Matchmaking Improvements Update

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

Igbeard

Junior Member

10-09-2009

I think the problem with your approach to match making is you are only looking at it from a win loss perspective. It's not a loss that bothers me. It's the fact that most of the games are completely one sided. Losing a close game is more fun than winning a blow out. The sad truth is that I get maybe one close game out of about ten if I'm solo queuing or playing with 1-2 others.

When a game is basically decided within the first five minutes and you have to wait another ten to surrender that is NOT fun. Not only is it not fun it's a total waste of everybody's time.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

WinterAyars

Senior Member

10-09-2009

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bianary View Post
Zileas: Can you say how you detect carry/feeder? Do you mean one very strong player who tends to dominate the opponents, and one very weak one that tends to die constantly? Since the typical "carry" requires using certain champs, it seems like that would be hard for the MM to account for.
I'm guessing what "carry" and "feeder" mean in this context is that some players will do much better against weak opponents than expected purely by their rating, while some will do much worse against strong opponents than expected.

In other words, some players choke and some players are really good at stomping weaker players.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Zileas

VP of Game Design

10-09-2009
5 of 6 Riot Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by L0CUST View Post

edit: not sure if Dr. Danziger is badass or creeper
Badass. Bald = +3 str.

He also brews beer in his spare time.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Rewind

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

Senior Member

10-09-2009

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zileas View Post
Badass. Bald = +3 str.

He also brews beer in his spare time.
Looking forward to a brewmaster champion.

Name him Dr. Danziger


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Bianary

Senior Member

10-09-2009

Quote:
Originally Posted by skullduggerman View Post
When a game is basically decided within the first five minutes and you have to wait another ten to surrender that is NOT fun. Not only is it not fun it's a total waste of everybody's time.
Sometimes I spend the first five minutes feeding, and we still win.

It's hard to tell from 5 minutes what the outcome will be, you should all keep trying until 15 and see how things look then.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

gutter

Senior Member

10-09-2009

Quote:
I think the problem with your approach to match making is you are only looking at it from a win loss perspective. It's not a loss that bothers me. It's the fact that most of the games are completely one sided. Losing a close game is more fun than winning a blow out. The sad truth is that I get maybe one close game out of about ten if I'm solo queuing or playing with 1-2 others.

When a game is basically decided within the first five minutes and you have to wait another ten to surrender that is NOT fun. Not only is it not fun it's a total waste of everybody's time.
I think you're interpreting things the wrong way. The system matches you up such that you have a 50/50 shot at winning/losing THAT game that you've just been matched up for. Because of this, your games should be as close as you can expect any system to make your games be.

If you suffer blowouts in one direction or the other then it's likely because of the snowball effect. Someone dies once or twice early on and all of the sudden you're getting steamrolled. I'm having a hard time thinking up how this 50/50 chance system could at the same time produce inherently one-sided games.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Kingreaper

Senior Member

10-10-2009

So in the non-trade-secret section we have improved formulas (which obviously we're not given, because they're gonna be getting complicated by this point at a guess)

DAMMIT, why don't I know how to hack into your top secret computer system, and find out if you've changed anything else...

Probably for the same reason I wouldn't have a clue what I was looking at if I did do so


This post (c) Kingreaper: I know how to use WinLogo. And a bit of C++. ;p


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Johann

Senior Member

10-10-2009

Good work and keep on improving it.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

TreeEskimo

The Council

10-10-2009

Wow those graphs were great!

I actually noticed two of the trends that the graphs demonstrated - 5 man premades having a much higher than predicted win % when you're favored to win but a lower win % then expected when you're not favored and unbalanced teams losing to balanced teams. It seemed that 90+% of the time that I queued with 4 low ELO friends that we would lose, I guess it probably was due to the unbalanced skill of our team and the fact that we were a non favored 5 man premade in most of our games.

Can't wait for these changes to be implemented so I don't have to tank a loss whenever my lower skilled friends want to play .


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Kingreaper

Senior Member

10-10-2009

Quote:
Originally Posted by skullduggerman View Post
I think the problem with your approach to match making is you are only looking at it from a win loss perspective. It's not a loss that bothers me. It's the fact that most of the games are completely one sided. Losing a close game is more fun than winning a blow out. The sad truth is that I get maybe one close game out of about ten if I'm solo queuing or playing with 1-2 others.

When a game is basically decided within the first five minutes and you have to wait another ten to surrender that is NOT fun. Not only is it not fun it's a total waste of everybody's time.
Matchmaking can't do anything about a 50/50 match rapidly becoming a blow-out.

That's the game design departments job. And they've done reasonably well at it IMO.