The Promo System seems unfair to me.

cutyohairfoo·Mar 11, 2015·6 votes·1,841 views

I didn't play as much during the preseason, and recently, so maybe that affected my ELO when doing my placement games, but like, every single game I was paired with people almost an entire division lower than my previous league of Gold 3, and even people with less than 10 ranked games ever. I've spent thousands of hours playing this game for the past 4-5 years and it's frustrating having horrible players on my team.

I've climbed on this account from Silver 3 to Gold 3-4 twice already and every season I feel like placement completely screws me and it's a battle to get back to an ELO where most people are competent.

TLDR;

I hate the placement system, matchmaking seems weird.

Do you guys find your placements to be accurate and fair? Like I said I have climbed out twice and I feel like I shouldn't have to play with these mid-low silver players in my placements.

23 Comments

Ox Death MachineMar 11, 20154 votes

nope. I have bene stuck in bronze forever... I ended last season b1.... this season my provisionals i went 9-1.... 9-1 .... and got put in b5... and cant get out.

GrashnimMar 11, 20151 votes

Maybe it's because of your division; however, your KDA is not good: KDA: 1.7 (6.9/8.8/8.3). I primarily play support, that being said: KDA: 3.3 (4.7/5.1/12.4) and Gold V at the moment, up from Bronze I or so. Good luck advancing! Sucks you went 9-1 and got placed into Bronze 5.

Iisa annMar 11, 20151 votes

[{quoted}](name=TG Death Machine,realm=NA,application-id=cIfEodbz,discussion-id=tOjIEj0U,comment-id=0000,timestamp=2015-03-11T11:51:48.202+0000)

nope. I have bene stuck in bronze forever... I ended last season b1.... this season my provisionals i went 9-1.... 9-1 .... and got put in b5... and cant get out.

Was gold 5 last season and then went 3 7 in promos, silver 5. I'm now diamond 5, and geting out of silver took my 13 games

OhOkYeaMar 11, 20151 votes

You made a point about "people with less than 10 ranked games ever" which I think is the biggest issue. The MMR system isn't perfect I suppose, but in my mind it seems that the best match making would be to match people by number of games played. This could also be used for match making in every other mode as well, ranked or normal. The MMR system could stay in place for this, but for someone like you to get placed with someone that say has only ever played 400 games on their account (in other words, they started ranked right after hitting 30) is not fair at all.

The system could just match people based on a range of games played, then match the people in that pool based on MMR. Of course the ranges could be large. The main idea would be to exclude the experienced players from people who have just hit 30.

Personally, I think they should scrap the archaic leveling system (account leveling, not champion leveling) and replace it with a # of games played requirement. With team builder, they could make it so you must have X number of games per role before going into ranked.

Ox Death MachineMar 11, 20151 votes

{quoted}

You made a point about "people with less than 10 ranked games ever" which I think is the biggest issue. The MMR system isn't perfect I suppose, but in my mind it seems that the best match making would be to match people by number of games played. This could also be used for match making in every other mode as well, ranked or normal. The MMR system could stay in place for this, but for someone like you to get placed with someone that say has only ever played 400 games on their account (in other words, they started ranked right after hitting 30) is not fair at all.

The system could just match people based on a range of games played, then match the people in that pool based on MMR. Of course the ranges could be large. The main idea would be to exclude the experienced players from people who have just hit 30.

Personally, I think they should scrap the archaic leveling system (account leveling, not champion leveling) and replace it with a # of games played requirement. With team builder, they could make it so you must have X number of games per role before going into ranked.

X number of games PER ROLE!!!!! NAILED IT!!!! The problem with an inexperienced player ... and someone like... say... ME.. is they nly now a few roles and a few champs. I am still bronze 5 because (and i know people will flame this) I am matched with people who obviously are inexperienced... and i am.... so when i know how things should be done... like dragon at lvl 3.... not chasing longer than 4 seconds and returning to cs.... not teamfighting in jungle away from exp but in lane..... the obvious things.... I LOOK LIKE THE BAD PLAYER because I am playing proper and they are not.... I have played almost 5000 games.... I shouldnt have to have a teammate whose only played 500......

KazaashiMar 11, 20151 votes

{quoted}

You made a point about "people with less than 10 ranked games ever" which I think is the biggest issue. The MMR system isn't perfect I suppose, but in my mind it seems that the best match making would be to match people by number of games played. This could also be used for match making in every other mode as well, ranked or normal. The MMR system could stay in place for this, but for someone like you to get placed with someone that say has only ever played 400 games on their account (in other words, they started ranked right after hitting 30) is not fair at all.

