You know, I think the matchmaking is worse because there're fewer people to match together.

Inari Fox Orrion·Oct 12, 2018·5 votes·3,879 views

Hear me out, but last I checked the queue timers were below 1:47 and didn't match Gold/Unranked in the same game. I'm not referencing last game (but oh my fucking God does losing feel boring and frustrating, moreso than even S7...) but instead, LoL match quality overall.

Riot has stated that they prefer queuetimes over match quality, so what if the massive drop-off in quality is because there're even fewer people to match together, therfor circling around to lower match quality and fewer people wanting to partake, reducing the match quality further?

49 Comments

MathgodpiOct 12, 20182 votes

They should get rid of the current matchmaking algorithm where all you have to do every game is stand under your tower and kill minions to get a 45% win rate even if you do nothing else and know nothing about the game. Let every game be random player selection among the player's elo and let the trolls sink to bronze 5 where they belong instead of inflating them and having them ruin games for others. That alone would fix the match quality problem without increasing queue times.

MalakOct 12, 20181 votes

{quoted}

They should get rid of the current matchmaking algorithm where all you have to do every game is stand under your tower and kill minions to get a 45% win rate even if you do nothing else and know nothing about the game. Let every game be random player selection among the player's elo and let the trolls sink to bronze 5 where they belong instead of inflating them and having them ruin games for others. That alone would fix the match quality problem without increasing queue times.

You know how 50% of players are in silver and only 1% are above diamond? That's part of the algorithm. If it was a completely fair algorithm, the playerbase would be evenly distributed into the different leagues.

Say, 20% bronze, 20% silver, 20% gold, 20% plat, 20% diamond (lets ignore the rest for easier numbers here)

I can explain why but I'm sure it's not hard to imagine

SubdueOct 12, 20182 votes

{quoted}

You know how 50% of players are in silver and only 1% are above diamond? That's part of the algorithm. If it was a completely fair algorithm, the playerbase would be evenly distributed into the different leagues.

Say, 20% bronze, 20% silver, 20% gold, 20% plat, 20% diamond (lets ignore the rest for easier numbers here)

I can explain why but I'm sure it's not hard to imagine

Here's someone who doesn't understand normal distribution.

MalakOct 12, 20181 votes

{quoted}

Here's someone who doesn't understand normal distribution.

Good attempt to sound smart BUT first of all, the current league system doesn't follow normal distribution. It just puts everyone in the lower 2 leagues.

Most importantly, the reason players would spread evenly in an absolute fair system is that there's nothing inherently special about Silver or Gold. Even if players are only slightly better, they would be able to beat slightly worse players and climb. Silver players, the average players, would reach gold/plat simply because they only have to beat other average players to climb.

Also, just look at starcraft 2, it does the "fair algorithm" and players are evenly distributed bronze-diamond with master/grandmaster being exceptions because it uses a different algorithm.

So sit down little boy, you're Ezreal and I'm Draven when it comes to this subject.

SubdueOct 12, 20181 votes

{quoted}

Good attempt to sound smart BUT first of all, the current league system doesn't follow normal distribution. It just puts everyone in the lower 2 leagues.

Most importantly, the reason players would spread evenly in an absolute fair system is that there's nothing inherently special about Silver or Gold. Even if players are only slightly better, they would be able to beat slightly worse players and climb. Silver players, the average players, would reach gold/plat simply because they only have to beat other average players to climb.

Also, just look at starcraft 2, it does the "fair algorithm" and players are evenly distributed bronze-diamond with master/grandmaster being exceptions because it uses a different algorithm.

So sit down little boy, you're Ezreal and I'm Draven when it comes to this subject.

This is normal distribution:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a9/Empirical_Rule.PNG/350px-Empirical_Rule.PNG

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normal_distribution

This is League's Solo Queue Distribution:

https://i.imgur.com/6f6LYuT.png

Source: https://www.leagueofgraphs.com/rankings/rank-distribution

Are you can see, the two charts are roughly the same. The main differences are:

Ranked distribution looks off center because it has a longer tail on the left. This is because on the left of Silver there are more brackets, where as on the right, players are collected in Bronze 5.
Players collect in Division 5 of each Tier (highlighted in green) because you actually need to fall past Division 4 of the previous Tier in order to fall out of it. As a result, people who reach Gold 5, for example, and then promptly fall back down to Silver 3 MMR, actually remain in Gold 5.

Plus, some common sense would show you your argument makes no sense at all. If you agree that silver players are the average player, which you state directly, then you would agree that they belong in the center of the normal distribution, which is the AVERAGE.

Ezreal was an expert in cartography, hextech mechanics and history. He was known for having a "knack for simply absorbing information." Draven was an expert at... throwing axes. So I suppose I can concede this point. In matters of intellect such as math an analysis, I'll be Ezreal and you can be Draven.

MalakOct 12, 20181 votes

{quoted}

This is normal distribution:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a9/Empirical_Rule.PNG/350px-Empirical_Rule.PNG

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normal_distribution

This is League's Solo Queue Distribution:

https://i.imgur.com/6f6LYuT.png

Source: https://www.leagueofgraphs.com/rankings/rank-distribution

Are you can see, the two charts are roughly the same. The main differences are:

Ranked distribution looks off center because it has a longer tail on the left. This is because on the left of Silver there are more brackets, where as on the right, players are collected in Bronze 5.

Players collect in Division 5 of each Tier (highlighted in green) because you actually need to fall past Division 4 of the previous Tier in order to fall out of it. As a result, people who reach Gold 5, for example, and then promptly fall back down to Silver 3 MMR, actually remain in Gold 5.

Plus, some common sense would show you your argument makes no sense at all. If you agree that silver players are the average player, which you state directly, then you would agree that they belong in the center of the normal distribution, which is the AVERAGE.

Ezreal was an expert in cartography, hextech mechanics and history. He was known for having a "knack for simply absorbing information." Draven was an expert at... throwing axes. So I suppose I can concede this point. In matters of intellect such as math an analysis, I'll be Ezreal and you can be Draven.

Alright, you do know your stuff. Then we can discuss the real topic here:

With usual normal distribution, there is some real scoring system which causes it. For example, you have a difficult test which is scored based on how many answers were right. So you end up with a chart with most people being at some point with some doing way better and others way worse(normal distribution like).

However with silver league, IF the matchmaking system was fair, there is nothing inherently special about it that causes people to get stuck there. The average skill wouldn't change, but you'll have all those silver players competing with one another and eventually some will come out on top.

