|1) AFKs in Champion Select Lobby||4,850||36.31%|
|2) Duo-Queue Elo Disparities in Ranked||1,000||7.49%|
|3) Skilled Ranked Players in Normal Modes||657||4.92%|
|4) Premade Matching||663||4.96%|
|5) Transitioning from Normal to Ranked Mode||1,338||10.02%|
|6) Free to Play Champions in Ranked Mode||800||5.99%|
|7) Random Champions in Ranked Mode||644||4.82%|
|8) Provisional Matches in Ranked||717||5.37%|
|9) Duo Queue Prevalence in Ranked||416||3.11%|
|10) Level Disparities||639||4.78%|
|11) Team Margin of Victory||1,634||12.23%|
|Voters: 13358. You may not vote on this poll|
Hi Lyte, I hope you can grab a coffee and read over my thoughts. I really appreciate that Riot is trying to improve matchmaking, which I think will go a long way towards improving the community spirit. Sorry for the wall of text, but I am very passionate about these issues!
1) AFKs in Champion Select Lobby
Players who queue up for a match and then AFK force players to wait through the timers until the lobby boots the AFK players out. Alternatively, some players AFK and get assigned a Random Champion, which is also a negative experience for many players. In Ranked Games, Captains tend to see what the bans/picks are like and be able to react accordingly in the next lobby as the players will generally be the same.
AFK and disconnected players should be given a dodge with all its associated penalties from the champion select lobby, not assigned a random champion and allowed to troll their team mates (in normal or ranked). Once an AFK or disconnected player is booted from the lobby, the remaining players should not be automatically thrown into the queue either. Instead, give them a popup message box asking if theyíd like to re-queue (yes or no). This solves the second issue you mentioned, and it also gives players an opportunity to avoid re-queuing with a potentially toxic person after someone purposefully dodged.
2) Duo-Queue Elo Disparities in Ranked
When players play as a Duo-Queue in Ranked, they generally have an advantage if their Elos are fairly close. However, when players play as a Duo-Queue in Ranked and their Elos are far apart, they generally are at a disadvantage.
You should only let people duo queue ranked if theyíre within a certain ELO range of each other (e.g., ~100 ELO). Not only are the two duos at a disadvantage when thereís a large ELO spread, but theyíve put three other allies at a disadvantage too, which isnít fair. This will also eliminate situations like Chauster carrying Missy to gold rank in season 1 (who actually had a negative win-loss score).
3) Skilled Ranked Players in Normal Modes
For a very small subset of highly skilled Ranked Players, their Ranked Elo is vastly higher than their Normal Elo. When these skilled Ranked Players play a Normal Game they generally play against opponents that are much lower in skill, resulting in lopsided matches.
The best fix would be to tie someoneís normal ELO to their ranked ELO (at least average them to reduce the spread). Simply put, a 1900 ranked player should not be playing 1200 normal games. Conversely, a 900 normal player should start their ranked career (i.e., provisional matches) at 1200. More on this in #5 and #8 below.
4) Premade Matching
Currently, the matchmaking system tries to match Premade 5s with Premade 5s; however, we may consider prioritized matching for other Premade types. For example, prioritizing Premade 4s to match with Premade 4s, and finding a solo queue to fill out each team.
I canít believe you guys donít already do thisÖ Please do so. I canít think of any reason why you wouldnít want to.
5) Transitioning from Normal to Ranked Mode
Currently, we do not do a great job of educating players on the transition from Normal to Ranked Modes. What would players like to see here? What should the expectations of Ranked be? For example, Ranked could be "Bring your best, every single game!"
This is easily my biggest gripe about matchmaking. There must be some sort of education process or barrier to entry for ranked. Iím so sick of fresh-faced/green level 30s jumping into ranked and polluting the matches. Itís gotten worse since you guys introduced Co-op vs. AI where someone could quite feasibly hit level 30 without ever playing vs. a real player. On top of this, allowing someone with a <1000 ELO in normal mode to start their provisional ranked matches at 1200 causes a huge problem in the 1000-1400 ELO range because the skill disparity between players in any given ranked match is huge. I realize you guys have a K-factor that supposed to quickly shuttle people towards their true ELO but thatís not fool-proof because of the L-factor (LUCK). Itís quite possible for a good or decent player to get unlucky and go on a losing streak in his early matches and itís equally possible that a bad player will get lucky. This makes the 1000-1400 ELO range one giant cluster**** imho. The only people K-factor really helps is the top 0.5% of ranked players who want to rank up yet another smurf because theyíre so good that the L-factor isnít as big of an issue.
