Welcome to the Forum Archive!

Years of conversation fill a ton of digital pages, and we've kept all of it accessible to browse or copy over. Whether you're looking for reveal articles for older champions, or the first time that Rammus rolled into an "OK" thread, or anything in between, you can find it here. When you're finished, check out the boards to join in the latest League of Legends discussions.

GO TO BOARDS


An Explanation of Ranked Team Ratings

Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Reivur

Senior Member

12-09-2011

Quote:
rjcombo:
I'm not going to go into specific details of how the system works, but average teams *will* trend towards a 1200 rating over time. They just don't start that way.

Your explanation is for the most part OK even if its frustrating, because that implies that for some reason with 50+ gains it started us somewhere around 800 when we were gold in 3s before. So maybe that's an edge case.

But what I don't get is this: With 4 wins and 1 loss (with the loss being the 4th game and the last being a win, which was a +50 gain) the team has a rating of 1072 with 1072 being the highest, ensuring that we haven't broken that point. Explanation wise it makes sense with what you're saying (though agitating!)-- what I don't get is this: Why does it simultaneously state that: "This team is over 1250 rating in a queue, roster changes are limited to one per week" when that is not the case?


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

RoamandFeed

Senior Member

12-09-2011

Quote:
rjcombo:
I'm not going to go into specific details of how the system works, but average teams *will* trend towards a 1200 rating over time. They just don't start that way.


I understand the system. I, however, don't like it.

I've been all over the spectrum of elos with my main account and smurfs. I hadn't played premades in season two until teams came out, and where last season I could get a smurf up to 1700 in ranked TT pretty fast, it's not the case now....and I don't know why. It honestly doesn't make any sense to me. This in fact encourages disbanding teams and creating new ones. I understand maybe a 1-200 elo headstart, but this is pretty unfair. I've played against plenty of ranked threes teams in season one and beaten them, so I don't see why they(People I have beaten before) get to skip several hundred elo. If I had just busted out 15 wins before I probably would have been in the same boat, but my regular threes peeps hadn't settled in after the new season, what with elo resets that made matchmaking crazy, then mastery changes, and jungling changes.

If I get five wins in a row and am put against TSM and have a tough game on a just for fun team, so be it. You can't have a competitive game if you coddle the majority of the player base, and pre segregate them from the harder players.

However, the ranking really is messed up...Cornsalad is on all three top teams, and the #2 place one had to win 24 times to the other two's SIX times. No one should have to play three times the amount for the same rating.

This really is bunk.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Celebi

Recruiter

12-09-2011

Quote:
*****land:
ok


So much win lmao.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Wonderbolts

Senior Member

12-09-2011

remove ranked so these 12 year old tryhards can gtfo

its the WORST part of this game

downvotes = truth hurts kids


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

rjcombo

Lead Designer

12-09-2011

Quote:
Fathomful:
Thats fine and dandy buy why would you have the same rating for 3v3 and 5v5? It does not make much sense to have one combined ELO.

The 5v5 and 3v3 ladders are tracked separately in all aspects of the system.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

rjcombo

Lead Designer

12-09-2011

Quote:
Capetudo:
i just cant understand that a team who won 6 of 6 games is the 1st in landers wile the second team in landders won 24 of 24 games ...

The 6-0 team was formed with players who had already won many games on other teams in the same ladder. As such the system assigned the new team a high rating when it was formed because there is high certainty the team is actually that good.

That being being said, part of the forthcoming changes I mentioned in the original post are intended to dampen some of these edge cases.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

rjcombo

Lead Designer

12-09-2011

Quote:
jpak:
does the team's rating gain from a win adjust as the player's solo queue rating increase/decrease?

Solo/duo ratings have no affect on the Ranked Team ladders. They are completely separate systems.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Radiums

Senior Member

12-09-2011

So... what will be the replacement of the player's 5s and 3s elo shown in the status page?


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

RiotKiddington

Platform Engineer

12-09-2011

Quote:
Radiums:
stop making stuff hidden

-normal elo
-now this?


We do show your elo when your team reached ranked status instead of provisional.
What are you talking about?


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

rjcombo

Lead Designer

12-09-2011

Quote:
Reivur:
-- what I don't get is this: Why does it simultaneously state that: "This team is over 1250 rating in a queue, roster changes are limited to one per week" when that is not the case?

I'm not sure I'm completely understanding you here, but the roster change limitations are based on how many games a team has played. We allow teams to freely change their roster until the they've completed 5 games within a single ladder. After that we limit the roster changes to 1 player added per week. This is to make the team name, tag, and rating meaningful by ensuring the roster remains somewhat consistent.