All those threads talking about role-queuing.

Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Meatflapz

Member

12-20-2012

Hey Pogo why is it so hard to for you to admit that the matchmaking system is dysfunctional. If it works so well then why did you have to make this post?


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

PogoPogoPogoPogo

Senior Member

12-20-2012

Quote:
Originally Posted by KlunkTheSpaceCat View Post
That's a pretty scary range, to be sure. I agree that it could have an impact on this kind of thing, but I would say that this example might be a pretty extreme one.
The CURRENT match-making system will already pair up people pretty far away. Not 600 and 1800, and while I'll agree that's a pretty extreme range that is probably a little exaggerated, I can't believe it's that far off. Extending queue times only makes this problem worse.

Check out this thread: http://na.leagueoflegends.com/board/....php?t=2924806

The poster was worried about the gap in Elo that already exists in match-making. There's a 254 Elo gap between the lowest and highest Elo in that match. That's right around 1200 Elo (the most populated Elo, I believe), that's with the current system, and that's just one completely random match. I don't know if this Elo spread is normal, below average, or on the extreme end of the typical Elo gap that currently can exist in match-making.

Ultimately, I think that 254 isn't that terrible, but the current match making also isn't putting people into specific roles. So the current system can do it's best to balance the teams, for starters.

A role specific queue pretty much guarantees that the last two places that need to be filled will be support. And the problem with this is that the match-making system will make two teams even in every role except support, then will spend a long time searching for supports, and you'll end up with one team getting a support that could be 400-600 Elo higher than other support. If everything else is equal, this alone will mean the difference in AVERAGE Elo between the two teams is about 100 Elo.




EDIT: I had to edit all instances of 225 to 254 after relooking at that thread.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

PogoPogoPogoPogo

Senior Member

12-20-2012

Quote:
Originally Posted by Meatflapz View Post
Hey Pogo why is it so hard to for you to admit that the matchmaking system is dysfunctional. If it works so well then why did you have to make this post?
I'm not claiming the current match-making system is perfect. Although I know this, absolutely every game I have EVER played has a portion of the community that complains about match-making. EVERY game.

I've been playing online computer games since the original Tribes, way back in 1998. Complaints about match-making systems almost predate match-making systems themselves. Everyone always thinks their broken. Most people don't actually understand how they work, and no one ever has an ideas on how to actually make them better. None that will actually work anyway.

But this thread actually isn't about the current match-making system. This thread is about this concept of queuing for specific roles.

As for why I had to make this thread? Did you see the original post? Over 25 threads have opened on the topic since I created the thread on October 30th, not even 2 months ago. That's a new thread on the SAME topic every other day on average.

And it was a problem that was happening long before I created this thread. In fact, the problem has subsided since this thread was initiated, and yet we still see the threads popping up at this rate (it used to be much worse). These threads with this SAME idea have been around for at least 6 months (that's about as long as I've been around the forums, so probably much, much, much longer) and a Red has NEVER commented on any of them (not in the past 6 months at least).

If you want Riot to comment on this idea, posting a new thread about it every other day clearly isn't the answer--if it were, it would've worked by now. This thread exists to consolidate the discussion in one place. If a Rioter is going to comment on this idea of queuing by role, it will happen in this thread.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

LogicalTautology

Senior Member

12-20-2012

Quote:
Originally Posted by PogoPogoPogoPogo View Post
The CURRENT match-making system will already pair up people pretty far away. Not 600 and 1800, and while I'll agree that's a pretty extreme range that is probably a little exaggerated, I can't believe it's that far off. Extending queue times only makes this problem worse.

Check out this thread: http://na.leagueoflegends.com/board/....php?t=2924806

The poster was worried about the gap in Elo that already exists in match-making. There's a 225 Elo gap between the lowest and highest Elo in that match. That's right around 1200 Elo (the most populated Elo, I believe), that's with the current system, and that's just one completely random match. I don't know if this Elo spread is normal, below average, or on the extreme end of the typical Elo gap that currently can exist in match-making.

Ultimately, I think that 225 isn't that terrible, but the current match making also isn't putting people into specific roles. So the current system can do it's best to balance the teams, for starters.

A role specific queue pretty much guarantees that the last two places that need to be filled will be support. And the problem with this is that the match-making system will make two teams even in every role except support, then will spend a long time searching for supports, and you'll end up with one team getting a support that could be 400-600 Elo higher than other support. If everything else is equal, this alone will mean the difference in AVERAGE Elo between the two teams is about 100 Elo.
I would say that the Duo queuing does play a large part in that. From what I understand, when you Duo Queue, it assess a penalty of 50-100 Elo to you. I've seen it mean both that 2 1400s are placed in a match with 8 1500s, as well as 2 1400s placed in a game where their teammates were 50-100 Elo lower than their respective opponents.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

PogoPogoPogoPogo

Senior Member

12-20-2012

Quote:
Originally Posted by LogicalTautology View Post
I would say that the Duo queuing does play a large part in that. From what I understand, when you Duo Queue, it assess a penalty of 50-100 Elo to you. I've seen it mean both that 2 1400s are placed in a match with 8 1500s, as well as 2 1400s placed in a game where their teammates were 50-100 Elo lower than their respective opponents.
Yea. So understand that the example in the thread I linked is just one purely random case.

