Boards›Gameplay

Unranked accounts MMR should start in the middle of bronze, not silver.

Theorchero··63 votes·4,862 views

I understand the reason for starting it in the middle of silver, they're statistically average. And that's cool, except that with accelerated leveling, players aren't ready for ranked when they hit 30. Hell, they weren't ready for it before you accelerated leveling. Now you have players with less than 150 games entering ranked for the first time and being eviscerated because they're against players who have 3-4x as much experience as them.

Personally it isn't as much of an issue for me except for dynamic queue fuckering. When 4 people are premade and they have say, a gold 1 and a silver 5, that fucks matchmaking by a huge amount. I end up with and against mostly silvers and while I may perform fine, it's incredibly obnoxious to essentially play a 4v5 because one of my teammates has no idea what is going on. I've seen an unranked account with barely 100 games. They probably don't even know what the current champions names are, let alone what they do. They're practically useless and will just feed the enemy team in most cases.

It's even worse if their unranked player is a smurf. It results in incredibly skewed matchmaking and it just feels awful all around.

Personally, I think that unranked accounts should start at bronze 2 or 3, because if these genuine new players manage to get carried in their first game or two, they will further degrade the quality of matchmaking because they will be against gold and ex-platinum players, who will DESTROY them, and since the first 2-3 games have much more weight than the last few, they will continue to degrade the matchmaking of any game they enter, until they finally fall into bronze. The base starting MMR should be adjusted due to the inexperience of the player. Period. The only reason to have it start in silver is for smurfs, but fuck smurfs anyway. They'll climb retardedly fast regardless, so this doesn't really apply to them.

53 Comments

KirbyCake13 votes

no, that would result in mmr deflation.

EVERYBODY started silver elo, there is literally no reason to assume average players would play any worse than silvers. every elo system starts out new players at average.

if you want people to start in bronze, you would be in bronze right now, actually 80%+ of the population would be since that would be the new average.

i see no reason why to place a new player in bronze anyways, they designed league to be so brain dead easy now ( and even easier with each passing season ) that any new player who plays for a week can play at a diamond level if they receive the correct training.

Theorchero7 votes

{quoted}

no, that would result in mmr deflation.

EVERYBODY started silver elo, there is literally no reason to assume average players would play any worse than silvers. every elo system starts out new players at average.

if you want people to start in bronze, you would be in bronze right now, actually 80%+ of the population would be since that would be the new average.

i see no reason why to place a new player in bronze anyways, they designed league to be so brain dead easy now ( and even easier with each passing season ) that any new player who plays for a week can play at a diamond level if they receive the correct training.

Nah, idc if you're diamond or not, that's bullshit. Anyone that's new to mobas in general let alone league is not going to be playing a diamond level within a week, idc if he's being coached by lastshadow9 himself. It's just not possible.

manbearswine1 votes

{quoted}

Nah, idc if you're diamond or not, that's bullshit. Anyone that's new to mobas in general let alone league is not going to be playing a diamond level within a week, idc if he's being coached by lastshadow9 himself. It's just not possible.

I mean I'm not sure, if you choose to main something strong+really braindead+with really low skill requirement(like janna or soraka), you might be able to with a coach, otherwise the game has a decent chunck of champions and knowing what to expect of each requires a decent amount of practice.

Still...it's soraka and janna, so maybe...

nice table2 votes

i went to ranked right after hitting level 30, never played any mobas before and got placed in silver one and got to gold in the same season.

its fine to start the players off at bronze mmr but wins should grant you more mmr than they do right now so the average rank people are placed in doesn't go down.

The Fuzzy 0ne1 votes

On the flip side, I had never played mobas before either and got placed Silver 4 got to Bronze 3 same season because I sucked and didn't understand the game as well as I had thought. In that case I thought I probably should have started in bronze cuz then at least I 'd gain confidence not lose it the more I played. When I had actually improved the system kept giving me less and less LP for a win. No matter how well you play if you get 10 LP for a win and lose 20 for a loss, you're going to keep falling.

nice table1 votes

its not about how much experience people have its about the way they play the game, i did research on 1 champion that i would then proceed to play in pretty much every role and got "really good" at it while most people will try out every champion, not invest into runes and play weird shit in ranked.

