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


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

< 10 Games 180 1.63%
11-40 Games 819 7.4%
41-80 Games 1162 10.5%
81-120 Games 1738 15.71%
121-160 Games 665 6.01%
161-200 Games 930 8.41%
200-399 Games 1703 15.39%
400-599 Games 1089 9.84%
600-799 Games 457 4.13%
800-999 Games 170 1.54%
1000+ Games 2143 19.37%
Voters 11063 .

Help Riot improve matchmaking! Looking for examples of bad matchmaking

Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

dzell

Senior Member

02-16-2012

Quote:
Sylvr:
The thing that concerns me the most about the matchmaking system is starting Elo Range (1200 +/-100). Frankly speaking, it's a Chaos Zone. Players who sink below this range and have to climb their way back up and through it will experience what I dub Elo Turbulence in which you may be placed with and against players who are completely new with Ranked who may not belong anywhere near this range. I daresay it's the range with the most potential for a truly random win or loss, based completely on luck.

Eventually, you will break free from this zone as the positive and negative chaotic factors balance out and the only variable left is your own skill level, but the sheer number of games potentially required for this to happen is pretty ridiculous.

There have been proposals and links to threads with potential solutions to this problem in this thread, such as Normal Elo factoring in to a seed for Ranked Elo, and I believe something like this would do more good than harm, and greatly help even out that Elo range, and alleviate a lot of the frustration that players have attributed to "Elo Hell".


Yes! The area around 1100-1300 range is very chaotic it seems. I dropped to 900, worked my way up to 1100 and skill level is much more varied than the 900-1100 range.

Could you somehow use the # of games played to help smooth out the matchmaking process? I think this would make it easier to climb out of your elo range after your own personal skill level has improved. Both the number of games you've played AND your elo will be used to match you up with people.... I think this would be more accurate than elo alone. Could even factor in normal games played.

----------------
< 150 ranked games played, player skill very volatile
----------------
150-300 ranked games played, player skill more stable
----------------
300+ ranked games played, player skill very stable
----------------


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

CornerPocket

Senior Member

02-16-2012

------------LYTE-------------
What do you think about this idea? I posted this earlier, but it kinda got buried.

You've seen a few suggestions about giving increasing ELO gains for a winning team based on their collective KDA (no individual boosts). The problem with this, is that people would try to exploit it by delaying the game and driving up the score. You've personally expressed that concern in this thread.

How about this, though:

Give more ELO to a team with a much larger KDA than the losing team, but decrease that amount based on the length of the game. For instance, say at 45 minutes, all ELO increases based on KDA are gone.

Let's just say you have a percentage, and from the beginning of the game up until 25 minutes, it's at 100%. After 25 minutes, the percentage steadily decreases all the way down to 0 at 45 minutes. At the end of the match, some formula is used to calculate how much additional ELO each player should get based on KDA and then it is multiplied by that percentage. That should prevent players from trying to delay the game and get their score up.

Also, change nothing about ELO losses. If you give decreased ELO losses for players that get steamrolled, it would encourage those players to throw the game after they get slightly behind.... imagine the trolling, flaming and yelling. "Just let them win! We don't want to lose that much ELO! I'm AFKing in the fountain!"
OR
Just to make it interesting, you could make it the opposite for the loser. If there's a large difference in KDA (in the winner's favor), you decrease the amount of ELO they lose based on length of game. They lose less ELO the longer the game is. If it's a shorter game, they lose the standard amount. That way, if they're way behind, it gives them incentive to play it out and try their best to come back. Or they can just surrender and take standard ELO losses.

I think those improvements could add a lot to the system and they encourage both teams to try to win (in the case of the steamroller) or to try their best to defend (in the case of the steamrolled). I don't think there's any way to exploit this, aside from any ways there are to exploit the current system.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

kidco

Senior Member

02-16-2012

Quote:
dzell:
Yes! The area around 1100-1300 range is very chaotic it seems. I dropped to 900, worked my way up to 1100 and skill level is much more varied than the 900-1100 range.


Never went below 1100 but from what I see the skill level from 1100 - 1500 is very unpredictable. Some players may be very good while others may be very bad. Yes there are very bad 1500 elo players who still troll and very good 1100 players who get unlucky many times.