The system could just match people based on a range of games played, then match the people in that pool based on MMR. Of course the ranges could be large. The main idea would be to exclude the experienced players from people who have just hit 30.

Personally, I think they should scrap the archaic leveling system (account leveling, not champion leveling) and replace it with a # of games played requirement. With team builder, they could make it so you must have X number of games per role before going into ranked.

That is not a good way of measuring player skill. Riots system is based off of the ratio of Wins to Losses and a lot of complex statistical equations. The whole point of matchmaking isn't to let you climb in rankings or be able to stomp more people. It attempts to match you with people of an equal skill level so that you have a 50% chance of winning any given game you queue up for.

Ranked is based off this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elo_rating_system

OhOkYeaMar 11, 20151 votes

{quoted}

That is not a good way of measuring player skill. Riots system is based off of the ratio of Wins to Losses and a lot of complex statistical equations. The whole point of matchmaking isn't to let you climb in rankings or be able to stomp more people. It attempts to match you with people of an equal skill lever so that you have a 50% chance of winning any given game you queue up for.

Ranked is based off this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elo_rating_system

Wrong

KazaashiMar 11, 20151 votes

{quoted}

Wrong

Any proof?

OhOkYeaMar 11, 20151 votes

{quoted}

Any proof?

Common sense.

KazaashiMar 11, 20151 votes

{quoted}

Common sense.

Please expound. I know you are trolling, but I have to at least try.

sealustMar 11, 20151 votes

Ugh, placement fucked nearly everyone I know by pushing them down ~a league. Like a plat friend went to silver, another who worked his ass off to get mid gold got mid silver in placements, someone else was in mid silver and wound up in B5, and I went from S3 to B1. :/

My mmr is multiple divisions above where I actually am, which is weird, and kind of annoying because I know I shouldn't be in my current division.

LithalityMar 11, 20151 votes

Solo-Q is a joke.

Solo-Q is a luck based grind. Skill is a small factor.

Duo your way up like the boosting services do.

The system is designed to reward mediocrity.

It is designed to reward long term play, and as a result, big term $$$ for the business.

trexmixGMar 11, 20151 votes

nice 35% winrate. That's luck, right?

ARC MalafideMar 11, 20151 votes

My biggest issue is that you are apparently paired by MMR, not by division or rank. So my team of 5 S5s goes up against a team of S2s and S1s. So we are apparently 'on their level', but we are almost an entire bracket below them. We lose and continue to be stuck in S5. They beat people well below their rank and continue to climb? And when we do manage to win such a game? 17 points. congrats on beating people 4 divisions above you that should have destroyed you. It is silly.

KazaashiMar 11, 20151 votes

[{quoted}](name=ARC Malafide,realm=NA,application-id=cIfEodbz,discussion-id=tOjIEj0U,comment-id=0004,timestamp=2015-03-11T17:42:42.586+0000)

My biggest issue is that you are apparently paired by MMR, not by division or rank. So my team of 5 S5s goes up against a team of S2s and S1s. So we are apparently 'on their level', but we are almost an entire bracket below them. We lose and continue to be stuck in S5. They beat people well below their rank and continue to climb? And when we do manage to win such a game? 17 points. congrats on beating people 4 divisions above you that should have destroyed you. It is silly.

Your MMR is what always determines matchmaking. This is based off the tried and true Elo system.

You said you gained 17 for a win, but how many do you lose for a loss?

Basically your MMR is the most acurate determinate of your skill the system can find, so it uses that to find people of equal skill, all in the attempt to give you a 50% chance to win a game.

From your scenario, the system sees your MMR as higher than S5, so you are matched with S1 and S2's; however, if your team was truly up to the skill level of S1/S2, then you would win more games than lose and will climb up to the "correct" division. That just may take more than a few games [sometimes a LOT, if you were placed close to your skill level to start], depending on your skill level.

tl;dr -- The system isn't designed to make you feel good, it's designed to match you with similarly skilled opponents.

DaenMar 11, 20151 votes

From your scenario, the system sees your MMR as higher than S5, so you are matched with S1 and S2's; however, if your team was truly up to the skill level of S1/S2, then you would win more games than lose and will climb up to the "correct" division. That just may take more than a few games [sometimes a LOT, if you were placed close to your skill level to start], depending on your skill level.

