Should your LP gain be affected by other players?

39041022DEL1··2 votes·806 views

I think the fact everyone starts flaming and rages in ranked is because of the fact that whether they gain/lose the LP can be based on other team members. Now i am aware that people rage for other reasons too but for this topic we just going to stick with that. I think why their tends to be bad players even if you get to, lets say, plat and even gold is because a lot of times these players get carried during solo que and in a lot of cases by duo with someone. It needs to be a System where a player actually belongs should be based on individual talent and performance. Not on simply wins or loses. Now the fact that the LP you gain is solely based on wins and loses just doesn't really show if a player is good or bad. If someone goes afk and The team with 4 players win. The afk still gets the LP regardless if he did anything at all. Your LP should be based on performance. I think everyone knows that if LP you gain was really based on individual performance rather then simple win or lose. Then players would be in elo that they really belong in because how they play actually affects where they belong. Now some might argue "yeah well if you're good enough you can carry and win every game." Which is fine but the same concept applies. The player who is capable of carrying a whole team should be getting a lot of LP based on his/her amazing performance , but if the players in his team are getting "carried" then they shouldn't be getting the same or any LP as the player who is carrying, especially, when they aren't doing as well as the player that's carrying or are playing poorly.

5 Comments

kanacho1 votes

The issue is how do you assess a player's skill automatically in an accurate manner? The problem is a system like that could easily be abused.

39041022DEL11 votes

The issue is how do you assess a player's skill automatically in an accurate manner? The problem is a system like that could easily be abused.

Yeah i understand but again the current one does get abused as well with duo partners. Now determining the player's skill is a challenge, which i believe, can be determined on how the game itself is played generally. Everything you do in the game, lets say in this case, has a score. That score adds up to be your LP. The score can Depend on what that thing is, lets say from 0-3. 0 being that your K/D/A is horrible ratio or/and your cs is shit where 3 can be your K/D/A is amazing ratio and your cs is what it should be at whatever minutes. The score for cs is going to be based on 10 minutes marginal. 0 cs at 10 minutes is 0 score, 20 is 1, 50 is 2, and 80 is 3. Now I know that score doesn't determine a player skill, but if you think about it generally. A good player tends to have better cs and K/D/A then the not as good of a player. Sometimes the bad player doesn't even ward. High elo players tend to have higher cs compared to low elo players and there K/D/A tend to be in low numbers unless they got a great start. The score can be based on other things too like taking towers and how much damage you did individually to it which means how much you were part of taking that objective and how many players were attacking that time. Now i can go in about other ways of obtaining the score but that's the best idea i have for how the skill of each individual player can be determined

Sightless662 votes

Dota 2 actually attempted this system, and they abandoned it because it was a massive failure. Their initial mmr placements lead to thing like k/d/a, damage dealt, cs, and things like that, and all it lead to was mid players being placed above more skilled support players. People would go into their placement matches and just play mid because it was the best way to get placed well. All that meant meant was the the underranked support players had to pubstomp hapless opponents until they could get back to a proper ranking. It was a terrible system, and didn't accurately measure skill. It was heavily based on which role you played. They tried the same thing with a comparative system and that didn't work amazing either.

Look, we can all agree that a preformance-based system would be great. The problem is that it doesn't work. There has never been a proposed system that doesn't favor one type of player heavily over another. If we want that kind of system to work, then we need a proposal that has every detail, and that includes a lot of math of how we are going to compare the play of one player numerically to another without missing any variables or undervaluing or overvaluing anyone. These systems live and die in the small details and math.

The current system works fine. You aren't expected to win every game, even if you are the best player. You rise if you win most games. There is no requirement to win everything. If I never go afk, then afk players should actually raise my rating because the enemy will have more chances to get them than my team will.

Two things about duoing. FIrst, if I'm silver, I can only duo with someone who is gold. Second, the games will include a bunch of players who have the same mmr as that gold player, and if I'm not good enough to play with them, there is a good chance they will eat me alive and get really fed. Getting carried is not a great way to rise.

Ending point: the current system accurately measures skill over time, even though it allows for temporary setbacks. A performance-based system has a massive amount of potential error built in and would have to be perfect unless we want it to value one player unfairly over another.

kanacho1 votes

The issue is that the system you suggest is completely restricting. It is literally forcing people to abide in a certain play-style that might not be beneficial for them. Players don't always play the same role in a game, and let's just take something simple for example.

An ADC goes 17/3/8 and we have a support who went 0/9/24. Now what the system neglects to acknowledge is that that person was playing as the support, and not getting any kills is more than warranted. Even if we were to equate 24 assists to a 12 K/D ratio saying that he is actually 12/9 (Kills in this case being the number of downed opponents either kills or assists), then he is still not anywhere on-par with that ADC. The system could force players to play way too conservatively, especially if they are The Tank for example. If they sacrifice themselves to peel and save 2 of their squishier teammates, then how do they get rewarded for that? How would the game even know that they were saved? Now if you were to put in a system that favors a support's KDA more than an ADC's because supports will more than likely have a worse one, then you ruin the entire point of the meta game that Riot has tried to put into place. Actually, it's the fact that RIOT DIDN'T PUT IT INTO PLACE; Ironic, right? They want to reinforce the idea that the players create the meta, and they don't want to force people to abide in the classic meta-game especially by such an intensely restricting system, thus you could have a very specific play-style endorsed and no other style meaning that strategy experimentation is completely frowned upon and the meta will never change, turning it into a never-evolving game.

Got to take a hint from Khazix and let the players evolve the meta and not enforce a certain play style through Riot's part.

39041022DEL11 votes

B

More from Gameplay

More by 39041022DEL1