Which matchmaking 'issue' is the most important to you? (See post for more details!)

1) AFKs in Champion Select Lobby 4,802 36.37%
2) Duo-Queue Elo Disparities in Ranked 987 7.47%
3) Skilled Ranked Players in Normal Modes 648 4.91%
4) Premade Matching 659 4.99%
5) Transitioning from Normal to Ranked Mode 1,325 10.03%
6) Free to Play Champions in Ranked Mode 799 6.05%
7) Random Champions in Ranked Mode 639 4.84%
8) Provisional Matches in Ranked 698 5.29%
9) Duo Queue Prevalence in Ranked 408 3.09%
10) Level Disparities 628 4.76%
11) Team Margin of Victory 1,612 12.21%
Voters: 13205. You may not vote on this poll

After Hours with Matchmaking and Lyte

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

YoshioPeePee

Senior Member

04-02-2012

biggest issue is the placements matches, and how chaotic they are making the 1100-1300 elo range

though these all seem rather important


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Bossob

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

Senior Member

04-02-2012

Quote:
Originally Posted by epidemic View Post
Why can't there be a check box to select for what role you want to play. That way every match will have someone to play each role and match making will prioritize based off of this. I know this will add to queue times but it will be worth it in the end.
I think the reason that was stated before was this would set the current meta in stone and discourage any changes and innovation from happening.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Crsh

Senior Member

04-02-2012

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lyte View Post
Recently, we collected a lot of community feedback on matchmaking.
[Thread] http://na.leagueoflegends.com/board/....php?t=1827767

I have isolated down a list of issues with matchmaking, and I would love to discuss these with the community as we drive towards some meaningful solutions. Please vote in the poll and join in the discussion!

DISCLAIMER
These are issues I have identified from dialogue with the community. Fixing many of these issues will take some time! I will update the discussion as we develop solutions and have better ETAs.


--- List of Issues ---

1) AFKs in Champion Select Lobby
Players who queue up for a match and then AFK force players to wait through the timers until the lobby boots the AFK players out. In Ranked Games, Captains tend to see what the bans/picks are like and be able to react accordingly in the next lobby as the players will generally be the same.

2) Duo-Queue Elo Disparities in Ranked
When players play as a Duo-Queue in Ranked, they generally have an advantage if their Elos are fairly close. However, when players play as a Duo-Queue in Ranked and their Elos are far apart, they generally are at a disadvantage.

3) Skilled Ranked Players in Normal Modes
For a very small subset of highly skilled Ranked Players, their Ranked Elo is vastly higher than their Normal Elo. When these skilled Ranked Players play a Normal Game they generally play against opponents that are much lower in skill, resulting in lopsided matches.

4) Premade Matching
Currently, the matchmaking system tries to match Premade 5s with Premade 5s; however, we may consider prioritized matching for other Premade types. For example, prioritizing Premade 4s to match with Premade 4s, and finding a solo queue to fill out each team.

5) Transitioning from Normal to Ranked Mode
Currently, we do not do a great job of educating players on the transition from Normal to Ranked Modes. What would players like to see here? What should the expectations of Ranked be? For example, Ranked could be "Bring your best, every single game!"

6) Free to Play Champions in Ranked Mode
Related to the transition from Normal to Ranked Mode, some players feel that you should only be able to play Champions you own in Ranked Mode. The argument is that a lot of players who use Free to Play Champions are inexperienced with those champions, adding a lot of noise in the matchmaking system.

7) Random Champions in Ranked Mode
Some players feel that you should not be able to "Random" a Champion in Ranked Play, and that this feature is used to intentionally troll their team in some use cases.

8) Provisional Matches in Ranked
When a player joins Ranked for the first time, the system starts them at 1200 Elo and begins their "placement matches." Unlucky strings of losses or lucky streaks of wins can propel a player into an Elo tier they do not belong in. Alternatively, players generally do not like playing with or against players in their placement matches and seeing they have only 1-9 wins.

9) Duo Queue Prevalence in Ranked
Currently, it is possible to get two pairs of Duo-Queue Players per team in Ranked Mode, such that you have a team composed of Duo-Queue, Duo-Queue, and a Solo-Queue. Some data suggests that we should restrict the number of Duo-Queues per team to 1.

10) Level Disparities
Some players feel that as a low level, they should never be matched against Level 30s because they feel the match is unfair due to Level 30 rune/mastery advantages. Although these players are highly skilled low levels, they would prefer a different solution than facing an opponent with simply 'stronger stats.'

11) Team Margin of Victory
Some players argue that in epic, close matches, teams should not gain or lose the exact same Elo as a lopsided match. What are good metrics for "team margin of victory" that are focused on promoting team play and not individual performances?
Thank you for telling us things we've been telling you for years. I appreciate your ability to push things out as long as possible. Case in point, there's no defensible argument for F2P champs to be in ranked. I don't know anyone that clings to this against all odds and yet Riot hasn't even budged or even mentioned that they're taking them out until now.

