Welcome to the Forum Archive!

Years of conversation fill a ton of digital pages, and we've kept all of it accessible to browse or copy over. Whether you're looking for reveal articles for older champions, or the first time that Rammus rolled into an "OK" thread, or anything in between, you can find it here. When you're finished, check out the boards to join in the latest League of Legends discussions.

GO TO BOARDS


An Explanation of Ranked Team Ratings

Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Foojackin

Senior Member

12-09-2011

Quote:
rjcombo:
If you just created the team, how were you able to see the rating and adjustments being applied to it?


You know how this works, seems like you are avoiding the statement.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

MidlaneAndFeed

Senior Member

12-09-2011

Wait wait wait...

Cornsalad is in all three top ranked teams, yet the second one had to win a bunch just because they had an alternate that didn't play as much? My alternates on my teams can usually play just as well as anyone else on the team, it just so happens to be you can't fit 5 people into a threes match, or more than five in a fives match.

Really, this needlessly complicates things. I could believe a system like this in place if you wanted to keep teams from instantly being at the top spot, but the way you have it one set of three players can hold all five top spots after only getting ONE team high rated. Which is what is happening with cornsalads #1 and #2 teams. Play 24 games on one team, the the other two start off automatically in the top 50 teams...

Sorry, but the point is that teams should need work put into them to get a top rating, you shouldn't be able to disband them then restart and be at a similar rating. Point is, if someone goes 24-0, no one should be able to have a team 5-0 with a higher rating...ever. It's ridiculous.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

veiooooo

Senior Member

12-09-2011

1 game = 15min

5games = 1h 15m first place

24games =6h second place ( waste 5 hours)

it is ridiculous


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Literal Potato

Senior Member

12-09-2011

Just think of the MMR system in WoW arena.

Each player carries with them a personal MMR. Team ratings start at 0. Your team gains rating based on the average MMR of your opponents vs your team's actual rating. I assume this is something similar to ensure that there is no inflation of ratings in ranked teams (ATM, you can feed a team 10 wins for example using a team, but then just make a new one and clear your w/l. However, losing those 10 games will affect your MMR)


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

AA247

Senior Member

12-09-2011

personal elo i think carries too much. I mean the top 1 and 3 team have roughly equal elo to the second team despite having 18 more wins.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Literal Potato

Senior Member

12-09-2011

Quote:
AA247:
personal elo i think carries too much. I mean the top 1 and 3 team have roughly equal elo to the second team despite having 18 more wins.


Team 1 elo was 1100 when playing 1700 MMR teams. They're going to gain >100 rating per game, so after 6 games they get 1700

Team 2 elo was 1100 when playing 1100 MMR teams. They keep winning, so their team elo progresses at the same rate as their MMR. So, after 18 wins, they eventually catch up to Team 1

I don't see a problem here.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Arcanist

Senior Member

12-09-2011

Thanks.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Katarìna

Senior Member

12-09-2011

Personal rating carrying over from anything before this new system is bull****. There's no reason that 5/0 is better than 24/0 when it's statistically significantly better to win 24 games in a row rather than just five.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Katarìna

Senior Member

12-09-2011

Quote:
Octillery:
Team 1 elo was 1100 when playing 1700 MMR teams. They're going to gain >100 rating per game, so after 6 games they get 1700

Team 2 elo was 1100 when playing 1100 MMR teams. They keep winning, so their team elo progresses at the same rate as their MMR. So, after 18 wins, they eventually catch up to Team 1

I don't see a problem here.


Clearly team 2 shouldn't have been playing 1100 mmr teams. The system, which is dependent upon something it shouldn't be to place a team accurately placed team 2 inaccurately merely because they hadn't played any ranked team previously. While I admit that this is a time saver and prevents high elo players from stomping low elo players while they get where they belong, it obviously doesn't work in the most ideal manner.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Reiver

Senior Member

12-09-2011

Quote:
rjcombo:
That is correct. The roster change policy is based on number of games played, but has nothing to do with what the team's rating actually is.


But the question mark says it does, it's a bit misleading, we understand the intention, but the information the game gives is wrong (it includes over 1250 as a conditional)

(also that Reivur dude who commented initially isn't me, but has an eerily similar name o.O)