The difference here is that one is "PvE", meaning people going against a static difficulty, while the other is "PvP", meaning players are just fighting each other. In the second case, players would spread out more evenly across the ranks with FAIR matchmaking.

Right now, Riot's algorithm isn't fair in that it does cause, I suppose, a lower league slanted normal distribution.

Not sure if that makes sense.

SubdueOct 12, 20181 votes

{quoted}

Alright, you do know your stuff. Then we can discuss the real topic here:

With usual normal distribution, there is some real scoring system which causes it. For example, you have a difficult test which is scored based on how many answers were right. So you end up with a chart with most people being at some point with some doing way better and others way worse(normal distribution like).

However with silver league, IF the matchmaking system was fair, there is nothing inherently special about it that causes people to get stuck there. The average skill wouldn't change, but you'll have all those silver players competing with one another and eventually some will come out on top.

The difference here is that one is "PvE", meaning people going against a static difficulty, while the other is "PvP", meaning players are just fighting each other. In the second case, players would spread out more evenly across the ranks with FAIR matchmaking.

Right now, Riot's algorithm isn't fair in that it does cause, I suppose, a lower league slanted normal distribution.

Not sure if that makes sense.

None of that makes sense.

The only thing that keeps players stuck in Silver is their own skill. Sure there's noise, like the occasional DC, or intentional feeder, but that all ends up a wash and what's left is the player's average performance.

By definition, not everyone is going to be above average.

MalakOct 12, 20181 votes

{quoted}

None of that makes sense.

The only thing that keeps players stuck in Silver is their own skill. Sure there's noise, like the occasional DC, or intentional feeder, but that all ends up a wash and what's left is the player's average performance.

By definition, not everyone is going to be above average.

this is pointless because riot would never change the system lol

But it actually makes perfect sense, I'm just having trouble communicating it to you.

If Silver 1 players only faced other Silver 1 players, eventually 1/3 would get gold, 1/3 would get demoted to silver 2, 1/3 would stay silver 1. Eventually, all the leagues would more or less have an even number of players. There would be no normal distribution because Silver's skill-level isn't written anywhere, it's just a symbol the system gives you.

How the system works now is that you are put in more and more unfavorable games as you climb up to force a standard distribution, where most players get stuck in Silver.

If that doesn't make sense, I don't know how else to explain it.

Just look at starcraft's league distribution for an example of fair matchmaking below masters.

SubdueOct 13, 20181 votes

{quoted}

this is pointless because riot would never change the system lol

But it actually makes perfect sense, I'm just having trouble communicating it to you.

If Silver 1 players only faced other Silver 1 players, eventually 1/3 would get gold, 1/3 would get demoted to silver 2, 1/3 would stay silver 1. Eventually, all the leagues would more or less have an even number of players. There would be no normal distribution because Silver's skill-level isn't written anywhere, it's just a symbol the system gives you.

How the system works now is that you are put in more and more unfavorable games as you climb up to force a standard distribution, where most players get stuck in Silver.

If that doesn't make sense, I don't know how else to explain it.

Just look at starcraft's league distribution for an example of fair matchmaking below masters.

The difference between SC2 and League is not in the matchmaking, but in how the ranks themselves are defined. League of legends defines the ranks on relatively even chunks of MMR, while SC2 stretches or shrinks the ranks based on how many people are in them. For example, in League of Legends, the difference between Gold 1 and Silver 5 is about 600 MMR. The difference between Diamond 1 and Platinum 5 is also about 600 MMR. In contrast, the difference between Diamond 1 and Platinum 3 in SC2 is about 1400 MMR, while the difference between Gold 1 and Silver 3 is only about 900.

By stretching out the brackets, SC2 makes it look like players are more evenly distributed, but this doesn't affect matchmaking. In League, it's possible from a Platinum 2 player to end up in a game with a Diamond 5 player because they're relatively close in MMR, as low as about 100 MMR apart, but in SC2 a Platinum 2 player would likely never run into a Diamond 3 player, because they're very far apart, possibly over 600 MMR apart.

If your complaint is that you want Riot to stroke your ego by rejiggering the definition of the ranks to put more people in higher ranks, while actually diluting the accomplishments of those who are actually at higher ranks, that's one thing. But if you think any of that affects matchmaking, you are sorely mistaken.

HaIlMonitorOct 13, 20181 votes

Leagues will be heavily scewed because going above gold 5 is honestly worthless outside of the game. It takes a lot of time, effort, and mental to do it. People just want their rewards and to move on.

ChargeItDownMidOct 12, 20181 votes

{quoted}

Good attempt to sound smart BUT first of all, the current league system doesn't follow normal distribution. It just puts everyone in the lower 2 leagues.

Most importantly, the reason players would spread evenly in an absolute fair system is that there's nothing inherently special about Silver or Gold. Even if players are only slightly better, they would be able to beat slightly worse players and climb. Silver players, the average players, would reach gold/plat simply because they only have to beat other average players to climb.

Also, just look at starcraft 2, it does the "fair algorithm" and players are evenly distributed bronze-diamond with master/grandmaster being exceptions because it uses a different algorithm.

So sit down little boy, you're Ezreal and I'm Draven when it comes to this subject.

You are getting a normal distribution and a uniform distribution mixed up. A normal distribution would not have players evenly distributed into each division, it would have the bulk of the playerbase in 2-3 divisions with a much smaller number of players at the tail ends.

League roughly follows a normal distribution with the exception of very low bronze 5 players who are all put into one division instead of being broken down into smaller divisions like diamond/masters/challenger is.

MathgodpiOct 12, 20181 votes

Everyone on the winning team gains LP, everyone on the losing team loses LP. If they made it so that the winning team gains a certain amount of total LP (which is then distributed based on player performance) and the losing team loses that same total LP (again distributed based on player performance), there would be no LP inflation because LP would be a zero sum game. If anything, there would be LP deflation due to LP penalties when people dodge.

Besides, my previous post was regarding the matchmaking algorithm, not the elo/ranking algorithm per se.

SubdueOct 12, 20181 votes

{quoted}

Everyone on the winning team gains LP, everyone on the losing team loses LP. If they made it so that the winning team gains a certain amount of total LP (which is then distributed based on player performance) and the losing team loses that same total LP (again distributed based on player performance), there would be no LP inflation because LP would be a zero sum game. If anything, there would be LP deflation due to LP penalties when people dodge.

Besides, my previous post was regarding the matchmaking algorithm, not the elo/ranking algorithm per se.