The Fuzzy 0ne1 votes

Knowing what to get for a type of champ is important, and yes easy to look into, but I'm talking more macro-play wise. A lot of new players cycle through champs cuz they don't know who they want to play. A lot of them settle for picking the "op champ of the month" without really understanding how to play them. But more importantly, they don't necessarily know how to play the game past the very basics. Learning what to do objectively, like when is a good time to go for baron, do we even need baron or should we just push, where to place wards, etc... that only really comes through experience.

Maximum Morde4 votes

^

This is how the math of an ELO system works. The place you define the starting mmr becomes the midpoint. If we suddenly redefine that midpoint to be bronze, then now you end up with like 80% of people in bronze 5 lol.

DeathBurst1 votes

I'm no expert on ELO systems, but I'm pretty sure you can tweak it so that the starting point is separate from the midpoint. It's not because the base version did it this way that LoL specific version has to do it the same way.

Maximum Morde1 votes

The way to do that is by having very loose restrictions when someone first enters the system. Riot already does this with placements, which is why ten games can land you anywhere from bronze to gold on a fresh account. But those early matches are always rife with uncertainty over what said player should be matched with. Loosen it further, and people complain more about getting placement folks in their games, or some folks getting super lucky or super unlucky in placements.

The reason that the starting point ends up the mid point is that for someone to go up, someone else has to go down. You can't get around that over time unless you allow hyper inflation of rank.

DeathBurst1 votes

You can't get around that over time unless you allow hyper inflation of rank.

I think more precisely, inflation of the MMR score, not of the displayed Rank as in Gold/Silver/etc. And well, if you want people to start at the bottom of the ladder, maybe you have to accept inflation on the other hand. But since the MMR score is never actually displayed, who cares? But even if it was displayed, you sure you can't just plug a corrective term in the formula, that modify the MMR you gain/lose between the starting point and the desired mid point?

Maximum Morde1 votes

No. The way ELO works is the math forces the midpoint at the starting point. The only way to get around that is to hard lock gains per win at something rediculously higher than the amount lost per lose. That results in at least rank inflation in the current system. The mmr I'm not so worried about because mmr is relative to everyone, so it doesn't matter if those get inflated.

What you really want is a Ladder instead of an ELO, where rank is determinus by relative position on the ladder. Then you start everyone at equal rank and let it go.

DeathBurst1 votes

But the starting position would be in the middle or the bottom of the ladder?

And you said Ladder with a capital, so is that a well known algorithm? Do you have any link so I can check the basics of how it works? I'm curious :)

Maximum Morde1 votes

To be fair I kind of said it wrong. A ladder system often also uses ELO to move people. Our current system is more like a soft ladder. It assigns everyone an mmr and move them up or down and general areas on the ladder are defined as a given rank.

A hard ladder system would still use ELO to matchmake and such, but instead of a general rank area, it would be hard defined along the entire ladder like Challenger currently is. Where the top X number of players go into that slot. You can then start newcomers at the bottom. The problem is this kind of system takes much longer to sort people to appropriate ranks because they have to climb through each place. What Riot has done by letting the system seed people at the average instead allows(forces) smurfs(and everyone else really) to an appropriate ranking much much faster. It also has the effect of making matches even more uneven, especially at the low end, because of how long it takes to sort folks.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elo_rating_system

The wikipedia article on ELO is useful I guess. Keep in mind that Riot has heavily modified the traditional ELO systems. For example, a large portion of bronze would actually be considered to have an ELO too low to be rated. Riot used to do this, but they got rid of it. They have also softened the gains and losses quite a bit as people were complaining it was too hard to climb, which is why we have rank inflation really.

Basically, Riot has modified their systems to try and make fairer matches, with faster sorting so that people get to their rank quicker and have fairer matches that way too. You can make tweaks, but you give something up.

DeathBurst1 votes

The problem is this kind of system takes much longer to sort people to appropriate ranks because they have to climb through each place. What Riot has done by letting the system seed people at the average instead allows(forces) smurfs(and everyone else really) to an appropriate ranking much much faster.

I'm really not convinced about this part. First off, if you're Bronze level and got placed in Silver after your placements, you can't really go down, since it's very hard to be demoted from one tier to the tier below. I know it happened to me and some other friends for our first season in Ranked. Secondly, what I already said in my first post, people who start are not distributed evenly across all skill ratings, beginners are more often than not worse players than the average population; so from this point of view, it's strange to get seeded in the middle of the ladder rather than at the bottom.

