Ranked means nothing anymore.

KING ATTILA·Jun 17, 2016·208 votes·12,704 views

Dude is 100% correct. Facts.

322 Comments

PopppyseedJun 17, 201620 votes

This guy is literally streaming Boosting. This has to be a new low.

KING ATTILAJun 17, 201658 votes

He never ever boosted. He is only boosting now to show one of the flaws of Dynamic Queue. It is to make a statement. Yes, Dynamic Queue has brought the state of League to an all time low, and Riot won't take their heads out of the dirt.

rtbf225618241Jun 17, 20166 votes

I'm pretty sure Riot clearly stated all the issues with DynamicQ in the Roundtable so saying they are ignorant is ignorant itself. They're clearly aware of the problems and made it clear that they'll try to fix DynamicQs flaws before moving on to SoloQ.

DemonofDotaJun 17, 201635 votes

Actually, solo queue has been cancelled.

SithesisLordJun 17, 201610 votes

They never said it was cancelled. Lest we forget Tryndamere's blog post, where he clearly stated that they are trying to improve DynQ and if nothing works, they will gradually shift back to SoloQ.

MarshbouyJun 17, 201613 votes

Lets forget that to insult riot more.

Toplane FencerJun 17, 201623 votes

Did you listen to the roundtable? THey currently have NO plans to bring SoloQ back.

MarshbouyJun 17, 20165 votes

did you read the riot tryndamere post? They will if they can't fix DQ.

D rokJun 17, 20167 votes

That whole letter was to placate the player base...

More than that though, that entire sentiment suggests a serious lack of forethought going into this dynamic ranked thing. "Well, if it doesn't work out after a year or so, we'll change our minds." I think we should all be pretty pissed off that the entirety of season 6 was essentially a ranked experiment, with us as the lab-rats.

MarshbouyJun 17, 20161 votes

Do you know for a fact that it was to placate the playerbase?

How else do they suppose to test it? You are still the players of the game. The creators of the game are the scientists trying to make an enclosure fun for the rats. If you don't like it, don't play the game.

Dextix LTJun 17, 20168 votes

Yes, we do know that. It is not the first time Riot lies to us.

You know, im still waiting for the updated and "fixed" tribunal. I wonder where it got held up.

I am also waiting for soloq which should have been out.

But wait, they have never lied to the community, right?

No offense, but you have to be pretty naive now if you still believe ANYTHING Riot says, since they lie constantly.

D rokJun 17, 20166 votes

You know, I actually really dislike this guy. I find him super annoying 90% of the time, and I don't agree with him very often.

But he's 100% right about this. Dynamic queue has done nothing but screw over the entire ranked system. From what I can see, the only benefits of the queue, in terms of a ranked experience, are aimed at people who are boosted past what they could normally do on their own. It's sad to see league start to fall apart like this.

Troll for TrumpJun 17, 201635 votes

Dude, there was a pro rengar, who boosted his followers on Twitch using DynaQ WITH A RIOTER WATCHING HIM and WITHOUT having any objections to the boosting..

EnloctJun 17, 201625 votes

Yeah, because duoing has always been an allowed method of "boosting". Dynamic queue just makes it easy as shit.

Pika FoxJun 17, 20168 votes

Your rank has never meant anything before. Its a 5 man game, your skill level was never truly yours. It only ever became accurate if you played 1000s of games, which few people even did.

If anything its more accurate now than before, since it emphasizes teamwork.

KING ATTILAJun 17, 201621 votes

False. False. False.

False.

Pika FoxJun 17, 20164 votes

Its entirely true.

DREADN0UGHTJun 17, 201620 votes

Based on what? You? Who the fuck are you?

Pika FoxJun 17, 20163 votes

Apparently the only person here who realizes statistical deviation is a thing.

Dextix LTJun 17, 201646 votes

Except it did. Your rank showed your individual skill and capability to work as a team with 4 other random people.

It was an equal playing field to everyone.

Now however, the presence of premades makes it unfair for the solo players and make their individual input carry a lot less weight.

Pika FoxJun 17, 20164 votes

Your rank has never been indicative of your individual skill. Its a 5 person team game, the only time this statement could ever be true is when you have played an infinite number of games. Thats how statistics work.