Aside from the fact that that skews the relationship between MMR and Tier / League, how do you measure performance? If you're the new "Inting" Sion and single handedly winning games while having an awful KDA, do you deserve more points or less? If you're the fed ADC but you get caught out at a crucial point and the enemy ends up closing out the game, do you deserve more points or less? If number of deaths affects how much LP you get and you're a support, do you jump into a fight where you might die to get your fed ADC out, or do you stay out of range to preserve your KDA?

Evven a cursory thought exercise is enough to show that tying MMR and LP progression to anything other than win/loss is a nightmare and only leads to inaccuracy, frustration, and incentive for poor play.

MathgodpiOct 13, 20181 votes

To be honest, I don't think MMR should exist. The only thing that should exist is ladder rank/LP. After much pondering about the way the system works, I can't honestly think of a valid reason why MMR even exists at all. When you queue up for a game, you should simply get teamed with people somewhat near your LP and against people somewhat near your LP. That way it's always fair. No real need for MMR.

Anyhow, that aside... regarding for your criticism of the idea I posted... as already mentioned, it would involve everyone on the winning team gaining LP and everyone on the losing team losing LP, so there is still ample incentive to do the things that are most conducive to winning.

A comprehensive formula could be made to determine player performance. It would of course include things like KDA, CS, damage to champions, vision score, damage to secured objectives, cc score, etc, but also include other types of stats such as tank stats (premitigated damage taken per death) and support stats (ally healing, ally shielding), and so on. While it's true that some players might try find ways to game the system to their advantage, they will ultimately end up losing many more games than winning and it will hurt them in the long run. Let's take for example your ADC getting caught late example. If he doesn't get caught out and instead leads his team to victory, he has the best statistical performance on his team and gets, say, 40LP for the win. If he does get caught and ends up losing the game because of it, he still has the top statistical performance on his team and only loses, say 5LP. That mistake of getting caught out just cost him 45LP! He made a mistake and got punished rather heavily for it.

You want to talk about incentive for poor play and punishing good play? The current system does that rampantly. It's almost impossible to get a win rate below 40% no matter how poorly you play. If you do nothing but stand under your tower and passively farm minions you can still get a 45% win rate because of how the matchmaking system stacks the teams and almost predetermines who is going to win any given game.

Inaccuracy, frustration... again, you're describing the current system. The idea I'm proposing may not be perfect, but it's infinitely preferable to the current disaster we're being subjected to.

SubdueOct 13, 20181 votes

{quoted}

To be honest, I don't think MMR should exist. The only thing that should exist is ladder rank/LP. After much pondering about the way the system works, I can't honestly think of a valid reason why MMR even exists at all. When you queue up for a game, you should simply get teamed with people somewhat near your LP and against people somewhat near your LP. That way it's always fair. No real need for MMR.

Anyhow, that aside... regarding for your criticism of the idea I posted... as already mentioned, it would involve everyone on the winning team gaining LP and everyone on the losing team losing LP, so there is still ample incentive to do the things that are most conducive to winning.

A comprehensive formula could be made to determine player performance. It would of course include things like KDA, CS, damage to champions, vision score, damage to secured objectives, cc score, etc, but also include other types of stats such as tank stats (premitigated damage taken per death) and support stats (ally healing, ally shielding), and so on. While it's true that some players might try find ways to game the system to their advantage, they will ultimately end up losing many more games than winning and it will hurt them in the long run. Let's take for example your ADC getting caught late example. If he doesn't get caught out and instead leads his team to victory, he has the best statistical performance on his team and gets, say, 40LP for the win. If he does get caught and ends up losing the game because of it, he still has the top statistical performance on his team and only loses, say 5LP. That mistake of getting caught out just cost him 45LP! He made a mistake and got punished rather heavily for it.

You want to talk about incentive for poor play and punishing good play? The current system does that rampantly. It's almost impossible to get a win rate below 40% no matter how poorly you play. If you do nothing but stand under your tower and passively farm minions you can still get a 45% win rate because of how the matchmaking system stacks the teams and almost predetermines who is going to win any given game.

Inaccuracy, frustration... again, you're describing the current system. The idea I'm proposing may not be perfect, but it's infinitely preferable to the current disaster we're being subjected to.

There is exactly ONE action in the game that is the correct action 100% of the time. Only one, no more, no less. And that action is KILL THE NEXUS. There is literally NOTHING else you can come up with that is the correct course of action 100% of the time. Even if you were to build this "comprehensive" formula, all it would be doing is trying to approximate what you can see directly anyway, which is a player's ability to win against the player base.

Furthermore, when there are incentives in the game to do things which are suboptimal, but which may not necessarily cost the game. As an example, if you reward CS, a team that is in the lead may choose to stretch out the game in order to farm a bit more before they close it out. However, stretching out a game typically reduces the value of a lead. Right there, you have an incentive to perform an action which is contrary to winning the game. This is one of many many examples of how basing ranking on anything other than wins/losses will cause players to play suboptimally.

And finally, winrates close to 50% is a biproduct of a fair system, not the goal of it. If everyone was correctly matched with and against players all of equal skill, what winrate would you expect everyone to have after many games?

MathgodpiOct 13, 20181 votes

No one is going to kill the nexus right away. There are a number of things that need to happen before anyone has an opportunity to destroy the enemy nexus. There is a process that needs to be undertaken before the nexus is exposed to attack. Turrets have to be destroyed, objectives have to be taken, fights have to be won. If a player is denied the opportunity to do these things because of how poor his teammates are playing, he won't be able to destroy the enemy nexus no matter how optimally he plays. This is obviously unfair.

You want to know what is sub-optimal? Things like:

not choosing viable runes
not building properly
not knowing how to last hit minions
not warding
not looking at the minimap
not retreating to tower to avoid a dangerous situations
not targeting the right people in skirmishes/teamfights
not securing kills when they available to be had
randomly walking into dark areas of the map with no vision
diving at an enemy champion who has fog of war (usually this means other enemy champions) surrounding him
diving at the enemy team when outnumbered, just for the hell of it
starting baron when the enemy players are all alive and not accounted for

The objective fact of the matter is that my teammates have been doing these things rampantly in about 2/3 of my games since I've hit gold 4, and it's handcuffing my ability to climb. While I'd love to have the opportunity to destroy the enemy nexus in every game I play (or at least in a healthy majority), the fact of the matter is that there are factors outside of my control which are handcuffing me.

