Which matchmaking 'issue' is the most important to you? (See post for more details!)

1) AFKs in Champion Select Lobby 4,882 36.22%
2) Duo-Queue Elo Disparities in Ranked 1,010 7.49%
3) Skilled Ranked Players in Normal Modes 670 4.97%
4) Premade Matching 675 5.01%
5) Transitioning from Normal to Ranked Mode 1,348 10.00%
6) Free to Play Champions in Ranked Mode 802 5.95%
7) Random Champions in Ranked Mode 647 4.80%
8) Provisional Matches in Ranked 724 5.37%
9) Duo Queue Prevalence in Ranked 423 3.14%
10) Level Disparities 652 4.84%
11) Team Margin of Victory 1,645 12.21%
Voters: 13478. You may not vote on this poll

After Hours with Matchmaking and Lyte

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

XReyoX

Senior Member

09-11-2012

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lyte View Post
In a perfect world, if players continued behaving as they currently do, then yes, Normal Elo would be a great seeding parameter for Ranked play.

However, the odds of players making new Level 30 accounts, going premade 3-5s to carry up to excessive high Normal Elo to start at a high seed in Ranked is actually pretty high.
What about setting hidden criteria for Normal Elo seeding? e.g. a minimum number of normal games played as solo queued. This way, those who do not meet the requirement will start at 1200 as it is currently, and those who have played many games queued alone will use the normal elo as a reference so a portion of players can arrive at their "true elo" quicker.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

isobold

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

Senior Member

09-12-2012

Quote:
Originally Posted by Goumindong View Post
Immensely incredibly small.
Thanks for accepting the challenge
If it's only me putting out numbers all the time, people start to dismiss them ...

Fun fact to add to your math: ((37/3)*13Elo ~= 160Elo

-> so with 2% of the population being trolls, we would expect 0,011% of the Elo population to have lost more than 160 Elo due to trolls, if we assume a troll to mean a 100% loss (which is highly debatable as well). Which means in season 1 we would expect 44 out of 400.000 people in total to have suffered from such a harsh faith ....

And as you have already stated: more trolls means less people affected, while less trolls means smaller Elo-Loss under such circumstances :-)


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

09-12-2012
361 of 362 Riot Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by EFG View Post
Hey lyte. Not sure where to put this to best get your attention. I've recently been levelling a second account while playing with a friend of mine who is new to the game. The biggest thing I've noticed in the process is the insane amount of 4v5s that take place at lower summoner levels. It seems like every second or third game someone leaves after 2 or 3 deaths, sits in the fountain at level 1 until the game boots them or never connects after champ select. What are you guys doing about this?. It seems like this would drive a lot of new players to give up on league before they can actually get into it.
We're thinking of ways to upgrade LeaverBuster to address low level leavers. We feel much of the problem is that players don't realize leaving in the MOBA genre is bad, especially if they came another genre where leaving is OK and simply ends the game.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Kedali

Senior Member

09-12-2012

Quote:
Originally Posted by EFG View Post
Hey lyte. Not sure where to put this to best get your attention. I've recently been levelling a second account while playing with a friend of mine who is new to the game. The biggest thing I've noticed in the process is the insane amount of 4v5s that take place at lower summoner levels. It seems like every second or third game someone leaves after 2 or 3 deaths, sits in the fountain at level 1 until the game boots them or never connects after champ select. What are you guys doing about this?. It seems like this would drive a lot of new players to give up on league before they can actually get into it.
I've been having the exact same experience. I'm trying to stick with it to help my friend, but I'm getting insanely frustrated with the 4v5s, on either team. Hell, even ended up playing a 4v4 the other day with a leaver on both teams. The frequency of it is just staggering, literally close to every 2-3 games as you said. I'm near ready to tell him to get to 30 on his own, especially since Riot has yet to implement anything to make getting a leaver less painful, HINT HINT.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

DiscworldDeath

Senior Member

09-12-2012

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lyte View Post
We're thinking of ways to upgrade LeaverBuster to address low level leavers. We feel much of the problem is that players don't realize leaving in the MOBA genre is bad, especially if they came another genre where leaving is OK and simply ends the game.
Or FPS games, where people join and leave games all the time and if someone leaves, you're likely to get someone to replace them, without a strategic changing of the game field over time (everyone has the same equipment, a kill is a kill, etc.).


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Wilkinson

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

Member

09-12-2012

2) Duo-Queue Elo Disparities in Ranked

This is my biggest problem...

Basically if you duo, you're ALWAYS last picks, meaning you're going to get the roles you're bad at.

And yesterday I solo queued at 1625 I checked the elo of the 2 last picks, and they were 1260 and unranked..

