@Lyte - Player Behavior, Matchmaking, and Life as a Scientist

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

daves3hd

Senior Member

08-12-2013

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lyte View Post
Right now, permanent bans are still being handed out as a last resort. We don't hand them out very often anymore now that Restricted Chat Mode and Behavioral Alerts are live.
well on that note I'd like to show you some after chat from a game I was just in (on EUW). The story goes as follows: Our jungler J4 had an issue with top lane Pantheon, they started to harass each other in chat one blaming another.... Resulting in pantheon refusing to co-operate with the team any further. He took out his anger on J4 on the entire team and everyone asking him to calm down or to come join the team to help defend or push got lip back as if they were trash.
After the game J4 asked everyone to report Panth, and this is what he said:
Quote:
Tedvs: I bet I'll get
Tedvs: one of those warnings
Tedvs: with like
Tedvs: "offensive language"
Tedvs: despite not cursing the entire game
Tedvs: those are funny
I am aware I'm showing his summoner on the forums here but he doesn't seem to think he's done anything wrong... While he was being toxic the entire game not just in chat but also in behaviour, like avoiding the team at all times unless he could pick up a kill after the fight.
How is a player spreading toxicity like that not banned yet? I'm sure he doesn't do this in all his games but having to judge how fast his attitude escalated and kept going I'm pretty sure this isn't the first time either.

I think early warning systems are fine, but they should not replace where bans used to be. It seems like the warning system is also allowing summoners to avoid bans, if bans are handed out later because the warming comes first now. As well as toxic summoners who get a warning will just keep a little calmer for a few weeks and as their rage builds up they explode right after and get another warning after a while.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

DynastyOfTheFox

Member

08-12-2013

When i first got to level 30 not to long ago i was really excited until i played my first ranked match.I told everyone it was my first ranked match and i was still use to normal matches and they said ok and good luck until the match started i wad Kha'Zix and i was vs. Brand.I relied on my mobility to fight as him but when every i tried to jump on him and get a kill he stun and a full out combo which always killed me and my allies or so i though use an raged ap attacks they were easily able to kill him and they completely turned on me and started harassing me they said you suck you d*** b*** you suck go back to the f***** normal games cause you don't know the d*** basic's. and they didn't stop they keep saying in all chat the whole game but one of friends was in that game and tried to stand up for me but failed.So pls pay attention to ranked games.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

daves3hd

Senior Member

08-12-2013

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lyte View Post
Mathematically, Elo/MMR Hell doesn't exist. We've done analyses over millions of players and players tend to always reach their 'true MMR' after about 150 games of Ranked; however, for a small number of players it may take up to 1000 games to reach their 'true MMR'--this is part of the problem and something we are trying to fix. Rioters like RiotSocrates are continuously working on the matchmaking algorithms to place players into the appropriate tiers even faster so that no players have to play up to 1000 games to reach their true MMR.

The second problem with Elo/MMR Hell is that we're dealing with a lot of cognitive biases. We once did a study that suggested that the average player believes their true MMR is 150 MMR higher than their current rating; it reminded me of a study I read where they surveyed an office and the average employee rated their performance as 'above average,' which is also statistically impossible.
Are you allowed to give us some of those numbers, I'd be interested to take a look at it

I have a question for normal MMR/ELO matchmaking as well, how does the system keep up with this in premade groups. when I play soloq in normal, I win a lot of games and after a lot of games I come out with a pretty high win loss ratio. But as of late I have been playing a lot more premade games with players of different skill level, mostly lower, some about equal. Lets say I've played a bit more with player under my skill level resulting in more losses as well. I would be losing a lot more MMR/ELO than they would. Resulting that, if I go back in soloQ normal games I start out way lower.

Doesn't this system reset my value this way every time discouraging me to play with friends that are less skilled at this moment? I mean sure I don't care that much about my normal win/loss ratio and MMR. But I do like to keep it up if I can so when I do soloQ I get decent matchmaking, but because I play with friends I'm constantly fighting those 150~ games to get my MMR back up. And doesn't duoQ for ranked do the same with players of different skill level? It was put in because some players felt discouraged to play solo in ranked, but this way ranked DUO could have the same negative effect if it means not being able to match on your own level for a while any more (both higher and lower). Especially as we're unable to see MMR (while there are some sites for it that try to estimate it if you soloQ ranked a lot).

