Is there any chance of having attention given to normal matchmaking in 2020?

Yenn·Jan 6, 2020·14 votes·5,859 views

It's so bad that the entire mode isn't even suitable for practice, especially when duo queues are involved.

See this example: https://i.imgur.com/sswpAaU.jpg

I'm on the top team. The Gold and Level 28 are duo, everyone else is solo queued. The bottom team is a 4-man Diamond IV to Diamond II premade with a solo queued Master player to round it off.

It's pretty obvious that the system didn't even attempt to perform matchmaking; it seems like it just grabbed whatever was available and threw it together, and this isn't an isolated incident.

I think this really needs to be given some attention in the coming year. Ranked shouldn't be the only viable game mode for practicing new champions.

41 Comments

DuskDaUmbreonJan 6, 202011 votes

Why should rank matter at all for normal queue?

People in normal queue aren't playing ranked. Their ranks are not accurate in the slightest.

Just from looking at their winrates and things:

The level 30 is a smurf. He has several champions with above a 60% winrate.
The Gold 4 has a 63% winrate in ranked. Another obvious smurf.
The level 29 is duo'd with the G4. He's not special at all, but he's queued with the obvious smurf g4.

Here's the game in question, for anyone who wants to verify this.

Hordes66Jan 6, 20207 votes

Upvoted because some troll will come here and downvote the thread just for the idea that matchmaking could be (shock) looked at, discussed or improved.

DuskDaUmbreonJan 6, 202010 votes

So...you're upvoting it because "haha matchmaking bad" instead of on the merit of the argument?

The level 30 and the gold 4 are smurfs, based on their winrates alone. The level 29 is duo'd with the g4. He's probably not a smurf, but he's queued with one.

It's relatively balanced out, all things considered.

YennJan 6, 20206 votes

{quoted}

So...you're upvoting it because "haha matchmaking bad" instead of on the merit of the argument?

The level 30 and the gold 4 are smurfs, based on their winrates alone. The level 29 is duo'd with the g4. He's probably not a smurf, but he's queued with one.

It's relatively balanced out, all things considered.

Are you seriously going to try to argue that a level 28 or level 30 player have remotely similar 'normal MMR' to me, when I have 57% win rate over 2000+ games?

You can also easily verify that normal MMR is not used if you have ranked MMR by looking at any Diamond+ player's normal games, unless you want to think it's just a weird coincidence that virtually every Diamond+ ranked player has similar MMR, despite most of them exclusively playing ranked. If you filter it down to games where all 10 players are random, you'll see that both teams will average to roughly the same rank.

If normal MMR were used, many Diamond players would have shit normal MMR because they tend to exclusively play ranked outside of pre-season, but that's verifiably not the case.

DuskDaUmbreonJan 6, 20208 votes

The level 30 is literally a smurf with a winrate far above yours. The level 28 (29 now) is queued with another smurf who's also better than you.

ChaosReynJan 6, 20203 votes

I think people forget the difference between MMR and rank/level...and even WR.

57% winrate is nice. But you cannot possibly say that you were the star player in 57% of your games. You got carried in some. In some, you got hard carried. That's not an insult, that's literally part of the game. You can't expect to always be the 17/2 hypercarry of the team. I just won a game last night as like a 3/18 xayah...it's a horrible feeling, but sometimes you just have to sit down, shut up and get carried. That still gives me a bump to my winrate even though I know for a fact I personally deserved to get shit on.

But that still reflects on your MMR, and I know for a fact mine is probably going to shit with games like that thrown in there. MMR makes up for that feeling of "I deserved to get shit on from that bad game" because your overall score affects MMR as well.

That level 30 had much higher MMR than you - he's a smurf, who consistently hard carried his games with basically no contest when he was matched with the people you think he should be playing against.