So yes, it is perfectly reasonable to expect the system to hand out LP based on player performance. After all, there are things that are conducive to creating an opportunity to destroy the enemy nexus, and the players who are doing these things should be rewarded (or at least have their losses mitigated) for doing so, even if their teammates are sabotaging their chances of winning. I'm getting so tired of getting A- or better (usually better) in 2/3 of my losses, yet still have to eat full LP losses due to teammates diving into the enemy team over and over.

As for your point about dragging out games for more CS, there are two problems with what you said. First, if a team tries to take more CS and pass on an opportunity to end the game, they are endangering their chance of gaining LP and creating a possibility where they might lose LP. No one ever wants to risk losing when they don't have to. Secondly, the total LP for a win or loss would not be increased based on the length of the game, so there isn't more LP to hand out in total. In other words, if you extend the game just to get more CS, your teammates could get more CS as well, wiping out any comparative advantage you might have got.

As for your final point, win rates close to 50% do NOT signify fairness of the system. Take a look again at the list I typed above... do players who do those things (typically players I get teamed with) deserve similar win rates as those who actually are playing the game properly (such as myself)? The answer is obviously no.

SubdueOct 13, 20181 votes

{quoted}

No one is going to kill the nexus right away. There are a number of things that need to happen before anyone has an opportunity to destroy the enemy nexus. There is a process that needs to be undertaken before the nexus is exposed to attack. Turrets have to be destroyed, objectives have to be taken, fights have to be won. If a player is denied the opportunity to do these things because of how poor his teammates are playing, he won't be able to destroy the enemy nexus no matter how optimally he plays. This is obviously unfair.

You want to know what is sub-optimal? Things like:

not choosing viable runes

not building properly

not knowing how to last hit minions

not warding

not looking at the minimap

not retreating to tower to avoid a dangerous situations

not targeting the right people in skirmishes/teamfights

not securing kills when they available to be had

randomly walking into dark areas of the map with no vision

diving at an enemy champion who has fog of war (usually this means other enemy champions) surrounding him

diving at the enemy team when outnumbered, just for the hell of it

starting baron when the enemy players are all alive and not accounted for

The objective fact of the matter is that my teammates have been doing these things rampantly in about 2/3 of my games since I've hit gold, and it's handcuffing my ability to climb. While I'd love to have the opportunity to destroy the enemy nexus in every game I play (or at least in a healthy majority), the fact of the matter is that there are factors outside of my control which are handcuffing me.

So yes, it is perfectly reasonable to expect the system to hand out LP based on player performance. After all, there are things that are conducive to creating an opportunity to destroy the enemy nexus, and the players who are doing these things should be rewarded (or at least have their losses mitigated) for doing so, even if their teammates are sabotaging their chances of winning. I'm getting so tired of getting A- or better (usually better) in 2/3 of my losses, yet still have to eat full LP losses due to teammates diving into the enemy team over and over.

As for your point about dragging out games for more CS, there are two problems with what you said. First, if a team tries to take more CS and pass on an opportunity to end the game, they are endangering their chance of gaining LP and creating a possibility where they might lose LP. No one ever wants to risk losing when they don't have to. Secondly, the total LP for a win or loss would not be increased based on the length of the game, so there isn't more LP to hand out in total. In other words, if you extend the game just to get more CS, your teammates could get more CS as well, wiping out any comparative advantage you might have got.

As for your final point, win rates close to 50% do NOT signify fairness of the system. Take a look again at the list I typed above... do players who do those things (typically players I get teamed with) deserve similar win rates as those who actually are playing the game properly (such as myself)? The answer is obviously no.

It's pretty easy to nitpick at what you think teammates are doing poorly. But let me ask you this. If you were playing with a bunch of 5 year olds, both the 4 players on your team and the 5 players on the enemy, what do you think your win rate would look like?

MathgodpiOct 13, 20181 votes

100% (what you described is basically the equivalent of a game of 1 human with 9 intermediate bots), but that's a moot point because that's not what has been happening. Typically I'll get people who think it's a great idea to dive at the enemy team when outnumbered just for the hell of it. Meanwhile the enemy players group together, help each other, use their abilities smartly, use wards and vision, fight properly, understand objective control, etc, all of the things that are missing from my teammates.

And no, I'm not "nitpicking", I'm identifying the things that are causing my losses over the past couple of weeks.

SubdueOct 13, 20181 votes

{quoted}

100% (what you described is basically the equivalent of a game of 1 human with 9 intermediate bots), but that's a moot point because that's not what has been happening. Typically I'll get people who think it's a great idea to dive at the enemy team when outnumbered just for the hell of it. Meanwhile the enemy players group together, help each other, use their abilities smartly, use wards and vision, fight properly, understand objective control, etc, all of the things that are missing from my teammates.

And no, I'm not "nitpicking", I'm identifying the things that are causing my losses over the past couple of weeks.

Okay, so you understand that if 1 player is superior to the pool of players, they will have a higher winrate, which translates to climbing. If you're not climbing, isn't that evidence that you're NOT superior to the pool of players you're playing with? Or, putting it differently, these players you're playing with are statistically just as effective as you are at winning games playing with the same caliber of players you're playing with. Why do you deserve to climb above them when you're unable to distinguish yourself from the whole? Is it because you've written up an arbitrary list of things you believe cost you the game?

MathgodpiOct 13, 20181 votes

You're conflating completely different situations. You said 5 year olds which means I could just walk up and kill them with ease, so it's an easy win every time. This is completely different from the ranked games I've been playing in. Even though I'm better than my lane opponent, the difference isn't so substantial that I can just crap on my opponent for an easy first blood. My opponent is generally good enough that I do in fact have to respect him, as he knows how to play his champion well and avoid dying to me. Even if I burn his sum and force him to retreat to tower, his jungler will usually show up to help him (turning it into basically a 1v2 lane) and my jungler will completely ignore the situation. If the enemy jungler doesn't come to my lane, it's because he's busy annihilating my teammates in other lanes. Even if I get a 30+ CS lead in my lane, it doesn't mean anything if my team is losing their lanes hard and my jungler is moping around without a care in the world.

And that's not even the worst problem. The worst problem is when my team randomly decides to throw the game in the mid game by diving into the enemy team when outnumbered for no apparent reason.

So to answer your question, it might SEEM like me not climbing means I'm not better than the players I'm playing with and against, but the actual reality is that the teams have been, a majority of the time, stacked against me to the point where winning becomes impossible.

The reality is that I AM better than players in gold elo, and to find evidence of that all you need is a pair of eyes and a willingness to actually watch my games.

