Riot Forces A 50% Win Ratio

Subdue·Aug 16, 2017·13 votes·4,799 views

Somehow people have gotten it into their heads that this notion is correct. Riot is trying to beat you down to 50%, trying to keep you from climbing, etc. The concept is so ridiculous that it's baffling so many people buy into it.

The goal of the system is not to put you at a 50% win ratio. It never has been. The goal of the system is to match you up with players that are as close to your skill level as possible, the biproduct of which for most is eventually a 50% ratio. I say "For most" because the worst of the worst will likely always have a less than 50% ratio, and the best of the best will likely have a greater than 50% ratio, because they are too far above or too far below the norm to have what are even games. For anyone not buried at the very very bottom of the bottomless barrel that is Bronze 5 or sitting at the top of challenger, this will never be an issue.

47 Comments

Emelie CauchemarAug 16, 20179 votes

Actually, the system does in fact try to make you lose. If you go on a winstreak your next game, or promo will consistently put you with worse players and give you more autofills.

I op.gg myself every game and whenever I go on winstreaks my 4th game will always have two autofills and people on loss streaks.

If you go on stuff like 12 game winstreaks and are going to skip divisions the game will intentionally pit you against really hard teams with heavy weight. Higher elo smurfs typically duo or play really snowbally champs like Tryndamere/Kassadin to fix this by making the game more about them and less about the actual game.

Pie CubedAug 16, 201711 votes

Yeah it isn't matching you against higher level players, thus making you have a roughly 50% winrate, but it's matching you with shitty players.

ParakeeniAug 16, 20171 votes

Wow I never noticed that. I only notice that the more i win, the less LP i get

ChargeItDownMidAug 16, 20173 votes

[deleted]

Emelie CauchemarAug 16, 20172 votes

{quoted}

That is a problem with op.gg reporting stats and not the riot matchmaking system.

The system you propose mathematically cannot function with the current queue times in the game. The population of "deadweights" and "autofill" players consists a fraction of the entire population of league players. This means that if matchmaking only gives you "deadweights" and "autofill" players after a win streak, your queue time would be exponentially higher as you get larger and larger win streaks. However, every time a high elo player streams themselves climbing on a smurf, there is little to no variation between the queue times from when they just start and when they are on insane winstreaks.

Did you really just try to imply a population disparity? lol. I literally just showed my history and proved my point. I can even show my diamond account where in my promo games I consistently get two autofillers. I even dodged 3 games in a row and still ended up getting autofills + off roles x3.

ChargeItDownMidAug 16, 20173 votes

[deleted]

Emelie CauchemarAug 16, 20171 votes

{quoted}

Your history proves nothing. League has a multimillion player population. Anyone can cherry pick a few instances of matchmaking randomly giving them bad teammates after a few games. That does not mean the system is intentionally doing it.

A matchmaking system simply cannot intentionally give you worse players after win streaks without significantly increasing queue times. Doing so would force matchmaking to select from a smaller pool of players when you go on a win streak thereby significantly increasing queue times.

I have 7 smurfs, and they're all the same. I don't really know how that's cherry picking but okay. I've had these same results all the way back to season 1.

You're also still leaning on population disparity after trying to then inflate the number to multi-million. Now you're basically just contradicting yourself lol.

" THERE'S NOT ENOUGH PLAYERS FOR THIS TO LOGICALLY MAKE SENSE!"

"umm. Riot has millions upon millions of players, your results mean nothing!!!"

[slayer-jinx-unamused]

ChargeItDownMidAug 16, 20172 votes

[deleted]

Emelie CauchemarAug 16, 20171 votes

{quoted}

I'm not contradicting anything, you just don't have a basic understanding of statistics. I never used population disparity, you just brought up the term as a straw man.

The problem with your model isn't that there aren't enough players, it is that the queue times don't add up. No matter what the population is, a model which intentionally puts bad players and autofillers on your team after win streaks has to have exponentially longer queue times as your winstreak gets larger.

So, what you're trying to tell me is that it's going to take the system 40+ minutes to put a top laner onto ADC and put another top laner in his off role having a bad day and a mid lane yasuo on the team? Because it really doesn't. I play in a pool of roughly 2,000 players and it's not uncommon for half of them to be on loss streaks, and a good chunk of them OTPS which means it's even less uncommon to put at least one of them on autofill, two if unlucky. Sometimes even 3. I've had 4 adc mains on one team before.