As I said, I don't know whether or not duo-queuing was involved, and I don't know whether this is a larger than average gap, an average gap, or a smaller than average gap. A lot more data would be needed to make commentary about the current Elo gaps that are possible.

And the player who I was looking at solo-queued into that match.

But the main point to take away from that thread is that with the current system, you can already get a gap of 254 Elo between lowest and highest. Additionally in that match, you had a player on both teams under 1200 Elo and four players in the match all over 1300 Elo.


But look at the team by the way...

A 1272 Elo player that solo-queued.
An 1130 player that could have duo-queued, but look...
A 1323, 1355, and 1384.

BEST case scenario for match-making here is that the 1130 and 1384 duo-queued, and there's a 83 point gap between the 1272 and the 1355.

And we need to keep in mind this Elo bracket is one of the most populated brackets. There are fewer players in the 800-900 bracket. There are few players in the 1500-1600 bracket. The farther you get from the 1200-1300 bracket, the less populated that bracket is, and the less populated a bracket is, the harder it is for match-making to put together a team full of people relatively close in Elo.

Add role-specific queuing, and you exacerbate the problem.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Meatflapz

Member

12-20-2012

I’m not here to complain about the matchmaking system so much has to be constructive like yourself. Matchmaking is a part if this discussion as is why riot seems to care nothing about it. People play games to have fun and when players are describing things like ELO hell obviously there are a lot of people out there not having fun. Yes the ELO gap is small but what scores points in their system? When ELO is used for chess each piece has a point value ie: pawn 1pt knight 3pt’s etc. there are 6 different chess pieces. What is riot giving points for and are there at least 6 different things being scored. The two biggest problems I have with the current matchmaking system 1. I have very low confidence in its ability to accurately measure the skill level of each player due to the lack of the transparency in how it functions. 2. Just like in world of Warcraft which abandoned it’s ELO system for this reason: Players were not playing in matches to protect their ELO rating I’m sure this is happening in this game to the even more extreme that you only play matches with premade teams of your friends against non premade teams. I’ll relate it to the current thread by saying if there is a lack of players willing to play support for example if people knew that you received more points for playing all of the roles or more than just one. Bottom line is I would like riot to address these issues that we have constructively brought before them so that this game is fun for everyone all the time not just for some of us once or twice a night. They put so much effort into making new characters I would like to see more time devoted to the legitimate issues in the balance of their game. Keep up the good work pogo if they won’t listen to you then we truly are doomed.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

KlunkTheSpaceCat

Member

12-21-2012

I know very little about how matchmaking is coded, and I assume that it isn't easy stuff. I actually suspect that the reason we have no Red response is that it would be a difficult thing to implement, and it would result in no new sales of skins or RP purchases. Business is business, I understand that.

Sounds like we've got it boiled down to this: Role-based queue would probably increase queue time for everyone but supports, and unless it was designed not to do so, it might increase the Elo spread in any given game. I contend that we really can't know the extent of these effects. I believe that this game has a huge player base and that it would be virtually unnoticeable. Pogo thinks it could be pretty bad.

How about this, would anyone pay $10 to upgrade to a role-based queue? Or maybe you can only select that option once you've purchased X number of skins? Thoughts?


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

DekonCross

Senior Member

12-21-2012

All I think about this thread and the other threads is. It is a good idea in general to allow for the option for people to que up for specific rolls. I will explain why below.

The biggest issue is that for example. You get into the lobby and I have done this over 30x. Where ill call top lock in on my champ. TADA the person who called top after me throws a temper tantrum going overboard yelling screaming and just being a **** about it. So the match starts I go top we end up without a mid or bot or support because this guy threw a temper tantrum so I end up playing a match on a champ that isnt typically suited for mid lane.

Now whats to stop you from queing up for mid and playing a character that isnt mid? Well thats what the reporting system is for. It will show what you qued up for. If you are reported for quing mid and going top or playing a typically bad mid character. That will reflect poorly on you and im quite sure bans will come your way because of it.

Now that that is out of the way. I made a thread a few months ago about this. However I dont see it in the list. So I will just touch on some of the points I made in that thread.

1. Quing up for a speciffic role isnt nessicary. However if you dont que up for a role and get stuffed in a lobby thats missing something. You will be required to play that position.

2. You would be able to que for 2 roles. Primary and Secondary. Since this wont ban champions the champions you can play wont be limited neither will the roles you que up for.

EX: I que up for Top \ Jungle. Someone in the que lobby only qued up for top. Since they are only qued up for top. It would have my secondary pick as my que.

I recommend 2 options because of the fact that some people may be sitting in que for long periods of time because of one option. Some people dont like playing support. Some people have their runes and masteries set up to play certain champions and roles.