That gold also has high MMR, and is doing well enough to be matched against higher ranking players.

the lv 29 is duo'd with the smurf, so that's just unfortunate luck for you, but I'm gonna tell you the same thing I tell everyone: stfu, and play the game, and you have a better chance of winning than chastising everyone over what an inaccurate website says about their account.

Darkdemon653Jan 6, 20204 votes

{quoted}

Upvoted because some troll will come here and downvote the thread just for the idea that matchmaking could be (shock) looked at, discussed or improved.

Then tell us how it could be improved within this context

Hordes66Jan 6, 20201 votes

[deleted]

Darkdemon653Jan 6, 20204 votes

{quoted}

^ found it.

I specifically asked you what could be done to improve the system within this context. Instead of answering the question, you chose to dodge it and insult me. You're the one who, apparently, doesn't want to discuss it.

Kai GuyJan 6, 20203 votes

https://boards.na.leagueoflegends.com/en/c/gameplay-balance/hkaBid6R-true-garbage-z-matchmaking?comment=000000010000000000000000000000000000

Horde is not big on details or addressing anything that does not fit their narrative. Just expect insults.

Hordes66Jan 6, 20201 votes

If you want to know how to improve it, you must first ask what's not working, and/orwhat would be a better model for an ideal set of matches.

Darkdemon653Jan 6, 20201 votes

{quoted}

If you want to know how to improve it, you must first ask what's not working, and/orwhat would be a better model for an ideal set of matches.

You answering how to improve the system would answer those questions indirectly. Considering how apparently hard it is to get you to answer one question, I don't even want to imagine what it would be like to get you to answer three.

Hordes66Jan 6, 20201 votes

Scroll up.

Kai GuyJan 6, 20201 votes

That doesn't really answer whether the queue for norms could be brought into closer parity. In this specific context it was already pointed out that the ranked disparities are pretty far apart. The painfully obvious solution therefore would be to design matches where mmrs are similar among players but with less disparity between their actual rank. This assumes that there are actual differences in playstyle/skill levels between achieved ranks that are at least partially independent of an mmr score. Now, was that so difficult to think through? : )

Only Ranks are dependent on MMR scores. A rank is literally just a MMR score range.

Hordes66Jan 6, 20201 votes

If that's the case you've succesfully contributed to the answer for his question. Tighten the mmr range in which players are able to be grouped together. Variable adjusted.

Kai GuyJan 6, 20201 votes

Yes... because fuck anyone who wants to play a game with their friends right. Normals do not have a tight range as they allow for any possible combination of premades. Normals also have skewed quality even with tight MMR values given impact between Try hard and Trying to learn. A lot of RNG in matches even with a close range on if some ones playing something new or not.

Almost like it is a casual que.

Hordes66Jan 6, 20201 votes

It certainly appears that any possible combination is just too much for the system to handle. Unless it becomes possible to match the mmr for a group of premades (more players) with a group 9f randoms, then there should probably be tighter restrictions on the ability to duo, because if the games aren't going to be fair or at least close then what's the point of ruining the entire experience for anyone not in a premade?

Kai GuyJan 6, 20202 votes

So people are pushed into having to make alt accounts just to play with friends in normals. Hey that's good for riots account # stats but pretty shit for players who wanna play a game with their friends.

There's no "system ability" to handle massive skill gaps. Game quality takes a hit.

You want to take the casual out of the casual que?

Hordes66Jan 6, 20201 votes

I would point out that game quality also takes a hit when large skill gaps are allowed to persist.

If the matchmaker can't create an even match, then the proper place for teams of large skill gaps who insist on playing together would be a custom game.

Kai GuyJan 6, 20202 votes

And when they don't get a game cuz that's a ghost town and not getting enough folks for a match is a legitimate issue?

Some one might just do some crazy farfetched idea... Like make new completely free accounts so you can play a casual game with your fucking friends.

Hordes66Jan 7, 20201 votes

You're getting away from a more relevant issue: If it's really that difficult to find random normal players with equal mmrs to match those of any premade, then this game has even bigger problems than the matchmaker. Queue time increases are also an adjustable variable.

