How many games do you expect to play before you reach your true Elo?

< 10 Games 180 1.63%
11-40 Games 819 7.41%
41-80 Games 1,162 10.51%
81-120 Games 1,738 15.73%
121-160 Games 665 6.02%
161-200 Games 929 8.41%
200-399 Games 1,703 15.41%
400-599 Games 1,089 9.85%
600-799 Games 457 4.13%
800-999 Games 170 1.54%
1000+ Games 2,140 19.36%
Voters: 11052. You may not vote on this poll

Help Riot improve matchmaking! Looking for examples of bad matchmaking

First Riot Post
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

02-27-2012
95 of 173 Riot Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by atsmith893 View Post
While it could be my biased opinion to say most games the majority of our team loses to the opponents (it's always someone else's fault isn't it haha), could the matchmaking system be expecting more benefit from a duo queue than what is actually provided?

Could it be possible there is an elo threshhold where this 'duo queue advantage' loses its advantage?
We have been actively researching this issue. It is possible that the system currently is not calibrated correctly for duo queues, and sometime this week I should have an idea of exactly where the matchmaking breaks down for duo queue situations in Ranked.

To give concrete examples, it could be that when two 1800 friends duo queue together, the matchmaker currently expects an accurate benefit; however, when an 1800 player queues with a 900 player, the matchmaker currently overestimates their 'advantage,' if there is one at all.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Str1k3r

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

Senior Member

02-27-2012

They cant just remove the ELO system. They could change it yes, but they need some type of ranking system so that the competitive area of LoL can exist. And to be honest, if you learn anything from psychology is to not trust people. The majority of people are selfish, ignorant, and make bad decisions. It's just how the world works. And the idea of playing for the sole purpose of having fun is something that riot has to take into consideration and maybe add an even more casual normal queue. Oh and saying that 1 in 50 players is a troll is an extremely optimistic and highly unlikely estimation. If that were the case, most games would be fair and enjoyable and we all know that is not the case, specially at lower elos. Do yourself a favor and play below 1250 elo (75% of players). I will define most players there as trolls. Not because their skill level is low, its all about attitude and manners.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Redop

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

Senior Member

02-27-2012

I guess someone already said that before (101 pages... lol) but the phrasing of the poll have two ways of being interpreted:

"How many games do you expect to play before you reach your true Elo?"
Can be interpreted as: "How many games ... on the current system?"
Or as: "How many games do you want it to be?"

And they're both very dissimilar. I voted 41-80 because that's how many games, IMO, it should be to reach your own Elo. But I think there's a lot of people voting on 400+ (and more) just because they think this is how many games someone needs to play to reach their Elo on the current system.

So, my question is...
@Lyte When you did this poll, what you were asking exactly?
(Yeah, I'm a little late to ask that - reading the topic a second time, I got confused about what the poll is asking exactly since I just realized it can be both)


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

02-27-2012
96 of 173 Riot Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by Redop View Post
I guess someone already said that before (101 pages... lol) but the phrasing of the poll have two ways of being interpreted:

"How many games do you expect to play before you reach your true Elo?"
Can be interpreted as: "How many games ... on the current system?"
Or as: "How many games do you want it to be?"

And they're both very dissimilar. I voted 41-80 because that's how many games, IMO, it should be to reach your own Elo. But I think there's a lot of people voting on 400+ (and more) just because they think this is how many games someone needs to play to reach their Elo on the current system.

So, my question is...
@Lyte When you did this poll, what you were asking exactly?
(Yeah, I'm a little late to ask that - reading the topic a second time, I got confused about what the poll is asking exactly since I just realized it can be both)
No worries, the poll is just a casual inquiry so I have a sense of what players expectations for the matchmaking might be. Unfortunately, I was a bit limited and could not go into as much detail as I would have liked when describing the poll -_-

You got it correct though: I am trying to ask, how many games do people believe it should take before they reach own true Elo? Thankfully, because of the tri-modal distribution in the poll results it is possible to guess some of the responders' intentions.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Gøggles

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

Senior Member

02-27-2012

I'm not going to send in an email because I gotta leave soon, but I just wanna say that this happens all the time. I'll get put with a team where we just get utterly destroyed and it never felt like we had a chance. I mostly play Dominion though.

I thought the poll was asking how long it takes for us to get to our true elo, not how long we WANT it to take. So I take my vote back of 1000+ and vote 41-80.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Fongletto

Senior Member

02-27-2012

I sent an email a while ago about some inflation I noticed from double duo ques. Whereby there was about 200 average ELO differnce between teams.

That is to say, my whole team was roughly 1200 elo and the enemy team was roughly 1400 or more. I can appreciate that there were 2 sets of duo ques on my team but that seems WAY over the top. You should check into this too.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

dzell

Senior Member

02-27-2012

Might not be matchmaking related but I have an issue with players entering games with a very high ping, which is something that can be detected before the game starts in some cases. The other day there was a player who last-picked Garen in ranked when team needed a support for bot lane. I'm fine with different metas but this is what the team agreed on; Garen was not the right pick there. When the loading screen comes up Garen has a 999 ping, AFK'd/disconnected several times and we lost obviously.

