Which matchmaking 'issue' is the most important to you? (See post for more details!)

1) AFKs in Champion Select Lobby 4,872 36.23%
2) Duo-Queue Elo Disparities in Ranked 1,007 7.49%
3) Skilled Ranked Players in Normal Modes 665 4.94%
4) Premade Matching 671 4.99%
5) Transitioning from Normal to Ranked Mode 1,346 10.01%
6) Free to Play Champions in Ranked Mode 802 5.96%
7) Random Champions in Ranked Mode 647 4.81%
8) Provisional Matches in Ranked 723 5.38%
9) Duo Queue Prevalence in Ranked 421 3.13%
10) Level Disparities 649 4.83%
11) Team Margin of Victory 1,645 12.23%
Voters: 13448. You may not vote on this poll

After Hours with Matchmaking and Lyte

First Riot Post
Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Maverick Renegade

This user has referred a friend to League of Legends, click for more information

Senior Member

08-13-2012

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lyte View Post
No, that's not what we're saying. For example, let's assume a normal distribution in the population--some new players entering Ranked are going to be amazing 2000+ players and some are going to be terrible 300 Elo players. However, the majority will actually be ~1200ish players.

For example, given 100 players entering Ranked for the first time... about 60 of them will end up at 1200 Elo after their provisional matches. 20 of them will end up below 1200, and 20 will end up above 1200.
Doesn't this worry you, Lyte? Aren't you confusing correlation and causation? You're assuming that if most of the players who enter ranked end up average after their first matches (meaning they lost half and won half), that the cause is that they are average.

But shouldn't there be more variation in the actual population?

What if instead players are losing half their games and winning half their games because of some other factor?

I'd argue that the flaw in your logic is that you're assuming ELO is an accurate measure of skill in a 5v5 game. In my experience back when I was around 1200 (and my skill level was not much different then it is now as 1500, by the way), games were usually decided by the luck of who had the worst feeder - i.e. who randomly got the 500 player who was starting at 1200 ELO in ranked before he lost enough to reach his "real" rating, or, similarly, who got the 2000 player starting out who stomps their lane opponent.

So if you have a 50/50 shot of being on the bad team, of course you're going to end up average in such a small sample of games. From game to game, you as an individual player have little effect on the outcome.

That said, over a large enough sample size of games you'll make enough impact, good or ill, to slowly win or lose an extra game here or there and start getting out of the 1200 mire in either direction. Maybe you are that feeder/carrier.

I think you're putting the cart before the horse here. People aren't ending up averaging 1200 because they are, on average, at that skill level upon entering ranked. They are ending up there because of the nature of the system you set up. Have you considered that the average is your inadvertent creation, rather than a symbol that you're correctly gauging skill with your method?


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Lyte

This user has referred a friend to League of Legends, click for more information

Lead Social Systems Designer

Follow RiotLyte on Twitter

08-13-2012
340 of 362 Riot Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by Maverick Renegade View Post
That said, over a large enough sample size of games you'll make enough impact, good or ill, to slowly win or lose an extra game here or there and start getting out of the 1200 mire in either direction. Maybe you are that feeder/carrier.

I think you're putting the cart before the horse here. People aren't ending up averaging 1200 because they are, on average, at that skill level upon entering ranked. They are ending up there because of the nature of the system you set up. Have you considered that the average is your inadvertent creation, rather than a symbol that you're correctly gauging skill with your method?
Hm, you make some good points but I think there's a misunderstanding somewhere. I never said players end up at 1200 because they are average--we don't know what skill they represent until they play more games. Most of these players will probably still end up around 1200 after hundreds of matches.

The misconception that we're discussing spans a couple different points:

1) Changing the starting Elo for Ranked doesn't actually fix anything -- many players assume new Ranked players starting at 800 Elo 'fixes' matchmaking.

2) The average Elo of the system actually is 1200... but the fact that Bronze is the top 25% is actually a side effect of other issues.

3) After about 150-300 games, most players end up at their true Elo. We're trying to shorten the time it takes to get there because we feel ~300 games is too long.

4) The new players that enter Ranked represent about the same distribution as the whole Ranked population, which is why majority of people end up at 1200 after their placement matches.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

albert2006xp

Junior Member

08-13-2012

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lyte View Post
1) Changing the starting Elo for Ranked doesn't actually fix anything -- many players assume new Ranked players starting at 800 Elo 'fixes' matchmaking.
How about you just reduce the elo won/lost by placement matches? As you say, it takes 150-300 matches to average out your true elo.
Say for argument sake you are a 1800 player. You have an incredibly huge bad luck streak on your placement matches (aka 2 afks in your team each game, just for sake of argument) You will end up somewhere under 1000 and now you will only gain <15 elo per game. So it will take you quite a long time to get to your true elo.
Rare cases,but they happen. Didn't happen to me but that terrifies me greatly for next season.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Malurth

This user has referred a friend to League of Legends, click for more information

Senior Member

08-14-2012

Lyte, do you have any opinion or insight as to Elo decay?

Like, why 1400 cap, and why the rate of -25 per week after 3 weeks of inactivity in ranked?

I think it's been that way since forever, and I would think after all this time it might be due for some tuning. I don't know what that tuning would be, but I haven't even heard it discussed.

(I'm sitting at 1400 right now just because I find ranked to be rather toxic and stressful, though before you turned off elo tracking for normals I was at ~1700 according to lolmatches.com, and I still play normals regularly (and as you can see, I was gold season 1)...I would think that if you wanted to keep matchmaking as accurate as possible you'd not want to match a player like myself with lower rated players simply because they haven't played ranked in a while. But I don't know.)