ChargeItDownMidAug 16, 20172 votes

[deleted]

Emelie CauchemarAug 16, 20171 votes

{quoted}

No, just that it would take more take significantly more time than if matchmaking was pulling a random top laner, mid laner, jungler, adc, and support from the same pool of players.

First of all, it is very uncommon for any group of 2000 players to have anywhere close to half of the players on loss streaks. On average, 25% of the players have lost their last 2 games, 12.5% have lost their last 3, and 6.25% have lost their last 4. The only place where you will see anywhere near half of the players being on losing streaks is at the very bottom of the elo ladder.

Putting that aside, even if you magically got into the bottom of the ladder where close to half of the players are on a losing streak, your queue times would still more than double when you go on a winning streak. Instead of just waiting for 4 random players from the pool of 2000, you claim that matchmaking is intentionally only choosing players from the half that are playing poorly.

Lastly, what type of matchmaking formula can even put you into a situation where it is nearly impossible to get win streaks but half of the people in your pool are on losing streaks? Every game, there are the same number of winners and losers. If nearly half of the players are 0-4 in their last 4 games, then there has to be a ton of players who are 4-0 to balance out the math (which goes completely against your theory that matchmaking is making win streaks nearly impossible).

You stated that you play above silver which means that the average winrate of the players in your bracket is at least 50%. In your pool of players, what do you believe is the distribution of players who are 0-4, 1-3, 2-2, 3-1, and 4-0 in their last 4 games assuming that as a whole, they need to average at least 50% winrate

You just said it was impossible to go on winning streaks when I've specifically said the system starts rigging itself to be harder when you go on win streaks. And it does. I've played on 7 different accounts. I've checked numerous times. I've grinded to diamond multiple times already. The game statistically wants you at 50% winrate. IF there were no checks and balances then pretty much everyone would be in challenger and queue dodging and checking op.gg WRS wouldn't be the best possible way to climb which is what a lot of players do to hit challenger.

SubdueAug 16, 20172 votes

[{quoted}](name=Emelie Cauchemar,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=E2Y3Uhvu,comment-id=000000020000000000000000000000000000,timestamp=2017-08-16T21:18:33.151+0000)

You just said it was impossible to go on winning streaks when I've specifically said the system starts rigging itself to be harder when you go on win streaks. And it does. I've played on 7 different accounts. I've checked numerous times. I've grinded to diamond multiple times already. The game statistically wants you at 50% winrate. IF there were no checks and balances then pretty much everyone would be in challenger and queue dodging and checking op.gg WRS wouldn't be the best possible way to climb which is what a lot of players do to hit challenger.

No, the game wants you in evenly matched games. As your skill comes more in line with the players you're playing with, your individual impact on the game becomes less and less.

This is why when you say you've grinded to Diamond, you should be able to see that you have a bigger impact in low Elo games than you do in high Elo games. There's no invisible check that says "Oh Emilie is in her promo, better stack her with a bunch of bronze players to go up against Diamonds." But every win should result in a more difficult game the next time around, as theoretically the average skill of all players will be higher. And when you've gone on a long streak, that means that the next game should be that much harder than the first game of your streak, because the players are all around better.

KloqdqAug 16, 20171 votes

Yeah that makes sense ^

Michael702Aug 16, 20177 votes

But they match players using a flawed MMR algorithm instead of using the ladder like most games. Leaving most people scratching their heads wondering WTF is wrong with matchmaker.

ParakeeniAug 16, 20172 votes

Totally agreed. So flawed. Why can't the give/take LP based on individual performance

AnonagonAug 16, 20171 votes

Okay, so let's match games based on people's actual ranks.

Of course, because of this, we'd have to have a unified ladder, so no more separate 200 person divisions. Not a big loss really.

Also we'd have to get rid of promotion series, because while in them your ladder position doesn't change dynamically to reflect your wins and losses. Promos were kind of annoying anyway.

Without promos, there's little point to separate divisions isn't there? So we get rid of those too.

Now we've got it! You are matched based on your semi-arbitrary ladder placement number. The people you play with are the people in queue with the closest ladder position to you.

Wait - that's exactly what MMR is. An arbitrary number that represents your placement on a ladder of all players.

The dichotomy between ladder position and MMR is literally just an abstraction designed to make ranked more approachable. There's no functional difference. A change to a pure ladder system would change nothing.

