Suggestions for improving solo ranked play

Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Oceanian

Senior Member

11-12-2012

No problem dude, I'm putting your link on the front of my thread.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Oceanian

Senior Member

11-12-2012

Quote:
Originally Posted by SixxTwinWounds View Post
Um funny how you didn't say to remove elo in general. elo is a system created for a 1v1 game such as chess or card games where the only one responsible for defeat is oneself. This is a team game where anything that could affect your gameplay could happen to any other person on the field thus competition will never be fair unless you are at a live tournament playing on the same lan.

So not only do they need to change the system in which both ranked and non rank divine a players skill level, but I believe it is also unfair that you are restricted to playing with a certain elo level just because you got place in it. When you stated to keep players separate, first of all in ranked you can que up with 1 friend. If you and your one friend make a big enough difference [and you can if both of you can kill 3 people together thus requiring only 2 more team members instead of three] Then viola! you are now not in elo hell. In addition there are things like getting paired with skilled team mates in general where an unskilled person gets carried.

Say you are about to win with two people but your team won't listen to you so you can make the final push and therefore you play a long winded game where 40 mins later you either lose because the enemy team who was less skillful but more team oriented wins or you barely win by some luck. Basically you are saying to only punish dc'ers and not people who cause the game to be hard on others. Yes there are plenty of those people who don't need to dc in order to ruin a good game. If a player plays 3 matches in a row and in a row gets that one person who ruins the game for everyone, how was that even fair? It totally wasn't. Many people can say it has happened to them.

So then how do you fixed ranked in general?
1. Remember that thing that we clicked asking our skill level at the game before play....
Use that to determine how players match up. That way even if people want to play "for fun" in ranked they can play with other people who want to play "for fun" in ranked.
2. If someone dc's doesn't mean they should get banned. Internet isn't a static object that always works/ As a matter of fact there are very few things that are. So then if they have a likelihood to disconnect they should be put in a separate que system with others. This can happen via the leaver buster or a certain amount of leaves. After playing a certain set of games without dc'ing to the point where the game is affected, those players can be reintroduced into the regular que they originally picked.
3.This game should be round robin not elimination. Elimination is that losers play losers and winners play winners. Its a game and that isn't that fun nor does it really determine skill at all as one set of losers might be able to beat a set of winners they were just never paired up. Everyone in each intensity bracket [veteran,rookie,newbie] should be able to play everyone and based on the likelihood of a team winning they are rewarded ranking.

These are just suggestions for ranked, there is far more wrong in this game than ranked imo.
ELO is a ranking system they use in games like chess(you stated 1v1, you're correct).

However, Riot seems to rank players on ELO because it's called 'Solo Queue', what I don't understand is how they rank us if we're paired with 4 other members who could drag you down?


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Selcopa

Senior Member

11-12-2012

I think I posted on your original one as well. disagreed with many of them, including some that got added, but discussion is how we get the best ideas.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gray the Grayte View Post
1) Make the ELO system fairer for blatent 4v5 situations and have instant penalties for the leaver
2) Remove randoming entirely from ranked
3) Implement Hero swapping properly
4) Have different penalty schemes for ranked vs blind pick
5) Have different honor pools for ranked vs blind pick
6) Allow reporting in hero select and show hero selection chat log in tribunal cases
7) Add "roles" to the matchmaking
8) Shelter the experienced players from the brand new players
9) Add ward only item slots

1) Make the ELO system fairer for blatent 4v5 situations and have instant penalties for the leaver

Summary
  • Give special treatment to games where there is an easy to detect 4v5 situation
  • Make the team of 4 lose less ELO for a loss and gain more ELO for a win
  • Leave the 5 team on normal ELO gain/loss
  • Penalise the AFK/Leaver's ELO gain/loss to balance the total ELO to zero sum game
  • Auto ban the AFK/Leaver for a day from ranked (can still play blind pick). Longer bans for subsequent offenses.
The basic problem with creating different ELO situations based on the content of the individual game is there becomes this minigame of optimal game theory that detracts from the actual gameplay. It becomes beneficial to 'play the system' as opposed to focusing on becoming as skill as possible in League of Legends, this is a bad thing.

