See title.
It's a rough life when you earn a new rank, then through a series of unfortunate circumstances your team ends up losing the game 3 times in a row. Even though you got ~S everytime. I think SOME aspect of your rank should be taken into account to earn you a stay of execution.
Thanks. <3
Zero Skill Tank6 votesIf you wonder why you are getting downvoted, it's because community doesn't want to have players who would care more about their rank thank actual wining in ranked games.
Parceval2 votesI do wonder. Because if rank were adjusted correctly for team play, there's no disadvantage to this.
Zero Skill Tank4 votesThere is currently no algorithm that could analyze your map pressure, your peeling, your focus etc, etc.
Parceval1 votesThere is one that could get close.
Certainly there would be some intangibles, but overall I'm quite certain you could arrive at an algorithm that was a very reasonable representation of your contribution.
If we can assess the skill of any given player in any given sport we can CERTAINLY do it in a game where we have perfect data. Otherwise, you would have to argue, that baseball, basketball, football, etc, are unable to identify talent with metrics. Because, in a video game, we have access to every piece of data they could use, plus more.
Zero Skill Tank5 votesOtherwise, you would have to argue, that baseball, basketball, football, etc, are unable to identify talent with metrics.
They are. This is why talent hunters still earn fat money for their job.
Parceval1 votesWhile the process is not perfect, we CAN determine and assess skill to very reasonable degrees. Hence, Moneyball.
Quepha1 votesWhile the process is not perfect, we CAN determine and assess skill to very reasonable degrees. Hence, Moneyball.
To be frank, Baseball is a much simpler game (at least, strategically) than League of Legends.
Parceval1 votesTrue, I'd argue against 'much', but still true.
Wilbur's aircraft was much simpler than modern jets. They still proved the concept. We can use the principles and build on them.
Quepha1 votesTrue, I'd argue against 'much', but still true.
Wilbur's aircraft was much simpler than modern jets. They still proved the concept. We can use the principles and build on them.
So, in baseball, if a statistician evaluates that the players on Team A are objectively superior to Team B's, but Team B wins anyways, does Team A still get to stay in the tournament because they "should" have won that game?
Parceval1 votesIn that game they clearly weren't. So, no. That said, you could have an all-star player on Team A even though his team did not win.
Quepha1 votesIn that game they clearly weren't. So, no. That said, you could have an all-star player on Team A even though his team did not win.
Then he should be able to make a difference in the long run when he plays with another team.
Parceval1 votesNo question, my problem is that it's not currently fast enough. We can do better.
A Basic Island1 votesno. it is absolutely impossible to tell how mucn contribution a player had just by looking at the stats of the match.
Someone has got to actually watch the game to determine whether or not you deserved that S rank
Parceval1 votesI find that very hard to stomach. You're suggesting that we have NO IDEA who is good and who isn't in any major sport.
That seems foolhardy. Surely we can tell, at least with statistical significance, who is more important in a given game.
DrCyanide1 votesA Support dies to save their ADC. What metric do you use to determine if the ADC needed saving? What value do you assign to saving the ADC? How do you capture all the possible ways that the Support could get the ADC out? What happens if the ADC dies afterwards, is the Support punished?
These bare bones questions that need to be answered perfectly if a skill based system is ever going to work. It needs to include plays as crazy as dropping a ward in the enemy ADC's path (which if they're Attack Moving will cause them to pause as they target the ward), agroing Jungle Monsters to block the path of enemies, etc.
Certainly there would be some intangibles
Most of what Supports do is Intangibles. Most of what differentiates a good decision from a bad one are Intangibles that went into making the decision. You need to quantify the Intangibles.
Parceval1 votesIt would be foolish to presume that 'most' is intangible.
Yes, there are many!
We can still identify who the best lineman are in the NFL though their contribution is often filled with intangibles.
Try and take a step back and consider major sports. This happens every day by millions of people worldwide. There are steps we can take to identify the major metrics that would determine, in a statistically significant way, who is far above the 'herd.'
DrCyanide1 votesYour comparison doesn't even make sense.
The stats they use to compare athletes are used to compare them when they're not playing a game, and are used to compare them to players in that same position. Can you imagine comparing a soccer goalie's balls blocked to the yards passed of another player to determine which of them did more the team that game?
Player A did more damage to champions and got a better KDA. Player B took more objectives and warded more. The team lost. Who contributed more to helping them win? It's a comparison that doesn't make sense.
Parceval1 votesThose stats are also actively used. Do you not watch many competitive sports? Exactly the terms you are discussing are used constantly by fans and commentators.
And ABSOLUTELY who contributed more to helping them win happens in just about every game's analysis.
Sightless661 votesThat's a huge if. The current champion mastery system is already pretty arbitrary in the grades it gives, and it doesn't even have to compare performances between champions. We'd be almost guaranteed to see certain champions or playstyles earning higher grades than others, even if they aren't actually more successful, and that's not fair. Having a simple win vs loss system with MMR works best because it is guaranteed to not favor or benefit any playstyle over any others unless those playstyles win/lose more often.
I have absolutely no confidence that we have any ability to make an algorithm that fairly represents and compares the value of different champions and playstyles and assigns grades accordingly.
Parceval1 votesGoogle can beat Go, IBM can beat Jeopardy, heck computers can drive and fly. Surely we can develop an AI that can take into account the features you suggest.
Rito has access to an immense dataset; as a computer scientist myself, I certainly think it's quite within the realm of reason.