So yeah, in the end, you have the problem of the smurfs. But honestly, if you are really heavily under-rated, you can easily climb, and "ELO Hell" isn't really a problem here. A Gold can pretty much Solo carry out of Bronze with a 60+% winrate, let's not mention what a Plat or Diamond can do. And with such win rates, the climb would be pretty fast, and smurfs wouldn't ruin a lot of games for Bronzes anyway.

Maximum Morde1 votes

Your mileage may vary. I've watched my friends get (their deserved) demotions from silver all the way to bronze 5 repeatedly every time I carry them out.

I'd also say that the average player, even new, probably is high bronze or silverish in skill. It makes sense that if the majority of players are going to be from bronze to gold in skill level, to start them somewhere in low silver. At least to me anyway.

DeathBurst1 votes

The thing is, you don't start the game with an average level. You start the game with a bad level, just plain old bad, not average. Maybe standard ELO systems start out new players at average, that doesn't mean LoL system has to conform to this rule.

Also, reaching Diamond level in one week, even with proper training, that's just ridiculous, but even IF it was true, most new players do NOT receive proper training and just learn on their own.

Sohleks2 votes

That's a point. A conservative one.

I think it is reasonable to assume that more often than not new accounts starting ranked are not the same as the average league of legend player skill wise. It's not the same. It's 2016 and most ranked players have been playing a while.

Just because the sacred elo system works that way doesn't mean we can't retool it to work best for the players. And not just for the sacred balance of some unseen mathematical ecosystem.

What Riot needs to do is count how many new accounts go up from the starting average and how many go down. I suspect a large percentage of non smurfs are gonna drop to bronze without premade assistance. Especially since hitting level 30 is easier than before.

Though I guess we could just say it's a tough world and let them donate their LP to the elo system as they lose 70% of their games for the first month of their ranked experience, if they even carry on.

They need to find the new 50% point for new players. Lots of people say "don't play ranked until" like... you put another 100s and 100s of hours into this game at level 30 playing a bunch more normals. I wonder why is that.

Hyperiön7 votes

Honestly, it should start everyone in Bronze 5. No reason a person who get duo boosted in his promos should get silver3/4 Then they play alone, and fall to bronze anyways.

Sohleks4 votes

Actually there's value for not placing 0-0 new accounts at the absolute bottom.

If there was absolutely nothing to lose accounts losing their placements matches wouldn't get pushed away from the starting elo. And smurfs climbing would persist across ALL elos.

So placements should start at mid bronze at the lowest.

Hyperiön1 votes

Smurfing would exist either way = Invalid Point.

Value? How is that even your first response. new players to league, fresh level 30, brand new to ranked, should be placed in B5 no matter what. The only thing provisional games do for them, is decide how much LP they get per win/loss.

So, lets say you go 10-0 in provisionals, solo. It would give you the mmr of Silver 4-5 whatever the case, so they would get 25-35 LP per win. So they climb faster than the average person. They may only lose like 15-20 a game.

Now, lets say someone went 3-7 in the provisionals. They probably should be in Bronze 5, so they only get the 18-22 LP (normal) per win, and the standard 15-20 per loss. Making it so they have to actually get decent to climb, not just boost up like animals with their friends because they would still have to win an absurd amount of games to get out of Bronze. (Just being honest)

Now you might say, well what about someone who goes like 7-3 or something like that. Figure equivalent to B1, maybe S5 depending. They would get slightly higher LP gains, say 22-25, and still normal LP loss.

So it is a win win situation. The better players get the easier climb, while the people who may deserve to be there, should be placed there, with normal win/loss LP gains.

Goatfish1 votes

[deleted]

Hyperiön1 votes

But new players aren't in challenger. I am not talking at the beginning of a new season, I am just talking first time ever in ranked.

dunkeroni1 votes

This actually happened when the soft reset put everyone, even challenger players, in Bronze at the beginning of the season. (season 5)

LA Losty1 votes

I agree, it sucks that people can luck out aswell and get gold instantly after just a few games. I know a guy who got gold 5 back in season 3 after his very first placements. Back then you couldnt demote to a lower teir by losing so after he lost a ton of games his mmr was completely screwed. Next season he won 7/10 games and was placed in bronze 1. Here 3 seasons later he has yet to get gold, despite the fact that he still plays. It sucks that he got the rewards for free when some people have worked hard for it. Lastly Sohleks has a point since you arent punished for losing games in the beginning if you are already at the bottom, but having a starting mmr of bronze 3 would be perfect imo. Then they need would just need to make it so there is a max premade difference of 5 divisions rather than 10 ^^

Lord Galvatron1 votes

If they fall to bronze after the duo-boost, then that's the ranked system doing it's job. The issue is that people boost and and don't play ranked which then gluts the rank with bad players.