So now that Iíve got my rant out of the way, here are some suggestions!
Education: Produce a video that appears prominently in your client (preferably it will pop up and take over your entire screen when you try to queue up for your very first ranked match). This video would basically be a boot camp for newbies wanting to play ranked. It would bring them up to speed on expected behaviour, general team comps and strategies, and most importantly, it would reinforce the notion that ranked games are for people who want to take the game seriously and try hard to win.
Barrier to entry: You shouldnít be allowed to queue for ranked until youíve watched the video and signed off on a code of conduct. You also shouldnít be allowed to queue for ranked until youíve had at least 200 normal wins. People who have only/mostly played against bots are not ready for ranked no matter how nice and inclusive Riot wants to be. You guys need to get rid of the ďeveryone getís a fresh startĒ in ranked mentality because starting everyone at 1200 ELO no matter what their normal ELO is has a toxic effect on the ranked community, especially in the 1000-1400 ELO range. Whatever your normal ELO is, thatís where you start your provisional matches. This is how the system should have been designed from the start. I realize itís going to be a huge implementation issue, but youíre still a young company and the sooner you fix this, the stronger and more accurate your ranked ladder will be. You guys did an ELO reset at the start of S2 and it seems to have worked out well. The best time to reinvent your system would be at the start of S3. As a side note, this will allow you to tune down your K-factor or possibly get rid of it altogether.
6) Free to Play Champions in Ranked Mode
Related to the transition from Normal to Ranked Mode, some players feel that you should only be able to play Champions you own in Ranked Mode. The argument is that a lot of players who use Free to Play Champions are inexperienced with those champions, adding a lot of noise in the matchmaking system.
You shouldnít be allowed to play champions you donít own in ranked because you should bring your A-game to ranked matches, not your troll-game. If you donít own 16 champions (6 bans + 10 picks), how serious are you about LoL anyway? Not serious enough to be playing ranked imho!
7) Random Champions in Ranked Mode
Some players feel that you should not be able to "Random" a Champion in Ranked Play, and that this feature is used to intentionally troll their team in some use cases.
This is a total troll move in ranked plain and simple. Disallow it. Itís still pretty a pretty troll move in normal games, but normal games arenít serious business imho. Also, AFK players shouldnít be assigned a random champion in any game mode. They should be kicked. See #1 above.
8) Provisional Matches in Ranked
When a player joins Ranked for the first time, the system starts them at 1200 Elo and begins their "placement matches." Unlucky strings of losses or lucky streaks of wins can propel a player into an Elo tier they do not belong in. Alternatively, players generally do not like playing with or against players in their placement matches and seeing they have only 1-9 wins.
Newbie Island is a great feature and Iím happy you guys have it. However, it should be improved. The person with a 1-8 record should be matched up with and against others with similar records such as 0-9 and 2-7, even if it means a longer wait in the queue. The same goes for the guy with an 8-1 record because doing so will reduce the L-factor (luck) of your provisional matches. Additionally, and perhaps most importantly, please see #5 (barrier to entry) above! Simply put, everyone should not start their ranked careers at a 1200 baseline.
9) Duo Queue Prevalence in Ranked
Currently, it is possible to get two pairs of Duo-Queue Players per team in Ranked Mode, such that you have a team composed of Duo-Queue, Duo-Queue, and a Solo-Queue. Some data suggests that we should restrict the number of Duo-Queues per team to 1.
Does this exacerbate the issues described in #2 above? If so, sure, do it, especially if solo-queue players consistently land in the last-pick slot due to your draft mode bug (or is that bug restricted to normal draft?).
10) Level Disparities
Some players feel that as a low level, they should never be matched against Level 30s because they feel the match is unfair due to Level 30 rune/mastery advantages. Although these players are highly skilled low levels, they would prefer a different solution than facing an opponent with simply 'stronger stats.'