I know people could abuse this if you aren't careful in how you handle it, but if it could somehow stop them from even queuing up for a game that would be awesome, or even just being able to see your ping in the lobby so you can make that decision.


This is a real part of elo hell IMO. I bet there are more players in the low elo range playing with a high ping than in the higher elo range. Playing with a high ping will shift your elo downward (vs your true elo with a good ping) and the sub 1200 elo range will have a lot of with people who consistently queue with a ping that is borderline/completely unplayable but do it anyway.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

DeanKeaton259

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

Senior Member

02-27-2012

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lyte View Post
We have been actively researching this issue. It is possible that the system currently is not calibrated correctly for duo queues, and sometime this week I should have an idea of exactly where the matchmaking breaks down for duo queue situations in Ranked.

To give concrete examples, it could be that when two 1800 friends duo queue together, the matchmaker currently expects an accurate benefit; however, when an 1800 player queues with a 900 player, the matchmaker currently overestimates their 'advantage,' if there is one at all.
It's pretty stupid the way it works now. If i duo with a friend who is 400 Elo lower than me, I absolutely have to lane against the first pick on the other team. If I don't do this, the game is a 100% loss. The players on my team in this case are all outclassed by 100-150 + Elo with regard to the players on the other team. The first pick on the other team is usually 300 higher than everyone on my team. Everyone on my team ends up losing their lanes and getting dominated while my friend is last pick and forced to play support, so he can't really impact the game.

It doesn't matter what I play. If i play mid, jungle, top, or ad and stomp, then the other 3 players on my team will be completely dominated.

The funny thing is, my friend was 2k rated in season 1 and just recently came back to the game, so he clearly doesn't belong at 1400 Elo.

This is the sad thing about LoL and matchmaking. If the highest skilled player on the team is forced into a support role, then their skill or "Elo rating" has almost no impact on the outcome of the game.

The matchmaker is blind and the % chance to win that it gives to each team is utterly meaningless.

TLDR:The way the matchmaker deals with rating differences in duo queue needs to change. Having 2 people duo queue who are rated 300 + Elo apart is a HUGE DISADVANTAGE. Even if the lower player is Bigfatjiji on a smurf, there is a 99% chance that he will be forced into a support role. Furthermore, the system currently penalizes you for doing this by making the other 3 players on your team inferior to those on the opposing team by 150+ Elo.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Redop

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

Senior Member

02-27-2012

Quote:
Originally Posted by DeanKeaton259 View Post
[...] Even if the lower player is Bigfatjiji on a smurf, there is a 99% chance that he will be forced into a support role. Furthermore, the system currently penalizes you for doing this by making the other 3 players on your team inferior to those on the opposing team by 150+ Elo.
Even tho I do agree with you in most of what you're saying, I don't think you're wording the issue correctly.

The "last pick = support" isn't matchmaking related, it's more of a meta problem (and by meta, I mean the way the game is mostly played - as in 'solo top / jungler / mid / carry + support bot' and support being usually the last pick). And since I'm pretty sure Riot can't enforce a meta, I don't think the matchmaking can be worked around that issue - e.g. actively making someone play as support by being last pick.

But yeah, I agree with the fact that duo queue is being poorly executed.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

FoeFox

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

Senior Member

02-27-2012

Lyte, I must question people's knowledge of what a "true ELO" is though with regards to the poll. I myself am about a 1600 player or so, I know this through duo que's and asking what people's ranked position is, but I currently am in the 1100's (down from almost 1400 and was climbing) because of a rash of leavers, people duo queing with terrible friends, and trolls.

This means that even though I have taken on and beaten 1600 + players, that I cannot judge where I am supposed to be with any shadow of accuracy simply because I cannot get to 1600 without being drug down for reasons that are beyond my control.

Experience is the only way to see where an individual belongs, but most people don't get to see it because of bad team comps. It is very rare that an individual person can carry the other four if something goes terribly wrong, meaning that if someone is in my case and is stuck super low, it's almost impossible to carry, especially when others are down there too who do not belong. I appears to me like It's a matter of luck with who has the most people who do not belong.

I suppose my question is, do you think that ELO should account for an individuals contribution to the whole team and is measured as such (I.E. being rewarded as a carry for having x creep score by 10 minutes or Y kills + X creep score - deaths / the amount of time the game took), or that it should stay the way it is and only measure an individuals skill according to how well the team did as a whole?

I am a firm believer that though this is a team game, individual contribution should take part in the elo score of that individual. ( Example: Went 13-6-7 on kog, carrying the team hard, and lost 18 elo for my stomping. Held the enemy vayne down to 60 creeps by 20 min, yet we all lost ELO because of one person.)

don't get me wrong, I'm ok with losing ELO for a loss where i did poorly, that seems fair. I'm not ok with losing ELO every game because clutch positions like jungle and mid "Feed" the enemy team leading to devastation. Myself and others like me can only ping and type so much in a kind fashion trying to alert someone of an impending gank.

Would love to hear your thoughts.