Boards›Gameplay

Is It Time to "Rework" the Tiers for Ranked Play?

BlueBilberry··1 votes·349 views

One of the things that I have noticed spectating the various tiers of games to get a sense of the quality of play at each tier and by watching numerous streamers on Twitch and Youtube (from Silver to Challenger) is that there seems to be: (1) quite a few complaints about difficulties climbing and the quality of play at what used to be "good tiers" (e.g., plat); (2) more than a few higher-tiered streamers who have been playing smurfs and taking their smurfs to higher tiers (filling up the top-end of the rating spectrum); and (3) bronze play that has been seeing quite a few previous season silvers and golds.

This has led me to suspect that the current tier system is not only creating downward pressure due to the bell curve based ELO/MMR system and the increasing number of smurfs reaching higher tiers, while at the same time the increased contact with the trolls, d/cers, immature player and inexperienced newbies is causing pain for quite a few gold and silver players and leaving them in the "Muh Team" situation. (Or at least I suspect it's making it harder for them to see their personal progress due to these situations.)

Anyway, given that 2/3rds of the ranked player base are in Bronze and Silver now (using data before the API changes occurred), I am suggesting that it would be wise to adjust the lower 2 tiers so that it is possible for players to more easily see their personal improvement.

No, I am not suggesting that Bronze 5 become "Wood" or "Plastic" or some other derogatory or rude nonsense. But I do like the idea of the two more lower tiers added called "Candidate" and "Journeyman" tiers. And I would strongly suggest that the mean of the player base and the set standard deviation used for the calculations to be adjusted.

What do you think?

9 Comments

Sun Wu Ryuumoku1 votes

What do you think?

I think its useless. If someone is silver he dosn't deserve more than that, same for lower or higher. Its just reward bad players for... being bad. Many won't like this comment ^^

BlueBilberry1 votes

[{quoted}](name=Ryuumoku no koke,realm=EUW,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=hlfY0geg,comment-id=0000,timestamp=2017-07-28T18:27:29.250+0000)

I think its useless. If someone is silver he dosn't deserve more than that, same for lower or higher. Its just reward bad players for... being bad. Many won't like this comment ^^

Perhaps, but one of the reasons for toxicity based on what I've seen in the /all chats in these many tiered games is a combination of frustration with teammates and an inability to see that the "speaker" can't feel any sense of progress. It's similar to the frustration that one sees in grading at school (or performance grades in LoL at the end of the game) - e.g., "I do all this and get a 'B'". I am just suggesting rejigging things so that the old outdated system is more capable of showing personal progress - bronze/silver/gold/platinum/etc. quality play or not.

Mig891 votes

I think instead of adding more tiers they should just add more divisions so people do not complain about being below bronze. It would take a bit longer to climb but if they did it purely ELO based and got rid of promos, mmr, and the feature that prevents you from dropping when you're at 0 LP then they could add more divisions and it would be easy to see where youre at. They could even tapir it off to something like Bronze 20-1 Silver 10-1 Gold 7-1 Platinum 6-1 Diamond 5-1 Master Challenger Bronze would be absolute hell for people who are Bronze 20 but its not much different than getting hard stuck Bronze 5 as it is. It would reward the players who actually do stop and learn because they might start climbing divisions quickly.

Idk thought what the best solution would be but lumping 30-40% of the playerbase together in a Tier and expecting good matchups is just impossible. There needs to be more ranks and matchmaking needs to reflect the actual ranks more. If it was purely ELO based, LP gains/losses could drastically change from match to match based on who youre playing with/against. If a match is decidedly uneven with say 4 Gold 4s and a gold 5 vs 4 gold 4s and a gold 1 player then you could have Team A gaining more than Team B. As it stands now its based off individual wins and losses and this doesnt seem right due to it matching by MMR

BlueBilberry1 votes

{quoted}

I think instead of adding more tiers they should just add more divisions so people do not complain about being below bronze. It would take a bit longer to climb but if they did it purely ELO based and got rid of promos, mmr, and the feature that prevents you from dropping when you're at 0 LP then they could add more divisions and it would be easy to see where youre at. ...

<snip for brevity> Bronze would be absolute hell for people who are Bronze 20 but its not much different than getting hard stuck Bronze 5 as it is. It would reward the players who actually do stop and learn because they might start climbing divisions quickly.

Idk thought what the best solution would be but lumping 30-40% of the playerbase together in a Tier and expecting good matchups is just impossible. There needs to be more ranks and matchmaking needs to reflect the actual ranks more. If it was purely ELO based, LP gains/losses could drastically change from match to match based on who youre playing with/against. If a match is decidedly uneven with say 4 Gold 4s and a gold 5 vs 4 gold 4s and a gold 1 player then you could have Team A gaining more than Team B. As it stands now its based off individual wins and losses and this doesnt seem right due to it matching by MMR

Part of the problem is the "Bronze" stigma (other than the top tiers being plugged up by multiple accounts held by the same players).