SubdueOct 14, 20181 votes

{quoted}

You're conflating completely different situations. You said 5 year olds which means I could just walk up and kill them with ease, so it's an easy win every time. This is completely different from the ranked games I've been playing in. Even though I'm better than my lane opponent, the difference isn't so substantial that I can just crap on my opponent for an easy first blood. My opponent is generally good enough that I do in fact have to respect him, as he knows how to play his champion well and avoid dying to me. Even if I burn his sum and force him to retreat to tower, his jungler will usually show up to help him (turning it into basically a 1v2 lane) and my jungler will completely ignore the situation. If the enemy jungler doesn't come to my lane, it's because he's busy annihilating my teammates in other lanes. Even if I get a 30+ CS lead in my lane, it doesn't mean anything if my team is losing their lanes hard and my jungler is moping around without a care in the world.

And that's not even the worst problem. The worst problem is when my team randomly decides to throw the game in the mid game by diving into the enemy team when outnumbered for no apparent reason.

So to answer your question, it might SEEM like me not climbing means I'm not better than the players I'm playing with and against, but the actual reality is that the teams have been, a majority of the time, stacked against me to the point where winning becomes impossible.

The reality is that I AM better than players in gold elo, and to find evidence of that all you need is a pair of eyes and a willingness to actually watch my games.

If you were dropped in Silver, would you get stuck there too?

MathgodpiOct 14, 20181 votes

It would be completely out of my hands. It would all depend on how often the system decides to stack the teams against me to the point of being unwinnable.

SubdueOct 14, 20181 votes

{quoted}

It would be completely out of my hands. It would all depend on how often the system decides to stack the teams against me to the point of being unwinnable.

How can you possibly believe you belong above Gold when you're not even confident that you can carry out of Silver? I mean holy crap, there are people who make a business out of carrying accounts all the way to Diamond. You aren't even sure you can carry one out of Silver. Why would you deserve to be above Gold? The ego on you.

MathgodpiOct 14, 20181 votes

Because my teammates are, in a majority of my games, actually factually throwing and feeding, to the point where the game is unwinnable.

I can't speak for why this isn't happening to other people, but it is in fact happening to me.

There are several possible explanations for why the system is keeping me from climbing, but I'm assuming you aren't interested in hearing them. You already seem to have your mind made up.

SubdueOct 14, 20181 votes

{quoted}

Because my teammates are, in a majority of my games, actually factually throwing and feeding, to the point where the game is unwinnable.

I can't speak for why this isn't happening to other people, but it is in fact happening to me.

There are several possible explanations for why the system is keeping me from climbing, but I'm assuming you aren't interested in hearing them. You already seem to have your mind made up.

Okay, I watched 3 of your replays, the last 3 Karthus games. I figured you got autofilled support, so I didn't bother with the Janna game. And I can tell you right now why you feel like your teammates decide your games.

Your teammates decide your games.

I don't mean that as your teammates are doing poorly, but rather, you make no decisions. Literally all game long, in all 3 games, all you do is farm, and if a fight happens to break out, you'll move towards it. If someone else decides to take an objective and you're close by, you'll move towards it. But never do you take initiative to do anything. 3 games straight of mid, you ganked 0 times. I watched 3 replays, I saw you ping an objective 0 times. You're mechanically fairly decent, probably better than I am at Karthus, but you feel low impact because you ARE low impact. In the second game I watched, you had a massive CS lead. Did you make an effort to use that lead to pressure Dragon? To snowball bot lane? Nope. All you did was continue farming mid. Diana was behind, but she roamed bot and shut down Kaissa several times. Did you even hard push your tower to take it early so you could roam? Nope. You farmed, then backed. You had teleport all three games. How many times did you use it to gank? Or heck, to do anything other than get back to lane? ZERO.

You displayed decent mechanics, but other than that, you don't seem to have a grasp of the fundamentals. No objective control, no pressure, nothing. You're like a very very good bot basically.

MathgodpiOct 14, 20181 votes

You think I haven't been trying all season long to do the things you just mentioned? One thing has been made absolutely clear to me this season, which is as soon as I do anything at all that involves requiring my teammates to do anything at all, with 100% certainty I'm going to either end up dead or lose some lane farm and get nothing in return. If I start dragon, will my teammates show up to help me? No. I'm going to get assassinated by the enemy jungler and the enemy bot laners who will have roamed to kill me. If I go to bot lane to help them out, the enemy bot laners will certainly have warded and will see me coming and retreat to turret before I get there. Same thing if I try to roam top. As for agroing mid turret, doing that usually results in the fed enemy jungler jumping at me and killing me before I have a chance to retreat.

If I'm using a somewhat cautious approach, it is because I'm doing so out of necessity. Since my team doesn't exist, the enemy team quickly realizes that I'm the only player on my team with skill and focuses most of their attention onto me.

SubdueOct 14, 20181 votes

{quoted}

You think I haven't been trying all season long to do the things you just mentioned? One thing has been made absolutely clear to me this season, which is as soon as I do anything at all that involves requiring my teammates to do anything at all, with 100% certainty I'm going to either end up dead or lose some lane farm and get nothing in return. If I start dragon, will my teammates show up to help me? No. I'm going to get assassinated by the enemy jungler and the enemy bot laners who will have roamed to kill me. If I go to bot lane to help them out, the enemy bot laners will certainly have warded and will see me coming and retreat to turret before I get there. Same thing if I try to roam top. As for agroing mid turret, doing that usually results in the fed enemy jungler jumping at me and killing me before I have a chance to retreat.

If I'm using a somewhat cautious approach, it is because I'm doing so out of necessity. Since my team doesn't exist, the enemy team quickly realizes that I'm the only player on my team with skill and focuses most of their attention onto me.

Now you're just making excuses. I did what you asked. I watched your replays, 3 of them in fact. And I told you exactly what you're doing wrong. All you have now is more conjecture.

If you're not the one making the calls, don't complain when someone else ends up making the wrong ones.

Edit: And don't think for a moment that I haven't noticed you're intentionally responding to your posts instead of mine even when your response is regarding something I've said so that it doesn't show up in the new message log. You've done it 3 or 4 times now.

MathgodpiOct 14, 20181 votes

{quoted}

Now you're just making excuses. I did what you asked. I watched your replays, 3 of them in fact. And I told you exactly what you're doing wrong. All you have now is more conjecture.

If you're not the one making the calls, don't complain when someone else ends up making the wrong ones.

Edit: And don't think for a moment that I haven't noticed you're intentionally responding to your posts instead of mine even when your response is regarding something I've said so that it doesn't show up in the new message log. You've done it 3 or 4 times now.

