I got crushed in a placement match only to end up playing against three other individuals from the same team that crushed me. Let me repeat that. The people who beat me the first time beat me the second time because we were matched together twice. In placements. Why? Why am I matched against someone the system has already determined will beat me?
Arrowe2 votesIt doesnt care who you play against. It just looks for players that have your MMR that are in queue and puts you in a game with them. Robots dont care if youre in placements or if youve played with people before. If anything, playing vs the same people again should be easier since you know how you lost last time you just dont do what you did last time.
Incognonymous1 votesIt doesnt care who you play against. It just looks for players that have your MMR that are in queue and puts you in a game with them. Robots dont care if youre in placements or if youve played with people before. If anything, playing vs the same people again should be easier since you know how you lost last time you just dont do what you did last time.
That's Riot rhetoric bullshit that doesn't actually pan out in the field. If we had the same MMR the first time around then we couldn't possibly have had the same in the second game. I had just lost, thus losing MMR, they had just won, thus gaining MMR.
Sightless662 votesIt's not going to be that large of an MMR shift from one win/loss. You'd still easily be within matching range of each other.
Incognonymous1 votesIt's not going to be that large of an MMR shift from one win/loss. You'd still easily be within matching range of each other.
It wasn't one person. It was multiple people, meaning the MMR shift was multiplied, even if it got averaged. Not only that, but they had higher MMR the first time around.
WarlockLaw1 votesMaybe nobody was playing at that time so it just saw the 4 of you and put you in the same game together again
Incognonymous1 votesMaybe nobody was playing at that time so it just saw the 4 of you and put you in the same game together again
....this is the most popular game on the planet. There were people playing.
Sightless661 votesIt was multiple people, meaning the MMR shift was multiplied, even if it got averaged.
Even with that, it's not that large of a shift. You can be placed with people dozens or even a hundred or so MMR ahead of you, and they're probably getting around 10-15 MMR per person (these are numbers taken from the old elo system that became the current MMR system. They're very likely proportional to the current numbers). Even if you had the exact same teammates, you'd still be the range to be placed with them again, and you didn't have the same teammates. Even just one different teammate could easily make up this difference.
Are you referring to your Shen and Lee Sin games that you recently lost? Because if so, you only had one consistent enemy. Maybe Lolking is screwing up, but I only see the one guy who was on the enemy team both times, and most of the other players weren't people you played with or against in the game before. That opens up a ton of room for the MMR formula to balance the teams out.
Not only that, but they had higher MMR the first time around.
You can't know that for certain. MMR is a hidden value. Even if they had a higher rank that doesn't equate to a higher MMR, particularly if you're still climbing the ladder and may have a lower rank than your MMR (which, because you have a low total number of ranked games according to Lolking, you probably are).
Incognonymous1 votesEven with that, it's not that large of a shift. You can be placed with people dozens or even a hundred or so MMR ahead of you, and they're probably getting around 10-15 MMR per person (these are numbers taken from the old elo system that became the current MMR system. They're very likely proportional to the current numbers). Even if you had the exact same teammates, you'd still be the range to be placed with them again, and you didn't have the same teammates. Even just one different teammate could easily make up this difference.
Are you referring to your Shen and Lee Sin games that you recently lost? Because if so, you only had one consistent enemy. Maybe Lolking is screwing up, but I only see the one guy who was on the enemy team both times, and most of the other players weren't people you played with or against in the game before. That opens up a ton of room for the MMR formula to balance the teams out.
You can't know that for certain. MMR is a hidden value. Even if they had a higher rank that doesn't equate to a higher MMR, particularly if you're still climbing the ladder and may have a lower rank than your MMR (which, because you have a low total number of ranked games according to Lolking, you probably are).
I guess we traded teammates then, which is even worse, because it means it's averaging MMRs by simply rearranging teams. That's the laziest, sloppiest matchmaking idea I can even think of. My Lee in game 1 was J4 in game 2, and their Garen was my Veigar in game 2.
A +/- of 100 MMR is enormous. It's true we can't see it for some dumb reason (so no one knows how bad matchmaking really is), but there are estimators. Both had my team on the low side. By 40 the first game, 20 the second.
And the thing is, I'm not climbing the ladder. I'm in placement games, as were they, but they had been winning, where as I had not.
Look at the CS of those games. The score. The tower count. Dragon. Baron. I am not at that MMR. We are not the same. That means the system is either A) bad B) deliberate or C) both.
Sightless662 votesI guess we traded teammates then, which is even worse, because it means it's averaging MMRs by simply rearranging teams.
Well, to be more accurate, it's rearranging teams after adding in new players. It takes those players and then creates a new match based on their current MMR, without taking any regard to the last game. The Garen and Lee didn't switch teams just because one won and the other lost. That's irrelevant to the decision process. The only reasons that they're in the same game as you again is because they queued up at the same time, they're at a pretty similar MMR to you, and they're also in their placement matches. I don't really see why this is a problem. It's pretty standard matchmaking.
A +/- of 100 MMR is enormous.
Well, again, that's not what it is because that disregards all the new players added into the equation. 6 of the 10 players were new to that game. You didn't play a 100 MMR difference game. You played a pretty even MMR game that happened to have a few of the same players who were in an earlier game with you.
And the thing is, I'm not climbing the ladder.
My point with this was that you're in a place of system uncertainty. You can't say that your MMR is lower than theirs, because you don't have a well-established rank. That claim of yours was false.
Look at the CS of those games. The score. The tower count. Dragon. Baron. I am not at that MMR. We are not the same. That means the system is either A) bad B) deliberate or C) both.
If you're not the same, then you'll win more often than they will. That doesn't mean you'll win every game, and you're not expected to unless you are a very skilled player. You shouldn't expect to either. The system is matching you with other people in their placement games and with people around silver level, which seems to be roughly where it expects you to be. If you're better, you'll win more often and you'll rise. There's nothing more to it.
Also I'm not taking any conclusions from two games unless I can actually see the players play. I'm not going to believe or disbelive you on this. It's just not anywhere near enough to actually make a conclusion on.
Incognonymous1 votesA margin of 100 between players in an average, not the average between two teams.
The rest of what you said is essentially white noise. Theory does not equal practice. This is an imperfect system. I never demanded a fair game, because I knew I wouldn't get it the second I queued up. Doesn't mean I can't complain about it when it happens in literally the most critical time of my ranked experience (I mean placements, not as a whole).
Arrowe1 votesThat's Riot rhetoric bullshit that doesn't actually pan out in the field. If we had the same MMR the first time around then we couldn't possibly have had the same in the second game. I had just lost, thus losing MMR, they had just won, thus gaining MMR.
You're right. I wish I knew as much as you do about the ranked system.
Uiraya1 votesIt's only going to get worse.
Incognonymous1 votesShout out to the 4/11/12 Draven with 95 CS in a 43 minute game. He must've had the same MMR as the 12/10/14 Sivir with 359 CS, right? That's how that works, isn't it?
Welcome to Riot Ranked games, everyone.