Though at this point I honestly wish Riot would switch to one just so idiots could stop using "muh flawed MMR system" as an excuse for their losses.

King of TroIIsAug 16, 20171 votes

Wait - that's exactly what MMR is. An arbitrary number that represents your placement on a ladder of all players.

Wrong. If this were actually correct, you would not have accounts in Gold 3 with Plat V MMR. They would be in Plat V with Plat V MMR.

The only true way to balance the matchmaking is to do it on sustained win/loss ratio.

Example:

Player A: 100 games played. 70-30 record. Player B: 10 games played. 7-3 record. Player C: 200 games played. 140-60 record.

Should these players be matched against each other? No. How do you accomodate for this?

Player A: (70/100)+100 = 100.70 Player B: (7/10) + 10 = 10.70 Player C: (140/200) + 200 = 200.70

Now you can see where each of these players have a 70% win/loss ratio, however, player C, with the most games has sustained his win/loss ratio the longest and would be matched vs other players in his sustained win/loss ratio range. This works because of the sheer number of players on the ladder. You could also use this method and apply it to Roles so you could evenly match Top vs Top, Jg vs Jg. The problem with MMR is that it uses a team average so you could have 1 high MMR person with 4 low as fuck MMR vs 3 midrange MMR and 2 lower MMR making the match imbalanced and unfair.

Everything you said up until the quoted text is a good idea. The entire rank system should be a ladder similar to Masters/Challenger, based on sustained win/loss ratio.

SubdueAug 16, 20171 votes

[{quoted}](name=Zen 9er,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=E2Y3Uhvu,comment-id=000300010000,timestamp=2017-08-16T19:20:18.153+0000)

Wrong. If this were actually correct, you would not have accounts in Gold 3 with Plat V MMR. They would be in Plat V with Plat V MMR.

The only true way to balance the matchmaking is to do it on sustained win/loss ratio.

Example:

Player A: 100 games played. 70-30 record. Player B: 10 games played. 7-3 record. Player C: 200 games played. 140-60 record.

Should these players be matched against each other? No. How do you accomodate for this?

Player A: (70/100)+100 = 100.70 Player B: (7/10) + 10 = 10.70 Player C: (140/200) + 200 = 200.70

Now you can see where each of these players have a 70% win/loss ratio, however, player C, with the most games has sustained his win/loss ratio the longest and would be matched vs other players in his sustained win/loss ratio range. This works because of the sheer number of players on the ladder. You could also use this method and apply it to Roles so you could evenly match Top vs Top, Jg vs Jg. The problem with MMR is that it uses a team average so you could have 1 high MMR person with 4 low as fuck MMR vs 3 midrange MMR and 2 lower MMR making the match imbalanced and unfair.

Everything you said up until the quoted text is a good idea. The entire rank system should be a ladder similar to Masters/Challenger, based on sustained win/loss ratio.

You can't use win ratios as a metric for who should be matched with who. Consider two scenarios of fresh accounts:

Scenario 1: Jack wins 30 straight wins, rocketing himself to Diamond 5, where he then alternates winning/losing for the next 70 games, for a total win rate of 65/100.

Scenario 2: Bob loses 30 straight games, plunging himself down deep into Bronze 5, and then wins 30 games, bringing him back up to Silver 1, and from there he wins 35, loses 5, placing him at a win rate of 65/100, just like Jack, and allowhing him to climb to Gold 1.

In Scenario 1, Jack plays his first 30 games against players ranked between Silver and Diamond, and his next 70 games against Diamond players. In Scenario 2, Bob players his first 70 games playing against players between Bronze 5 and Silver 1. Yet both result in the same win ratio.

AnonagonAug 16, 20171 votes

The discrepancy between displayed Rank and MMR is a completely separate issue from matchmaking.

MMR is exactly what you are asking for. It's a number that determines matchmaking based on the results of your performance against other ranked players. It is a product of your winrate and the skill level of the people you have beaten. The only problem with MMR is that people don't understand it.

SubdueAug 16, 20173 votes

{quoted}

But they match players using a flawed MMR algorithm instead of using the ladder like most games. Leaving most people scratching their heads wondering WTF is wrong with matchmaker.

...And then you realize that the MMR system IS the ladder...

Michael702Aug 17, 20171 votes

No, it's not. It's an algorithm Riot uses to determine your skill level.