Not true. I always click the "Reply" button at the bottom of your posts instead of clicking the "Quote" button. I was just trying to reduce clutter on this board. This time though, I clicked "Quote".

I'm not making excuses, I'm simply stating the facts. Why should I leave lane to ping dragon and start dragon if I know that with almost complete certainty that my teammates are going to outright ignore me and let me die? Why should I agro the enemy tower when the enemy jungler is fed and has high mobility and damage? Why should I roam to bot lane when doing so almost always results in the enemy players retreating to tower before I can get there, and sometimes results in me getting picked by the enemy jungler? These kinds of things have been happening to me all season long when I've tried to make any kind of play. This isn't an "excuse", it is simply a factual description of reality when your team basically doesn't exist.

SubdueOct 14, 20181 votes

{quoted}

Not true. I always click the "Reply" button at the bottom of your posts instead of clicking the "Quote" button. I was just trying to reduce clutter on this board. This time though, I clicked "Quote".

I'm not making excuses, I'm simply stating the facts. Why should I leave lane to ping dragon and start dragon if I know that with almost complete certainty that my teammates are going to outright ignore me and let me die? Why should I agro the enemy tower when the enemy jungler is fed and has high mobility and damage? Why should I roam to bot lane when doing so almost always results in the enemy players retreating to tower before I can get there, and sometimes results in me getting picked by the enemy jungler? These kinds of things have been happening to me all season long when I've tried to make any kind of play. This isn't an "excuse", it is simply a factual description of reality when your team basically doesn't exist.

They're still excuses even if you say they're not.

The fact of the matter is that if you choose to let your teammates make the calls, if you don't spread your advantages, you have no right to complain. Your lane opponents that are doing those things are better than you. They are more valuable to their teams than you are to yours. They have a greater impact on the game than you do.

MathgodpiOct 14, 20181 votes

{quoted}

They're still excuses even if you say they're not.

The fact of the matter is that if you choose to let your teammates make the calls, if you don't spread your advantages, you have no right to complain. Your lane opponents that are doing those things are better than you. They are more valuable to their teams than you are to yours. They have a greater impact on the game than you do.

They're not excuses even if you say they are.

I just explained that I've spent much of this season doing the things you've told me to do (make shot calls, roam, etc) and it never worked out because teammates either ignore me outright, bail on me and leave me outnumbered in skirmishes that they baited me into in the first place, or the enemy players retreat to tower before I can get to the lane because they have the place warded up. You're asking me to do things that are literally impossible to do when teammates don't cooperate.

SubdueOct 14, 20181 votes

{quoted}

They're not excuses even if you say they are.

I just explained that I've spent much of this season doing the things you've told me to do (make shot calls, roam, etc) and it never worked out because teammates either ignore me outright, bail on me and leave me outnumbered in skirmishes that they baited me into in the first place, or the enemy players retreat to tower before I can get to the lane because they have the place warded up. You're asking me to do things that are literally impossible to do when teammates don't cooperate.

Like I said, there are people who do this quickly enough and consistently enough to get paid to do it. Clearly players who are superior are able to rise and able to do so consistently.

You aren't even sure you can do it over the course of an entire season,yet you think you deserve better.

Like I said, ego.

MathgodpiOct 14, 20181 votes

{quoted}

Like I said, there are people who do this quickly enough and consistently enough to get paid to do it. Clearly players who are superior are able to rise and able to do so consistently.

You aren't even sure you can do it over the course of an entire season,yet you think you deserve better.

Like I said, ego.

First of all, if master/challenger players are routinely going into low elo games, that in itself is evidence that the elo system is a sham, because people who would otherwise win games are losing those games because of the smurfs. Furthermore, other people end up buying those accounts and playing on them, and it can result in bronze players ruining games in plat/diamond, and continue to ruin games for people as they very slowly descend to bronze.

But as for me, I believe that there is something happening to me that isn't happening to most others. Maybe a low level employee at Riot with access to account data is manipulating my mmr to give me the worst possible teammates. In many games my teammates will get high pings, random lag spikes, and even ddos attacks (they make specific mention that it doesn't usually happen to them).

I think I'm being messed with. I think there is someone out there who is blocking me from being able to climb, and getting joy from watching me try.

SubdueOct 14, 20181 votes

{quoted}

First of all, if master/challenger players are routinely going into low elo games, that in itself is evidence that the elo system is a sham, because people who would otherwise win games are losing those games because of the smurfs. Furthermore, other people end up buying those accounts and playing on them, and it can result in bronze/silver players ruining games in plat/diamond.

But as for me, I believe that there is something happening to me that isn't happening to most others. Maybe a low level employee at Riot with access to account data is manipulating my mmr to give me the worst possible teammates. In many games my teammates will get high pings, random lag spikes, and even ddos attacks (they make specific mention that it doesn't usually happen to them).

I think I'm being messed with. I think there is someone out there who is blocking me from being able to climb, and getting joy from watching me try.

LOL.

MathgodpiOct 14, 20181 votes

{quoted}

LOL.

Why would you dismiss it so flippantly? They have the means to do it, the motive to do it, the legal cover to do it, and no one could ever directly prove they are doing it, so why on earth wouldn't they do it?

I know for a fact that I'm a very good karthus player, and I also know that in my losses I get minimum 2 players on my team who don't have the slightest clue what they are doing (or they are trolling the game intentionally). You can verify how godawful my teammates are compared to the enemy team by simply watching any of the games I've lost this season.

SubdueOct 14, 20181 votes

{quoted}

Why would you dismiss it so flippantly? They have the means to do it, the motive to do it, the legal cover to do it, and no one could ever directly prove they are doing it, so why on earth wouldn't they do it?

I know for a fact that I'm a very good karthus player, and I also know that in my losses I get minimum 2 players on my team who don't have the slightest clue what they are doing (or they are trolling the game intentionally). You can verify how godawful my teammates are compared to the enemy team by simply watching any of the games I've lost this season.

Honestly, if you really believe that someone at Riot has the desire to troll you, and access to MATCHMAKING of all things, and the willingness to RISK HIS/HER JOB, to troll you, why do you even play?

Sorry, go peddle your balderdash somewhere else. This is just ridiculous.

MathgodpiOct 15, 20181 votes

{quoted}

Honestly, if you really believe that someone at Riot has the desire to troll you, and access to MATCHMAKING of all things, and the willingness to RISK HIS/HER JOB, to troll you, why do you even play?

Sorry, go peddle your balderdash somewhere else. This is just ridiculous.

The world is filled with people who have an insatiable desire to bring misery and terror to others.