Darkdemon653Jan 6, 20202 votes

{quoted}

Scroll up.

I will assume you're referring to the following and I will respond accordingly.

{quoted}

That doesn't really answer whether the queue for norms could be brought into closer parity. In this specific context it was already pointed out that the ranked disparities are pretty far apart. The painfully obvious solution therefore would be to design matches where mmrs are similar among players but with less disparity between their actual rank. This assumes that there are actual differences in playstyle/skill levels between achieved ranks that are at least partially independent of an mmr score. Now, was that so difficult to think through? : )

Ignoring the issue of the premade (I do think how to handle premades is a worthwhile discussion, but these kinds of games happen regardless of premades), everyone in that games does have similar MMRs, or at least similar by Riot's definition. I suppose it could be argued that Riot's definition of similar is too loose but since we can't know MMRs, it would be hard to see what impact stricter definitions would have on match quality compared to queue times. Riot obviously feels they have the optimal balance between the two. I certainly wish they'd would provide us with more information.

That leaves rank disparity. I think the best way to describe the issue of letting ranked influence normal is to use examples. There are three options for how ranked MMR could influence normal MMR:

Not at all
Partially
Entirely

Not all is what we have now. Partially would be combing the two scores with each having a certain weight and the final value is what's used (for the sake of simplicity, I'm going to use average because the actual math and weights don't matter). Entirely would be the person's ranked MMR becomes the person's normal MMR (the other way around would be easily exploitable).

Let's look at the third one. The problem with using just ranked MMR is not everyone plays ranked. This means everyone who would get a rank lower than the starting point would be put in games above their skill levels and everyone who would get a rank higher than the starting point would be put in games below their skill levels. The only way for those players to fix that problem would be to play ranked. I think arguing that forcing players to play ranked is fine would be difficult, though I am open to hearing such an argument if you or anyone else cares to make it.

The third one is no good, so let's look at the second one. Players who would fall below the starting point would still be in matches above their skill level and players who would go above the starting point would still be in matches below their skill level. Because of this, the bad players would continue to fall and the good players would continue to rise. This means their averages would eventually reach the point where they are placed in the proper matches.

However, until that would happen, it would cause the exact same problem we have now, except it would be worse. Because the average has to reach a point, each loss or gain in rating would be less effective. So all we would get is what we have now except would take more games than it currently does for people to reach the proper point.

And I forgot to mention another problem with the second one (and the third one). The problem would come up again every season due to the rank reset that happens.

Kai GuyJan 6, 20202 votes

I wonder if your gonna get a reply.

Hordes66Jan 7, 20201 votes

You would need to ask what's so different about the mmr calculated in a series of ranked games versus normal games. The player is the same, the player's skill level the same (not including new champ testing but easy enough to compensate for), what about an individuals skill level should be that different?

Kai GuyJan 6, 20206 votes

https://imgur.com/a/HdCne7Q

If this Site is remotely accurate then I would not have any issue with MM. 1569 1625? 56 point gap? That's what all OG Elo Probability odds at .58 vs .42

2Charmnot2CharmJan 6, 20201 votes

That site is accurate.

It explains why my queue times for Draft or Aram (10-15 minutes for draft) on this account is annoyingly long while on any of my smurfs, ready check pops instantly.

Inari Fox OrrionJan 6, 20202 votes

My experience with the site is that it isn't accurate. I often use it as a reference point other than their ranks, and I find huuuuge disparities between the MMRs displayed there. One dude on my team gets 1,014 representing Gold 4, and then a dude on the other team gets 1,298 which represents G1.

Meanwhile I'm here supposedly at 898 being matched with people who have 100-500+ more MMR than I do, with one high-MMR player minimum on the enemy team but none on my team (I assume because it thinks I'm one?)