Do you realize how bad a 1260 player with like 600 ranked games played is? I dodged.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lyte View Post
We're thinking of ways to upgrade LeaverBuster to address low level leavers. We feel much of the problem is that players don't realize leaving in the MOBA genre is bad, especially if they came another genre where leaving is OK and simply ends the game.
I was thinking you guys should change the surrender timer from 20 to 10, it would make so much sense.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

IS186afbf367d955

Senior Member

09-12-2012

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lyte View Post
We're thinking of ways to upgrade LeaverBuster to address low level leavers. We feel much of the problem is that players don't realize leaving in the MOBA genre is bad, especially if they came another genre where leaving is OK and simply ends the game.
Another problem I experienced at low levels is that players tend to be much more toxic than at high levels, especially among smurfs. This is most likely because they don't really care if their low value account get banned too. I guess that many of them are toxic players that have been temporary banned but still need to play in the meantime. I don't think "cross banning accounts" could work unless going on the spyware side and banning innocent brothers.

That's why I think your team should think about ways to deter players from creating smurfs. One solution could be to replace short temp bans with others penalties, while ensuring those penalities remain impactful. I'm sure something can be done there.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

N4roth

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

Senior Member

09-12-2012

I am sure someone has brought this up in the past, but I am unable to find any info on a positive review system for players. Any plans for this?


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Yaddar

Senior Member

09-12-2012

Normal games

I'm at 1606 victories... and I was like +107 victories over defeats.. everything was nice and shiny.. but then a couple of defeats (after a winning streak) and you find yourself paired with derps, feeders, afk'rs, etc.. the last one worse than the other...
long story short, I ended up at +82 victories... that's 25 DFEATS because I, being at more than 1500 victories, got paired with begginers with 106, 200 victories against folks with 500, 600 victories average because hey, my victories should be even the match right? because if I go 11/5/23 or 19/4/9 we should win the game right?

well no... it's FRUSTRATING to no end that after a winning streak you get paired with low level/unskilled players because you ALONE are supposed to average the game vs mid-skilled players. and it gets worse adn worse as the matches go by.

this needs to be looked at. 23 defeats becasue either I have waay to much expirience or I have a good hidden ELO in normal, winning should get me paired with people with the same expirience, not with completely low level people with few games in order to even the game vs mid level people and a mid-ammount of games.

let's say I'm a 16 (on a 1 to 20 scale), and I get paired with 2, 3 ,3, 5 vs. a 8, 6, 5, 4 and 4.. in theory it should be 29 (us) vs. 27 (them).. according to matchmaking it should be fair right? we should even have the upper hand, right?

don't get me started with premade teams with 200 wins but inflated elos or values because they are premade. u__U

well no, only my lane is likely to win, (and I mean solo lane, on a duo lane I found my teammate to be more like a hindrance than a perk - (and later found some of them had as little as 182 wins, way unexpirienced) and if I go jungle (my main role) at elast two lanes are likely to fall because I can't be everywhere.


so, please, take a look on Normal matchmaking, Im tired of being scared of winning streaks because the losing streaks are as sure as death and taxes. because of the problems I described above.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Goumindong

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

Senior Member

09-12-2012

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lyte View Post
In a perfect world, if players continued behaving as they currently do, then yes, Normal Elo would be a great seeding parameter for Ranked play.

However, the odds of players making new Level 30 accounts, going premade 3-5s to carry up to excessive high Normal Elo to start at a high seed in Ranked is actually pretty high.
Fair.

A solution might be to cap the size of the seed. So that it only moves you between 1000 and 1400. I.E. it should take more effort to seed yourself to 1400 than it would be to just play ranked and climb there. If you couldn't make it to 1400 by playing ranked with an account you already had you couldn't get to the 1400 seed point by playing normals anyway and if you could get to 1400 you would get there faster by just playing ranked.


Aside: If the people tryharding are all on the same team, do we care that they're playing harder?

------

Stuff not directed at Lyte

Quote:
Originally Posted by isobold View Post
Thanks for accepting the challenge
If it's only me putting out numbers all the time, people start to dismiss them ...

Fun fact to add to your math: ((37/3)*13Elo ~= 160Elo

-> so with 2% of the population being trolls, we would expect 0,011% of the Elo population to have lost more than 160 Elo due to trolls, if we assume a troll to mean a 100% loss (which is highly debatable as well). Which means in season 1 we would expect 44 out of 400.000 people in total to have suffered from such a harsh faith ....

And as you have already stated: more trolls means less people affected, while less trolls means smaller Elo-Loss under such circumstances :-)
Doesn't work that way. If you "lose 160 ELO" meaning you're 160 below your actual ELO, your next games are easier than if you hadn't. This is why you have convergence. If .011% of the population that has played 300 games [note less than .011% of the population that has played more than 300 games] has experienced said 2 to 1 or more trolls on their side vs the other side the number of players that will see ELO loss from this will be an even smaller percentage.

In order for you to not converge to a number close to your ELO you have to consistently be effected in that manner in a way that your ELO does not correct itself before you're effected again.

Which is to say its immensely amazingly more unlikely than the .011% number given earlier. Every once and a while you're going to get some trolls on your team and not the enemy team, and you will lose that game but your ELO will probably go back to about what it should be before that happens again. This is essentially the same as saying "sometimes you lose games and its not your fault, this doesn't effect the difference between your true ELO and listed ELO unless it happens amazingly often"