Suggestions for improving solo ranked play

Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

SvarturSteinn

Junior Member

11-22-2012

Put of all of this, I have to put in my $0.02 about the ELO hell I found out about since reset. Originally I assumed that ELO hell was in fact, a myth, surely it is impossible that there is so much bad luck someone with good gameplay would end up in 800 elo.

I

was

wrong

Out of the 18 losses I have experienced, 11 of those matches (Yes I keep track, on the same paper I write down champions I do best on XD) Have all had at least one player leave the game and not return to it making it 4v5, two of those games I was the only one that figured we could recover the match, but the other 4 just surrendered when we were 5 kills behind, and lost our first tower. The second time they surrendered was a closely even match again and the other team got barron. I've also experienced two games where 2 players have logged out mid game and not return also. My most recent matches have been a real kick in the balls since 3 of those games, it was the support that left as i was ADC.

It seems to me the longer I stay in the 800-900 range due to a horrid preliminaries, the more games I keep hitting where someone is going to leave in the game =/

My current KDA is sitting nicely at 5.6, 4.3, 6.4 as of the time of this post. Won 8, Lost 18 My best Champions include Garen KDA; 4.5:1, Kog'Maw KDA 4.8:1, Ryze 6.3:1, which gives me viable means to "Carry out of ELO" but with constant game exodus, winning matches is impossible because soon as a leaver leaves, most people give up trying.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Selcopa

Senior Member

11-22-2012

When I was 24-1 on my smurf I believe at least 15 of the games were 4v5 against me. Yet I had no problem winning(my one loss was 5v5)

The fact is a better player would have won. And if the game is winnable then there is no elo hell. It's just you being horrible. Its okay it happens. Happens to me too. But blaming it on other aspects is not going to help you get better


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Selcopa

Senior Member

11-22-2012

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gray the Grayte View Post
Your general principle is right. However I disagree that there is any ability to "play the system" under my specific suggestion. At the end of the day you will still lose ELO if you lose and gain ELO if you win under my suggestion. It is in no way related to your individual performance so cannot be "gamed" in any way. It is effectively the same system with just some additional loading on the leaver to offset the partial reduction on the people that didn't leave. There is no concept of "forgiveness" of ELO either in my suggestion - it is a zero sum game to prevent ELO inflation. That slight ELO saving is all going to be loaded on the leaver/afk to ensure there is no "free lunch". This last point distinguishes my suggestion from the various "loss forgiven" ideas floating around.

If you disagree with my statement I would be interested in if you can provide specific examples on how my suggestion can be "gamed".
As far as how someone might game this system, my initial read would be to duo queue with someone who doesnt mind tanking their elo in order to try to freeroll boost someone up.

In addition, there is the complaint of players dropping their elo and stomping on bad player, what faster way to do it than to absorb the elo drop for 4 other players, join a game, afk out go do something else, 20 minutes later, you've dropped 55 elo, or more if someone on your team is in their placement matches, thats faster than S1 dodging.

I'll admit I dont know exactly how one might be able to exploit this mechanic, however if there's something you can count on, is for people to exploit a weakness, so we should avoid as many scenarios that have potential for this as possible.


Quote:
It is only complicated if you are assuming I am suggesting they have to comprehensively detect every single instance of AFK ever and apply my suggestion to all of them.

This is not what I am suggesting. I am suggesting that they start by taking some really easy to detect scenarios and apply it to those only to begin with. They can incrementally add to these over time as they come up with scenarios and work out how to detect them.
What i'm saying is there are a bunch of smart cookies at riot, and if this isnt already on their list or in development already, then there is a strong chance that the overall project is a combination of being too complicated and difficult to deal with, as well as not solving that significant of a problem, more of an inconvenience, as mentioned before, no one gains an advantage from this issue, its just something that isnt all that important to the solo queue experience.

Quote:
I say let Riot worry about their business model. What I have proposed is better for the players and that is what I am focused on.