Also, the game isnt a solo game. Solo players either need to learn better teamwork, or suffer as a result. This has always been true, and why you dont see 5 man solo teams in the LCS. You need teamwork.

Dextix LTJun 17, 201635 votes

Alright, then explain division placements and the skill differences between pros and bronze/silver players? If rank has never been indicative of individual skill then why pro players have so much more individual skill than bronzies?

Rank has ALWAYS indicated individual skill and teamwork with 4 random teammates.

The game is not a solo game, i agree, you play with 4 others. However teamwork is not restricted only to premades.

Being solo and being able to communicate and to work well with 4 other random people IS indicative of teamwork, and those who were not able to do it suffered in the old system.

In the new system you are punished for not being premade, not because you cant work in a team.

Pika FoxJun 17, 20161 votes

They usually play 1000s of games a season, which both enforces them having higher skill overall through sheer number of games played, and allows them to get more accurately where their skill level is reflected.

Most people dont play 1000s of games/season.

And if you dont have 1000s of games played, your MMR/Division means relatively little. Its not accurate, at all. Theres no real way to tell if you got there because of you, your team, or random chance.

Dextix LTJun 17, 201626 votes

And if you dont have 1000s of games played, your MMR/Division means relatively little.

Really? Then you want to tell me, that everyone being in bronze/silver/gold/platinum/diamond is random?

How do you explain the difference in skill when you consider bronze-platinum or silver-diamond elos then?

How do you explain the increase in skill of diamonds when considering the skill of bronzies?

How do you explain boosters which are paid to carry people to higher ranks?

Well?

Oh wait, its because your rank is dependant on your skill, or was, before dynamicq which allows boosting on a large scale.

Pika FoxJun 17, 20163 votes

If you dont have 1000s of games played, your MMR/Division is, essentially, close to random. Thats literally how statistics work. Assume a coin flip is exactly a 50-50 chance at heads or tails, the 50-50 split is only truly observable at infinite flips. Anything short of that is not stable; you can get 5 heads in a row then 20 tails, followed by 3 heads a tails two more heads and 3 tails.

The same is true of MMR. The more you play, the more "accurate" it can get, but statistical variation makes it entirely likely for a low skilled player to rise up in the short term or a high skilled player to fall drastically. This is especially true since there are 9 other people in the game than you; you are only 10% of the total decisions in the game. Regardless of how skilled you are, you will always only be 10% of the game.

Dextix LTJun 17, 201627 votes

The coin flip analogy doesnt work at all here. Because here you can stack your chances and influence them and are not dependant on luck.

Also, you are contradicting yourself since you say that you need 1000 games for something not to be random, yet then say that a split is seen only at infinites. Thus considering your logic even those with 1000 games can be randoms.

No, statistical variation over already 100 games is small. 100 games is already indicative of your skill, because if you are good you will rise, if you are not, you will fall.

10 games or even 20 could be random, but 100, only in fringe cases, because in LOL you have some control over the outcome, you do not fully depend on randomness.

Lets look at real life, shall we? According to your logic, footbal brackets are all fully random in all championships. This means that Barsellona or Real are actually in the top teams of their league not because they are good teams, but because they randomly won games to get there (Footbal doesnt have as much games as LOL in 1 season).

That is false, since the victories of those teams did not depend on a coin toss or chance. It depended on their individual and teamwork skills, just like in LOL.

You are arguing that rank is completely random and doesnt matter, yet every real life example proves it otherwise, even in this game.

Pika FoxJun 17, 20163 votes

The coin flip analogy applies; you are only 10% of the game at any point. You only have a 10% agency in your game. You are the only consistent variable, but not the only variable.

And i didnt contradict myself; 1000s of games makes the result more accurate. It will never be perfect, but it will in general be accurate enough to use.

And no, 100 games is too small a sample size to be indicative of skill. You might luck out and get there in 100 games, but its not likely.

The football analogy, however, doesnt work. There, the teams are consistent, and only have a small number of teams to play against. In LoL, the teams arent consistent, and youre being ranked against millions of others. That takes more time than just a couple of games.