Technically it's in the disclaimer near the bottom: it guesses your MMR because it has no API to draw from.

lukaslopez15Jan 6, 20205 votes

But why don't you go to ranked if you want ranked-like games?

Hordes66Jan 6, 20201 votes

Why should he have to?

lukaslopez15Jan 6, 20204 votes

Because is the queue designed to have that types of games...?

Hordes66Jan 6, 20201 votes

That doesn't really answer whether the queue for norms could be brought into closer parity. In this specific context it was already pointed out that the ranked disparities are pretty far apart. The painfully obvious solution therefore would be to design matches where mmrs are similar among players but with less disparity between their actual rank. This assumes that there are actual differences in playstyle/skill levels between achieved ranks that are at least partially independent of an mmr score. Now, was that so difficult to think through? : )

Feirisu NyanNyanJan 6, 20204 votes

It is because there is no transfer of MMR across queues and there are worse games than this (also in flex). Imo there should be some transfer mechanic like solo->flex->normals. Hope Rito and Rito's salary-free lawyers on boards understand why this is needed.

DuskDaUmbreonJan 6, 20203 votes

In this case, it's less the lack of transfer and more that 2/5 of his team are smurfs, and the 3rd questionable account is duo'd with the better of the two smurfs.

Of note is that both smurfs are better than OP.

Hordes66Jan 6, 20201 votes

Its possible that the matchmaking algorithm just does a really poor job of recognizing smurfs and fails to match them up correctly. Sad, unsatisfying and disappointing, but possible.

DuskDaUmbreonJan 7, 20202 votes

It fails to match them correctly because it just knows they're much more skilled than they are, but not how much more skilled.

Eventually it gets to the right place, but for a while it's going to be matching them lower than they should be.

However, the rank system tends to fail to update as quickly, which is why a smurf can be g4 but have diamond MMR.

Hi im 12Jan 6, 20204 votes

this is the same person that posted a week ago that "its impossible to be matched against over 1 rank up or down in normal games" lmao

ArammusJan 6, 20202 votes

all i can say to the title is: HAHAHAHAHA AHAHAHAHAAH!!!! you have better chance becoming the president of the usa.

BladeSteelJan 7, 20202 votes

What is there to look at? Its a normal game, what do you want them to do?

YennJan 8, 20201 votes

ITT: People spew bullshit without even understanding how MMR works and then making bogus claims that can be easily verified as false.

> The level 30 player is a smurf, they have much higher MMR than you!!!! This 'smurf' has 52% win rate over 172 games. I have ~57% win rate over 2000+ games. Someone please share the logic they used to come to conclusion that this 52% win rate 'smurf' actually has higher MMR than me because L M A O.

Even better, if you investigate the match history of this level 30 'smurf,' you'll see that it randomly gets put into games where everyone is below level 30. Other times, it gets put into games with Platinum and Diamond players. You can literally look at their history and see alternating games like this. There is clearly something funky going on here that can't be explained away with 'hurr durr it's just normal MMR.'

i.e. the 'smurf' has these two consecutive matches, 30 minutes apart: https://imgur.com/lYxCbn9.jpg[]

One game is Diamond/Platinum players, the other is entirely unranked level 13-30 players. If all of these unranked players actually have the same MMR as the 'smurf' and the 'smurf' has the same MMR as a bunch of Diamond ranked players, why don't we see all these other sub-30 players matched into games full of Diamond players?

Additionally, MMR is not a zero sum game and inflates over time, so win rate alone is an almost completely invalid indicator of MMR. Number of wins over losses is more accurate. In the case of normal MMR, it would have to be very inflated because it's been around since the beginning of time; which makes it even less likely that a level 30 player with 10 wins over losses has as much MMR as I do with hundreds of wins over losses.

I actually just lost brain cells. There is demonstrably something very wrong with the matchmaking system that can't be explained by anyone other than Riot. Making suggestions on how to 'fix' it is impossible when we only know that the output is wrong and have zero details on the process used to reach it.