Hyperiön1 votes

Another option would be that people cant duoq the provisionals. But bronze is bad either way, more people won't hurt in the bottom of the ladder

Lord Galvatron1 votes

Agreed

CerealBoxOfDoom3 votes

silver is only average when averaged against people who have no clue how to even play despite being level 30. Bronze is where most of these people end up.

You are started in silver for a chance to play with the merely sub par players and have any hope of ranking up without playing a completely different game.

Seenan3 votes

If everyone were to start in B5, that'd probably kill smurfing while also making it interesting because there's the off-chance you'll meet Dyrus on his new acc 'eat my gangplank' or whatever.

Weathered2 votes

I hit 30 for the first time and did ranked immediately and hit S2 in placements w/o accelerated leveling. Middle of silver is fine

zacktootall2 votes

really do you know what bronze is like? its elo hell. at least with silver you can at least get lucky and stay out of elo hell

five oh tree 3 votes

anyone who has been in/past silver can tell you that silver IV and V are worse than bronze will ever be. Worse players, more toxic teams, everything, because it's where the new 30s usually get put.

Sohleks2 votes

I agree actually.

Even Reckful started streaming League and is "meagering" on in bronze with a sub 30% winrate over 40 games last I checked. He did use exp boosts to further accelerate his leveling so he must of gotten to level 30 very quickly.

Point is, he hasn't had very much time to learn the game well. He does make bronze decisions. Tons of em it seems. He just hasn't had enough time to absorb the game properly. With the number of champions in the game, he still doesn't know what a lot of them do as he faces them, and that's a massive disadvantage a player like me playing since 2011 can hardly remember.

I don't think their first game should be dumped at the very bottom of bronze 5. I think that's too low I feel like there should be a certain zone where if you're not very good at the game you should have "peace" at (I'm not exactly sure on the value of this tho). Putting new accounts at the absolute bottom would expose the entire ladder to smurf woes. (yes bronze "troll" smurfs who try to subtly climb down the ladder for amusement or easy stomps exist but that's a smaller issue. I think) I still think the starting mark could be a bit lower with higher placement match variance (particular a high rate of climb for those winning)

TL;DR put provision start slightly lower, wins translate to higher rate of climb though

However wherever you put it it'll disturb that elo...

STILL. It is good that new players reach the main body of the level 30 community faster, away from a-hole smurfs, so they can be pooled with the larger more seasoned pool of eventually placed similar skilled players.

The Fuzzy 0ne1 votes

Not only exp boosts, but the fact that the total amount of exp needed to hit lev 30 now is half of what it used to be makes most new players in general (always exceptions) even less experienced when they hit 30. To me, seeing new players playing with Silver 3's in placements makes no sense... if anything they should play vs Silver 5s or Bronze 1s to start.

Sohleks1 votes

Riot pulled a sneaky one and reduced EXP rewards at lower levels though so it's less than half. But that can be good leveling and matchmaking is bottom heavy for leveling with new accounts instead of it taking foreverrrrrr to get through the 20s.

The Fuzzy 0ne1 votes

I don't know... it only takes like 5-7 games to get to level 5... But I do agree, 20s are the worst cuz you start playing vs people with full rune pages or tier 3 runes and the mastery difference is a lot more apparent.

manbearswine1 votes

{quoted}

I understand the reason for starting it in the middle of silver, they're statistically average.

You don't get it, silver is not simply statistically average, they are by definition average.

The amount of elo in the game stays more or less constant(depends on how loss prevented games or remakes are handled, which can lead to inflation or deflation of elo), when one player gains elo another player loses elo, the average elo is as such the starting elo, if you make people start in bronze then all it would do is push the entire ladder downwards, bronze will become the new silver, and we will need to add wood to compensate for bronze being too concentrated.

Harvey Rabbit1 votes

I don't think this is true; it would only be true if everyone were going into the MMR system new at the same time, no? In that case there would be no pre-existing ladder to worry about. Then everyone would start in the middle and some would gradually move up the ladder while others would gradually move down. But if you have new players joining an existing ladder, the ideal would be to put them into the ladder as close to their natural position on the ladder as possible. If you put bad players in at the middle of the ladder that throws off the accuracy of the whole ladder ranking.