Dextix LTJun 17, 201619 votes

You are never the only variable in any game. However, you being a consistent variable is the most important part. Because it is this consistency that allows for your achievements to be decided by your skill and not by luck.

Yes 1000 games makes it more accurate, however, how accurate it is in reality? It doesnt make much difference if there are 500 or 1000 games if according to your logic everything is random. Because for everything to even out you will need, guess what, infinite tries.

No, such sample size is not too small. Is it small? Yes. But it is enough for skill to how. You dont need 1000 games.

A good example of that are pros. Or simply good players. I am a high-plat/low-diamond player. I have a few smurfs that i have taken. In all of those smurfs i started in bronze/silver level. Guess what. I needed about only 100 games or a bit higher in some cases, to reach plat/diamond. Why is that? Because my skill is at that level and i could get myself to that level, not because of luck, but because of my skill.

Somehow, i did not need 1000 to get a good indication of skill level. Of course, it is not completely acccurate. However, it is still an indication of your boundaries of your skill level.

For example, currently i am at plat 1. I was diamond 5 last season. And i was plat 2 at the start of this season. My skill level is around that area. It is not entirelly accurate, but i know the area that i am currently at.

The football analogy works. In both cases, you have different brackets for teams (or in case of LOL, players) depending on their overall skill. In league you have bronze/silver/gold etc and in football you have A/B/C and other leagues.

In both games you depend on other people. In the case of football its not random, however the dependence on other people remains.

Now, the main difference is that in Football, there are a lot less games that are played and that decide the team rankings. However, according to your logic, since the number f those games is low, it could all be luck and not an indication of skill, which is false.

What i wanted to prove, is that 1k games is not needed to know an indication of someones skill. A big sample is not always needed when a smaller one is enough.

Apostle of LightJun 17, 20161 votes

I think both arguments can be correct. 100 games for someone may be enough to get to where they belong. However, it is very possible that in 70% of those games you get poor-performing teams, or on the other hand, over-performing teams. The matchmaking system is not good enough to give everyone an equal chance to win through 100 games. I think that's why you're pointing out that 1000 games is a much clearer indication of skill. Again, this can be different for everyone. No one should judge their personal experience and say that's the norm.

Pika FoxJun 18, 20161 votes

Pretty much the point im making. Statistics arent accurate immediately, and you will always get edge cases that dont line up with what most people should be lining up with.

Apostle of LightJun 18, 20161 votes

Yeah I get what you're saying. Honestly there's no reason for all the downvotes on your comments. Your arguments are valid. People just aren't open to ideas that they don't like.

Dextix LTJun 18, 20162 votes

Except it isnt.

He is trying to show an exeption as a rule.

He argues that your ranking doesnt depend on skill, when that is entirely false.

If you are good, no matter your luck, you will rise eventually, if you are bad, you wont. Simple as that.

Dextix LTJun 19, 20163 votes

Ye, you should have read his arguments first. Because he actually made the argument that skill doesnt have effect on ranking exept when we are talking about the top, completely top rankings.

And i agree that there is variance and that ranking system is not completely accurate. But it is accurate enough.

GlockHammerJun 17, 201611 votes

[{quoted}](name=Pika Fox,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=85Aqu1AA,comment-id=00040001000000000000,timestamp=2016-06-17T06:31:50.825+0000)

They usually play 1000s of games a season, which both enforces them having higher skill overall through sheer number of games played, and allows them to get more accurately where their skill level is reflected.

Most people dont play 1000s of games/season.

And if you dont have 1000s of games played, your MMR/Division means relatively little. Its not accurate, at all. Theres no real way to tell if you got there because of you, your team, or random chance.

Well, it didn't take the system long to figure out you do not belong above silver (I'd personally wager you belong lower, no offense, op.gg OP), despite a low sample of games. I think you're overexagarating, high skill players can climb the ladder fairly quickly without the need to grind 100's or 1000's of games, regardless of scenario.