SubdueAug 17, 20174 votes

{quoted}

No, it's not. It's an algorithm Riot uses to determine your skill level.

...The MMR system assigns a numerical value to a player to estimate their skill and assign matches. Winning games raises the numerical value, and losing games lowers it.

What do you think a ladder is?

Michael702Aug 17, 20171 votes

I think you're mistaking LP with MMR. LP rise and fall with wins/losses. MMR is a number obtained using an algorithm.

SubdueAug 17, 20173 votes

{quoted}

I think you're mistaking LP with MMR. LP rise and fall with wins/losses. MMR is a number obtained using an algorithm.

And what do you think happens to MMR when you win/lose?

PopcornBunniAug 16, 20175 votes

Man I wish I could get in on this forced 50% winrate thing. I'm sitting at 432 wins and 486 losses.

Mysticman89Aug 16, 20173 votes

The people who think that riot is intentionally putting feeders into people with high win rates games is also somewhat silly. Riot can't know if someone is going to int in advance, and they're certainly not paying of random players to spoil other random players.

It's just that feeders are going to inevitably happen just by random chance regardless of what your win rate is like. If you've been on a win streak you're prone to notice it more (as you've likely not had anyone feeding over the course of the win streak), but theres plenty of people who have a string of 'fair' losses, and then get hit by a feeder related loss too, and people who are doing a more typical ~50% winrate series of games that also have feeders sprinkled in, and all three groups are probably getting the same number of overall feeders due to statistics.

RainfallAug 16, 20171 votes

i was climbing on flex queue to get the end of season rewards,i had like almost 70% winrate in like 20-25 games,last game 2 diamond players on the enemy team and i got an unranked guy.The only reason we won was because riot autofilled one of the diamond players.

Mysticman89Aug 16, 20171 votes

Flex is a bit of a crapshoot due to flex mmr and solo/duo mmr being different, so sometimes there are legitimately diamond+ solo/duo players who have silver-gold flex mmr. It's one of those things that would fix itself if everyone actually played flex at least semi-seriously so the system could find everyones place, but since everyone treats it as a joke or ignores it, things stay messy.

I got to play against (and beat) a couple solo/duo challengers during my flex climb which was spicy.

Emelie CauchemarAug 16, 20171 votes

{quoted}

The people who think that riot is intentionally putting feeders into people with high win rates games is also somewhat silly. Riot can't know if someone is going to int in advance, and they're certainly not paying of random players to spoil other random players.

It's just that feeders are going to inevitably happen just by random chance regardless of what your win rate is like. If you've been on a win streak you're prone to notice it more (as you've likely not had anyone feeding over the course of the win streak), but theres plenty of people who have a string of 'fair' losses, and then get hit by a feeder related loss too, and people who are doing a more typical ~50% winrate series of games that also have feeders sprinkled in, and all three groups are probably getting the same number of overall feeders due to statistics.

Um. When you go on loss streaks the system puts people with better winrates in to your team to help even it out and give you a win. This is by nature the exact opposite of going on winning streaks and getting a team of people on tilt.

I op.gg before every game and during loading screen and this has consistently happened.

Also

https://gyazo.com/b634d6bbe47a2b14cd0a4a37386f19d4 <-- My smurfs promo game to hit gold 2

https://gyazo.com/aedaf2ee9cb297dbd7e59099e3041f08 <-- Game immediately after.

https://gyazo.com/597a6e957fceb4e51b7d90fe2a0ed208 <-- Game immediately after that.

https://gyazo.com/376d99b14c45311e7bcb9657eafac60b <-- And after that.

https://gyazo.com/d50ba879bab1310f0fc174ecf7ff31f8 <-- And after that

Are you noticing something? My teams mmr consistently gets lower and lower while my enemies get higher and higher, and it's because of me going on long winstreaks, and because I was in a promo it intentionally rigged the game for me to lose by putting lower mmr team mates across the board + put me against duos and a team of way higher rank on big winstreaks + put tilters on my team.

My match history alone proves my point.

Mysticman89Aug 16, 20171 votes

You don't actually know your teams MMR though, since ranks mean basically nothing in terms of mmr. Sometimes you'll have people with low ranks with relatively high mmrs for their rank because they're on a win streak, and you'll have people with high ranks but relatively low mmrs for their rank, such that everyone actually has around the same mmr.