I.E. I got demoted from gold5, 2 times because I just don't play enough ranked games. As this happens my MMR drops slower than my LP. The second time I was going for gold I was being matched with gold 2/3, I don't have a problem with this but at that time I'm silver 1, and my friend is like "hey i'm silver 2 lets duo queue's we're close together" while he gets matched with silver 2/4 most of the time. Im my experience this gives a lot of crooked match-ups that just breaks the game and makes it a one sided game (both in our advantage and disadvantage).


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

LittleDi

Senior Member

08-12-2013

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lyte View Post
We've always said that we prefer reforming toxic players first, and will only remove them on a last resort basis.

We are currently handing out massive chat bans before permanent bans these days though, and are trying to research new ways to reduce the motivation for toxic players to simply make new accounts. One way would be to add more 'account restrictions' and just let these players stay on their main accounts.
Curious... Makes me wonder if what I thought about was a possible option.

Your opinion on 2 week ban and 40 game chat restriction adding to it inability to queue up for ranked games of any sort?


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

messypuddle

Member

08-12-2013

So This other thread has some points that belong here, I like the idea of a "good guy" skin reward/summoner icon reward

http://forums.na.leagueoflegends.com....php?t=3760284


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

CupcakeTrap

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

Senior Member

08-12-2013

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lyte View Post
Mathematically, Elo/MMR Hell doesn't exist. We've done analyses over millions of players and players tend to always reach their 'true MMR' after about 150 games of Ranked (...)
I've noticed you refer to "true MMR" a few times in the past. I see that you've put quotes around it, but one thing that always throws me off about this phrase is that it suggests that everyone has an innate MMR that never changes. Most people would hope that their MMR would increase after 150 games of Ranked, and that with continued effort they could continue to increase it over time. I think I understand your meaning that it usually takes no more than 150 games for the system to "catch up" to a player but I wanted to flag this for consideration.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lyte View Post
The second problem with Elo/MMR Hell is that we're dealing with a lot of cognitive biases. We once did a study that suggested that the average player believes their true MMR is 150 MMR higher than their current rating; it reminded me of a study I read where they surveyed an office and the average employee rated their performance as 'above average,' which is also statistically impossible.
Part of the notion of "Elo Hell" is surely just the result of people believing they're all above average and that their teammates are dragging them down.

However, I feel like part of "Elo Hell" (as a popular concept) is also that "if you suddenly fall down into a lower bracket, it may be surprisingly hard to climb back up".

I can think of a couple reasons why this might actually occur:

(1) There are different playstyles at different MMR bands. Just like a Ranked 5s player may have a lot of trouble until they learn how to play solo queue, a high-Elo player might end up throwing a lot of games because they do not understand how games work at their suddenly lower Elo.

(2) Maybe people have weaknesses that their higher-Elo teammates have been covering for them. (e.g., maybe someone always neglects to ward, but at higher Elos their jungler or support will pick up the slack.) When they fall down in Elo, suddenly their teammates are not as proactive about helping each other out, and their weaknesses begin costing them. In other words, being lazy about personal warding was only a minor problem at high Elo (because teammates covered), but is a major deadweight at lower Elos (where those points of the map will just go unwarded).

tl;dr: I think most of "Elo Hell" talk is just blaming/complaining, but I think to be fair it's not so much "My Elo is wrong" generally as it is "I've fallen and now I can't get back up".


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Arcticfury

Senior Member

08-12-2013

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lyte View Post
Mathematically, Elo/MMR Hell doesn't exist. We've done analyses over millions of players and players tend to always reach their 'true MMR' after about 150 games of Ranked; however, for a small number of players it may take up to 1000 games to reach their 'true MMR'--this is part of the problem and something we are trying to fix. Rioters like RiotSocrates are continuously working on the matchmaking algorithms to place players into the appropriate tiers even faster so that no players have to play up to 1000 games to reach their true MMR.

The second problem with Elo/MMR Hell is that we're dealing with a lot of cognitive biases. We once did a study that suggested that the average player believes their true MMR is 150 MMR higher than their current rating; it reminded me of a study I read where they surveyed an office and the average employee rated their performance as 'above average,' which is also statistically impossible.
While I really don't doubt that people value their ability level much higher than it really is, I do find two things a bit out of synch with the current system. One is that it takes 150+ games for most and up to a 1000 games for others to hit their "true MMR/ELO". And I do see that as being addressed and am very appreciative.