I don't think Riot has rigid supervision of all its employees.

I love playing this game when I'm not getting placed in unwinnable games 2/3 of the time. Lately I've been getting placed in unwinnable games 2/3 of the time. I feel terrorized.

I love this game and have poured thousands of hours into it since I started playing 2 years ago. But I absolutely abhor the matchmaking system, or whatever the hell is causing my teammates to have aneurysms during the game and dive into the enemy team for no good reason.

haaaaaaalpOct 13, 20181 votes

{quoted}

To be honest, I don't think MMR should exist. The only thing that should exist is ladder rank/LP. After much pondering about the way the system works, I can't honestly think of a valid reason why MMR even exists at all. When you queue up for a game, you should simply get teamed with people somewhat near your LP and against people somewhat near your LP. That way it's always fair. No real need for MMR.

I can think of one: rank/lp is entirely dependent on mmr and cannot function without it. Mmr represents your current skill. Rank lp represents achievement based off of mmr. You cannot remove mmr without removing rank/lp.

A comprehensive formula could be made to determine player performance. It would of course include things like KDA, CS, damage to champions, vision score, damage to secured objectives, cc score, etc, but also include other types of stats such as tank stats (premitigated damage taken per death) and support stats (ally healing, ally shielding), and so on.

so riot did try that with the champion grading and what we all found out was that win/loss (and mmr by extension) was he best way to determine individual performance. Mmr isn’t perfect by any measure but it is better than trying to create some formula based off of kda, cs, vision, etc.

MathgodpiOct 13, 20181 votes

"rank/lp is entirely dependent on mmr and cannot function without it"

It might be dependent on mmr because of how the sytem is designed right now, but the system can be changed and simplified so that it's no longer dependent on mmr. It's entirely possible to have a system where you simply gain or lose LP based on whether you won or lost a game, and your gains or losses are adjusted based on your in-game performance:

if you had the best performance on your team and won the game, you get a ton of LP
if you played like dogshit but your team won anyway, you get a small amount of LP
if you had the best performance on your team but your team sabotaged your opportunity to win, you lose a small amount of LP
if you played like dogshit and cost your team the game, you lose a ton of LP.

Such a system would be simple and fair. No need for mmr.

_ "so riot did try that with the champion grading and what we all found out was that win/loss (and mmr by extension) was he best way to determine individual performance." _

When exactly was this? Where is the smoking gun evidence that we "found out" what you are purporting?

_ "Mmr isn’t perfect by any measure but it is better than trying to create some formula based off of kda, cs, vision, etc." _

The nightmare season I just had, of teammates throwing games by diving into the enemy team for no apparent reason, would suggest that I'm getting unfairly punished by things that are outside of my control. 1000 games this season and I'm still stuck in gold 5, despite getting A- or better in most of my losses. It boggles my mind to think of how much time I've invested in this game only to get robbed of an opportunity to get to plat let alone diamond.

haaaaaaalpOct 14, 20181 votes

{quoted}

It might be dependent on mmr because of how the sytem is designed right now, but the system can be changed and simplified so that it's no longer dependent on mmr. It's entirely possible to have a system where you simply gain or lose LP based on whether you won or lost a game, and your gains or losses are adjusted based on your in-game performance:

If you "remove" mmr and make lp based on wins and losses, the lp system becomes a carbon copy of mmr. If you try to add performance, it become an inferior version of mmr.

if you had the best performance on your team and won the game, you get a ton of LP

if you played like dogshit but your team won anyway, you get a small amount of LP

if you had the best performance on your team but your team sabotaged your opportunity to win, you lose a small amount of LP

if you played like dogshit and cost your team the game, you lose a ton of LP.

Such a system would be simple and fair. No need for mmr.

Such a system would be impossible to track accurately. Mobas are about snowballing the advantages your team has into a win. Win and losses are the only real way to track that. Trying to use other stuff like kda or vision or cs will just give another broken system like the champion mastery system.

When exactly was this? Where is the smoking gun evidence that we "found out" what you are purporting?

The champion mastery system. Probably around season 5 was the last time they actually tried updating.

The nightmare season I just had, of teammates throwing games by diving into the enemy team for no apparent reason, would suggest that I'm getting unfairly punished by things that are outside of my control. 1000 games this season and I'm still stuck in gold 5, despite getting A- or better in most of my losses. It boggles my mind to think of how much time I've invested in this game only to get robbed of an opportunity to get to plat let alone diamond.

Sucks for you. Unfortunately there isn't a system that will improve this.

MathgodpiOct 14, 20181 votes

If you "remove" mmr and make lp based on wins and losses, the lp system becomes a carbon copy of mmr.

Not quite. MMR isn't currently affected by dodges. Besides, you just proved my point anyhow, which is that there is no need for MMR if the LP system can be made to function like MMR.

If you try to add performance, it become an inferior version of mmr.

Superior not inferior. I just explained why. If you perform well and your team throws the game, it's stupid to suggest that you should be punished to the same extent as your feeding teammates. The system I'm suggesting would mitigate LP losses for those who did what they were supposed to do, and heavily punish those who play like garbage.

Such a system would be impossible to track accurately. Mobas are about snowballing the advantages your team has into a win. Win and losses are the only real way to track that. Trying to use other stuff like kda or vision or cs will just give another broken system like the champion mastery system.

Wrong again. Like I said, if I'm losing 2/3 of my games because of teammates who relentlessly feed, it's simply not fair.

The champion mastery system. Probably around season 5 was the last time they actually tried updating.

The champion mastery system basically just tracks how long you've been playing a champion. It has nothing to do with tracking whether or not you consistently play that champion well. It has no relevance to what we're talking about.

Sucks for you. Unfortunately there isn't a system that will improve this.

Yes there is a system that will rectify this, such as the one I just described. I should only be losing a few LP when I lose games since I'm usually the highest performing member of my team. When I win, I'm almost always the highest performer on my team, so I'll get huge LP gains. In this way, I'll climb even when losing 2/3 of my games due to factors outside of my control.

haaaaaaalpOct 14, 20181 votes

{quoted}

Not quite. MMR isn't currently affected by dodges. Besides, you just proved my point anyhow, which is that there is no need for MMR if the LP system can be made to function like MMR.

No, you don't need lp. You still need mmr, you just have to rename it in your system. Anyway, mainly arguing about semantics, I just wanted to make sure you understood that "removing" mmr doesn't actually remove it, all it does is remove the rank/lp system and renames mmr into that.