Buying heros just in case you are the captain and want to swap someone is just such a dumb concept. It is simply poorly designed system that happens to have a potential financial benefit for Riot as a side effect. That in itself is not a reason to force player to live with a poorly designed system.
Its not just being captain, anyone from any position might want or need to swap, whether you are getting OP characters or countering, this is an excellent example of balance for Riot and an excellent system., they aren't selling power, thereby isolating free players from the rest of the community during matches, however there still is a personal advantage to spending the money. Its still possible to achieve diamond with 16 champions, but having 100 champions does give you an edge as well.

Quote:
And I come from the school of thinking that better customer experience = happier players = more longer term revenue for Riot from customer retention, additional sales of skins, heros etc.
Happier players with = more skin sales, however Power will always outsell cosmetics, if riot sold a powerup that made you start with +50 gold every game or +0.5 GP10 for $25 you can bet it would be the hottest item in the store. Champion sales are the perfect balance between power and fairness for everyone.

Quote:
I understand you are probably a higher ELO player and probably play with people that have a lot of heros so would be indifferent to this. However at lower ELOs people do not own many champions so this would be a big improvement for them.
And any player that wants to give themselves an advantage and move up can buy more champions to give them an edge over their low elo companions, itd be convenient but it takes away an edge for players who are more serious about improving.

Quote:
I so wish this was true. Perhaps it is true at the higher ELO range you play in. It is certainly not true in the segment I play in.

In the 1000-1300 ELOs bracket I actually find more trolls in ranked than blind pick. The reason is people have more emotionally invested in the outcome. Giving people pretty ribbons they earned in blind pick where there was nothing but a bit of IP at stake and then displaying them in ranked where they care much more about the result and the pressure is on is simply not an alignment of concerns.
You Notice the trolls more in ranked than blind pick, you just dont care as much in blind pick, regardless the badge means nothing, its just a cosmetic, if it were a convenient flip of a switch to activate this, id be for it, otherwise its ultimately a waste of resources to develop this.


Quote:
I understand where you are coming from. However please consider the following

At the ELO bracket I spend most of my time in (1000-1300) this would be the single biggest change for removing the trolling that so frequently occurs in hero select. I find about 50% of games there are severe arguments about lane positions that often result in people threatening each other, doubling up on lane positions, afk at fountain and other manifestation of this. It really is horrible to watch and no fun for anyone.

You would know better than me but from what I have seen in top level streams higher level ELO play also sometimes has these arguments - even some of the most well known streamers get into trouble for this sometimes (thinking of Saint Vicious's much publicised ban and other streamers I have seen)

I believe it should be up to the player to decide whether they want to be "well rounded" or specialised. You don't see the pro teams or arranged teams playing all roles - they all specialise. Higher level streamers tend to want to play specific roles too. I do not see Riot stating anywhere that everyone in Solo Queue has to play all roles so I can only assume that is actually just a personal mantra you have. Feel free to reference something external to the contrary if you have something.

Under my system those players who allow more roles and allow the less popular roles will have shorter queue times so I believe it will be self correcting to a certain extent.

Also don't forget that all roles will be ticked by default. Only someone that really cares will be unticking roles.

Lastly I would point out that in addition to giving roles to people the matchmaker can flag other roles that people have allowed so that roles can informally be swapped around in hero selection based on bans, counter picks etc. So I don't believe my suggestion "solidifies the meta" or other comments I have heard on other threads.
This topic has been discussed in multiple threads and ive made long posts in those threads to but i will recap.

A person's teamwork ability and flexibility is an easy disciplined advantage a player can gain over their fellow players with minimal practice, if you stay at the same elo as a player who is a jerk that is 'mid or feed' all the time, the chances are he's actually a higher skilled player than you. He just tanks games he doesnt get his way because he is a jerk.

The thing about whether players choose to be specialized or well rounded, is we have 1 ladder, its an overall general ladder, if we had 5 ladders or more, we could get into people specializing, but that isnt the case.

