Wins and losses are no longer adequate for determining MMR

Yenn·Jun 7, 2018·3 votes·1,048 views

Some sort of rating system has been needed for years now. It would be really cool if someone at Riot put literally any effort into improving the clusterfuck we have right now, where the majority of games feel like dice rolls.

It's frustrating to consistently perform well and still barely hold 50% win rate, because there's little to no reward for playing well; the worst player influences the outcome magnitudes more than the best player(s), because no matter how good you are, you can't win the numbers game when the enemy team is thousands of gold ahead.

13 Comments

ZephyrDrakeJun 7, 20182 votes

Best team wins you say? Wow that's so unexpected from a team based game

YennJun 7, 20181 votes

{quoted}

Best team wins you say? Wow that's so unexpected from a team based game

Where did I say best team wins?

I said the team with the worst player loses. The four other players can be better than all five of the winning team's, but it doesn't matter, because the worst player holds most of the impact.

ZephyrDrakeJun 7, 20181 votes

{quoted}

Where did I say best team wins?

I said the team with the worst player loses. The four other players can be better than all five of the winning team's, but it doesn't matter, because the worst player holds most of the impact.

yeah no, you can keep saying that all you want. If the 4 players would be better than the 5 players that means you have at least 4 people who are more fed than their one... oh wait! you don't have that. All you have is one fed enemy vs your ZERO fed allies and then complain that the "worst player is what matters" this type of mentality is what is causing the snowball we have now.

Votable JesterJun 7, 20181 votes

So is your solution to rank people based on something other than winning? That would likely incentivize play that is not in line with winning the game. For instance if it was based on kda, you'd never join a fight where you'd die even if your presence there won your team the fight (at the cost of your death).

The only proper way to rank people is by how much they win.

z63XnLCMwXJun 7, 20181 votes

[{quoted}](name=Votable Jester,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=yVgEK8Fw,comment-id=0001,timestamp=2018-06-07T04:20:18.577+0000)

So is your solution to rank people based on something other than winning? That would likely incentivize play that is not in line with winning the game. For instance if it was based on kda, you'd never join a fight where you'd die even if your presence there won your team the fight (at the cost of your death).

The only proper way to rank people is by how much they win.

No. If League is going to use the Chess elo system, it better rewards individual score. If you play a chess tournament in teams, your win/loss is determined by your team score, but your ELO is determined by your win/loss against your opponent. You can have your team WIN and still lose elo in chess because you lost against your opponent.

KDA should not be a factor is deciding score, but KDA, cs, ward count, objective taken, score relative to opponent laner, score relative to team should all be considered in assigning your mmr. I've carried dumbfucks who had a total of 2 wards placed in the entire game, and trust me, they do not deserve that mmr gain.

ZephyrDrakeJun 7, 20181 votes

{quoted}

No. If League is going to use the Chess elo system, it better rewards individual score. If you play a chess tournament in teams, your win/loss is determined by your team score, but your ELO is determined by your win/loss against your opponent. You can have your team WIN and still lose elo in chess because you lost against your opponent.

KDA should not be a factor is deciding score, but KDA, cs, ward count, objective taken, score relative to opponent laner, score relative to team should all be considered in assigning your mmr. I've carried dumbfucks who had a total of 2 wards placed in the entire game, and trust me, they do not deserve that mmr gain.

aka play not like a team player but a sefish bastard that wants to pad out their score and who will literally abandon their team and not try to win because their stats aren't going to be good if they do... this is why you don't get graded based on individual performance. That guy who is sacrificing everything is no worst than the guy who gets everything spoonfed into them

z63XnLCMwXJun 7, 20181 votes

{quoted}

aka play not like a team player but a sefish bastard that wants to pad out their score and who will literally abandon their team and not try to win because their stats aren't going to be good if they do... this is why you don't get graded based on individual performance. That guy who is sacrificing everything is no worst than the guy who gets everything spoonfed into them

When the most common advice to climb in low elo is "ignore what stupidity your team does and focus on cs and taking objectives and ward" you'd think the upper elo would know something about how to win. Hate to break it to you but I've climbed way faster focusing on improving my personal gameplay than to be the guy peeling for a retard teammate who dies 10 seconds after I peeled for him.

