Do not allow new level 30's doing placements in promo games.

Resolution·Jul 20, 2017·201 votes·5,610 views

If you dodge in placements it's an automatic loss. This just allowed me being held hostage by the matchmaking system. I noticed one of our players was unranked with a huge match history of negative scores. Fair enough could be a few off games (He ended up going 0-10).

Oh well, next game will be better! It happens. Then the sum of all fears happens... that exact player got matched with me a second time. Unable to dodge I suck it up. He ends up going 0-12 this time - Apologizing the entire game for being a new level 30 and not knowing a lot of champs ability's yet.

I'm in Silver 1 promos. I want to know why both games I got the exact same unranked new player who had to vs someone in Gold each time. Both games were solely lost from him doing his placements in a skill bracket way above his.

In normals, if you get stuck in this situation you have the option to dodge. Sadly; Silver is constantly getting people in their placement games thrown randomly into your matches.

192 Comments

AnastaeciaJul 20, 201779 votes

cause riot's matchmaking sucks and they wont address it

ResolutionJul 20, 201715 votes

{quoted}

cause riot's matchmaking sucks and they wont address it

Climbing in ranked is based on consistency. Them constantly throwing random placement players and auto-filled people who don't know a role really makes it hard to see that consistency. I agree completely.

Starcraft243verJul 20, 20173 votes

The other team is much more likely to get one of these as well. Thus if you play a large enough number of games, it helps you climb.

Not xPekeJul 20, 201731 votes

the game shouldn't be who has more free time and can grind the most though.

ChaoticPineconeJul 20, 20172 votes

Which side are you on? OP says:

{quoted}

Climbing in ranked is based on consistency.

You say "the game shouldn't be who has more free time and can grind"

Isnt that what consistency means?

Not xPekeJul 20, 201710 votes

there's a difference between being consistent and grinding 1000000000000000 games. It's not exactly the way you're thinking it means.

Someone who got to plat 5 in 200 games is better than someone who got there in 1000000000 games.

So my point stands.

BigBellBruteJul 21, 20173 votes

[{quoted}](name=Not xPeke,realm=EUW,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=Uf9ilUk9,comment-id=000000000000000000000000,timestamp=2017-07-20T19:43:34.951+0000)

there's a difference between being consistent and grinding 1000000000000000 games. It's not exactly the way you're thinking it means.

Someone who got to plat 5 in 200 games is better than someone who got there in 1000000000 games.

So my point stands.

Grinding in and of itself won't get someone to Plat. A true bronze that remains true bronze will not get to plat regardless of how long he grinds. He will have to genuinely improve to get there. And whether he gets better in 200 games or 300 or 1,000 it makes no difference. If someone that played 200 games is hard stuck there along side someone that played 1000 that is also hard stuck there, that is where they both should be. Neither is truly better at this point. One just got that good faster.

aspects1Jul 21, 20171 votes

it doesnt nesasarilly mean that, a large chunk of your rank right now is based on how lucky you get in matchmaking obviously your skill matters, but not to the extent most people believe someone who is gold in skill level might be able to go as high as diamond simply because of good matchmaking, and someone who is diamond in skill level, could be held up in gold simply because of poor matchmaking look at tarzaned: he was challenger rank 1 season 6, and now hes hard stuck gold on his main. its not because his skill has decreased, as his smurf is still in high diamond, but he jsut got poor matchmaking on his main

DarkDinomaxJul 21, 20171 votes

I highly doubt that. I got a friend who boosts to get some money. And he gets through gold with different accounts with ease.

I mean you can have bad matchmaking, but a challenger in gold? Dunno, I'm just plat 5 but when I play at bronze I can carry 1v5 most of the time

aspects1Jul 21, 20171 votes

im srs about tarzaned if you dont believe me watch redmercy's 1v1 against him, theres a part in the intro where he explains who tarzaned is and talks about how hes hard stuck gold

KàyleJul 21, 20171 votes

lol @ challengers being hard stuck gold. Gold's litterally a joke elo, and it's problably a publicity stunt. You don't just go from challenger to gold mmr.

aspects1Jul 22, 20171 votes

you never know with matchmaking

KàyleJul 22, 20171 votes

i smurf in gold and get 80% 90% win rates consistently. It's nothing to do with matchmaking lol.

aspects1Jul 23, 20171 votes

you got lucky lol

KàyleJul 25, 20171 votes

It's not luck if you do it consistently buddy.

aspects1Jul 25, 20171 votes

still luck

DarkDinomaxJul 21, 20172 votes

in 300, and even 200, games you can be in your elo just fine. If it takes you 1000 to reach a place it means that you didn't deserve it at the start and you have been improving over those gmaes

ResolutionJul 20, 20172 votes

Your presuming way too much. I never once mentioned I was not happy with my current skill level. Nor that I should be massively higher rank than I am currently. Not once did I state this. Your welcome to re-read everything I've posted.