As ive mentioned before, there are exceptions im willing to play roles that I would consider that I "cant play" this could be a combination of the bottom elo player being my opponent, as well as the matchup, but also the strengths of my teammates, someone might be a great top player, but awful vs vladmir, and is a good jungler, while someone else is a bad top, but a good support, ive labeled myself as jungle/support, but I can play jarvan in that situation and do fine, even though the top player is probably a better top overall, in this situation, i am able to maximize our teams effective power level, and I have an edge over peopel who do not have this option to them.

We also have issues with when top wants to play a non top role, such as an ADC, I have seen a number of times where you play Caitlin vs a Nasus top. He still wants to play top, he just wants to play as an ADC at top, there's really no way to create a checkmark for that, however when you recognize a situation when making a move like that is effect, having assigned roles really takes away from that.

Quote:
I get your point and I am not in the habit of blaming people for losses. However I am focused on improving the ranked experience for people.

It is pretty frustrating to get a bunch of completely new players on your team compared to a team of seasoned guys that have not broken out of the 1000-1300 ELO segment yet.

Even just a few games in their own pool would allow the match maker to get a bit more confidence over their approximate ELO and guarantee they understand the way draft pick works before unleashing them on the rest of us.
We actually do see them significantly in their own pool, often at the start of ranked you are placed against people with a similar number of wins and at your elo, there will be a couple of more experienced players in there as well, as ive said before, seasoned regulars are a perfect metric to see whether or not these new players should be placed higher or lower.

There are concepts ive heard, such as having new players play a few games vs eachother for a bonus +/- elo and then assimilating them into the pool, ive heard simple concepts to more complicated ones, but none of them have really showed that they fix the problem to much of a degree overall, its an annoyance when someone on your team sucks and gets rolled so you lose the game, surprisingly, this actually happens more at higher elos than in lower ones, an early mismatch causing a huge edge and the opponent is good enough
not to give up an edge, i hear players saying they went 4-0 and lost still, 4-0 at high elo is a death sentence, a 4-0 lead can turn into a 9-1 lead very easily and thats nearly GG, where in low elos this isnt near as big of a problem.

So while it sucks when new players 'ruin' you games, the slightest mismatch at higher elos 'ruins' games too, and happens frequently, so its tough for me to believe that even if you hypothetically could solve the problem of new players ruining games, that something else wouldnt fill that void.


Quote:
I agree it "takes away" some decisions from the game and simplifies things. However that is not a bad thing in itself. I can list countless examples where simplifying things is actually a good thing. The real question is whether the decision to carry an item or a ward adds value to the league of legends experience or detracts from it.

I believe it detracts so am happy to have it removed. Why is it that I have to choose between a 75/125 gold disposable item I carry from the shop and plop down vs a 3k item I keep indefinitely? Why is it that someone on team has to purposely choose to be weaker by an entire 3k gold item just to be able to carry some dumb 75/125 gold items and also has the burden of funding all those in late game because the rest of the team can't carry them? These are not choices that add to the game - they are choices that negatively impact on teamwork. Therefore getting rid of that "choice" is a good thing for the game.
Very rarely is it a 3k item that the decision is about, more often its a 1k-1500 gold decision, completing a big item is actually pretty much always going to be a better choice than holding 5 wards, sell a dorans or something, if its that late in the game where you have 6 completed items its not even your role to be buying wards anyways.

Quote:
As to your point on wriggles it does not devalue it in the way you suggest. At the point that wriggles is at its most potent (early to mid game) people always have free item slots to carry wards anyway. The benefit of wriggles is not having to go back to base every 2 mins and spend 75 gold to keep a ward up on a key location plus the ability to mow through jungle or lane minions quickly. Very late game people generally ditch wriggles in favour of pricier item like bloodthirster and leave the support to do the warding which is a meta I do not personally like.
You can easily fill 6 slots and still utilize a wriggles for a significant period of time, overall the item has been used less and less but it will likely make a comeback this season.

