Our Morg decided to afk after feeding 8 kills.
This is Silver 2 FlexQ.
If you're going to insult me by denoting my rank as silver, at least match me against Silver players.
ForFoxSakes1 votesYeah I faced the same thing going from Silver 2 to Gold 5 in flex. The entire way had 4-6 Plat+ people in it while 1/3 of the games included a bronze on one team or the other. Pretty awful for everyone
DeathBurst1 votesThing is, Flex is a big mixture of people getting Boosted to ratings they don't belong to and people chilling in their off roles. More the latter than the former, as you noticed yourself, but still. Not a lot that Riot can do about it. Of course Plat players won't have the same Plat rating if they chill on their off-role, they won't play as well, they won't carry as hard, and they'll appear as Gold. But what solution do we have?
ARAM ZooKeeper1 votesMy sentiments exactly.
It's as if Riot is playing some cheap prank on us. If you're going to insult me with this silver rank, so be it. Let me spank silver players in lane then.
Gets matched against platinum counter pick, still win lane, gold teammates feed and I lose
DEMOTED TO BRONZE
Bears Dont Care1 votesOur Morg decided to afk after feeding 8 kills.
This is Silver 2 FlexQ.
If you're going to insult me by denoting my rank as silver, at least match me against Silver players.
That seems more a player behavior issue rather than anything else.
DeathBurst1 votesIf you're going to insult me by denoting my rank as silver, at least match me against Silver players.
There's a lot to unpack here...
First off: you're matched against other players with a Silver rating in Flex Q. Yes, they may have a Gold or Plat rating in Solo/Duo, but that's their Solo/Duo rating. Their rating in Flex will be Silver2, just like your. If they choose to play their off-role or to train new champions in Flex, what can Riot do about it? What solution do you propose?
And then, excuse me? "insult you by denoting your rank as Silver"? People like you are the reason everyone think this community is so toxic. There's nothing wrong about being in Silver.
Azazel Aerternum1 votesThere's a lot to unpack here...
First off: you're matched against other players with a Silver rating in Flex Q. Yes, they may have a Gold or Plat rating in Solo/Duo, but that's their Solo/Duo rating. Their rating in Flex will be Silver2, just like your. If they choose to play their off-role or to train new champions in Flex, what can Riot do about it? What solution do you propose?
And then, excuse me? "insult you by denoting your rank as Silver"? People like you are the reason everyone think this community is so toxic. There's nothing wrong about being in Silver.
There are plenty of things wrong with Silver, match me against Silver and I'll have an 80% winrate or so, I'll almost always win lane, I'll do so hard, and then I'll carry that advantage into winning the game.
And yes, it is insulting to be denied my bonus rewards and marked as Silver when the players who are denying me an increased rank are more often than not, Plat players.
It'd be like putting a person in High School Baseball against Professional Baseball players, telling him that he has to win with a team who is full of Middle Schoolers, vs a team with half Professionals and a few High School children and the occasional Middle Schooler. And then telling him that he deserves to be where he is because he isn't good enough to carry an entire team of other players on his lonesome, and denying him a position increase.
In sports we look at an individual player's stats, not the team's. When looking at the Yankee's, are you going to say X player is bad b/c his team lost, or are you going to look at his hitting average, number of homeruns, etc. and then come to the conclusion that his team was bad, and that he did exceptionally well?
I'm far from the greatest player in the world, I'm not claiming I am though, merely stating that the matchmaking system in place is inherently inequal, and honestly, unacceptable.
It would be like taking one of the best teams of Babe Ruth's time, and playing them against him, except of course, replacing his entire team with the worst team imaginable, and then telling him he he is bad for not being able to win the game on his own. Obviously LoL teams are smaller, however the individual impact on most games is extremely limited.
The otherwise comparable example I could give, would be creating a form of chess, in which all players have their wins totaled together, and whichever group of 5 has the higher number wins, whichever team loses also loses 'rating'. And that this is the ONLY way to gain rating.
Then matching random players together, all of varying experience and skill, and determining whether or not a player wins or loses based on the overall score.
A player that can win 100% of the time on their own, will add a flat 20% or 1 point to the score. The rest of the time is RNG, 50/50 that each other player will do well or will lose. The average is that all players will go even, or that is the presumed average without interaction from yourself or other players. That means the base chance to win for each team, not including yourself or your designated opponent, is 40% on average, if you win 100% of the time personally, that means it is a 60% winrate base. However, seeing as there would be 'multiple rounds' per stage of the game with variables I can't coherently introduce into this example, assume that each example is repeated, 4 x 1/2 odds that each teammate does well, and a 100% personally, say over three repeats, so more like 3(4 x (1/2)) with later stages being at least partially determined by earlier stage progression. Since there are multiple rounds that are each influenced by previous tiers, we can presume that at some point, opponents or allies will consistently go negative and dig a far greater score-tally against the team than is proportional, and therefore eliminating another player's win.