The topic was about unranked players and promos. Your mashing two different posters together as an argument and filling in the blanks to fit your needs.

ChaoticPineconeJul 20, 20171 votes

nice ninja edit btw. First you say that im confusing two players. Then when I say that no, I wasnt, and that comment wasnt directed to you, you edit your original comment.

How about you man up when youre wrong.

XonraJul 21, 20173 votes

Nice being an elo shaming troll by the way. None of your responses have been helpful, meaningful, and anything but half- troll baiting nonsense. Just stop.

ChaoticPineconeJul 21, 20175 votes

If a player starts at Diamond 2, then over the course of 300 games goes to Diamond 1, Diamond 2, Diamond 3, then back to Diamond 2, maybe that player deserves to be diamond 2. If a player starts at Gold 2, then over 300 games goes to Gold 1, Gold 2, Gold 3, back to Gold 2, then maybe that player deserves to be gold 2. If a player starts at Silver 2, then over 300 games goes to Silver 1, Silver 2, Silver 3, then back to Silver 2, maybe that player deserves to be Silver 2.

PLEASE, please answer this question - how that is elo shaming????

CaveslothJul 20, 20178 votes

This guy gets it.

Starcraft243verJul 21, 20171 votes

But ... it is already the case. If you spend your whole year playing h24, trying to improve, you'll be better than someone who barely plays one game a week. (unless you are totaly trash).

Not xPekeJul 21, 20171 votes

like I said.. it's possible to climb with < 50% winrate. Which means that grinding enables you to climb if certain situations are met.

That shouldn't happen. If you're losing more than half your games you should not be climbing.

Starcraft243verJul 21, 20171 votes

In theory, that's false. If you are constantly playing versus teams with a better mmr than yours you are expected to lose more than you win. And thus you could be climbing even though you do not have a good winrate.

In reality it evens out so yes you can't really climb with less than 50% winrate. For quite a simple reason : if your mmr is increasing because you stacked slowly but surely underserved win due to the fact there are more leavers in the ennemy team, you are matched with and against people who are better than you. So you become a burden for your team and you end up losing a few more games.

Not xPekeJul 21, 20171 votes

in theory.

in reality, it happens.

I have a friend whos on 48% winrate and climbed from gold 2 to plat 5 lol. While still being under 50%. Sure, he probably picked it up and won more games than losses in this period, but that's exactly my point. He's grinding it out and eventually the losses and wins will even out. Someone who has less time than him wouldn't have been able to grind that 48% winrate to plat.

<50% winrate still allows you to climb a little until your MMR matches the Rank you're in. So if you have <50% winrate but you still win more points than you lose, you can still climb slowly but surely.

Starcraft243verJul 21, 20171 votes

In some case it's false :

Imagine I lose my 1000 first games, after the first 50 lose in a row i'd already be at the minimum MMR possible.

From there i'd probably only need 60 to 80 wins in a row to be diam.

Which mean i wuld be diam with 80 wins and 1000 loses. (less than 10% winrate).

your winrate doesnt really matter, all that matter is your mmr. A win when you are the underdog in a match is worth more than a win when you have a better mmr than the enemy team.

Not xPekeJul 21, 20171 votes

But you're giving an extreme scenario.

I'm simply saying that my friend has <50% winrate. It's a clear indication he's struggling. He is or was losing way more games than the ones he was winning. That means that he's entirely climbing thanks to MMR and placements differences and not actual skill. I mean.. I'm sorry but if you're losing more than half the games you play you don't deserve to climb much higher.

Isn't that logical? Or am i wrong?

SaezioJul 21, 20171 votes

[{quoted}](name=Not xPeke,realm=EUW,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=Uf9ilUk9,comment-id=0000000000000000000300000000000000000001,timestamp=2017-07-21T15:09:04.201+0000)

But you're giving an extreme scenario.