But I guess the higher up you go the chance of a bad player is a little less but there are still many bad players/trolls in 1500 elo.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

kidco

Senior Member

02-16-2012

Quote:
illundreal:
So you agree with everything I said? What exactly was your point. I think you need to re-read what I wrote.


yup, I was just adding on to what you were saying.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Vraxx

Member

02-16-2012

Quote:
Lyte:
Hi everyone, I am investigating several potential upgrades for the matchmaking systems and am interested in collecting some feedback from you – the players! If you have played a game you felt you had no chance of winning, or a game where you felt a player or two was too high or too low skill for the game, help me improve the matchmaking!

*PLEASE e-mail (Matchmaking [[[at]]] riotgames.com) these details directly. Thank you!

1) What is your Summoner name?

2) What was the game mode? (Normal, Normal Draft, Ranked)

3) What was the map? (Summoner’s Rift, Dominion, Twisted Treeline)

4) Were you queuing with a friend?
a. If yes, how many friends? (1, 2, 3, 4?)
b. If yes, and ranked, what were you and your friends’ Elo(s)?
c. If yes, and normal mode or normal draft, what was the Level and win/loss of you and your friends?

5) If you are below Level 30, do you have a Level 30 account?

6) Any specific reason(s) you felt the game was unbalanced?

7) A screenshot of the end-game score



I noticed that you wanted the win/loss of our friends when queuing for normal or normal draft. Just curious, how precise do you want those numbers to be, because as of now, its not the easiest to even find your own (as its only available at the post game screen) and I imagine it would be fairly difficult to track my friend's numbers as well. I liked this idea a lot and would love to help matchmaking become more balanced, but if there is anything that could be done about this inconvenience (or knowing if that field doesn't require precise information) it would be much appreciated


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Pyrinoc

Senior Member

02-16-2012

Quote:
Lyte:
To explain the poll: If you played 40 games, do you think you should have reached your True Elo and whatever rating you end up with at 40 games, is an accurate representation of your skill? If not 40 games, what number of games do you expect to play before your Elo rating in represents your skill level?


I wrote out a whole long deal, but I can sum it up as such--I feel like I have no chance winning when:

I am matched with teammates who don't give a **** about wards, farming, ganking, dragon/baron, teamfights, etc. Encouraging these teammates to participate in any of the above activities is met with silence or "stfu nerd".
At the same time the opposing team groups up after laning, wards up the map together, and has oracles with them at all times post-15 minutes.

I assume I'm not alone when I say that I don't actually CARE about my true elo. All I care about is getting to play with other people that display knowledge about the game beyond QWER+Click, and a desire to actually win the game. Playing ranked and moving up seems to be the way to get there, but it's demoralizing to go down in elo and feel like I'm moving further away from that because some person on my team doesn't actually care and just wanted to screw around for 30 minutes.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Yellowcorny

Junior Member

02-16-2012

I wish I knew to keep screenshots, I have had some unbelievable examples.

One problem I've had, is I think the number of games required to reach your "true" elo is impacted too highly by the placement matches... if you happen to get an AFKer or blatant feeder in 4-5 games, followed by a "proper" experience, it can take MONTHS for someone like me to recover. Conversely, the player on the other side might be artificially inflated. It might not be so bad for a 1900 player to get out of the 1000 range, but if your true elo is around 1400 it is significantly harder to singlehandedly win games around the starting elo. Especially if you experience a run of bad luck!

It would be nice if the initial "burst" of elo gains or losses was reduced in combination with the amount of games where you get said bonus being increased.

The second, as others mentioned... it can be frustrating when players don't have the "ranked mindset". This past weekend I had a perfect example.
I was firstpick, picked solo top. 4th pick and 2nd pick agreed to a trade, what happened next was unbelievable.
- both wanted mid, and picked typical AP mids
- one did not realize you couldn't swap for characters you don't have, which means he
--- has no familiarity with draft, never realized the absence of some "swap" icons
--- is trying to play characters he has no experience(didn't even own!) with in ranked
--- ended up playing a character he does not know how to play

The rest of the game was a disaster, too. AD carry had 130ish cs at 50 minutes, the other two had less. For reference, I had 350+, jungler(Yi) had 400.

The worst part? We somehow won. I received 6 elo. Now at least one of these guys with no experience with draft mode, ranked or farming just gained 40+ elo despite myself and the jungler clearly carrying them unreasonably hard. We should not have won, and all it did was create a larger elo gap between myself and the brand new folk who are of lesser skill.