Also, people have a tendency to look at things only from their own perspective, which is understandable, but it tends to break the logic if you assume matchmaking works the same for your teammates as for you (and if you don't assume that, you get into targetted conspiracy land which you don't want to be). If you're on a winstreak and you're matched with a majhority of people on a lose streak, then consider that match from the perspective of one of the people on a lose streak. Now they're on a lose streak, and being matched with a majority of other lose streak people (despite the one win streak person), so from their perspective lose streaks beget more lose streaks, not the opposite.

Emelie CauchemarAug 16, 20171 votes

{quoted}

You don't actually know your teams MMR though, since ranks mean basically nothing in terms of mmr. Sometimes you'll have people with low ranks with relatively high mmrs for their rank because they're on a win streak, and you'll have people with high ranks but relatively low mmrs for their rank, such that everyone actually has around the same mmr.

Also, people have a tendency to look at things only from their own perspective, which is understandable, but it tends to break the logic if you assume matchmaking works the same for your teammates as for you (and if you don't assume that, you get into targetted conspiracy land which you don't want to be). If you're on a winstreak and you're matched with a majhority of people on a lose streak, then consider that match from the perspective of one of the people on a lose streak. Now they're on a lose streak, and being matched with a majority of other lose streak people (despite the one win streak person), so from their perspective lose streaks beget more lose streaks, not the opposite.

https://gyazo.com/5facb169e9b59b2c7724fe8ec68549d4

I chose the D5 player in my promo since D5s usually guilty of what you just said, and his mmr is perfectly fine. So was everyone elses.

SubdueAug 16, 20171 votes

[{quoted}](name=Emelie Cauchemar,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=E2Y3Uhvu,comment-id=00010001,timestamp=2017-08-16T18:41:45.088+0000)

Um. When you go on loss streaks the system puts people with better winrates in to your team to help even it out and give you a win. This is by nature the exact opposite of going on winning streaks and getting a team of people on tilt.

I op.gg before every game and during loading screen and this has consistently happened.

Also

https://gyazo.com/b634d6bbe47a2b14cd0a4a37386f19d4 <-- My smurfs promo game to hit gold 2

https://gyazo.com/aedaf2ee9cb297dbd7e59099e3041f08 <-- Game immediately after.

https://gyazo.com/597a6e957fceb4e51b7d90fe2a0ed208 <-- Game immediately after that.

https://gyazo.com/376d99b14c45311e7bcb9657eafac60b <-- And after that.

https://gyazo.com/d50ba879bab1310f0fc174ecf7ff31f8 <-- And after that

Are you noticing something? My teams mmr consistently gets lower and lower while my enemies get higher and higher, and it's because of me going on long winstreaks, and because I was in a promo it intentionally rigged the game for me to lose by putting lower mmr team mates across the board + put me against duos and a team of way higher rank on big winstreaks + put tilters on my team.

My match history alone proves my point.

You are looking at the Division/Tier rather than the underlying MMR. The Division / Tier give you a wide estimate of a player's skill, where as MMR is much more accurate. For example, consider the Diamond 5 player in your first screenshot. Theoretically, he's only a little bit better than a Platinum 1 player. However, he could have duo queued all the way to Diamond with a much better player, and then after reaching Diamond, stopped duo queuing, resulting in a loss streak. You don't fall from Tier 5 of a Division until you're a whole Division below your current Division, so that Diamond 5 player could actually have the skill level of a Platinum 4.

Emelie CauchemarAug 16, 20171 votes

{quoted}

You are looking at the Division/Tier rather than the underlying MMR. The Division / Tier give you a wide estimate of a player's skill, where as MMR is much more accurate. For example, consider the Diamond 5 player in your first screenshot. Theoretically, he's only a little bit better than a Platinum 1 player. However, he could have duo queued all the way to Diamond with a much better player, and then after reaching Diamond, stopped duo queuing, resulting in a loss streak. You don't fall from Tier 5 of a Division until you're a whole Division below your current Division, so that Diamond 5 player could actually have the skill level of a Platinum 4.

You just tied implying something I already disproved earlier. Everyone belonged in their mmr range and were exactly as such. Now you're trying to tell me something that wasn't so. For your argument to have been logical my next game immediately after the promo game would not have dropped roughly 5-6 divisions worth of ELO and that the D5 would have plat 4 mmr which is literally impossible because you get demoted out of D5 at p3 mmr which is roughly 1800 mmr when the player in question has 2060 mr.

