0-5 Win players matched with 120 win players?

First Riot Post
123
Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Ravenshire

Senior Member

11-10-2012

So to be fair, some players, like me, play pretty extensively and try to do all their "prep work" before they even consider going into ranked play. I know we're the minority, but we do exist.

If we just set all newcomers ELO to 0, experienced players are going to absolutely destroy the game for any unfortunate souls that have been correctly placed into low elo ranges all the way up. That's a pretty big downside to consider; it's better than the status quo for what may be a majority of players, but it creates another pretty big problem.

Honestly, the only viable long term solution I see is creating a separate queue for qualifiers. No turning low ELO hangouts into even more of a Mad Max style dystopian wasteland, no more angsting over getting stuck in a situation where it takes forever to claw your way out of a really, really bad series of placement matches.

Separate queues would still be partially susceptible to random matchmaking, but it would be an infinitely better period of transition for new players than what we have now.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Arctic Bro

Member

11-10-2012

OmG Why didn't you aswer on earlier threads like these :C


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

IS149080d6605e20d28653a

Senior Member

11-10-2012

Quote:
Originally Posted by Eskimofo View Post
OmG Why didn't you aswer on earlier threads like these :C
I have a better question.He said he wil llook into this matter NOW.
This subject has ben brought up so many times, and have been said so long ago why was it not looked into untill now?


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Mousechint

Member

11-10-2012

It works the other way around too and it's pretty frustrating.
As a newbie to ranked I started playing and had only about 25 wins and some 20 losses. I get matched up with someone who was a good 300 elo above me and had over a 1000 ranked wins (Yea, that's not a typo.)
The skill level was pretty apparent when he had 300 cs at 30 minutes and I had 150.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Canuckboss

Senior Member

11-10-2012

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenshire View Post
I hate to say it, but this is hands down the single biggest reason I've shied away from ranked play at all. I sincerely hope you will take note of comments like the ones that this thread generates Kiddington, as there has to be a solution that will work better for players.

I have a platinum ranked friend that's played actively since beta that 'evaluated' my play as being in the 1600-1700 elo range. I trust his evaluation (I learned how to play by joining high-elo premades with his friends and being forced to keep up) but would frankly much, much rather carry my way up to my true score than hit an unlucky matchmaking streak and have to spend 2 months climbing out of an "ELO dive zone" for no reason. This is basically the single reason I haven't bothered with ranked yet.

The two solutions that jump out at me are either starting everyone at zero, as suggested above, which would make auto-sorting to the correct much less fraught with the risk of falling into an "ELO dive zone" at the expense of taking much longer to get to the 1200 range and impacting very low ELO play, or creating a separate queue specifically for qualifiers.
No such thing a sa dive zone , you can lose a few games but you wont lose en masse because of low win players. If are a 1700 player go get 1700


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

MasterEvilAce

Senior Member

11-10-2012

This issue caused me to really hate ranked the first few times I played it. Me and my duo partner, 0 games of ranked, matched against a team with 50-100 wins. You play fairly safe your first few ranked games, because you don't want to feed. But what ends up happening is that the enemy team has enough experience to where they play much, much more aggressively. You're just not prepared for that sort of thing once you put your foot in the door.

I still don't have a whole lot of games played in Ranked, primarily because it takes forever to get a game started due to dodgers. Outside of that, it seems most of the ranked games I lose due to AFKers/leavers/trolls.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Krìn

Senior Member

11-10-2012

I think for a short term fix they could do a few things.
One is simple. You don't get any ELO until after you play 10-20 ranked games. After this is done you are given an ELO based on that performance.
You are not matched with anyone with ranked experience until after this is completed. This should also include Duo partners.

They need to make this fair to everyone, and not cater to the incoming players.

Secondly, they better start adding ranked experience into account. Some new system overall, where it takes number of games into consideration. So even if you have say 200 ranked games, you still might not get matched with someone with 50~ ranked games, despite being in the same ELO range.

I hate how this is taking sooooooo long to fix, even to get addressed. I mean it's the END of Season 2, and only now are they going to look into this?
I hope they have a long pre-season between 2 and 3 so they can fix this.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

tankas

Senior Member

11-10-2012

RiotKiddington , here is an idea, u could make the "win brackets" for this 1000-1350ish elo, since all new 30s summoners get placed here. U can make them every 50 win or something, and place all of the 200+ wins in the same bracket


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Bu Gao Xing

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

Master Recruiter

11-10-2012

Quote:
Originally Posted by SinGenGenSou View Post
It's a big problem.
For example, when I was level 15, I finished a game and look at the level and performance.
It showed me like this.
team 1
lv 5 win 3
lv15 win 65 (me)
lv12 win11
lv14 win15
lv14 win 9
team 2
lv20 win 85
lv25 win140
lv22 win100
lv22 win 85
lv24 win 95

I couldn't say anything for this game
He's discussing ranked games though, which is something only level 30's can queue for, and as stated right under his post. You start out at 0/0 with a base rank of 1200. You ELO from here is based off your win to loss ratio and the queue is based on your ELO. If you won 100 games but are only 1193 ELO, you will be queued with the fresh into ranked players because their ELO is 1200. If you would rather continue to play with people who have won a lot of games and are still around 1200 instead of people who haven't ranked at all and are starting fresh with something to prove.. that's your call


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Viro Melchior

Senior Member

11-11-2012

Quote:
Originally Posted by canuckboss View Post
No such thing a sa dive zone , you can lose a few games but you wont lose en masse because of low win players. If are a 1700 player go get 1700
You only represent 20% of your team. If you are only 100-200 Elo below where you "belong", you can't single handedly carry games. You will usually win your lane, but that's only 1/3 of the lanes. And if your enemy avoids feeding you (even if you deny them Cs hardcore), while your toplane goes 0 and 4, you could be in for a loss no matter how well you do.

So yes, if you are ranked 1250 Elo and get 2 new players on your team that "belong" at lower Elo, but haven't migrated yet due to too few games, it is VERY possible that you get a loss. And if that brings you *closer* to 1200 (entry) Elo, it could be increasing the chances of seeing new players in your games.

Which DOES translate into a "dive zone". Sure, you'll only lose 5-6 games at most. But then you have to win 5-6 (without losses), while working your way up through that dive zone.

The Elo system has plenty of flaws. I avoid ranked most of the time because I don't have the time to play 400+ ranked games per season, and well over 50% of my games are won/lost due to an idiot/afk/dc/rager/etc on one team or the other. Those games aren't fun. And, assuming it can never be me (since I don't super-rage, afk, and so forth), that means 50% of my games are decided just by one troll. And of those 50%, 5 out of 9 are on the enemy team. Which means that if I have a 60% win ratio among non-lobsided games (which is about where I am, since my Elo should be 1450-1500 based on observations from friends/enemies from playing games "above" my Elo), then my game data would look like this:
200 games played.
100 games decided by troll. 56 wins, 44 losses.
100 fair games. 60 wins, 40 losses.

At 10 Elo per game, that amounts to a gain of 320 Elo over 200 games, or about 1.6 Elo gain PER GAME. And your average win % will go down as you approach where you belong (finally reaching 50% as you bounce around your proper Elo).

So, if you are 200 Elo below where you belong, it will take at LEAST 125 games to reach your proper Elo. Unless you get a lucky streak of wins.

And that number can be really intimidating to someone who only has time for 5-10 games/week, and hates dealing with those 50% of games that have a troll in them that occurs most in the sub-1400 Elo swamps.


123