Maybe a seperate set of ranked tooltips or some other education(a required amount of draft normals, for example) would help with this. Guys like this "experimenting" with ranked can really ruin your day. This particular example was adjacent to a game with a deliberate, admitted, 20+ death troll. Very frustrating.

Third, I also find it frustrating how you are virtually guaranteed to be last pick if you duo with someone who is similar elo. I have no problem with any role, but it would be nice to have a similar chance to get your preferred role as a duo. Seeing others complain about duo's certainly softens this frustration, however.

Hope that's not too long and makes sense, thanks for your time!


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

IS1879fbf8ece39275db4d9

Senior Member

02-16-2012

Quote:
illundreal:
I agree with you that Elo doesn't work in this game because it currently doesn't weigh individual contribution. But you have to think about it logically, there is no great way of judging personal performance in this game. For instance lets say you're mid, and your bot lane and top lane are feeding like crazy. Now its team fight time and you basically can't do anything due to how much your team fed. You might go something like 2/6 which makes you still look bad even though you were 2/0 before team fights broke out.


What pisses me off is that Riot talks about their Elo as if it was the most perfct ranking system ever. It is not. It is flawed in many ways and for a LONG time they refused to acknowledge that. I think this is the first time I see a red creating a thread about Elo and I will make sure to help him in any way I can.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Lyte

Lead Social Systems Designer

Follow RiotLyte on Twitter

02-16-2012

Quote:
illundreal:
I really just want to point this out a little bit more. I've been streaking heavily lately. I went from an almost pure winning streak to a pure losing one. over the past 18 games I've lost 15 of them. Just 2 days ago I was considering uninstalling this game after a year and a half just because of how poor an experience the matchmaking system is.

I have over 1600 normal games, the system should not still be trying to "place" me, and I shouldn't be getting matched with teammates so consistently who just don't understand how to play.

I'm currently so demoralized by how horrible my teams have been I don't even want to play anymore.


Streaking is an interesting phenomenon. For example, everyone considers a coin toss as an event that should result in 50% heads and 50% tails over a large number of events; however, in the short-term, if all 30+ million League of Legends players started flipping coins, lots of individual people will see streaks of 5, 6, 7, even 8 or more of heads or tails!

What I am trying to illustrate here is that even if matchmaking was perfect (and I don't think any matchmaking system can truly be perfect), it will still have streaks and lots of them. However, perhaps we can think of creative ways that will help reduce a players' chance of getting 'extreme' losing streaks that are emotionally demoralizing.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Levnik Moore

Recruiter

02-16-2012

Quote:
CornerPocket:
------------LYTE-------------
What do you think about this idea? I posted this earlier, but it kinda got buried.

You've seen a few suggestions about giving increasing ELO gains for a winning team based on their collective KDA (no individual boosts). The problem with this, is that people would try to exploit it by delaying the game and driving up the score. You've personally expressed that concern in this thread.

How about this, though:

Give more ELO to a team with a much larger KDA than the losing team, but decrease that amount based on the length of the game. For instance, say at 45 minutes, all ELO increases based on KDA are gone.

Let's just say you have a percentage, and from the beginning of the game up until 25 minutes, it's at 100%. After 25 minutes, the percentage steadily decreases all the way down to 0 at 45 minutes. At the end of the match, some formula is used to calculate how much additional ELO each player should get based on KDA and then it is multiplied by that percentage. That should prevent players from trying to delay the game and get their score up.

Also, change nothing about ELO losses. If you give decreased ELO losses for players that get steamrolled, it would encourage those players to throw the game after they get slightly behind.... imagine the trolling, flaming and yelling. "Just let them win! We don't want to lose that much ELO! I'm AFKing in the fountain!"
OR
Just to make it interesting, you could make it the opposite for the loser. If there's a large difference in KDA (in the winner's favor), you decrease the amount of ELO they lose based on length of game. They lose less ELO the longer the game is. If it's a shorter game, they lose the standard amount. That way, if they're way behind, it gives them incentive to play it out and try their best to come back. Or they can just surrender and take standard ELO losses.

I think those improvements could add a lot to the system and they encourage both teams to try to win (in the case of the steamroller) or to try their best to defend (in the case of the steamrolled). I don't think there's any way to exploit this, aside from any ways there are to exploit the current system.


This I like, especially your second option!