Quote:
Regarding Dorans, people that buy 5 Dorans are going to have to sell them anyway to make space for more expensive items. And they will lose gold in the process.
The challenge doesnt come from buying 5 dorans, but rather you get into the question "Okay do I try to catch up and buy a 3rd dorans from my standard 2, this will give me slightly more power in lane, however i wont be able to buy 2 parts of my item(IE or PD) at the same time, meaning i will have to sell it, I also will be in danger of ganks if my support is unable to buy enough wards for the period of time we are down there." its not as simple of an argument as it sucks to not be able to buy a ward at this time, but there is an entire theory of play behind when to leave a slot open for a ward, when not to. Perhaps if start streaming and do that School for Solo Queue I will address this as one of the topics.

Quote:
These comments around dodge timers etc goes outside of the suggestions on my thread but since you brought it up multiple times I will give you my thoughts on it. It is obviously a hot topic for you.
Any suggestions thread should have an aspect of this, it is related to many of topics of trolling and such

Quote:
We both agree that dodging is a bad thing for ranked. However IMHO removing the ELO hit for dodging was a good change as it all but removed ELO tanking from LOL. Playing against a significantly better player that happens to dodge a lot was not fun. Dodging has nothing to do with skill so does not belong in a reflection of ELO.

What is wrong is that the dodge timer is the same for ranked as blind pick. This is stupid given a dodge in ranked wastes potentially 5+ mins of people's time vs a dodge in blind pick which only wastes approx 1 min. I believe the best solution is to have the timers aligned with total player time wasted rather than reintroducing the ELO dodge penalty. I would propose having the timer visible in hero selection and have count upwards up in the hero selection itself. The longer you wait to dodge the more penalty you should get because the more of other people's time you wasted. The exact numbers would be up to Riot to choose but say for example it started at 15 mins and counted up 9 sec for every 1 sec in hero select (due to their being 9 other players). This means if all the banning and hero selection activity takes 5 mins and you dodge at the end you would have to wait 15 + 9 x 5 = 60 mins. If you left immediately you would only be hit with a 15 min penalty. If you left after 1 min you would be hit with a 15 + 9 = 24 min penalty, etc
As i went through all of this, i realized this should be its own topic, i have since cut it out and am creating a thread about it.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Gray the Grayte

Senior Member

11-25-2012

Quote:
Originally Posted by Selcopa View Post
As far as how someone might game this system, my initial read would be to duo queue with someone who doesnt mind tanking their elo in order to try to freeroll boost someone up.

In addition, there is the complaint of players dropping their elo and stomping on bad player, what faster way to do it than to absorb the elo drop for 4 other players, join a game, afk out go do something else, 20 minutes later, you've dropped 55 elo, or more if someone on your team is in their placement matches, thats faster than S1 dodging.
Just wondering did you read through the detail around suggestion 1?

Two points to consider

1) In the dual queueing example you gave the guy who is willing to "tank his ELO" is only going to be absorbing a fraction of the lost ELO from their dual queue partner. Their partner will still be losing the majority of the ELO they would have otherwise lost. So there will be no possibility to "boost" ELO. In the example I gave (where ELO "absorbtion" factor is 25%) the partner would lose 10 elo instead of 13 and the leaver would lose 25 instead of 13. Basically as long as everyone is still losing a fair chunk of ELO and it is not based on individual stats they are still fully incentivised to win.

2) Your counter examples also do not take account of the important second part of my suggestion which is immediate automatic ban for a day from ranked for first offense with potentially automatically scaling longer bans for subsequent offenses. It is going to take you a very VERY long time to tank your ELO that way. Far longer than just feeding for 20 mins until people surrender (which is not an issue I am trying to solve here)


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Ringadon

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

Member

11-26-2012

bump for great justice!


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Selcopa

Senior Member

11-26-2012

Placement matches taking a fraction of their elo loss still can be devastating. Do you take 25% of peoples 50 elo loss for 4 people plus their own loss.