Look at it another way: If you put a new player into place low on the ladder, then everyone above them automatically moves up, right? That seems like they are moving up the ladder without having done anything to earn it... but if that new player actually isn't very good, then what an ideal ladder would do is automatically move everyone above them up one notch when they join the ladder, so that is what should be happening anyway. If a million new players who are terrible at the game suddenly join the ranked ladder then all the players who were "average" suddenly become statistically much better than average, even though they haven't actually gotten any better at the game. On the other hand, if you insert all those terrible players in at the middle of the curve then many of the players who were in the average range are suddenly well below average on the ladder, even though they are now well above average in their ability, distorting the accuracy of the ladder dramatically. Yes, it will all settle out over time as players move up and down the ladder depending on their performance, but that takes many games and is true no matter where on the ladder you insert the new players.

The thing is, new players who have never played ranked before are a relatively small number compared to all the veterans already in the ranked system, no? As far as I know this game doesn't actually get that many new players, and in the recent patch notes Riot even said that as a company policy they focus on keeping existing players not attracting new ones.

Also, afaik the broad majority of LoL players do not play ranked mode AT ALL, EVER. So to say that Silver is "average" is mathematically true for the ladder itself, but it is not at all true for the broader player base of LoL. The broad majority of players in LoL who never even reach the point of feeling good enough or having the desire to try out ranked mode, play at well below a silver level (true? this is my impression). The system should try to put them into the ranked ladder at something approximating the position on the ladder that their ability merits.

It seems to me that smurf accounts are the real monkey-wrench in the system; probably there are more smurf accounts being leveled up than there are actually new players in the game reaching level 30, and that would explain the reason Riot needs to assume an "average" ability for a new player going into ranked play.

manbearswine1 votes

{quoted}

I don't think this is true; it would only be true if everyone were going into the MMR system new at the same time, no?

No, the average mmr(I'm guessing it's still 1200?) represents the average player, it doesn't matter what his overall skill is, it simply represents where he stands compared to other players, and 1200 represents silver currently.

In that case there would be no pre-existing ladder to worry about. Then everyone would start in the middle and some would gradually move up the ladder while others would gradually move down. But if you have new players joining an existing ladder, the ideal would be to put them into the ladder as close to their natural position on the ladder as possible. If you put bad players in at the middle of the ladder that throws off the accuracy of the whole ladder ranking.

Thing is if you put them lower than the average position then you are pulling down the average position.

Look at it another way: If you put a new player into place low on the ladder, then everyone above them automatically moves up, right?

They don't actually. They remain where they are, then when this new player improves, they are pulled downwards.

That seems like they are moving up the ladder without having done anything to earn it... but if that new player actually isn't very good, then what an ideal ladder would do is automatically move everyone above them up one notch when they join the ladder, so that is what should be happening anyway. If a million new players who are terrible at the game suddenly join the ranked ladder then all the players who were "average" suddenly become statistically much better than average, even though they haven't actually gotten any better at the game. On the other hand, if you insert all those terrible players in at the middle of the curve then many of the players who were in the average range are suddenly well below average on the ladder, even though they are now well above average in their ability, distorting the accuracy of the ladder dramatically. Yes, it will all settle out over time as players move up and down the ladder depending on their performance, but that takes many games and is true no matter where on the ladder you insert the new players.

That's why the elo reset is there.

The thing is, new players who have never played ranked before are a relatively small number compared to all the veterans already in the ranked system, no? As far as I know this game doesn't actually get that many new players, and in the recent patch notes Riot even said that as a company policy they focus on keeping existing players not attracting new ones.

I'm actually guessing that a good chunk of players are actually new, as far as riot's policy, it could easily mean that they think this attitude is better both for new and old players, as new players eventually stop being new, so forsaking older players for newer ones can easily turn even the newer ones away.

Also, afaik the broad majority of LoL players do not play ranked mode AT ALL, EVER. So to say that Silver is "average" is mathematically true for the ladder itself, but it is not at all true for the broader player base of LoL. The broad majority of players in LoL who never even reach the point of feeling good enough or having the desire to try out ranked mode, play at well below a silver level (true? this is my impression). The system should try to put them into the ranked ladder at something approximating the position on the ladder that their ability merits.

