The MMR Issue and my Answer to it.

The Issue:

We all know the ranked system has trouble matching evenly skilled players. It is also know for its "flawed rating system" where players feel like their abilities are going unappreciated or undervalued. I agree with this, to an extent. The real issue I feel is that the invisible "MMR" rating is not showing players enough reason to believe that number is right. It may be much more accurate than people believe, but the issue is that people refuse to believe it because of how simple the idea of w/l = MMR. The fact of the matter is w/l is definitive, and all encompassing. If Riot decided to break it apart and say "hey, now your rating is dependent on these qualities as an individual player!" then a lot would be left out in the form of more abstract abilities, ie: teamwork, positive attitudes, and over all decision making to influence the outcome. So, now that I've stated why Riot has good reason to leave things the way they are, let me give them a better reason to change it.

My Analysis of the Issue:

Some things in life are too complicated to be defined by a basic number. Take your credit score for example, there are three agencies that each determine your over all credit reputation. I feel that MMR is the equivalent of saying "you should trust just one of these companies to determine your credit score!". If this were to happen surely people would be suspicious of their own rating and the validity of it, and because it is a very important value, people get very defensive, because it defines them and how good they have been doing in terms of loan payments and credit management, which follows them for the rest of their lives. This is not as true in relation to MMR, but still valid because shorter time spans are more impacting in this video game experience because the total time to accrue a good value is much smaller. Because of this, the diminishing returns from the number of games played leaves players with very little efficacy in their games impacting their rating. These factors are what make up . All of this leads to several points that a crucial for a good rating system for player performance. The first is that MMR is too basic and independent to be credible to the player base. The next is people take it very seriously, so trust in this number is extremely important, and in the current state is very lacking. Finally, with such small time spans, people feel helpless after so many games played in the season, they feel their true skill is not being reflected because of the lack of mobility due to diminishing returns.

--please read the above sections if you skipped them and went right to the solution, it really helps emphasize the reasons behind the changes I think would benefit the current system.

My Solution to the Issue:

We should have a cumulative composite score, that is influenced by 3 categories of results from each match, and that each category is determined by several related factors which are given different levels of importance.

Confused? Let me Elaborate:

Imagine we call this "cumulative composite score" your MMR. After each game, three numbers are combined into a +/- value based on the average distance from a base number, which I will use 100 as an example. So each number is around 100, and they get added, then that total is divided by 3, we will make this number be called "game rating" or GR from here on out. The +/- value is determined by the GR's difference from 100. This is then applied to a starter value of 1000 (or maybe even your current MMR in ranked right now). Ranks can still be applied, ie not ranked <=499, bronze 500-1000, silver 1001-1500, gold 1501-2000, plat, 2001-2500, diamond 2501-whatever holds non-challengers, challenger x% of the highest scores.

Now you may ask yourself, what determines these oh so important categories? the answer is simple. Imagine you're taking 3 tests, where each grade starts at 100, and depending on how you stack up to everyone else, you get points, or lose points.

Let me demonstrate what would happen at the end of a game:

first category: "gold"- you got 35/30 points for cs, you got 20/30 for objectives, and 50/40 because your team had more gold at the end, so your total was 105. your 35/30 is determined by amount of personal gold accrued through individual creeps, your 20/30 is determined by the amount of gold your team accrued through objectives(more or less than enemy team, +/- 10), and your 50/40 is a result of having more team gold.

• this does not include gold acquired from kills/assists because those are PvP related gold incomes. CS is an issue for supports and junglers, and it has been stated Riot is doing their best to solve this for Season 4. This does mean they will probably get a few points less, but out of 300, 5 or 10 is negligible, and can easily be made up through objective gold, and team gold.

second category: "PvP"- you get either 30/40 for your Kills, or 40/40 for your Assists because your Assist score is higher, you get that for that 40 point section. you get 20/20 for getting the middle amount of deaths on your team, and you get 50/40 for having a higher K+A/D than the enemy team(you get either 50 or 30), so your total is 110.The value for your Kill/Assist, as well as Death score is determined by adding or subtracting 5 points based on how many positions from the 3rd best on your own team, assuming it is 5v5. In the event of leavers, the bottom spots are dropped.

• this allows supports to gain points for lack of deaths, as well as most assists. It also promotes teamwork because assists now give more value to supports and junglers. It allows the team to say "we are going to get summoners A and B all/most of the kills, and we will get all the assists.

third category: "W/L"- simple enough, if you win, you get 130/100, if you lose, you get 60/100.

• this seems very steep yes, but overall, this is 10 points down for a loss, and 10 points up for a win, and it can fluctuate based on over all performance in the other categories.

My TL;DR: (you really should read it...)

MMR needs to be based on more than just w/l because of how complex the game is. I think having a tiered point system with the largest impact being w/l, will allow some of the over-looked aspects of each match to show through and have a little impact on over all rating players are given.

I am glad you read this, thank you, I would love some feedback and questions. Please remember to up-vote and post if you agree! I want this to hang around as long as possible.