Instant bans causes problems as well. I've had games where I struggled to maintain a connection. And no matter where you draw the line of what to ban. There will always be problems with that specific line. Makes it a lot difficult to have a mechanic that enforces this punishment


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Gray the Grayte

Senior Member

11-28-2012

Quote:
Originally Posted by Selcopa View Post
Placement matches taking a fraction of their elo loss still can be devastating. Do you take 25% of peoples 50 elo loss for 4 people plus their own loss.
This is a great point and it would be up to Riot to decide how they would handle this.

4v5 in a placement match is indeed devastating. Devastating to the 4 players who have been robbed of a fair chance to win the match! So personally I would load up the leaver happily. They caused more of the loss they should wear a higher proportion of the ELO.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Selcopa View Post
Instant bans causes problems as well. I've had games where I struggled to maintain a connection. And no matter where you draw the line of what to ban. There will always be problems with that specific line. Makes it a lot difficult to have a mechanic that enforces this punishment
Perhaps have a look at my specific example scenarios for what would be detected as an AFK/leaver affected game. They are pretty lenient and not meant to catch anything but the most extremely blatent cases of 4v5. You would have to be disconnected from level 1, or disconnected for more than 10 mins total in the match, or afk (in game but no keyboard, mouse activity) for 10 or more mins consecutively in order to trigger one of my example scenarios. Even with being forcefully disconnected by Riot a couple of times a game you will not trigger those thresholds. Even if you totally reset your computer and router and log in again you would probably still be fine.

If someone's connection is so dodgy that they are actually triggering this perhaps a day's break from ranked to get their connection sorted is actually a blessing in disguise? And don't forget the automated ban is only from ranked play. They can still play blind pick, dominion and custom matches while the ban is in affect. Only tribunal bans would result in losing access to all forms of games.

I estimate I would not trigger the above thresholds more than once per season. That is despite living in a country that has overall worse internet connectivity than the U.S. I could certainly live with a larger ELO loss and a one day ban from ranked once or twice per season if it means all the rest of the year I get less leavers/afks to deal with in ranked. Small price for a big payoff.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

m0dified

Member

11-29-2012

Personally I would also like it added that players starting in ranked need at least 10 rune pages and I'd say at least 2/3rd's of the champions. Personally someone rocking up on my team only being able to play 3 heroes drives me more ballistic than someone who is bad as it effects the team dynamic and make up to a stupid extent, especially if they only play the popular champs and they get banned


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Gray the Grayte

Senior Member

11-29-2012

Quote:
Originally Posted by m0dified View Post
Personally I would also like it added that players starting in ranked need at least 10 rune pages ...
2 runes pages will actually cover you pretty well as a starting player - one for ap and one for ad. Sure there is benefit in having more particularly if you going to play certain heroes like akali that require their own page but there is diminishing returns. I personally have over 10 pages but I find myself only using 3 of them on a regular basis. Your suggestion of 10 seems a bit over the top. There might be some merit in enforcing a minimum of 1 page of level 3 runes but I would be interested to see stats on how many players actually play ranked that don't meet that criteria.

Quote:
Originally Posted by m0dified View Post
... and I'd say at least 2/3rd's of the champions. Personally someone rocking up on my team only being able to play 3 heroes drives me more ballistic than someone who is bad as it effects the team dynamic and make up to a stupid extent, especially if they only play the popular champs and they get banned
There is already a minimum of 16 heroes you have to own before you can rank. Basically to cater for 6 bans + 10 players. They put this in place when they removed the ability to use free week heroes in ranked. Increasing the minimum number of heroes people own will not really make them much better players with whatever one they end up selecting. It is just another proxy for trying to get more experienced players into ranked and personally I think it's not a great one.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Gray the Grayte

Senior Member

12-02-2012

There are many threads suggesting Role based queues for solo queue ranked but I noticed this one that has quite nice wording...

http://na.leagueoflegends.com/board/....php?t=2849941