I don't know if I've said this, but I meant that silver is by definition the average ranked player, naturally if a person doesn't play ranked he has nothing to do with it.

It seems to me that smurf accounts are the real monkey-wrench in the system; probably there are more smurf accounts being leveled up than there are actually new players in the game reaching level 30, and that would explain the reason Riot needs to assume an "average" ability for a new player going into ranked play.

They aren't really, they do cause some issues(as they skew distribution), but that's it.

In the current model the elo resets constantly pull people towards the average, and the placements...I'm not even sure they carry more weight than regular matches(mmr wise, league placement is just a delayed+averaged picture of elo anyway), you put people in lower mmr by default and the resets will pull them higher, you remove the reset you allow it to be skewed by dead accounts, people who are bronze level are placed in silver because for the current system to work they need to spread their mmr first, I'm not sure what will be a better solution but making them start at bronze will just make bronze the new silver.

Unstoppable Monk1 votes

This is similar to what I've been saying for a while when responding to ranked complaints, but not as many upvotes. =(

People with 1k normal games aren't really ready for ranked TBH. Yet we get to see the two runepage special of not-support-or-feed for every whimsical player that isn't even invested in the account as they proceed to AFK.

What's bad is that you get reset into below your rank as well, so you waste a lot of games on climbing over the trashpile. A rusty gold/silver player has no place in bronze.

Mandang01 votes

This won't fix much. Now you have the same exact problem, but in bronze. "But then the bad players don't need to fall through silver to get to bronze" Sure, but now you have golds ruining games in bronze. Ultimately, the best place to start players for an accurate ladder is at the middle. If you start everyone at the bottom, you have MMR inflation and the players at the bottom don't suffer anything for losses.

The actual problem here is how placements are done in the first place, oftentimes matching unplaced players against other unplaced players, which is adding noise to the results of placement matches. Then you get these players with inaccurate placements that affect the games of players who have already been placed, and it propagates.

Restless Slumber1 votes

MMR starting in silver should be good though. Statistically you have a higher chance of someone inexperienced on the enemy team than on your team. Also, if you are going to complain about these players, you have to remember that they are the same rank as you. If you think you are better than them, then climb higher than them. Complaining about playing with bad players doesn't really matter until you see people boosted to challenger/master/diamond.

Theorchero1 votes

{quoted}

MMR starting in silver should be good though. Statistically you have a higher chance of someone inexperienced on the enemy team than on your team. Also, if you are going to complain about these players, you have to remember that they are the same rank as you. If you think you are better than them, then climb higher than them. Complaining about playing with bad players doesn't really matter until you see people boosted to challenger/master/diamond.

Oh look, someone who didn't actually read the thread, on top of using awful logic.

I'm gold 3 or 4 depending on the day, sometimes G2.

The only reason I'm ever playing with Silver 4/5's is because of dynamic queue. Gold 1's duo with silver 5's and silver 3's and results in me being thrown in to raise the average mmr to a more acceptable level.

And boosted players is bad in general, regardless of rank, because those players do not actually play at that level and disrupt matchmaking. Huge problem as you go up through gold because plat 5 has huge amounts of boosted players, as does D5.

KoKoboto1 votes

I started in Bronze 1

grug1 votes

wouldn't this accelerate the smurf problem?

as I understand, bronze 5 acc's have higher value than platinum accounts to unscrupulous people

VladTheMage1 votes

No, that would be bad. Also judging by the MMR deflation of ranked accounts this season climbing became a problem and it was quite useless... Also mid silver is statistically the most player base and it is an average player community.

Sylvant1 votes

you might be right, but at other hand ranked is supposed to be challenging and just because you have access as soon as you hit level 30, that doesnt mean you are ready for it. You are free to try and if you fail...well you go down to bronze

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 Theorchero

Oh look, another champion is released with a fuck ton of knockups. Tenacity is pretty much useless.
Gameplay168 comments
216
votes
OOoh a twist of chance! Totally unexpected! A rare experience!
Gameplay148 comments
193
votes
I figured out how to fix towers being so shit
Gameplay48 comments
179
votes
ROFL. GD "wardens" forcing us to move from our old, hidden boards so we can go onto the front page..
General Discussion86 comments
176
votes
I really like the client. BUT LET ME HIDE THE DAMN MOBILE USERS.
Gameplay21 comments
170
votes
Can we actually make ADCs have a BAD early game?
Gameplay262 comments
164
votes