I'm simply saying that my friend has <50% winrate. It's a clear indication he's struggling. He is or was losing way more games than the ones he was winning. That means that he's entirely climbing thanks to MMR and placements differences and not actual skill. I mean.. I'm sorry but if you're losing more than half the games you play you don't deserve to climb much higher.

Isn't that logical? Or am i wrong?

well if you are Bronze 5 and win 5 games where enemy mmr average is silver 1 lets say, then lose 7 games where enemy is gold 5 average , dont you think you should be promoted from bronze 5?

Not xPekeJul 22, 20171 votes

that's a whole other argument though.

The matchmaking is based on MMR and not your actual Rank so of course the moment you're playing against silvers/golds while still in Bronze it's a clear indication the system is bad. It makes no sense to be forced to win promotional series in Bronze when you're playing against higher level opponents than that.

Matches should be based on your Rank and not this hidden MMR Riot is so secret about. While the Rank ladder might simply be an aesthetic, the moment they introduced rewards for it and promotional series in between divisions and tears, the Rank ladder became something bigger and more important. It's not just an aesthetic.

Starcraft243verJul 24, 20171 votes

Rank is totaly aesthetic, and the rewards for your ranked are purely aesthetic as well.

The reward for high mmr is to play vs high mmr players. This is not aesthetic.

getting a fancy skin and a border IS aesthetic.

Matches should be based on your Rank and not this hidden MMR Riot is so secret about.

Never. MMR is based on a 0 sum game whereas ranks are not. You can f*ck with the rank system by leaving promos and stuff like that, but you can't fuck with your mmr.

Not xPekeJul 24, 20171 votes

No one plays ranked for the reward of playing vs high mmr players. They play it to climb the ladder and to get rewards and go as high as you can as a personal goal.

I wouldn't minimise Ranked as purely aesthetic. Rewards are the main reason the average player plays it. When I say aesthetic I mean the divisions and tiers are there just as an idea to represent how you're climbing in contrast to how it used to be in the past (if you were around back then). The moment rewards are introduced based on aesthetic divisions and tiers, THAT is the moment matchmaking should be based on your Rank and not your hidden MMR (or hey, at least in promotional games).

It makes no sense to win or lose a promotional series in Silver for example when you're playing vs high Gold players. There is actually 0 logic in that.

So what if you f*ck with the rank system? Leaving in promos means that they won't climb, and unlike people that do it nowadays, they can't increase their MMR while staying low ranked, so it won't matter as it's not convenient.

You still didn't address my main point regarding this: playing promotional series for a certain division/Tier not being represented by your actual MMR. Or in general just having to climb through a whole Tier while playing vs players of the Tier above - it's wrong.

Starcraft243verJul 24, 20171 votes

No one plays ranked for the reward of playing vs high mmr players. They play it to climb the ladder and to get rewards and go as high as you can as a personal goal.

Can you please stop assuming you know why other people are playing ?

I wouldn't minimise Ranked as purely aesthetic. Rewards are the main reason the average player plays it. When I say aesthetic I mean the divisions and tiers are there just as an idea to represent how you're climbing in contrast to how it used to be in the past (if you were around back then). The moment rewards are introduced based on aesthetic divisions and tiers, THAT is the moment matchmaking should be based on your Rank and not your hidden MMR (or hey, at least in promotional games).

It can't be based of rank because it's not a 0 sum system. Already told you that.

It makes no sense to win or lose a promotional series in Silver for example when you're playing vs high Gold players. There is actually 0 logic in that.

That's why the rank system doesnt make sens and should just be seen as aesthetic.

So what if you f*ck with the rank system? Leaving in promos means that they won't climb, and unlike people that do it nowadays, they can't increase their MMR while staying low ranked, so it won't matter as it's not convenient.

So it would help anyone who wanna just play the "crush the newbies" game to stay bronze forever and ruin games.

You still didn't address my main point regarding this: playing promotional series for a certain division/Tier not being represented by your actual MMR. Or in general just having to climb through a whole Tier while playing vs players of the Tier above - it's wrong.

No it's not wrong, it just takes time to adjust. Your mmr determine the number of lps you win/lose per game, so if you are doing well (50% winrate) against people 1 tier higher than you, you will climb quite fast by losing less LP and winning more.

Not xPekeJul 24, 20171 votes

I'm talking in general, and it's a fair and true assumption nonetheless.

And like I said, rank should be based on a 0 sum system. You already telling me that it's not doens't make my point any less true lol.