Now let's take a realistic look at that scenario, there is a 50/50 chance PERSONALLY that you will face an opponent that is better or worse than you. There is also the factor of other players who can influence your odds, negatively or positively, though there are more chances for negative interaction than positive (more enemy players than other allied players), therefore if you are worse than your opponent, there is a lesser chance than statistically normalized for victory.
Now proceed with the assumption that your specialization is such that you will not consistently overbearingly annihilate your opponent, however you will beat them consistently, and likewise go with the assumption that a teammate will consistently at some point during the course of these repeated rounds, become a significantly negative or detrimental factor to the successful increase of your personal rank.
The assumption that it is a perfectly matched system is largely incorrect, there will more often than not be an opponent who is undeniably better than you are, and the odds are that they will not be your opponent, so even if you personally know how to play against them in such a manner as not to force your team into an egregiously behind situation, you must go on with the assumption that your teammates simply will not know this, and instead will become a massive liability.
Assuming I am consistently bettering my opponent 60% of the time, a respectable increase for the overall winrate of our team to positive, through each tier or stage, though I am not at such a significant advantage that it is irrefutably inconceivable for them to claim victory, then going on with the rightful conclusion that at least one player on their team should be better than me, then that player should likewise be capable of claiming victory versus a teammate of mine. However, the difference is if I am beating an average player, and this other player is better than I am, then they too can beat an average player, however they will do so by a much larger margin. Doing so through such means results in a disparate win-margin that isn't in my favor.
I have 4 players on my team, each with a 50/50 chance of being a better player than I am. That's a 2/2 split. The enemy team has a likewise chance of 50/50 per player, except they have 5 players, 3/2 or 2/3 split, presumably done so evenly. However, in a game which is largely determined by early game-mistakes, which result in massive and inequitable leads, unless you are to claim victory early, the odds are never in your favor if you do not go more than average against your opponent. Depending on preferred role, there is a greater chance of allies being a liability rather than asset.
Basing a ranking system on this, in which the players you are facing are not equal to the rank that you are in, and then punishing you for not defeating them, it is inconceivable. The base average for winrate is 50%, this is not enough to climb without ridiculous amounts of games being put in, as four wins do not equal a promos games, and promo matches require a higher than 50% winrate to claim victory in (until you receive a free win). I find myself more often than not on the cusp of being put into a promotional match, in the 90 points bracket, and when I claim victory it only counts for essentially what is half as many points as I would have otherwise earned, and does not count towards the proceeding victories needed for that promotional.
Marking someone as Silver, while placing them against Plats, is not logical, especially when you are denying them their rightful position based on that.
It is insulting, when you are marking someone as a mere novice, while pitting them against experts, and claiming that as justifiable cause for their ranking when they are incapable of claiming victory versus them. Moreso when the rating is based on group exploits rather than individual skill, which can significantly impact their overall possible performance.
The point is simple, why am I facing Platinum players while in Silver; if they are going to deny me my proper ranking, it becomes completely illogical and unacceptable.
Approximately 1/5 of my games or so are lost due to this in flex, that's a 20% loss rate added on, or the essential removal of another player's variance. I'd have to have a 40% impact on the game rather than the statistically average 20% just to become evened, as I have to fully take out one of their players, as this player will most certainly do so to one of mine. That's assuming there is only ONE player on their team who is better than me, if there are more, my odds continue to plummet.
If it wants me to face Plats, put me with and against only Plats, but I better be marked as Plat for doing so.
If it wants to mark me as Silver, then pit me against Silvers so that I can prove that I deserve a higher ranking than they do.
More often than not, there are two players on the enemy team that are considerably better than I am, or more at least better than I am, and only one teammate that is better than I am. I have a 40% chance of facing either of them, and a 60% of not facing either, as does my teammate. They have a 60% chance of facing an opponent that is significantly worse than they are, and therefore someone whose impact they can completely discount from the game. I have a 40% chance of facing an opponent that I can only minimally contest or average out with, and a 1/2 odds per other player that I would have that they are better or worse than me (or averaged equal to me). Assuming that is about a 70% personal chance of going statistically even or average, and not becoming a disproportional benefit to our overall win-chance. I have a 70% chance of equaling to a 20% addition of victory to our team, whereas the teammate has a 70% for average likewise chance or so for the other guy, and the final three players have 60% odds of going against an opponent that is significantly better than they are. Assuming that I am better than my opponent on average though not by a massive margin, victory would be about 60% in my favor, for only a 20% affect on the overall match. Not in my favor.
DeathBurst1 votesTL;DR.
For real, how can you write 5 pages over that topic? You should be grinding games, if you're really that pissed about being Silver, instead of wasting your time here.
And I repeat, you are matched against players who do have the same rank as you in Flex. The fact that they are higher up in Solo/Duo is irrelevant.
Azazel Aerternum1 votesTL;DR.
For real, how can you write 5 pages over that topic? You should be grinding games, if you're really that pissed about being Silver, instead of wasting your time here.
And I repeat, you are matched against players who do have the same rank as you in Flex. The fact that they are higher up in Solo/Duo is irrelevant.
Read.
DeathBurst1 votesI don't owe you my time. If you won't make an effort to condense your point, I'm not going to read 5 pages just to please you. Ciao.