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Koechophe

This user has referred a friend to League of Legends, click for more information

Senior Member

08-14-2012

Lyte, I have to ask, how do you feel about the pre-game for draft and ranked picks?

Right now, it seems like a sesspool of "I CALLED MID, IM LOCKING IN AS ANNIE AND GOING MID EVEN THOUGH IM LAST PICK" or even "Even though I've been completely silent throughout the banning process when everyone was discussing roles, im going to auto lock as whatever because im first pick".

There's also a lot of flaming, swearing, trolling and people trying to get other people to leave the que. That's how it appears to me, anyways.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Aparkhurst

This user has referred a friend to League of Legends, click for more information

Senior Member

08-14-2012

I was hoping to get a response to a thread I made a week ago .

http://na.leagueoflegends.com/board/...php?p=27887852

I'll keep an eye on this thread if you'd rather respond here.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Demonik187

Senior Member

08-14-2012

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lyte View Post
Hm, you make some good points but I think there's a misunderstanding somewhere. I never said players end up at 1200 because they are average--we don't know what skill they represent until they play more games. Most of these players will probably still end up around 1200 after hundreds of matches.

The misconception that we're discussing spans a couple different points:

1) Changing the starting Elo for Ranked doesn't actually fix anything -- many players assume new Ranked players starting at 800 Elo 'fixes' matchmaking.

2) The average Elo of the system actually is 1200... but the fact that Bronze is the top 25% is actually a side effect of other issues.

3) After about 150-300 games, most players end up at their true Elo. We're trying to shorten the time it takes to get there because we feel ~300 games is too long.

4) The new players that enter Ranked represent about the same distribution as the whole Ranked population, which is why majority of people end up at 1200 after their placement matches.
It seems to me, and maybe I'm biased here as I, currently a 1200-1300 player, that there sure are a lot of new-to-ranked people in my elo range. I frequently see people with less than 10 games, unrankeds etc. I've checked match histories and it will have been people that play customs, normals, dominion etc. Can only check like the past 10 games or so, but still you can tell they don't play ranked that much or are just starting to.

My point is that 1100-1300 is a really hard range to get out of simply because the quality of your team mates (and opponents) greatly changes from match to match. These people are typically new to ranked and either drag the team they are on down, or are really good and carry the rest of the team to victory when they should be lower. Yet, again, there are other times when you just get a good team vs a horrible team. It's really hard to get consistently good games.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Ilzhahkha

Junior Member

08-14-2012

Quote:
Originally Posted by Koechophe View Post
Lyte, I have to ask, how do you feel about the pre-game for draft and ranked picks?

Right now, it seems like a sesspool of "I CALLED MID, IM LOCKING IN AS ANNIE AND GOING MID EVEN THOUGH IM LAST PICK" or even "Even though I've been completely silent throughout the banning process when everyone was discussing roles, im going to auto lock as whatever because im first pick".

There's also a lot of flaming, swearing, trolling and people trying to get other people to leave the que. That's how it appears to me, anyways.
Communication and draftposition (the pre-game) are part of the game (as stated earlier in this thread by Lyte I believe) and therefor your ability there is skill and should affect your game outcome and ranking (ELO).

A side-issue from this is self-imposed handicaps such as that player in your example thinking "I want to play Annie next game!" even if that is not what the draft situation calls for, since they are not in any way calculated into the matchmaking. In this I feel that alot is a information issue since toxic behaviour will ensue when other ingame participants are not fulfilling the expectations that you have on them.

Another note on this is the support role (which really deserves a long post on it's own) doesn't have enough players that actively want to play it (compared to the 20% that is expected compared to standard metagame etc etc) which leads to perhaps more communicationskill needed in the pre-game than might be intended.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

XReyoX

Senior Member

08-14-2012

Quote:
Originally Posted by albert2006xp View Post
How about you just reduce the elo won/lost by placement matches? As you say, it takes 150-300 matches to average out your true elo.
Say for argument sake you are a 1800 player. You have an incredibly huge bad luck streak on your placement matches (aka 2 afks in your team each game, just for sake of argument) You will end up somewhere under 1000 and now you will only gain <15 elo per game. So it will take you quite a long time to get to your true elo.
Rare cases,but they happen. Didn't happen to me but that terrifies me greatly for next season.
But this can happen both ways. You can end up winning the first few can reach that 1800 elo a lot faster.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

OakSpace

This user has referred a friend to League of Legends, click for more information

Member

08-14-2012

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lyte View Post
Hm, you make some good points but I think there's a misunderstanding somewhere. I never said players end up at 1200 because they are average--we don't know what skill they represent until they play more games. Most of these players will probably still end up around 1200 after hundreds of matches.

The misconception that we're discussing spans a couple different points:

1) Changing the starting Elo for Ranked doesn't actually fix anything -- many players assume new Ranked players starting at 800 Elo 'fixes' matchmaking.

2) The average Elo of the system actually is 1200... but the fact that Bronze is the top 25% is actually a side effect of other issues.

3) After about 150-300 games, most players end up at their true Elo. We're trying to shorten the time it takes to get there because we feel ~300 games is too long.

4) The new players that enter Ranked represent about the same distribution as the whole Ranked population, which is why majority of people end up at 1200 after their placement matches.
I am confused because when I played my placement matches this season I started at about 1350 which IMO is much higher than supposedly the mark of 1200 everyone gets placed at. Granted I have actually gone down some ( I duo que with some ppl I shouldn't have) but I still started way above the dreaded 1200 mark