Superior not inferior. I just explained why. If you perform well and your team throws the game, it's stupid to suggest that you should be punished to the same extent as your feeding teammates. The system I'm suggesting would mitigate LP losses for those who did what they were supposed to do, and heavily punish those who play like garbage.

Except the system you are suggesting can't actually tell if you performed well or not. It is just a random mishmash of numbers that are less representative of your individual skill than wins and losses.

Wrong again. Like I said, if I'm losing 2/3 of my games because of teammates who relentlessly feed, it's simply not fair.

Who cares? You will have feeders in all of your games. Your system will just add more players into games they don't belong and make the feeding problems worse.

The champion mastery system basically just tracks how long you've been playing a champion. It has nothing to do with tracking whether or not you consistently play that champion well. It has no relevance to what we're talking about.

That was not the intention of the champion mastery system on introduction. When it was introduced, riot made an attempt at judging how well you did at the end of each game. The grade you see at the end of your game was suppose to represent that. Obviously that entire premise failed miserably and no one takes the grades seriously anymore but the initial attempt was for those grades to actually mean something and not completely disregarded like it is now.

Yes there is a system that will rectify this, such as the one I just described. I should only be losing a few LP when I lose games since I'm usually the highest performing member of my team. When I win, I'm almost always the highest performer on my team, so I'll get huge LP gains. In this way, I'll climb even when losing 2/3 of my games due to factors outside of my control.

The one your described won't make you lose less lp when you perform well, it will just randomly assign lp gains and losses based on stats which are less representative of your individual skill than wins and losses.

MathgodpiOct 14, 20181 votes

You are obviously not understanding what I'm saying. I'm saying that the system has, for whatever reason, put feeders and trolls on my teams much more often than on enemy teams, and I'm not climbing because of this exact reason.

If we were to follow your logic, we would conclude that Connor McDavid is a bad player because his team didn't make the playoffs.

haaaaaaalpOct 15, 20181 votes

{quoted}

You are obviously not understanding what I'm saying. I'm saying that the system has, for whatever reason, put feeders and trolls on my teams much more often than on enemy teams, and I'm not climbing because of this exact reason.

If we were to follow your logic, we would conclude that Connor McDavid is a bad player because his team didn't make the playoffs.

I fully understand what you are trying to say. I am pointing out the flaws when it comes to a moba. In a moba solo queue, the best measure of individual skill is wins and losses. It doesn't matter how many trolls or feeders you get, there is no better system than wins and losses. You can make tweeks like positional rankings and leaver forgiveness but that is really the limit.

Don't try to bring traditional sports into this, none of them have a solo queue ladder like mobas and none of them work like league does.

MathgodpiOct 15, 20181 votes

{quoted}

I fully understand what you are trying to say. I am pointing out the flaws when it comes to a moba. In a moba solo queue, the best measure of individual skill is wins and losses. It doesn't matter how many trolls or feeders you get, there is no better system than wins and losses. You can make tweeks like positional rankings and leaver forgiveness but that is really the limit.

Don't try to bring traditional sports into this, none of them have a solo queue ladder like mobas and none of them work like league does.

You are either ignoring or not understanding what I'm actually saying. I'm saying that the matchmaker is stacking the teams against me, to the extent that these games are unwinnable, and it has been doing this about 2/3 of the time over the past few weeks.

The analogy I made IS perfectly valid, as it's an illustration of what happens when a very good player is put in a situation where his teammates are lousy and the opposing team is good enough that his individual efforts aren't enough to overcome the overall team skill deficit.

haaaaaaalpOct 15, 20181 votes

{quoted}

You are either ignoring or not understanding what I'm actually saying. I'm saying that the matchmaker is stacking the teams against me, to the extent that these games are unwinnable, and it has been doing this about 2/3 of the time over the past few weeks.

The analogy I made IS perfectly valid, as it's an illustration of what happens when a very good player is put in a situation where his teammates are lousy and the opposing team is good enough that his individual efforts aren't enough to overcome the overall team skill deficit.

Who the hell cares what matchmaking is doing? The point is that there is no better system. The analogy you made does not apply to a solo queue moba because it cannot improve the current system. You can argue player x is being held back by his teammates all you want, unless you find a better system to give said player better teammates, it won't matter.

No one is arguing that the current system is flawed, the problem is that there is no way to fix all of those flaws. The system you propose would just put more players into divisions they don't belong and give you even more unwinnable games.

MathgodpiOct 15, 20181 votes

{quoted}

Who the hell cares what matchmaking is doing? The point is that there is no better system. The analogy you made does not apply to a solo queue moba because it cannot improve the current system. You can argue player x is being held back by his teammates all you want, unless you find a better system to give said player better teammates, it won't matter.

No one is arguing that the current system is flawed, the problem is that there is no way to fix all of those flaws. The system you propose would just put more players into divisions they don't belong and give you even more unwinnable games.

Quite the contrary. The system I've described would give massive LP losses to players who play like dogshit and cost their team games. Trolls who are currently wrecking games in silver/gold/plat would quickly sink to bronze/iron where they belong. Meanwhile, players like me who are losing 2/3 of the time despite playing well would still climb because of good stats compared to teammates.

You deny that things like kda, cs, damage to champions, vision score, etc, are conducive to winning, but they are conducive to winning. Meanwhile, recklessly diving into enemies and repeatedly overextending are behaviors that are conducive to losing. The current system punishes good players for the wrongs of their teammates, and doesn't even try to do ANYTHING to mitigate the problem.

SubdueOct 15, 20181 votes

{quoted}

I fully understand what you are trying to say. I am pointing out the flaws when it comes to a moba. In a moba solo queue, the best measure of individual skill is wins and losses. It doesn't matter how many trolls or feeders you get, there is no better system than wins and losses. You can make tweeks like positional rankings and leaver forgiveness but that is really the limit.

Don't try to bring traditional sports into this, none of them have a solo queue ladder like mobas and none of them work like league does.

Don't bother man. Didn't you see what he said? He thinks there's a Rioter that has actively singled him out to make him lose. It's not even the typical 50% win rate balogna. He thinks it's a person maliciously screwing with him.

Forget the tinfoil hat, he's got a tinfoil castle!

haaaaaaalpOct 15, 20181 votes

{quoted}

Don't bother man. Didn't you see what he said? He thinks there's a Rioter that has actively singled him out to make him lose. It's not even the typical 50% win rate balogna. He thinks it's a person maliciously screwing with him.

Forget the tinfoil hat, he's got a tinfoil castle!

To be honest, I looked at the message center because the formatting for long threads since the boards update is a bit on the retarded side.