Pika FoxJun 17, 20162 votes

The system hasnt "decided" anything for me. I havnt played much of ranked at all, so saying it magically knows i shouldnt be above silver makes no logical sense. While im probably around gold skill level at best (partly because my computer is trash and being mechanically good at 10-20 fps is a longshot), suggesting that its accurate at all currently is bollocks.

And a lot of people even with high skill levels end up having to play a few hundred games to get towards the upper tier of where they belong. Though this is also assuming they are master/challenger level players, which are very few.

Most people below that would take up to thousands of games to get to where they should, just due to statistical variation, and not having brute skill to get beyond said variation.

Spacesuit SpiffJun 17, 201610 votes

Although the accuracy is variable, rank suggests "true rank" (which I shall define as the rank one would have after playing 1000s of games without improving). The degree to which it suggests it depends on the number of games played. In my experience, after 100 games a player will be within 5 divisions of their true rank. 200 games might bring them within 4. Getting to within 1 or 2 would take several hundred most likely (but in practise players adapt over those games and their true rank increases anyway). Point is, you'll never see a plat player stuck in silver after 200 games. I ended season 4 in p5, started season 5 in s5, and hit g5 over the course of a weekend.

You have good ideas but if you experience a lot of ranked you'll see that they don't necessarily hold up. If you've seen the micro differences between a diamond and silver laner, and the macro differences between diamond and silver games, you'll get that ranked is good at loosely determining where someone belongs, at least enough for matchmaking. If I see any plat or diamond in my game, I can expect them to usually play close enough to my level that the game isn't a farce. Sure, you can't objectively compare people in the same bracket to see who's better without 1000s of games, but nobody really wants or needs to, and that's not what ranked sets out to accomplish.

Pika FoxJun 17, 20161 votes

"Point is, you'll never see a plat player stuck in silver after 200 games" Thats not how statistics work. While 200 games is certainly better than 5 games for a sample size, its entirely possible for that to happen. Hypothetically its entirely possible for a challenger player to be bronze 5 after 1000 games. Statistically unlikely, but possible.

Dextix LTJun 17, 201611 votes

It is also possible that i will die tommorow. So what? Anything that is not 0% has a possibility of happening. And we cant change that. We can however stack the chips in our favor.

Almost all the time the ranking will be at least loosely correct.

HaloDragonXJun 17, 20161 votes

The point is, the ladder is never 100% accurate due to having random variables, only ladder that was truly fair was ranked5s because it had no random. I can agree with 1000 games being better to determine than only a mere 200 games, and I can agree that it is possible to be held back my teammates and possible to win by these random teammates too. He's saying that it is possible, no one can deny that. (but it sounds like a defense on DQ so everyone MUST downvote it, even if it's just a bash on the whole idea that SoloQ is 100% fair) DQ isn't fair either, but I won't argue which is better, rather I'll say that neither is perfect.

Dextix LTJun 18, 20165 votes

Of course it isnt entirely accurate! But it is close enough. People are not downvoting him because he "supports" dynamic, but because his "arguments" are simply shit.

He claims that soloes cant do teamwork. Are you goddamn serious? He has never even smelled so far as gold.

And yes it is a possibility. Just like me dying is also a possibility.

However the possibility is so small that it is insignificant.

DukuesJun 17, 20168 votes

{quoted}

Well, it didn't take the system long to figure out you do not belong above silver (I'd personally wager you belong lower, no offense, op.gg OP), despite a low sample of games. I think you're overexagarating, high skill players can climb the ladder fairly quickly without the need to grind 100's or 1000's of games, regardless of scenario.

LOL i love this kid. The only people who don't understand that ranked used to mean something is someone who never played ranked. I was silver for years and I could tell the difference between an average silver 1, silver 2, 3 ,4 5 player hahahaha. He is right that more games help, but it doesn't have to be 1000. I agree he belongs in bronze.

KING ATTILAJun 17, 201618 votes

Teamwork has always been an element necessary to win the game. Dynamic Queue doesn't enforce teamwork; it forces you to play with friends or else suffer as a solo player on a ranked ladder that lost all meaning.

If friends want to have fun casual time, that's what NORMAL GAMES are for. 5 man ranked existed for a purpose.