You're also implying every single gold player immediately after the promo has close to diamond mmr when they frankly did not.

SubdueAug 16, 20172 votes

[{quoted}](name=Emelie Cauchemar,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=E2Y3Uhvu,comment-id=0001000100010000,timestamp=2017-08-16T21:57:01.819+0000)

You just tied implying something I already disproved earlier. Everyone belonged in their mmr range and were exactly as such. Now you're trying to tell me something that wasn't so. For your argument to have been logical my next game immediately after the promo game would not have dropped roughly 5-6 divisions worth of ELO and that the D5 would have plat 4 mmr which is literally impossible because you get demoted out of D5 at p3 mmr which is roughly 1800 mmr when the player in question has 2060 mr.

You're also implying every single gold player immediately after the promo has close to diamond mmr when they frankly did not.

First of all, your pictures don't "disprove" anything because they don't show the related MMR, just the Tier/Division. Second of all, you're working with a sample size of 5.

Also, as per the wiki, you don't get demoted until you're in T5 of the previous Division. http://leagueoflegends.wikia.com/wiki/League_System

But really the best argument for why your theory is incorrect is the simple "Why?" test. As in, why would it be set up like that? How does it benefit Riot or anyone else to code a special case scenarios to beat you down when you're on a streak or in a promo?

Emelie CauchemarAug 17, 20171 votes

{quoted}

First of all, your pictures don't "disprove" anything because they don't show the related MMR, just the Tier/Division. Second of all, you're working with a sample size of 5.

Also, as per the wiki, you don't get demoted until you're in T5 of the previous Division. http://leagueoflegends.wikia.com/wiki/League_System

But really the best argument for why your theory is incorrect is the simple "Why?" test. As in, why would it be set up like that? How does it benefit Riot or anyone else to code a special case scenarios to beat you down when you're on a streak or in a promo?

Mysticman89 (NA) - about 5 hours ago

https://gyazo.com/5facb169e9b59b2c7724fe8ec68549d4

I chose the D5 player in my promo since D5s usually guilty of what you just said, and his mmr is perfectly fine. So was everyone elses.

????????????????????????????????????????????????

Um dude. Diamond does not work the same way as the other divisions. If you have p3 mmr in Diamond, you're demoted. You will never fight a D5 in p4/5 mmr ever. And if they're in P3 games they're duoing or have really bad mmr.

SubdueAug 17, 20171 votes

[{quoted}](name=Emelie Cauchemar,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=E2Y3Uhvu,comment-id=000100010001000000000000,timestamp=2017-08-17T00:00:05.358+0000)

Mysticman89 (NA) - about 5 hours ago

You don't actually know your teams MMR though, since ranks mean basically nothing in terms of mmr. Sometimes you'll have people with low ranks with relatively high mmrs for their rank because they're on a win streak, and you'll have people with high ranks but relatively low mmrs for their rank, such that everyone actually has around the same mmr.

Also, people have a tendency to look at things only from their own perspective, which is understandable, but it tends to break the logic if you assume matchmaking works the same for your teammates as for you (and if you don't assume that, you get into targetted conspiracy land which you don't want to be). If you're on a winstreak and you're matched with a majhority of people on a lose streak, then consider that match from the perspective of one of the people on a lose streak. Now they're on a lose streak, and being matched with a majority of other lose streak people (despite the one win streak person), so from their perspective lose streaks beget more lose streaks, not the opposite.

https://gyazo.com/5facb169e9b59b2c7724fe8ec68549d4

I chose the D5 player in my promo since D5s usually guilty of what you just said, and his mmr is perfectly fine. So was everyone elses.

????????????????????????????????????????????????

Um dude. Diamond does not work the same way as the other divisions. If you have p3 mmr in Diamond, you're demoted. You will never fight a D5 in p4/5 mmr ever. And if they're in P3 games they're duoing or have really bad mmr.

Most of what you said seems to agree with me so I'm not sure what you're trying to get at. And, if the behavior of D5 is different from the others Division 5s, where is your source that suggests this?

Emelie CauchemarAug 17, 20171 votes

{quoted}

Most of what you said seems to agree with me so I'm not sure what you're trying to get at. And, if the behavior of D5 is different from the others Division 5s, where is your source that suggests this?