Someone with their masteries and runes set up for say Darious and gets stuck playing sona. Wont be as effective as someone set up to play sona. If that makes any sense to you.

At the end of it all. Its only a suggestion to better help end the whole battle of who gets what lane and get rid of people who join lobby and auto lock. To w\e champ they want. Then try and take a lane that someone else called. I just played a game with a person who rage quit a match because they didnt get the lane they want.

The person throught a temper tantrum. Cussed the player out because they wouldnt let them be ADC. Called them a fail was telling the other team where people were. All in all was being a d-bag. Yes I reported this guy and I really hope he gets perma banned for this ish he pulled.

At the end of the night. The issue isnt really the system. Its players being stuborn and hard headed. Not willing to play this class or that class. We cant fix players. However modifying the game a bit to allow for a little less arguing and people getting upset because they are stuck playing something they dont normally play. Is what im trying to get my point acrossed.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

PogoPogoPogoPogo

Senior Member

12-21-2012

Quote:
Originally Posted by KlunkTheSpaceCat View Post
I know very little about how matchmaking is coded, and I assume that it isn't easy stuff. I actually suspect that the reason we have no Red response is that it would be a difficult thing to implement, and it would result in no new sales of skins or RP purchases. Business is business, I understand that.
Look at all the changes between Season 2 and Season 3. This all takes a lot of work. At least as much, if not more work then what would go into a role-based queue system. And it also doesn't lead to the sale of skins, RP purchases, etc. It doesn't directly increase Riot's profits. Yet they did it anyway.

Why?

Because it enhances the game experience.

The new items, the new jungle balance, the graphical upgrades, these all make the game in general a better experience.

So if Riot decides against a role-based queuing system it's not because it would cost too much money and then not lead to any profits at all. It's because they agree with me in that it would not positively impact the game experience in any way, but could potentially have a negative impact on the game experience.
Quote:
Originally Posted by KlunkTheSpaceCat View Post
Sounds like we've got it boiled down to this: Role-based queue would probably increase queue time for everyone but supports, and unless it was designed not to do so, it might increase the Elo spread in any given game. I contend that we really can't know the extent of these effects. I believe that this game has a huge player base and that it would be virtually unnoticeable. Pogo thinks it could be pretty bad.
You're still not fully understanding what I'm saying. The way match-making systems work, with LoL, they expand the Elo range of players they search for as time passes. And I can't really imagine Riot changing this, because ultimately the goal, especially for ranked, is to keep the games as competitive as possible, and you do this by making each team as even as possible and by minimizing the Elo gap between the players.

A role-based queuing system would unnaturally increase the queue-times because we all know significantly fewer people are going to want to play support.

Take me for example. I can fill the support role more than competently, and in a ranked match, where my choices are fill support role or definitely lose the match because the alternative is someone who either doesn't know how to support, or someone who will just go down there and steal CS, or just troll? Yea, I'll fill that support role.

But in a role-based queuing system, I'm never going to queue as support. It's a role I'll fill if the team needs it, but a role I'd prefer not playing, and therefore would never queue as it.

So because there will be so few people queuing for support and because the system has to take an extra criteria into account when building the match (Elo AND role options), the queue time takes longer.

So it's because support is so unpopular that the queue time will take longer, and it's because the queue time will take longer that we'll see massive Elo gaps between the best and worst players (and this will also make it harder to balance teams).

So it's not "Queues will be 10 minutes long," or "Teams will have massive Elo gaps." We're not talking about the queue system is going to start giving us one or the other.
IT WILL GIVE US BOTH.

Quote:
Originally Posted by KlunkTheSpaceCat View Post
How about this, would anyone pay $10 to upgrade to a role-based queue? Or maybe you can only select that option once you've purchased X number of skins? Thoughts?
It becomes extraordinarily difficult for Riot to continue advertising as "free to play" if you do something like this. Plus, again, you're including two queue styles, which exacerbates the queue time issue.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

PogoPogoPogoPogo

Senior Member

12-21-2012

Most of your post is stuff that's pretty much been addressed throughout the thread already. However...

Quote:
Originally Posted by DekonCross View Post
Someone with their masteries and runes set up for say Darious and gets stuck playing sona. Wont be as effective as someone set up to play sona. If that makes any sense to you.
You can fill all 5 roles with two rune pages, and everyone has access to 20 mastery pages.


Quote:
Originally Posted by DekonCross View Post
At the end of the night. The issue isnt really the system. Its players being stuborn and hard headed. Not willing to play this class or that class. We cant fix players. However modifying the game a bit to allow for a little less arguing and people getting upset because they are stuck playing something they dont normally play. Is what im trying to get my point acrossed.
You're right. The issue isn't the system, it's the players. You can already report players for trolling and harassing.

Players also complain about Darius non-stop even though he's perfectly balanced. Should we nerf Darius to the point that he's completely unusable just because a loud vocal minority thinks he's too strong because they refuse to learn how to play against him?