I think the more important question here is as such: Seeing as hidden MMR determines who we are matched with/against, why is it so hilariously inaccurate sometimes when compared to visible rank? There is no reason whatsoever a player should be ranked differently than their MMR's skill value in matchmaking, that doesn't make any sense.

A great example of this is what you listed above. If the system sees your MMR as higher than S5 and is consistently matching you with S1s and S2s, why are you ranked S5 instead of S1/S2?

Arguably the reasoning here is that it smooths out the matchmaking curve (instead of wildly jumping between Divisions you stay in each one for longer), but is that necessarily a good thing? It dramatically slows down the rank process by design, and I'd be interested to learn whether people prefer the slow methodical approach or perfectly accurate visual representation of skill at any given point in time.

tl;dr -- The system isn't designed to make you feel good, it's designed to match you with similarly skilled opponents.

I agree with your assessment, but I disagree pretty heavily with what that idea represents. A matchmaking system should feel satisfying more than anything, assessing similar skill is just one of the best ways to get there. If it doesn't make you feel good it's not particularly well designed, in my opinion.

KazaashiMar 11, 20151 votes

{quoted}

I think the more important question here is as such: Seeing as hidden MMR determines who we are matched with/against, why is it so hilariously inaccurate sometimes when compared to visible rank? There is no reason whatsoever a player should be ranked differently than their MMR's skill value in matchmaking, that doesn't make any sense.

A great example of this is what you listed above. If the system sees your MMR as higher than S5 and is consistently matching you with S1s and S2s, why are you ranked S5 instead of S1/S2?

Arguably the reasoning here is that it smooths out the matchmaking curve (instead of wildly jumping between Divisions you stay in each one for longer), but is that necessarily a good thing? It dramatically slows down the rank process by design, and I'd be interested to learn whether people prefer the slow methodical approach or perfectly accurate visual representation of skill at any given point in time.

I agree with your assessment, but I disagree pretty heavily with what that idea represents. A matchmaking system should feel satisfying more than anything, assessing similar skill is just one of the best ways to get there. If it doesn't make you feel good it's not particularly well designed, in my opinion.

It gets that way when you win/lose WAY more games than the system expects you to.

I'd try to explain it, but this does it way better:

https://support.riotgames.com/hc/en-us/articles/204010760-Ranked-Play-FAQ

DaenMar 11, 20151 votes

It gets that way when you win/lose WAY more games than the system expects you to.

It gets that way for almost every player, it's just normally not that significant. LP is not connected to MMR at all, it's a system that floats on top. There are no points at which the two systems check each other for accuracy, to my knowledge, so theoretically there are far more people with incorrectly represented ranks than correctly represented.

Here are some quotes I pulled from what you linked that seem relevant. I'm going to touch on each, but the basic premise is not that I don't understand the system; I don't understand why the system is designed this way.

There is only one factor that affects the amount of LP you get: the perceived difficulty of the match, which is based on the MMR difference between the two teams.

In other words, LP is affected by MMR difference. Why not utilize a direct relationship as opposed to a two-way matching system? Why doesn't your MMR rise/fall at the same rate as your LP when you win or lose? I understand the calculation method but...why?

If your MMR is significantly lower than where the system believes you should be for the division you are in, then your LP gains will be reduced and LP loss will be increased. Alternatively, if your MMR is significantly higher compared to the average your current tier or division, you will gain more LP and lose less. You may even skip promotion series or advance multiple tiers if your MMR significantly outweighs your league.

This makes very little sense. If you can skip divisions, why bother slowing progress down so significantly with the divorce of LP and MMR? You could just hook MMR and LP together and end up with a far more accurate system at a very similar pace, without needing to worry about MMR being significantly different from your LP's portrayal.

Your league placement indicates your progress against a set of opponents who are similar to you in skill level, but it doesn't restrict competition solely to players in your league.

This is a fluff statement, in my mind. League placement shows your progress against a completely random group of people that share similar LP numbers (but not MMR!) and doesn't restrict who you play against. Why even bother with the Leagues if this is the case? They have literally no impact on your overall standing, according to this sentence, and are a false indication of your MMR.

The system does not use your LP, progression status, tier, division, or any other piece of League information.

Then why bother with LP? If it has absolutely zero effect on matchmaking, why is it the factor that's used to show yourself and other players your skill level?

