Matchmaking, balancing out W/L, or expecting a good player to carry a team of bads?

Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

kijik

Senior Member

10-22-2009

Questions in the title really, basically, I'm beating a dead horse, but taking a new point and offering a possible solution. Perhaps it's best not to simply match the people who have higher ELO with the people who have lower ELO, or even worse(and more often it seems), people who completely suck. AFAIK, Riot has made it a point to not allow this game to be like DotA in-so-far as carries go, it's nigh impossible for one single player to pick a carry, farm him up to max, and decimate the enemy team solo if the enemy team even has an iota of intelligence among them. Yet the matchmaking system seems to expect this out of people, you go on a decent winning streak, premade or solo queue, then suddenly it's like all the idiots who don't know wtf to do in the world get attracted to you like flies to feces.

Simple solution(atleast IMHO): Remember, how Riot added the "Noob Island" grouping for players that are new yada yada, I suggest make more groupings of that type, but of higher ELO ratings, like Average Island and Pro Island, whatever you want to call it, either way I'm sure I can speak for everyone that I'm sick of being afraid to solo queue because I know I'm likely to run into an utter defeat because of people who are uncarriable/supportable, premades are fine and dandy, and I do my fair share, but honestly some of us are on more often than our friends, and I think it's not very fair to us that we have to suffer horrid losses in order to play when our buddies aren't on.

TL;DR= Current Matchmaking system still feels flawed, I suggest adding more separations and groupings for those that solo queue(the premade queue feels decent, but the solo queue? no)


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Hatch

Member

10-22-2009

Agreed, this is my experience with matchmaking. As I got more wins and my ELO went up (I assume it did at least), I'd get matched with worse and worse teammates, presumably because the matchmaker thought one high ELO guy and four low ELO guys mathematically had the same average ELO as the other team of normal-ELO people. Only team us with people of relatively similar skill, please.

As an example: lately, I've seen a lot of people who are playing their very first game on my team, and yet the account I'm using has a 2:1 win:loss percentage, so I can't possibly be in the same ELO range as them. And these games are forming in under 1 minute and 30 seconds, so it's not like it was time for the matchmaker to "give up" and start dipping into the mythical noobie island.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Jozrael

QA Analyst

Follow Jozrael on Twitter

10-22-2009

-_-.

This is how matchmaking works:

Everyone has an elo, their rating. When you queue, the matchmaker attempts to match you with people of the same elo. Once it has a group of 10 players (of various premades/solos, it doesn't care), it creates a game with those 10 players. THEN, it 'balances' the game by trying to give each side as close to a 50% win ratio as possible. This means that the higher and lower elos of that 10 will vs the middle elos. Any alternative is inferior (upper 50% v lower 50% is a stomp, nty).

The problem arises when people are in queue too long. This is when there are not sufficient opponents in their elo range. To stop these people from being in the queue forever, the available range of players is expanded. For example, if you are elo 1600, perhaps for the first 5 minutes it only queues u vs other players of 1550-1650 elo. 50 elo swing. Once you've been in the queue for 30 minutes, however, the system is desperate to find you a match. Perhaps it is ok with queueing you with players between elos of 1450 to 1750. (All #s are madeup). Thats a much, much bigger swing, and games will have wide varieties of player skill. However, the matchmaking system has had plenty of games with disparate skill levels and is STILL APT at predicting 50% win ratios with wide elo swings.

One problem with this system is at the higher elos. The top elo teams will queue for ages, as their elo envelope slowly expands. The instant a team (lower than them) enters queue that is finally in their elo envelope, champ select starts. Sucks for the lower team, since they got instant queued vs someone FAR out of their elo bracket. But the high elo team has to play sometime.

One last note: many many games which have ridiculous scores (30-5, etc.) were actually balanced games. 50% win ratio predicted by the matchmaker. With disparate skill ratings, the snowball effect kicks in hugely. If the high elo player in the game is able to start rampaging, he will be able to carry his team to victory, even if the other team is better than most of his team. If the average team is able to tough out the better player and feed off the weaker players, the game will likewise be over in the other direction. The snowball effect amplifies throughout the game, making a 5-0 game into a 15-2 game into a 30-5 game. A 5-0 game in a balanced matchup is DEFINITELY comebackable. In a disparate skill game: could be hard.

TL;DR: Your island system is already in place. EVERYONE is looking for other people at THEIR ELO. Not newbs, not carrying pros. That just happens because of the small playerbase in beta.

And for hatch: just because you queued nigh instantly doesn't mean the other team wasn't waiting forever and a day.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

rogerchew

Adjudicator

10-22-2009

the dead horse is beaten. the current implementation doesn't work very well for solo's. this is a system for 1v1's or persistent teams. you can't mix and match with this system with random teams.

basically you win against team A, you're good. your elo gets + 1. doesn't even care how you did individually.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

m o y

Junior Member

10-22-2009

same here, solo queue is very annoying, most of the time my teammates and I play at a very different level.