No, it doesn't make sense because it's not logical, and it shouldn't just be seen as an aesthetic only because YOU deem it so - why can you assume things and others cant? If it's just an aesthetic and it's so stupid and not important then GET RID OF IT. You can't have it both ways. You can't say "its nothing, its just aesthetic" then give rewards and a way to display a player's skill or level through it!! Ranks have their importance, end of.

You know why Riot introduced Divisions and Tiers in the first place? Because people could better track their progress on the ladder instead of being #3523 on a list. This led to dividing the elo into divisions and tiers. Thing is, it could easily be achievable without stupid promotional series between divisions and tiers! FACT. If I'm trying to get into Gold 5 but I'm playing on a high Gold MMR, playing with high Gold and low Plat players i should NOT be stopped from being promoted in the eventuality that I lose. Afterall I didn't lose a G5 entry series. I lost a High Gold/Low Plat series. THAT is undeniable and undeniable proof of what I'm saying - unless you don't like to apply common sense and logic to things.

People smurf and even lose games intentionally to stay low and crush the newbies anyway!! That's not a valid argument.

And that's another issue. This is just forcing you to grind instead of being where you're supposed to be. And while in the long run and looking at the big picture it seems fair enough to be given more LP and stuff, this whole argument goes out of the window the moment you hit 100LP and have to win a series. It just doesn't apply anymore in those cases. Again.. you have nothing to counter this point and it's simple evidence that the Ranked system as it is has some important missing logicistics.

Starcraft243verJul 24, 20171 votes

I'm just telling you that the ranking system suxx because the best ranking system ever is the elo system.

And the elo system doesnt have "grades" like the ranking system.

Now, noone wants the ranking system to prevault, since noone wants to replace an already not perfect system for a worse one, just so you can have smoother series, since these series and fancy grades and marks doesnt impact the gameplay, matchmatking or anything at all.

Not xPekeJul 24, 20171 votes

okay, i understand what you're saying.

Thanks for explaining.

TwentySideJul 20, 20175 votes

{quoted}

Climbing in ranked is based on consistency. Them constantly throwing random placement players and auto-filled people who don't know a role really makes it hard to see that consistency. I agree completely.

Heck yeah, I see this daily as well. I simply assume it's their way of keeping your average everyday players from progressing. I just need to somehow get sponsored and I bet I would suddenly reach Diamond within a month.

ThewannabegamerJul 20, 20177 votes

Think about this from a devs pov. Think about the theoretical way they could do this with code. Realize your making a mountain out of a molehill, and move on.

General Esdeath Jul 20, 201717 votes

It's not really hard to make it so unranked can only fight unranked.

FioraWillCarryJul 20, 20178 votes

Bronze, Diamond, Unranked, these are just decorative. Internally, the system works based purely on MMR. For some reason this noob in his game had Silver 1 MMR, that's the real problem.

General Esdeath Jul 20, 20173 votes

Because for placements it never considers your performance. Normals MMR is never accurate. I've played with diamond players in normals, and I'm G5.

FioraWillCarryJul 20, 20172 votes

I've heard that the first few games in placements are weighed more heavily. So a new player to ranked, upon winning his first game would get a gigantic boost in MMR that subsequent losses won't cover unless it's several losses in a row.

XonraJul 21, 20172 votes

The issue isn't so much that, as the baseliness MMR for a player never having played in ranked is 1200 MMR. That is essentially Silver already (the 1100 range is Bronze). So before you play a single game, you are in Silver, where you probably aren't skill wise (yes yes Silver is bad, but most players that don't play ranked are pretty poor skill wise even compared to low silver players).

ThewannabegamerJul 20, 20173 votes

But then you have unranked smurfs smashing unranked noobs

General Esdeath Jul 20, 201715 votes

That's another problem for another day, smurfing in itself is a big issue.

Arc AtlasJul 21, 20172 votes

It's not hard to code, but it'd be hard as fuck to get these people matches. You realize it takes like 3-5 mins on average to find a game out of a pool of the entire playerbase. That pool goes from 10m+ people down to thousands, which would rise the ques to 10-20 minutes for someone to find a match, and thats if no one dodges champ select. It'd be similar to the pbe where it can take literally multiple hours to get into a match.

XonraJul 21, 20172 votes

I'm not sure I would say "unranked v unranked" cause that would be a nightmare of a queue time for them, but simply "unranked can't be matched with those in Promo matches" and that's fixed. It is literally that simple.