Sightless661 votes[deleted]
Parceval1 votesNow you've found the real reason I asked this question. :)
I actually think there's a treasure trove of value here. You're probably aware of this, but the MMR system used in most ranked gaming systems is based on Chess and mathematical models for ranking players from centuries ago. Chess is a mano-a-mano game with tightly defined rules.
Modern video games and team-based sports are far more complex.
With modern statistical methods--and computers--I think we're on the verge of a breakthrough in skill identification. And if properly applied, this science would translate cross-realm to a wide variety of disciplines (and sports) far behind just LoL. And make money, lots of it, in the long run. Besides making our game (I would argue) much better in between.
Sightless661 votesBesides making our game (I would argue) much better in between.
I'm not sold on that. MMR does perfectly fine at ranking players. At best, you're looking at a slight decrease in the time to determine rankings, and that's assuming you get it right, which would take a lot of work that Riot doesn't really have an incentive to put towards the project.
Even assuming we are at the verge of a breakthrough, Riot isn't part of the researchers who are on the cutting edge, and they don't have the experience or skill to do this efficiently. They're not going to be the ones to make a breakthrough on it. That's really all there is too it. They have no potential for making a lot of money from this. I guarantee you, nothing they do is going to have even the slightest impact on the field. From a business standpoint, devoting resources into something that take a lot of work, has a high potential for failure (see Valve's constant retuning of their "skill-based" placement algorithm every time someone finds a new exploit) and will only create a marginal increase in game quality is a poor investment.
Parceval1 votesPersonally, needing 100+ games to normalize and the very high variance in games is not satisfactory to me.
Let me give you a concise situation: smurfs.
If we had a system which could quickly determine a player's actual skill based upon their performance then they would rapidly move out of lower elos, and more quickly end the pubstomping. What's more, it would reduce or eliminate the problem of 'premades' with highly differential skill since skill would more rapidly be determined.
On variance: It's taken me over 200 games to end up at a place where winning and losing is largely normalized to my play (it still isn't, but it's clearly approximately where I belong). That said, I still see a very broad spectrum of team performance. Now, this could be due simply to the natural human variance. I am positing, however, that it is more likely due to the nature of matchmaking itself. If we had a far better assessment tools for skill identification, then the games would be more evenly matched, and more enjoyable for us all.
I do not see this as marginal in the slightest. They've spent millions on ping, and from a statistical perspective, the value of an experiential game of quality is at least on par with ping. If you could make the same level of overall systematic improvement to consistent game quality as they have done to ping it would positively influence the community on a massive scale.
Lenaro2 votesThis would encourage poor behavior and ultimately reward playing carries over tanks or supportive characters.
Parceval1 votesIf and only if Rito poorly designs the S-rank. That is, if it's only based on kda. Which I surely doubt that it is, or will continue to be as Riot refines the algorithm.
Quepha2 votesA more logical solution: If you lose the game, the highest grade you can earn is an A+.
Of course, that undermines a major point of the mastery system which is to give players an opportunity to not feel as bad about a loss.
Parceval1 votesThat's actually an interesting point. My first reaction was negative, but I see your perspective, and I like it.
Upvote this guy.
redniwediS1 votesWhen you get matched with a team you're not just being placed with a bunch of random people, these people are your team now. Win or lose you do it as a team.
I think your idea would make it too much about the individual player. It would basically mean that, when a game is going south quickly, the players who are doing well should do everything in their power to get an S, rather than try and pull the game back into a favorable state.
Parceval1 votesYou assume we understand the metrics it takes to get an S-rank.
If they're designing the system correctly it would need to take into account assists, positioning during team fights, towers taken, damage taken and dealt, kda, kp, etc. All of the metrics collectively would reveal your true contribution.
redniwediS1 votesNot really. I'd assume people understand a lot of things, but they run off with incorrect information and make fools of themselves anyway.
Look at all the people on here who complain about not getting S scores when they have high kills and low deaths. They feel they should have gotten an S even though they have no idea what goes into an S score.
Parceval1 votesSo it would do nothing but help. I don't understand this argument then.
redniwediS1 votesYour first reply reduced my first post to an assumption. My second post refuted it.
It would basically mean that, when a game is going south quickly, the players who are doing well should do everything in their power to get an S, rather than try and pull the game back into a favorable state.
It doesn't matter if we know what goes into an S rank or not. People already incorrectly assume they know, and are thus confused when they don't get one.
Riot wants us to work as a team to win, not splinter when things go poorly. Perhaps there is a way around this, but attaching your immunity idea to the grade at the end of the game will do nothing positive.
Parceval1 votesBut they won't earn an S rank, and therefore my title would not apply to them. I still don't understand?
Overtime people would learn that Riot is taking into account aggressively collected metrics which properly determine team play. Therefore, it would improve the game for everyone.
Fraggleroc1 votestheir S rank is shit bonkers... I got 6/0/12 on Naut top, sole-carry the entire game as our bot fed and I had to abandon top after getting a kill. I went 3-men bot and was the sole reason our team made a comeback n won. Enemy surrendered. And I didn't get an S- just because the system thinks my kda compared to other nauts is lacklustre or something.
Parceval1 votesThat's fine, like however complicated it is to get S it should be super hard. It's more than kda, it's warding, kp, etc. I hope it's super complex, and as close to teamwork oriented as possible.
The point is, if their system gets good enough, it should provide feedback loops into our actual rank.
xBushx1 votesThis would encourage people to a solo focuse dmind set. Involving taking cs and staying out of fight to secure thier "Rank". Makes no sense and promotes solo toxicity.
Parceval1 votesRead my replies to other commenters, that is only true if the system designed around ranking S is myopic. If, however, the system correctly identifies skill in a team context, this would NOT be true.