Really, which professional player have you heard say that DQ made ranked better while more accurately representing a ranked ladder mixed with random elements of premade numbers? Oh, none of them.

Pika FoxJun 17, 20162 votes

"Suffer as a solo player" only if you dont work as a team to begin with. Solo queue has never reflected real skill, just a bunch of people hoping jim bob joe on riven would carry instead of feed. NOW real teamwork is enforced, and everyone is all up in arms that they need to work as a team.

Oh woe is us solo players, i need to work with the 4 other people on my team. Oh woe are we.

Please, as a support player we have been dealing with this for forever. Either learn to work together, or have fun lower on the ladder.

ArakadiaJun 17, 201614 votes

How is teamwork enforced anymore than before? Before the team that worked together more than the other won most of the time, now people's buddies can carry them.

Pika FoxJun 17, 20161 votes

People could get boosted and carried before, that literally hasnt changed. DuoQ was a thing. Youre making a problem out of nothing, really.

And now the shift is actually towards teamwork. Before it was 5 solo queuers generally playing solo, assuming they had to carry. Now teamwork is actually enforced because youre playing against actual teams.

ArakadiaJun 17, 201615 votes

It was much harder to boost people before. This is a problem.

Oh so team work is random players trying to play against a cordinated pre made likely in Teamspeak. Solo Q had 5 ransoms trying to work together versus 5 random a. No advantages were given, except ofc the team who was better/worked together more. It's not equal ground because perma des have better knowledge.

Who do you think will win. A world champion ships soccer team, or several members who never played together and don't know each others strengths. And then this soccer team who knows each other can speak to each other as if their two feet away. Who has the advantage?

Pika FoxJun 17, 20162 votes

Youre exaggerating. Greatly.

You still have all the communication youll ever really need with the ping system. You also have the ability to put a curse link into the chat.

And not every single 5 man queue is a challenger tier player. Your example should be 5 randoms vs 5 friends. In which id still say its pretty fucking even. 5 friends playing soccer doesnt mean that theyre great at it.

Dextix LTJun 17, 201614 votes

No, he isnt.

There is a huge difference between pings and being able to tell your teammates everything over voice chat and even coordinate skills. And yea, use curse link with 4 random players that you dont even know while the premades know each other, seems "fair".

And no. 5 randoms vs 5 friends is not even. The friends have better communication, they nkow each other, they know each others strenghts and weaknesses and they have synergy.

Soloes do not have that and are at a disadvantage.

BlanchimontJun 17, 201612 votes

I absolutely agree with this. Friends who play together might as well be teammates on a team once they've played together enough. Even if the MMR is exactly the same, at no point is the game actually fair. People who play with each other a lot know each other's habits and can play around it whereas five randoms who group together are less likely to pick up on another player's aggressive tendencies or passive tendencies unless they've played together A LOT and that rarely happens on the lower elos because of how many players there are. If they have voice chat, it is even more unfair because it is easier for them to communicate exactly what they want to do where and is a lot faster and more accurate than the ping system.

GlockHammerJun 17, 201615 votes

[{quoted}](name=Pika Fox,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=85Aqu1AA,comment-id=000400010000,timestamp=2016-06-17T05:47:42.737+0000)

Your rank has never been indicative of your individual skill. Its a 5 person team game, the only time this statement could ever be true is when you have played an infinite number of games. Thats how statistics work.

Also, the game isnt a solo game. Solo players either need to learn better teamwork, or suffer as a result. This has always been true, and why you dont see 5 man solo teams in the LCS. You need teamwork.

Ya, it's a "teamgame" so let's remove ranked 5's for the top echelon. ;)

If teamplay was truely as vital as you claim, ranked 5's "full stack" would be the only way to play ranked as it's the only way to truely gauge the complete competence of a team.

I personally can't understand the lack of logic one must posses to believe there is anything competitive about mixing Q's. Solos and premades rely on different skillsets to different degrees to achieve success in ranked.

You talk about getting better at teamplay, but how do you get better at coordinating with your temporary team than premades who've already had dozens of games played together and understand each others playstyles, comfort picks, strenghts and weaknessess, during the duration of a single game?

I think it's fair to say that the system is completely bonkers.