Bronze is a metal that is worthy of some esteem in most competitive events - think the Olympics, international athletic meets, the Pan-Am games, etc. Setting Bronze for the 25% just below the mean and then having just a "Candidate" tier for the bottom 25% would be a step in the right direction. It would allow players that huge bottom 50% of the population to have a sense of the different quality of play as they move up. Currently, it seems that the system looks for any player with a "Bronze" label to play against other Bronzes. And from what I can see from spectating such games, it is getting to the point that even Bronze 1s and 2s have a different quality of play than the Bronze 4s and 5s - and it's unfair to place them on the same teams.

Mig891 votes

To me it makes no difference what its labeled. It really doesnt matter to me if the tiers were Paper, Plastic, Lint, cardboard, and pizza. Being in the lowest tier is being in the lowest tier. I agree there is usually a big difference between bronze 1&2 and bronze 4&5 even if higher elo players dont think so. This is why I believe that it should just be expanded. There will be a bigger sense of pride if someone is bronze 1 or two vs bronze 10 or 20. Expanding silver as well might not be the best idea because the climb would be daunting and I guess if you started at the bottom of bronze and worked your way to silver, it may get discouraging seeing another ten tiers to gold. This would increase the value of being in the upper reaches of silver but thats about it as far as expanding silver is concerned. Id imagine it wouldnt be too bad being hard stuck bronze if you were actually able to climb a few divisions and see yourself improving vs being in bronze 4 or 5 all season but idk. We may need to get someones opinion who is stuck in bronze.

BlueBilberry1 votes

{quoted}

We may need to get someones opinion who is stuck in bronze.

The problem with that is that a lot of the bronze players are usually quite young. So many of them would not be able to advocate well enough for such changes.

TurnDaBeatAround1 votes

One of the biggest challenges to Ranked Play is that what you experience from day to day is not entirely conducive to how exactly Elo/MMR actually function. These measurement systems are encapsulating a host of external variables on top of the skill level of the player, and each variable forces that many more games to be played to average out what an appropriate ranking is.

However, how we FEEL during those rating swings, how we perceive a progression or regression and how we react to it, that's the challenging part. A solution to this could be to establish some sort of ratings "floor," which rewards a player through consistent play by not threatening elevator-style drops in ranking. The US Chess Federation uses this - the elo floor is 200-300 points below the player's highest achieved rating. In terms of what that would mean in League, my guess would be that upon reaching Gold V as an example, your rating would not fall below let's say Silver II. Is that a ton of incentive? Maybe, maybe not. But thinking about Bronze for example, if you hit Bronze I, not dropping below Bronze III feels at least somewhat fair. Hit Silver III? You won't drop back into Bronze. There would now be a checkpoint at a mid-tier ranking.

I'm sure this idea has been discussed before, but revisiting it feels appropriate here. Food for thought!

BlueBilberry2 votes

{quoted} Snip! However, how we FEEL during those rating swings, how we perceive a progression or regression and how we react to it, that's the challenging part. A solution to this could be to establish some sort of ratings "floor," which rewards a player through consistent play by not threatening elevator-style drops in ranking. The US Chess Federation uses this - the elo floor is 200-300 points below the player's highest achieved rating. In terms of what that would mean in League, my guess would be that upon reaching Gold V as an example, your rating would not fall below let's say Silver II. Is that a ton of incentive? Maybe, maybe not. But thinking about Bronze for example, if you hit Bronze I, not dropping below Bronze III feels at least somewhat fair. Hit Silver III? You won't drop back into Bronze. There would now be a checkpoint at a mid-tier ranking.

I'm sure this idea has been discussed before, but revisiting it feels appropriate here. Food for thought!

It's an intriguing idea - a similar idea is used by the BCO and CFC (Canadian and British Chess). And it would deal with the gripes/concerns that I've witnessed some of the diamond and master+ streamers espousing during their streams when they did the Season 7 placements (and Seasons 6 too, come to think of it). It doesn't deal with the Bronze situation as much - but I think it would help some of the higher tier issues I've witnessed.

Mig891 votes

I dont think they do a hard reset every year but i could be wrong. I believe that last year the reset was complete because of a lot of changes that were introduced to the map ie jungle camps, rift herald, plants, etc.. You dont start every season like a fresh lvl 30 account does by default. (i could be wrong but this is what i understood from conversations)

More from Gameplay

3 Refunds per season, upvote if you want 3 refunds per season.
Gameplay764 comments
7,167
votes
3 Refunds per season, upvote if you want 3 refunds per season.
Gameplay156 comments
3,510
votes
UPVOTE FOR URF
Gameplay606 comments
2,440
votes
Yes plz.
Gameplay456 comments
1,721
votes
3 Refunds per season, up vote if you want 3 refunds per season.
Gameplay114 comments
1,716
votes
When is ANYONE at riot going to address the awful new player experience?
Gameplay634 comments
1,383
votes

More by BlueBilberry

Bring back the Rock, Paper, Scissors, Lizard, Spock metas - PLEASE!
Gameplay46 comments
67
votes
Client Issues - Black Screen on Sign In/Unable to Play
Report a Bug18 comments
38
votes
"GG EZ" - Can we please do something about this childish crap?
Player Behavior32 comments
10
votes
Proposed Sona Changes....
Gameplay15 comments
7
votes
Nerfing Karma While She's Hurting??
Gameplay7 comments
6
votes
Can we get an option to change pings a bit?
Gameplay5 comments
5
votes