Well I have three not two, the second is that even if people are around their true MMR why then does their LP not match this number precisely, so that it isn't even off a single point? Why does our MMR not equal our LP? Why does it tug? If you win a game and your MMR suggests that you are much lower, and yet you still win so that you get 0 or just 1 LP (outside of clamping) then isn't their a problem with the system?

And lastly, why does not everyone receive the same LP gains or losses in the game they are playing? This is extremely problematic. Let's say I am 200 points higher than my entire team, and we play against a team that has a slightly higher NET MMR than us, if we lose I'll get hit harder than my teammates even though we as a team had a disadvantage. That seems hardly fair. I have a higher responsibility even though the team has a disadvantage. That my psychological friend is unbalanced.


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

08-12-2013
81 of 107 Riot Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleDi View Post
Curious... Makes me wonder if what I thought about was a possible option.

Your opinion on 2 week ban and 40 game chat restriction adding to it inability to queue up for ranked games of any sort?
We've considered queue restrictions, but have to carefully weigh the potential costs. If we restrict negative players from playing a queue, what is the execution? Is it time-based, or is it game-based (i.e = they have to play X number of Normal Summoner's Rift games to unlock Ranked again). In either case, if we restrict Ranked queues from negative players, do they simply shift their toxicity into the other game modes? Is that a worthwhile risk?

We know that context plays a powerful role in shaping one's behavior, so it might be that the player would be perfectly sportsmanlike in other queues and Ranked is just a high-tension environment that creates toxicity; however, the player might just be having a streak of bad days (or weeks) and directly carry the negative behavior into other queues.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

UODK

Senior Member

08-12-2013

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lyte View Post
Mathematically, Elo/MMR Hell doesn't exist. We've done analyses over millions of players and players tend to always reach their 'true MMR' after about 150 games of Ranked; however, for a small number of players it may take up to 1000 games to reach their 'true MMR'--this is part of the problem and something we are trying to fix. Rioters like RiotSocrates are continuously working on the matchmaking algorithms to place players into the appropriate tiers even faster so that no players have to play up to 1000 games to reach their true MMR.

The second problem with Elo/MMR Hell is that we're dealing with a lot of cognitive biases. We once did a study that suggested that the average player believes their true MMR is 150 MMR higher than their current rating; it reminded me of a study I read where they surveyed an office and the average employee rated their performance as 'above average,' which is also statistically impossible.
Ok I know I am not the best... but when some people have like a 20% win rate and others can be in bronze and maintain 50% those 2 players do not deserve to be in the same division.

You have 95% of the player base in bronze/silver and those 95% are "NOT" all within the same skill level of each other.

Think of it something like this:
If every player was given a skill level of 1-100
Bronze = 1-65
Silver = 30-65
Gold = 60-75
Plat = 70-85
Diamond = 80-95
Challenger = 95-100

Even if the numbers are off a little the whole point is that Bronze is.. just hell.. even if you are a 65/100 player in bronze.. your getting paired up with a team thats 1s and 10s and those players can and DO cost you the game. That 65/100 player could hold his own in low gold, but it takes 1000 games to even get out of bronze. Silver is bad, but not as bad.. if your a 65/100 player you have to deal with 35/100 players but thats much better than a team of 1-20 level players.

Bronze is as toxic as it gets. There are players in bronze with 100 games played that have NO IDEA what they are doing.. then there are people who can keep up almost 100cs per 10min and take objectives and ward... while that doesn't necessarily mean they are Challenger material, they definitely don't belong in the same bracket with players that average a -10 KDA.

Bronze has such a wide range of skill diversity compared to any other bracket that the good players cannot get on a "good team" enough times to make a difference. You might get a good team 10 games in a row.. and then get total green 30s that have no champion pool and only play 1 position for 10 games in a row. How can you climb when the potential for your team and your opponents teams skill level to be so unbalanced.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Darkmailman

Junior Member

08-12-2013

so Lyte what do u do about ppl like this bc it is the 3rd time today i have seen ppl say things like this but nothing happens to them http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=2l8jjbn&s=5