My source is my multiple diamond accounts and the fact diamond players are literally unable to play with players below Plat 3 and D3 players cannot duo with plat players at all and the fact I know multiple people that have fallen out of diamond multiple times.

https://na.op.gg/summoner/userName=mortekaiser

By your logic, he should have p5 mmr. But he only has p3, and that's because you demote at p3 mmr.

SubdueAug 17, 20171 votes

[{quoted}](name=Emelie Cauchemar,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=E2Y3Uhvu,comment-id=00010001000100000000000000000000,timestamp=2017-08-17T02:59:53.347+0000)

My source is my multiple diamond accounts and the fact diamond players are literally unable to play with players below Plat 3 and D3 players cannot duo with plat players at all and the fact I know multiple people that have fallen out of diamond multiple times.

https://na.op.gg/summoner/userName=mortekaiser

By your logic, he should have p5 mmr. But he only has p3, and that's because you demote at p3 mmr.

Not sure what you meant to show here, but I just see a Platinum player with a Platinum MMR...

Emelie CauchemarAug 17, 20171 votes

{quoted}

Not sure what you meant to show here, but I just see a Platinum player with a Platinum MMR...

He was D5 and got demoted. You keep saying you need p5 mmr to demote. He has P3. Thus proving my point.

[slayer-jinx-unamused]

SubdueAug 17, 20171 votes

[{quoted}](name=Emelie Cauchemar,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=E2Y3Uhvu,comment-id=0001000100010000000000000000000000000000,timestamp=2017-08-17T06:07:25.542+0000)

He was D5 and got demoted. You keep saying you need p5 mmr to demote. He has P3. Thus proving my point.

[slayer-jinx-unamused]

He was demoted over 2 weeks ago... and since then he has about 10-12 wins over losses... which would mean his MMR climbed a bit since then, no?

Emelie CauchemarAug 17, 20171 votes

{quoted}

He was demoted over 2 weeks ago... and since then he has about 10-12 wins over losses... which would mean his MMR climbed a bit since then, no?

Not really.

To make this really simple for you. IT takes the avg person 5 games to reach 100 LP. At 0 LP D5 it only takes 10 games to demote out of diamond. That's roughly plat 3 mmr. In all my climbs I've never once seen a single diamond player in P4-p5 MMR and you can't duo with anyone as a diamond player below plat 3 mmr. The game won't even let you.

https://gyazo.com/b3b7065051fa2da2b8da56cc08e669da

And this is coming from someone who was demoted himself.

If you seriously don't believe me though, you're welcome to go on OP.GG and stalk every p5-4 player you come across and look for the mythical D5 player in the game. You'll never find one though. You won't see a single diamond player until you're roughly p3 80 LP with a decent MMR. It isn't until P2 where you actually start seeing them in abundance.

Armored YokaiAug 16, 20172 votes

every game is 100% each player is supposed to be 20% Sometimes players are just 0-15% so you gotta be that 25-50% sometimes. 70% of all your games are this most of the time

RookPusherAug 16, 20171 votes

This is close to how I feel. The closer you get to your correct bracket, the closer you are to climbing more slowly. So if you're able to carry 70% then you're probably undervalued in the rank system.

This justifies both "If you're good, you can carry yourself" and "trolls ruin my games." Because 60% is above the average but not enough to carry the negatives.

ValyrianBladeAug 16, 20172 votes

Not to sound ignorant, but whenever I'm in a promo series where I'm practically certain I'll skip a division if i win on my first try (large LP gains, high W-L record, playing with average rank 3-5 divisions above me (e.g. I was gold 4 and the average players in my games are gold 1-plat 5) i find the series to be impossibly imbalanced / hard.

It's almost like Riot's matchmaking says: "okay we'd normally make all your allies and enemies gold 1, but since you're looking to skip to gold 2 instead of gold 3 we're going to give you gold 2-4 allies and plat 3-5 enemies". It pretty much just feels like you're destined to lose those promo series until your mmr drops enough that you wouldn't skip a division. It's not quite the same as forcing a 50% winrate, but it's still choosing to give me a loss because I've been winning too much.

Then again i have only 3 series where i think this happened - 6 losses is small enough sample size to just be bad luck.

RainfallAug 16, 20171 votes

they try to force a "close to 50%" winratio.That does not necesairily affect your climbing.

ParakeeniAug 16, 20171 votes

I never thought of this before! If you look at my last board post I try to say that this LP system is broken because lately I've found it impossible to climb. I think you might be on to something!