or any combination of things to pressure the enemy team, and they will lead them to victory.

just barely losing while being a team leader also doesn't mean that you should get a break on the LP loss, you all lost together, and unless you want the winning team to take a win reduction as well, it makes no sense to give a loss reduction to someone.

A number of the points you make here don't actually work in your favor.

Consider: NFL players aren't ranked according to how well thier team performed. Lagerrete blount is not the best running back in the league because the pats won a super bowl. No.

They use the salary system to rate players. Brady gets paid the most money because his statistical performance is the best in the league. Ryan Fitzpatrick had to settle for less than half that because he's a less talented player whose performance can't match Tom's.

Trying to rank players in a team game based SOLELY on the teams performance will never work when the ladder is done with individual rankings. This is why the ladder has always been such a mess and the matchmaking has always been bad.

The entire concept of an ELO based system does not and never will function for a team game. It is a system that is designed exclusively for individual against individual competition where every action an individual can possible take is distilled to a single metric. There are 4 other players on every team in a match of league and you cannot ever control any action they may or may not take but you will still be ranked based on thier performance.

The only way to have a ladder system that funtions in this game is to modify the system to account for individual performance or else it won't work for any one below the top 1% of the ladder with any degree of true effectiveness.

This is just basic systems analysis.

RAT IN GAME UwU Feb 26, 20171 votes

{quoted}

A number of the points you make here don't actually work in your favor.

Consider: NFL players aren't ranked according to how well thier team performed. Lagerrete blount is not the best running back in the league because the pats won a super bowl. No.

They use the salary system to rate players. Brady gets paid the most money because his statistical performance is the best in the league. Ryan Fitzpatrick had to settle for less than half that because he's a less talented player whose performance can't match Tom's.

Trying to rank players in a team game based SOLELY on the teams performance will never work when the ladder is done with individual rankings. This is why the ladder has always been such a mess and the matchmaking has always been bad.

The entire concept of an ELO based system does not and never will function for a team game. It is a system that is designed exclusively for individual against individual competition where every action an individual can possible take is distilled to a single metric. There are 4 other players on every team in a match of league and you cannot ever control any action they may or may not take but you will still be ranked based on thier performance.

The only way to have a ladder system that funtions in this game is to modify the system to account for individual performance or else it won't work for any one below the top 1% of the ladder with any degree of true effectiveness.

This is just basic systems analysis.

NFL isn't solo queue, NFL is comparable to LCS, so that point is invalid, as a good ass player on a shit or middle tier NFL team will be picked up by a top team if they're worth picking up, comparable situation, Huni going from Immortals to SKT

again NFL isn't solo queue, and no one is making a salary for solo queue alone unless they're streaming

opinions on how this isn't a team game don't really matter when if your team loses you lose, and if your team wins you win, EVEN IF YOU FED THAT GAME you still get ELO

individual performance doesn't matter in a team game, if you're good enough to be in a higher elo than you are, historically, accurately, and legit happens every time, YOU WILL win games more often than not and climb.

jaymc1130Feb 26, 20171 votes

{quoted}

NFL isn't solo queue, NFL is comparable to LCS, so that point is invalid, as a good ass player on a shit or middle tier NFL team will be picked up by a top team if they're worth picking up, comparable situation, Huni going from Immortals to SKT

again NFL isn't solo queue, and no one is making a salary for solo queue alone unless they're streaming

opinions on how this isn't a team game don't really matter when if your team loses you lose, and if your team wins you win, EVEN IF YOU FED THAT GAME you still get ELO

individual performance doesn't matter in a team game, if you're good enough to be in a higher elo than you are, historically, accurately, and legit happens every time, YOU WILL win games more often than not and climb.

I'd respond to this post if any part of it made any sense or was at all valid...

RAT IN GAME UwU Feb 26, 20171 votes

{quoted}

I'd respond to this post if any part of it made any sense or was at all valid...

it's all valid, not sure what has you in such a mood.

jaymc1130Feb 26, 20171 votes

{quoted}

it's all valid, not sure what has you in such a mood.

The NFL comparison was yours, you used it initially. Then when I expand on the comparison you say it's no longer a valid comparison.

I legitimately don't know how to respond to that mate.

It's too late for my brain to try to put that into some kind of context that makes logical sense.

RAT IN GAME UwU Feb 26, 20171 votes

{quoted}

The NFL comparison was yours, you used it initially. Then when I expand on the comparison you say it's no longer a valid comparison.

I legitimately don't know how to respond to that mate.

It's too late for my brain to try to put that into some kind of context that makes logical sense.

i said your comparison isn't valid, not mine, that's not even cherry picking, that's just changing the conversation. The point of that was supposed to be to say that if your team loses you don't get winning credit of any sort because it's a team game.

jaymc1130Feb 26, 20171 votes

{quoted}

i said your comparison isn't valid, not mine, that's not even cherry picking, that's just changing the conversation. The point of that was supposed to be to say that if your team loses you don't get winning credit of any sort because it's a team game.

Yes... which makes no sense...

If tom Brady lost the super bowl he would still be the best QB in the league, his teams performance in that game would not be a reflection of his value to his team, as he is the most valuable player in the NFL. That is what the ladder measures, your value to your team. Just as an NFL player is paid a salary befitting his contributions to his team a players place on the ladder should reflect his value to his team. The current system cannot ever do this because it measures the teams contributions to a players success, not the players contributions to his team's success...

What you are essentially saying is the ranking system is good because players get more credit toward their ranking based on the performance of the other 4 players on their team than for their own play even though they are ranked as individuals...

A system that accounts for more of an individual's ranking according to the performance of players other than the individual being ranked is by definition a system that cannot function properly. Which is why matchmaking is so terrible and the ladder is so inaccurate etc, etc.

The system is really only accurate for players like myself who are in the top 1% because only players at this level work in such a naturally coordinated fashion that the performance of all members of a team is complimentary pretty much every game. There are less extraneous factors affecting a players ranking because there are less trolls, afkers, etc.

This is why your point doesn't make sense mate. You are saying it is appropriate for individuals to be ranked on a ladder (that is supposed to rate their performance) according to the performance of every other player on the ladder but themself.