Matchmaking Changes [1-16-2013]

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

Nishova

Junior Member

01-20-2013

getting matched with full ******* now , this matchmaking sux


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

karate dad69

Senior Member

01-20-2013

I've had for the most part a terrible, terrible time.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

FireZ42

Senior Member

01-20-2013

Lyte, after this matchmaking change,I no longer see the skilled players I used to play with in TT and Dominion. I'm now seeing bad players with bad attitudes. 1 game we are winning and Vi missed a kill so he auto surrender and decided to quit when we voted no. We end up losing 2v3 because he got butthurt. He was there the whole time because our surrender 10 minutes after ended 2/0 and I didn't vote. Next game I get this guy who being all nice pregame. I should've dodged because I knew it was just a plan to try to get people to not report him as he intentionally feeds. In 15 minutes of TT he was 0/8/1 with 10 CS.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Hawkhell

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

Senior Member

01-20-2013

Well match wins does not say anything about skill. Having 1200 wins 1400 losses vs someone who has 500 wins 400 losses would show a major flaw in a system such as this. However I am happy to see Riot taking an interest in making the game better instead of just adding champions.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

inQuest

Member

01-20-2013

Quote:
Originally Posted by FireZ42 View Post
Lyte, after this matchmaking change,I no longer see the skilled players I used to play with in TT and Dominion. I'm now seeing bad players with bad attitudes. 1 game we are winning and Vi missed a kill so he auto surrender and decided to quit when we voted no. We end up losing 2v3 because he got butthurt. He was there the whole time because our surrender 10 minutes after ended 2/0 and I didn't vote. Next game I get this guy who being all nice pregame. I should've dodged because I knew it was just a plan to try to get people to not report him as he intentionally feeds. In 15 minutes of TT he was 0/8/1 with 10 CS.
Yesterday I've played as support (usually i play as support). Well, my adc was Teemo, i don't like teemo adc but anybody can play with his favorite champion and Teemo is legit. Well, in fisrt 7 minutes he had 1 cs.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

dyfrgi

Member

01-20-2013

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lyte View Post
In League of Legends, more experienced players tend to have better rune selections and a larger champion stable for complex counterplay.
Larger champion stable -> winning more.

But RP doesn't buy power.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Gizmo Era

Senior Member

01-20-2013

Quote:
Originally Posted by Odin OneHorn View Post
here's the short

pre-matchmaking changes my form sheet read

WWWWWLWW

post matchmaking changes my form sheet reads

LLLL

I understand that this may just be me, and other summoners may be LOVING the new changes but hear me out.

It's not just the losing, i don't mind that. its the quality of player that i'm being lumped with now. I have a low win number because i am a casual player. I am not a BAD player and i am not a TOXIC player. however I am now being lumped with both of the aforementioned after the matchmaking changes have taken place.

If I am in the minority here, and riot can not do anything to help me then I just wont solo q anymore. because I dont think my brain can handle the perpetual disintegration that comes with having to deal with the other summoners in my "win bracket"

I guess the other reason that this heavily affects me is because i mainly solo q. and unlike a lot of people i have never had tremendous issues with it. I do now.
This. I think this is it.

riot pls


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Fongletto

Senior Member

01-20-2013

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lyte View Post
'Experience' doesn't necessarily mean mechanical skill.

A low-win player that has 1500 Elo isn't playing weaker players, they are playing players who have less Champions/Runes.
So by your logic it's okay to gain an unfair advantage by buying your champions and spending your excess IP on runes. But players who get both their champions and runes by playing and only buy skins take the hit?


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Boloney

Senior Member

01-20-2013

@Lyte and RiotKiddington:

First of all, thanks for being so open with what's going on and gathering feedback from the community.

Overall, I'd say I've noticed an improvement in match balance. But, like others, I've also seen the exact opposite happen on occasion. I think it's beneficial to consider "experience" as a factor in matchmaking on top of elo, but I have a couple of suggestions for improving it further.

Some of this might already be included in the system... I'm just going by what I've gathered in your posts.


1. Scale Number of Wins Logarithmically (or Similar)

As you mention yourself, the difference between, say, two players with 1200 wins and 1000 wins is much smaller than between two players with 200 and 100 wins. So, rather than using the straight number of wins, I would first calculate an "experience" factor and use that for adjusting matchmaking instead.

This experience factor should scale up very rapidly towards the lower number of wins range and then taper off quickly, possibly approaching some maximum value.

For example, the formula might look like:

Experience = 20 * ln((WinCount / 10) + 1)

"WinCount" being the number of wins and "ln" being the natural logarithm. The "+ 1" is to avoid taking the natural log of a number < 1 (which would yield a negative for experience). In other words, it forces the result to start at 0 experience for 0 wins and remain in the positive number range.

The division by 10 makes it rise a little flatter, particularly towards the lower win range. The final multiplication by 20 just scales everything to a nicer range to work with. Obviously this is just an example and all the numbers could use tweaking. Also, this does not technically approach a maximum limit, but one could be enforced by, say, treating anything above 2000 wins as 2000 wins.

Anyway, this particular function would result in the following win-to-experience mapping:

0 wins = 0 experience
50 wins = 35.8 experience
100 wins = 48.0 experience
200 wins = 60.9 experience
1000 wins = 92.3 experience
1200 wins = 95.9 experience
2000 wins = 106.1 experience

So, essentially, this exaggerates the difference in low win ranges while flattening the higher win ranges. The difference between 100 and 200 wins is calculated to be about 13 experience points, while the difference between 1000 and 1200 wins is only about 3.6 experience.

Using an experience score like that instead of flat win numbers should yield better results.


2. Proximity is More Important Than Average

You said that right now you're looking at just having similar average wins on both teams.

However, as some people have reported, this has led to matchups with win numbers such as:

[2000, 125, 125, 125, 125] VS [500, 500, 500, 500, 500]

While this looks spot on if you average the wins (500 vs 500), in practice it'll likely be an extremely imbalanced match. I would argue that this is because proximity (be it of elo, wins, or experience) is much more important than averages.

Playing with or against players from vastly different skill or experience ranges is neither fun nor does it produce balanced matches. What people want, and what makes for good matches, is for everyone to be a close to each other in terms of skill as possible. Averages really don't matter much at all.

I can only guess at the details of how your matchmaking system works, but I would assume that the basic process is something along the lines of:

1. Generate possible permutations of matches based on queue population
2. Calculate score for each permutation
3. "Approve" (start game for) permutations with the highest / acceptable scores

Extremely simplified, of course, but I imagine that's the general idea? So step 2 in this process would be where, right now, you're giving the score a bit of a boost if the average win number on both teams is similar?

I think that, at the very least, it should also consider standard deviation (or some similar metric for variance) when deciding whether the matchup is a good one. In fact, it should probably lower the score / avoid the match if the variation is too high. Perhaps there's no need to even consider the average directly at all... standard deviation might be the only metric you need?


Anyway, just some ideas. Good luck and keep up the good work.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Nicodemous

Senior Member

01-20-2013

If the whole issue is about bringing better balance then the experiment is a failure so far because every game I get into (after waiting about 3 times to 5 times longer than I am use to) my team either usually quickly decimates the other team or gets quickly steam rolled... so nothing has really changed other than the wait times and I am actually getting less fair matches than I did before... at least before maybe half my games felt like fair matches, now very few do...