Team MMR and MMR Matchmaking IS and ALWAYS was a joke. And will continue to be so as long as you rate an individual player based on the performance of his entire team. In League you only win or lose MMR through wins and losses BUT those wins and losses ARE in fact based on 4 other people.
This whole ELO system was taken from Chess. Who ever thought it was a good idea clearly didn't get the memo. Chess is played individually. 1 vs 1. Therefore the MMR / ELO CAN be accurate. But in any other game that involves more than 1 player the system falls short. Now you may say hey but they use the same system in basketball and baseball. Yes you are right. But unlike League of legends that matches you with randoms across the world, basketball and baseball are team sports. What I mean by that is that they got coaches, a plan of play and a team tactic. Basically they play as a team. They play as one.
That means no INTING, no AFKing, no FLAMING. While our League's ELO system might work in very high elo (master - challenger) where like-minded / like skilled people do play against each other, It does nothing for anyone else. And mind you in this game we got what? 90%++ of entire game population below master-challenger.
Here's the definition of ELO -
"The difference in the ratings between two players that serves as a predictor of the outcome of a match. Two players with equal ratings who play against each other are expected to score an equal number of wins. A player whose rating is 100 points greater than their opponent's is expected to score 64%; if the difference is 200 points, then the expected score for the stronger player is 76%."
Also -
"A player's Elo rating is represented by a number which increases or decreases depending on the outcome of games between rated players. After every game, the winning player takes points from the losing one. The difference between the ratings of the winner and loser determines the total number of points gained or lost after a game. In a series of games between a high-rated player and a low-rated player, the high-rated player is expected to score more wins. If the high-rated player wins, then only a few rating points will be taken from the low-rated player. However, if the lower rated player scores an upset win, many rating points will be transferred. The lower rated player will also gain a few points from the higher rated player in the event of a draw. This means that this rating system is self-correcting. A player whose rating is too low should, in the long run, do better than the rating system predicts, and thus gain rating points until the rating reflects their true playing strength."
Sounds great right? Well it's only great on paper. And in chess.
In League however. MMR is only defined by team wins or losses. And even when matchmade with a higher ELO player IF and WHEN the lower elo player wins they only get breadcrumbs. Go on a losing streak and the system immediately recognisses this and sets you on a downfall path to lower ends of elo. Winning vs a higher ELO player usually doesn't mean anything. Not even 1 point of ELO. Check it out for yourself. After your game check all the players who participated in the game. Notice how you won even though you played against opponents 4 tiers above you? Now notice how you don't actually gain anything for it because the system itself found it FAIR to matchmake you in the first place through a TEAM MMR process? That's why you still gain 15LP per win and lose 20 LP per loss even though you win against much better opponents. That is NOT how elo was designed to work in the first place. This is just League's system to account for the fact that there's 5 random players in one team and the end result for each individual is calculated as a team rate be it good or bad.
I never liked the system in League of Legends. And it's even worse in Starcraft but only because APM matters there and APM directly translates into macro. It does not matter in league. No matter how many clicks you use in LOL (even though sometimes it's higher than in a match of SC) there's literally nothing else to do but move or attack. You don't macro other units and their skills and other buildings and their skills and their units. But at least in SC you know that if you work on your APM you actually do get better and the only reason you sometimes lose games is because of cheeses (early game macro and micro tactics that can win or lose a game based on the player on the receiving end's overall map information).
In League, you only get better if you accept your fate. Mostly through muting everyone, stop telling one or all of the other four how to play or what to build in order to win (basically stop chatting altogether or keep it very minimal), accept your defeat with grace even though you go trolled by one or more players in your team for little to no real good reason at all. Stop caring about winning or losing. And most importantly play a crap ton of games. And i mean a LOT! Only then, in the long run does the system actually start working. Because to say any player hovers about a 50-50% +/- winning rate is nonsense. You know this. Some go into placements and win 10/10 and that 100% winrate in just 10 games. Others go 0/10 and get placed into bronze and that's 0% winrate. The only time the system kind of works in after about 300-500 games (and that's considering you yourself don't get tilted or start trolling just to vent out the anger of losing the last 10 games in a row without it even being your fault) and you need to play those games consistently and at your best.
Not everyone has time for 3-500 games. And you can't even solocarry anymore. Not in a tank and assassin meta. Your team is either on board or you all lose. And since you can't solo carry yourself, I fail to see the point of this matchmaking in the first place.
High master - challenger - LCS? Yeah the system is ok. Anything lower than that and this system crumbles.