This is a low priority for me, and hereís why. I let a friend play my level 30 account thatís loaded up with full runes and masteries and I logged into his level 20 account and stripped myself of all runes and masteries. We then played three 1v1 matches in mid lane: first-kill/tower wins. I wrecked him every single time because I have much more experience than he does (almost +1000 more games played). Runes and masteries are meaningless if thereís a skill disparity. On top of this, I almost exclusively grouped with level 30s (duo queue up to 5-man pre-made) as I ranked my account from levels 1-30 and I rarely felt at a statistical disadvantage. Sure, I came up against people that wrecked my face all the time, but thatís because they were BETTER than me.
One problem I have with matchmaking is WIN disparity. Iíve gone up against teams that have over 3000 more combined wins than our teamís combined wins. How is that fair? Are you factoring in their hidden ELO? Iím not sure, because we got pretty ownedÖ Then again, I play with and against people with 1000 more wins than me all the time and often feel like theyíre pretty bad players, so maybe wins donít matter either...
11) Team Margin of Victory
Some players argue that in epic, close matches, teams should not gain or lose the exact same Elo as a lopsided match. What are good metrics for "team margin of victory" that are focused on promoting team play and not individual performances?
Personally, I donít feel like this system is necessary, but hereís a proposal for you to consider that values team play over individual performance:
Margin of victory could be the difference in team scores based on number of factors such as team kills/assists + buildings destroyed + dragons + barons. So letís say kills are worth 2, assists are worth 1, towers are worth 3, inhibs are worth 4, dragons are worth 3, and barons are worth 5. The closer the teams are to each other, the less ELO the losing team loses! So letís say your max ELO loss is -12, maybe you could reduce it to only -9 in a very close match where the margin was near or at 0. A margin score of <10 or less could give a 3 ELO boost to the losing team (-9 instead of -12 ELO), a score of 10-19 could give a 2 ELO boost (-10), 20-29 could give a 1 ELO boost (-11), and 30+ gives you nothing (-12).
Here is a practical example showing a pretty close match:
Team A (Winners): 29 kills (58 pts), 50 assists (50 pts), 4 towers (12 pts), 1 inhib (4 pts), 1 dragon (3 pts), and 0 barons (0 pts) = 127 points
Team B (Losers): 20 kills (40 pts), 50 assists (50 pts), 3 towers (9 pts), 0 inhibs (0 pts), 3 dragons (9 pts), 1 baron (5 pts) = 113 points
Margin of victory = 14 points (+2 ELO to losing team)
In the game above, Team A was slightly ahead in kills but behind in map objectives when Team B tried to sneak baron. Team B got baron but Team A swept in for an advantageous team fight that they won 4 kills to 0! Team A then pushed right up the middle and dropped the enemy nexus mere seconds before Team B respawned. EPICSAUCE!
I HOPE YOU MADE IT THIS FAR. IF YOU DID, THANKS FOR READING!
I voted for AFKs as they are a problem both in normals and ranked.
Another suggestion I have, which may make things difficult to fit into matchmaking is let players queue into ranked with as many people as they want. My friends and I who play everyday for a couple hours before we crash discuss ranked a lot and how we wish we had at least 1 more person in our group we could communicate with. The language barrier which people have brought up is a big problem.
1)These players do not speak English or refuse to
2)You cannot communicate rolls to them which makes them pick who they want
3)Not being able to communicate with them makes it hard to coordinate ganks/dragon/baron
By letting players play ranked with more than 2 players allows players to have people they can depend on/communicate with be in each lane or a majority of lanes. This alone would make it more enjoyable for players to play ranked.
The idea of taking random/free week champions out of ranked will deter trolls somewhat because every player on the team will know that the troll owns that champion at least which creates the assumption they have played that champion before. This will bring up cases where if they troll or try to say they never played the champion which resulted in their bad game is not true and will make them more punish worthy in the tribunal. Another issue this would take care of is that some captains will use a ban on a free week champion which is a waste of a ban.