KazaashiMar 11, 20151 votes

{quoted}

It gets that way for almost every player, it's just normally not that significant. LP is not connected to MMR at all, it's a system that floats on top. There are no points at which the two systems check each other for accuracy, to my knowledge, so theoretically there are far more people with incorrectly represented ranks than correctly represented.

Here are some quotes I pulled from what you linked that seem relevant. I'm going to touch on each, but the basic premise is not that I don't understand the system; I don't understand why the system is designed this way.

In other words, LP is affected by MMR difference. Why not utilize a direct relationship as opposed to a two-way matching system? Why doesn't your MMR rise/fall at the same rate as your LP when you win or lose? I understand the calculation method but...why?

This makes very little sense. If you can skip divisions, why bother slowing progress down so significantly with the divorce of LP and MMR? You could just hook MMR and LP together and end up with a far more accurate system at a very similar pace, without needing to worry about MMR being significantly different from your LP's portrayal.

This is a fluff statement, in my mind. League placement shows your progress against a completely random group of people that share similar LP numbers (but not MMR!) and doesn't restrict who you play against. Why even bother with the Leagues if this is the case? They have literally no impact on your overall standing, according to this sentence, and are a false indication of your MMR.

Then why bother with LP? If it has absolutely zero effect on matchmaking, why is it the factor that's used to show yourself and other players your skill level?

Because that is how Riot's designers determined the system should work for the time being?

I don't have a degree in statistics and game theory, so I don't really know or have the skill set to judge what would be a better way to determine something so intangible as "Skill level" but I do know that Riot employs people who do. I also know that this system is very similar to the one used for the Starcraft 2 ranking system and that has been around for a LOOOONG time.

The Elo system that MMR is based off of has been around since the 60's and is used in a wide variety of professional sports.

DaenMar 11, 20151 votes

Because that is how Riot's designers determined the system should work for the time being? this system is very similar to the one used for the Starcraft 2 ranking system and that has been around for a LOOOONG time.

To be fair, neither of these are particularly compelling reasons as to why it's good design. Just because it is what happened and/or has been around for a while doesn't make it optimal.

The Elo system that MMR is based off of has been around since the 60's and is used in a wide variety of professional sports.

I think I'm being unclear with what I'm going for here, my apologies for that.

MMR calculation is exclusively what deals with skill level in League of Legends (and SC2) and is indeed based off the tried and true ELO method; Division/Tier differentiation is very similar to the StarCraft 2 visual ranking system.

At its core, the ELO system (in LoL) had two functions:

ELO - Maintain skill matching
ELO - Visually represent rank

The way our current MMR + LP system works, each system takes one of these functions:

MMR - Maintain skill matching
LP - Visually represent rank

This is totally fine, but the difference is that the relationship between skill matching and visual representation was a precise 1:1 with ELO. If you were 1500 ELO, you were (in today's system) Gold 5. Now, you could be 1500 MMR and Silver 2 but someone else could be 1500 MMR (the same skill ranking) and Gold 3.

Instead of Gold 5 always being the same range of skill values (1500 - 1600 ELO, for example) and represented as such (Gold V), the current system means that Gold 5 could be any range of skill values (hidden MMR) with the same visual representation (Gold V).

DaenMar 11, 20151 votes

I'm confused, are you referring to placements or promos? The thread title is referring to promos but it seems like you're referring to placements in your content.

Placements: First 10 games in the season that determine where you are initially placed Promotionals: Games between Tiers/Divisions where you have to win a best out of 3/5

Either way, I'm not a fan of either system. I detest promotional games, they feel like an utter waste of time and effort to me compared to much more logical solutions (e.g. if you win x times at the top/bottom of a Division you progress/regress). Placements are difficult to replace, it's tough to find a compelling mechanic that simultaneously lightly resets players each season and allows them to get where they deserve to be without feeling overly grueling.

BresnMar 11, 20151 votes

It basically expects you to win X out of Y games and carry 4 feeders if possible.

PæanMar 12, 20151 votes

I can confirm you have spent thousands of hours on League. 2,418 hours to be exact :3

https://wastedonlol.com/na-cutyohairfoo/

Placements were really rough for almost everyone. Just takes a while and you'll climb though. Sometimes you get lucky and get a good team that can cooperate, but sometimes you get the angry people that like to try to 1v5 the enemy team.