ZephyrDrakeJun 7, 20181 votes

{quoted}

When the most common advice to climb in low elo is "ignore what stupidity your team does and focus on cs and taking objectives and ward" you'd think the upper elo would know something about how to win. Hate to break it to you but I've climbed way faster focusing on improving my personal gameplay than to be the guy peeling for a retard teammate who dies 10 seconds after I peeled for him.

good for you, that just how SoloQ is... doesn't mean jack and shit. This is a TEAM game and you want to know something? even if you are focusing on your own personal play is everybody around doing that? is everyone just going "every man for himself" mode? I highly doubt that since all it would create is such a toxic and terrible environment

z63XnLCMwXJun 7, 20181 votes

{quoted}

good for you, that just how SoloQ is... doesn't mean jack and shit. This is a TEAM game and you want to know something? even if you are focusing on your own personal play is everybody around doing that? is everyone just going "every man for himself" mode? I highly doubt that since all it would create is such a toxic and terrible environment

I don't know why you are so upset over this. Striving for personal play doesn't not mean you don't play as a team. Take the age old advice, "if your friends jump off a bridge, would you do it as well?" The world is more than black and white, there's 50 shades in between.

ZephyrDrakeJun 7, 20181 votes

{quoted}

I don't know why you are so upset over this. Striving for personal play doesn't not mean you don't play as a team. Take the age old advice, "if your friends jump off a bridge, would you do it as well?" The world is more than black and white, there's 50 shades in between.

good for you, enjoy screwing your team for your own glory

YennJun 7, 20181 votes

[{quoted}](name=Votable Jester,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=yVgEK8Fw,comment-id=0001,timestamp=2018-06-07T04:20:18.577+0000)

So is your solution to rank people based on something other than winning? That would likely incentivize play that is not in line with winning the game. For instance if it was based on kda, you'd never join a fight where you'd die even if your presence there won your team the fight (at the cost of your death).

The only proper way to rank people is by how much they win.

Winning isn't a function of just your individual skill level. Your skill level is a very minor contributor vs. your team mates' (and luck).

Winning should be the primary indicator, but it shouldn't be the only indicator, like it is now. There should be some user input (i.e. MVP type system) to reduce the luck factor in climbing.

See my history. I literally had no choice but to jungle to get back to Diamond this season, because it allowed me to tilt the enemy team before the worst player on my team could potentially throw. I don't even like playing jungle and I'm much better at mid.

YennJun 7, 20181 votes

{quoted}

yeah no, you can keep saying that all you want. If the 4 players would be better than the 5 players that means you have at least 4 people who are more fed than their one... oh wait! you don't have that. All you have is one fed enemy vs your ZERO fed allies and then complain that the "worst player is what matters" this type of mentality is what is causing the snowball we have now.

Haha wow, spoiler, this isn't a sport of game like chess where everyone is on an equal playing field. Champion kits and match ups are arguably more important than skill level. Someone can play like shit and still not feed if the match up is unfavorable for the enemy.

Just because nobody on your team is fed doesn't mean the other team isn't playing like shit. Three players who are 3-0 have less agency than a single carry who's 10-0.

ZephyrDrakeJun 7, 20181 votes

{quoted}

Haha wow, spoiler, this isn't a sport of game like chess where everyone is on an equal playing field. Champion kits and match ups are arguably more important than skill level. Someone can play like shit and still not feed if the match up is unfavorable for the enemy.

Just because nobody on your team is fed doesn't mean the other team isn't playing like shit. Three players who are 3-0 have less agency than a single carry who's 10-0.

wow... it's like increasing single player agency just creates even more problems for the game yet that is what people want... guess what? you want a single player to dictate who wins? that is the same as having a single player dictate who loses the game. People literally are asking for the same thing they are complaining about... good job!