As far as the elo values in wins/losses go that is a touchy subject. Elo I have always known to be more a 1v1 game rank value and not a team oriented one. It is unfair for a team to lose a lot of elo if they got trolled but otherwise did well. Elo should be completely based on a single players performance. Set a base value for a loss and then have certain values subtract from that value. A rough example
Base Elo loss = 50
Kills = -1
Assists = -.5
10 = -1
20 = -2
30 = -3
40 = -4 etc etc
Lane Towers Destroyed = Team -1
Base Towers Destroyed = Team -2
Inhibitors Destroyed = Team -5
So say it was a close game and for example this was your performance 10/2/5 150 cs
Kills = -10
Assists = -2.5
CS = -15
Subtotal - 50-27.5 = 22.5 Elo Loss
Two Lane Towers Destroyed = 3
Base Towers = 1
Inhibs = 0
22.5 - 5 = 17.5 Total Elo Loss for a positive performance
Lyte, I would love your opinions on this thread.
50 placement matches designed to test the skill of new-to-rank players starting at the BOTTOM as opposed to the middle.
And of course they need to do the following:
Add a confirm button when a match is found. If one of the 10 players doesn't hit the confirm button then everyone is re-qued EXCEPT the person who was AFK and didn't confirm. The AFK'er loses like 5 Elo for taking a poop while people are trying to play a competitive game...
Reports and Tribunal offenses should be recorded in profiles and a repeat offender should have a red boarder on their avatar. Then before bans even go players have the option to kick you and get re-que'd after they see your red-badge of trolling. The red banner should last a month after your last tribunal. After a month of a clean slate, X amount of offenses will be cleaned from your record so you can eventually re-assimilate.
-Being publicly branded as a troll for your offenses (for a month) is more useful than temporary bans and such. If people know they'll be kicked from games by the players they may stop being such horrid trolls. It would make tribunal actually worth having.
Leavers should have a brass boarder around their avatar box, if they currently have a 10~20% leave rate or higher players should have the same option. If 3 players vote to kick you, you're SOL. (of course, you'd have to play 50 games before your leaver rating is displayed because if you got unlucky internet in one of your first 10 games or something you'd never recover. but 5 leaves in 50 games is enough for me to want to kick you, no offense...)
If you find vote-to-kick to be too "anti-fun," and have pity for the trolls... How about just adding a flat suspension from ranked games to leavers and tribunal offenders? Bottom line is we shouldn't have to deal with players who have proven themselves to be disruptive to the Elo system in a competetive environment. They can troll to their hearts content or rage-quit all they like in normals... Obviously emergency reasons are excused and wouldn't be enough to get you a high enough leave-rate anyway... life happens... but some people have ridiculous leave rates.
1) 7) When the time is down and the system made a random pick for you, your team will start a vote for kick you from the game and go again to queue search, even if you are here and you have no time to decide what champion you play.
The kicked player and his friend (if he is on duoQ) got a very low but cumulative penalization of -2 ELO (-4 ELO next time, -8 next in few than 2 hours) and return to the lobby (not returning to queue). Making this penalty, it prevent teams and duoQ from intentional queue dodge when they thinks their enemy team have lot of adventage on picks
2) That is hard to balance. I think that if I have 1300 and my teammate have 1500, a good place to matchmaking would be with players that have around 1400 ELO. If you make a game with 1500, your teammate with 1300 will fail and if your are matched with 1300 ELO players your 1500 ELO teammate will rush the game so easy
3) Normal ELO and Ranked ELO have to be completely separated like actually. If you make that those two ELOs have interactions, you will build the same game experience for both queues, but having hidden ELO in normal and public numbers on ranked. We dont want the same type of game when playing either ranked or normalQ
4) 9) would be nice, but only have to be able at the first minute of queue, if not you probably will be forced to wait too much finding a match
5) On normal mode blind pick, the mentality is to play and testing all champions you want. The normal draft mode is the step before jump to ranked games, and allow you to learn about what you will find in the most competitive and funny queue: Ranked draft games
So, to make the risk of ranked queue more attractive, the player need some kind of reward. The achievement system and rewarded with things like Riot Points and Character Profile Icons, would aid a player to make the step of going from NormalQ to Ranked
That is only an example, but I think there will be more kind of rewards like quite more Influence Points than other game modes
6) Completely agree on that. On ranked games, free rotation does not matter. You have to play what you own and know how to play, according you have to do your best
8) When you have provisional ELO, you will only be able to match against players with 1100 to 1300 ELO. Later, according to your final wins/loses number, the system will asign an ELO for you.
© 2013 Riot Games, Inc. All rights reserved. Riot Games, League of Legends and PvP.net are trademarks, services marks, or registered trademarks of Riot Games, Inc.