Yesterday, I started the day winning 15 LP per game and losing 24 LP per game.
Yesterday, I won 9 games and lost 1. Today, after winning 9 games and losing only ONE, I still get 15LP per game, except I lose 26LP now.
:)
Why?
I have a 54% wr of about 200 games in Platinum 2.
AlterMordred1 votesIm getting around 19ish lp with a 61% WR.
I think if your at 70% WR or higher your lp gains are high, at 90% WR when I was in gold 2 I was getting +35, the lower your winrate the lower the gains to a minimum I think
JPLangley1 votes[deleted]
General Esdeath 1 votes"Fair and even matchmaking"
Linda de Mol1 votesYe i know the pain.
Got 51 % winrate for a longgg time.
And also for a long time gain 16ish LP while losing 21 lmao
Kai Guy1 votesMatch average is below your MMR. LP gains are slanted to move your Title towards your MMR. It will correct when you balance average. It will slant again if you drop or get above it.
Its not just WR% its also about who your playing.
Inari Fox Orrion3 votesI don't mean to offend, but I'm starting to think you're just projecting an idealized version of the matchmaking onto Riot because of what you've invested into them. A 54% winrate would mean that, no matter what, they win more games than they lose; Slanting LP gains to bring them closer to their 'true' rank is in direct contradiction to their winrate. Not only that, but they actually begun losing more LP after winning so much. That is all kinds of fucked. Even moreso if LP is slanted based on who you pick/play.
At this point, they should just give or take LP dependent on your personal performance. It won't be that difficult to implement, as they have a similar system for champion mastery (S+ to D-) and it works in a very similar way: if your average [tower damage/champion damage/cc score/ward score/roam score/etc.] for that rank is, well, above the net. average for that rank, you lose less LP and/or gain more.
Towers have finite health, as do objectives, so it's probably wisest to at the very least make tower damage an important, deciding stat. I've won games more than I've lost 'em despite being 0/7/7, due to my power at pushing towers and lanes and, eventually, the nexus. It's easy to prevent abuse by adding something like (cap = tower damage +3/s) to account for the HP regen of the tower, so you can't just farm tower damage by waiting for it to recoup the lost health. Same goes for dragon or baron -- resets do not count towards your 'performance score'.
Kai Guy1 votesI love that you took the time to call me out, that your logical in your stance. I dont get offended easy so no harm mate. Lets go over some of the basic assumptions for Elo derevitives.
First up. Who your playing matters. If I put you into a boxing Ring. Who do you think you will beat in a fight? Opponent A. A 4 month old child. Opponent B. A terminator Robot from the future.
The statistics generated are heavily skewed by skill gaps. Beating some one in chess with 2 moves is possible... but only if White makes the literal worst possible moves in the game back to back.
Second. K factor. Elo and MMR systems are not expected to be remotely accurate at low data. Uncertainty for reliability of rating is a big deal and core part of them. That means that the lower your # of games the Higher your raiting will adjust. As you generate more data points the amount of points per match you stand to gain or lose is lowered. You will see some deviation of Arpads adjustment formula which looks like this. Rn=Ro+K(W-We) 100% out of 1 game? not that impressive but 99% out of 100 games? that shits actually pretty impressive.
The biggest issue with stats is the # of variables and the fact they don't work unless subjectively judged. Beating some one in 2 moves for chess does not make you a grandmaster... it however is statistically the lowest possible # of moves you can win with.
Karth who hits R every time its off CD will out damage the player who saves it to cast for a moment that helps team. Tower and OBJ damage alone does not necessary win a game and the only way to really judge that is if you take the context of each individual game. Automation does not do great job for this because Worthless and Meaningful stats overlap.
A majority of ability's are better saved for smart usage rather then spammed, but spam tends to put more stats on the post game lobby. Its effectively far easier to play for stat padding then to play to win.
Not all champions will damage towers the same, or objs the same. Their metrics of sucuess will be things like vision or CC, but those are statistics that can be faked very easy to an objective automated system.
At the moment, The only thing that matters is your results and who your playing. Statistics that cant be faked.
My opinion on how riot makes their Titles represent skill are built on MMR principles. I understand how you could do a population system, but its shitty because its weaker and you cant go inactive with out sinking. The best way I am aware of is to set them to be accurate reflections of a MMR range at low uncertainty. That way when some one hits the expected # of games to reflect low uncertainty their Rank and their MMR overlap. So you slant gains to try and make Rank = MMR. The lower the uncertainty the closer the two variables get. But because you never lock an account down, recent history should always be able to shift the slant to a value that reflects how well your playing in your assigned MMR range.
The performance scores your talking about would get skewed by skill gaps. They also have to be champion by champion. You also kinda need to account for matchups impacting stat results. Unless its an arbitrary value then odds are Population will be used for averages which is not a stable metric. It shifts, literally on a day to day. Getting 4000 damage to X objective on Y champion will be more or less useful depending on how many players are on that champ and what they are generating That finite number off averages shifts constantly.
To many possible combinations, to many overlaps between good or weak stats that impact a game. End of the day MMR remains the best system because fundamentally Skill impacts your ability to win in any game where skill influences wins.
Please. Call me out again if I said something provably wrong or if you think I goofed something, or if I was unclear or failed to explain it adequately. I truly enjoy discussions with logical humans.
My goals this post. Help ya get why Gains are slanted. Show why stats are generated by skill gaps and unreliable with out context of each match.
PopcornBunni1 votesThat's the issue with MMR based LP. LP gains and losses should be rank based alone. As in make it so at low ranks (Iron 4 - silver 4), LP strictly favors gains over losses, in the middle ranks (silver 3 - plat 3) gains and losses are even, and at high ranks, losses are stronger scaling up through the last 9 ranks (plat 2 being maintainable as long as wr remains above 50%, while challenger requires the highest WRs)
The way the system is now, a 47% WR can make it though the ranks as long as the matches they win are the ones with high gains.
Under a rank-based LP system, it would mean the higher third of ranks would be matched more against each other, but it would also mean that the people in those ranks belong there more, compared to the current system where ranks are basically meaningless and not properly reflective of skill.
Kai Guy1 votesYour systems gross.
LP Gains are Rank based alone. Rank is a title. Gold 3. Title. Iron 4. Title. Grand master. Title.
If your using MMR, a title is a representation of a Range of Values. 1200-1300 as an arbitrary example could be represented as S2. Any low uncertainty accounts with that MMR get that title.
So slanting your Titles to match MMR averages is the correct response and if you check OP.GG is the trend outside of some fringe Duoing and/or Preseason abuse cases.