Whatever comes out of this, it will likely be too little, too late for the competition that Diablo 3 is going to bring to the table.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Rammblin17

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

Member

04-02-2012

Quote:
Originally Posted by Crsh View Post
Thank you for telling us things we've been telling you for years. I appreciate your ability to push things out as long as possible. Case in point, there's no defensible argument for F2P champs to be in ranked. I don't know anyone that clings to this against all odds and yet Riot hasn't even budged or even mentioned that they're taking them out until now.

Whatever comes out of this, it will likely be too little, too late for the competition that Diablo 3 is going to bring to the table.
There are TONS of defensible arguments for it. Owning 16 champions is a lot to ask people just to play ranked. It makes trading with your teammates easier. People can still be very skilled with free week champs.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Enter Tragedy

Senior Member

04-02-2012

My biggest thing other than AFK'er is the fact that almost no games ever end close. Most games end in a surrender at the 20min mark...or they should.


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

04-02-2012
4 of 362 Riot Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sanman View Post
Hey Lyte,

My biggest problem with matchmaking actually isn't listed in the poll at all. I feel queue dodging in normals and in ranked is completely obscene. On a normal night my mates and I usually sit through 10-20 minutes of queues just to play a match because there is no penalty for dodging (I wouldn't call a five or fifteen minute wait a penalty). Honestly I'm not sure why one infraction of dodging warrants only five minutes of waiting. Generally a queue dodge results in 9 people wasting five minutes, give or take a few minutes, no? Why can't the dodger wait 9 times the amount of time he sat in queue for before dodging?

That way people seriously feel the burn of "I just wasted 9xX amount of time."

I've even gone so far as writing an article about it the other week for the website I work for.
I agree, and Yegg and I have been talking a lot recently about what we want to do with queue dodging. Generally, a lot of players admit to queue dodging to avoid what they perceive to be a toxic interaction in chat, so we need a penalty that fits the 'offense.' Currently, -Elo in Ranked Mode doesn't necessarily fit the offense, so we are revising it.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Countdown

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

Recruiter

04-02-2012

all of the above.
as well as, there are less good games, and everygame feels like a 20 min surrender and a rager/leaver/troll on at least 1 team


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Miss Lilly Satou

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

Senior Member

04-02-2012

My personal opinion.

1) Remake into something similar to Dota 2. Not clicking ready boots you from queue.

2) Create a certain range like say 100 Elo (unless both players are above 1800 then increase to maybe 200-400 since it is said by people skill levels up there are pretty close)

3) I think this should be left the same, because they are just normal games after all. People can learn from watching the better players play. Since most of the time high ranked players enjoy playing with friends who may or may not be lower in the ranking system. Changing this would make alienate some players who would want to play casually from time to time.

4) Couldn't care less.

5) Couldn't care less.

6) Leave it please. People use smurfs a lot (I do to duo with people lower). Also if someone is going to "troll" a game, they won't have to use a free week champ but instead they could just pick a weak champion they own still.

7) If someone has the intention of "trolling" it will happen regardless of randoming or not. For instance they cannot random lock, so they pick nunu and follow the allied jungler to steal every single buff with smite and consume. Still "trolling" with champion but isn't random.

8) If they move into an Elo range they do not belong in, they will fall down. And if you belong in that range, you still stay even with an extra lost or not.

9) Could go either way I guess. Personally I would like to leave it.

10) Don't care.

11) How many objectives were acquired, and how many assists spread across the board are pretty straight-forward ways in measuring team plays.

Glad to see some changes I was hoping for coming soon though. ◕‿◕


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

The Codyman

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

Senior Member

04-02-2012

10/10 enjoy hearing you guys working to make the game better over all.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Slogra

Senior Member

04-02-2012

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lyte View Post
11) Team Margin of Victory
Some players argue that in epic, close matches, teams should not gain or lose the exact same Elo as a lopsided match. What are good metrics for "team margin of victory" that are focused on promoting team play and not individual performances?
I really like this point, Lyte. A lot of people give up or play sloppy when the going gets tough. If the Elo loss would be less in a tighter game, I think players would give it their all more often. Also, thanks for creating the last mega thread, and salutations to this new epic thread as well.

Generally speaking, the length of a game can somewhat indicate how lopsided it is, or is not. Usually a lopsided match ends quickly in either a surrender or a few strong pushes. If a team holds out for 45 minutes or more, that means they at least have a fighting chance, unless the enemy's just dragging it out... but that's to their detriment, anyway.

However, taking away less Elo for longer games might encourage players to refuse to surrender for the wrong reasons. It should probably only play a small part... I was just suggesting time as a factor because it seems to be one of the most obvious factors in judging how close a match is.

The number of towers down and kills can also factor in. We're talking a loss reduction of maybe 1 or 2 Elo for both those factors, tops. It would take the sting off of losing a long round, or a round that the losers felt was close.