We see this with the removal of elo lost on dodging ranked games, players now feel they are "forced to dodge" because they feel if they dont do it, they will be at a disadvantage compared to players who do dodge and are able to have the time to cherry pick optimal games.

If riot is able to identify easy 4v5's and prevent them I think they would, it probably is alot more complicated than we think though, I might be in favor of allowing a 2 minute pause for solo queue, or maybe only allow it within the first minute of the game, provided 3 players agree to the pause.

But anything to do with adjusting elos to compensate for a 4v5 creates too many unintended consequences that we dont want a part of the system.

Quote:
2) Remove randoming entirely from ranked
  • There should be no ability to choose random in ranked. Blind pick is the place to try heros.
  • If someone doesn't lock in on time then this should be treated as a dodge rather than resulting in them getting a random hero, i.e. they get hit with the standard dodge time penalty and everyone gets requeued.
In addition to the dodge time, id be fine with reintroducing the elo loss accompanied with it, the original purpose of eliminating the elo loss was supposedly to prevent players from tanking their elo via dodging in order to stomp bad players, if you kept the 30 minute scaling timer that would make it take a significant amount of time to tank your elo, but you would eliminate the mini game of being 'forced to dodge'

Quote:
3) Implement Hero swapping properly
  • Picking a hero on behalf of someone lower in picking order is a good concept but the current Riot implementation is flawed.
  • The main flaw is that it requires both the picker and recipient to own the hero. Sometimes the people earlier in the pick order own hardly any heros.
  • This is not fair as you do not get a say in who your teammates and captain are in Solo Queue so should not be disadvantaged by what heros they do or don't own.
  • I propose the following solution
    • During hero selection when it is your turn to pick you can click on another player that has yet to pick and a dialog would pop up offering to trade positions in the picking order.
    • If they agree it would simply swap the players in the pick order.
    • Credit to P°tatoes for this simple solution
This takes away the benefit of having many champions, its important for Riot financially for there to be a way for players to spend money to gain an advantage without selling power, this is a core of their business model.

Overall its a minor issue, as you move up, players have more and more champions to select from, I wouldnt be upset if they implemented this, but its just not a significant issue and does take away from their profits. As a result I'd say no to the idea.

Quote:
4) Have different penalty schemes for ranked vs blind pick
  • Playing ranked should be treated as more of a privilege than blind pick as the ELO ratings in ranked matter more to people than just IP gain.
  • Right now my impressions are the chances of going to tribunal are same for blind pick vs ranked and the penalties are the same for ranked and blind pick.
  • If you get banned currently it is typically for a short period of time (1 week or less) and the ban applies equally to all forms of the game.
  • I propose that the reports from ranked should have more weighting in terms of making it into tribunal cases
  • Also the penalties applied should be different for different forms of the game. Instead of say a one week blanket ban from all games someone might get a one week ban from blind pick and a one month ban from ranked
I dont think we know the specific details of tribunal, its tough to form suggestions for it, I understand there are alot of trolls, but i'm hesitant to invoke harsh penalties quickly, the point isnt to remove people from the pool, but to adjust their behavior, we still want a large number of people playing the game, and we should only remove them when they absolutely have no plans to reform their ways

Quote:
5) Have different honor pools for ranked vs blind pick
  • Right now there is no difference between honor gained in blind pick vs ranked
  • Given there is more at stake in ranked people that are decent teammates in blind pick can become total trolls in ranked.
  • I myself have seen people with "good teammate" flags that behave like total trolls in ranked
  • By having different honor pools for ranked vs blind pick people will be more incentivised to behave well in ranked
Its interesting because you would think people are more likely to be a 'team player' in ranked than they are in solo queue, I would be willing to bet that they typically are not toxic players, but the game went south as they got frustrated, and as a result they had bad behavior, I dont feel its a significant problem that people are building up teamwork points in normal to troll people in ranked.

Overall id be for the idea, I just dont think it would really have much benefit to the ranked solo play.
Quote:
6) Allow reporting in hero select and show hero selection chat log in tribunal cases
  • At the moment people can say and do whatever they like in the hero selection with no consequences.
  • Examples of blatent troll behaviour can include threatening to feed, deliberately choosing a hero and summoner spell combination to annoy the team, verbal abuse etc.
  • The troll behaviour results in two equally unpalatable situations
    1) They manage cause a dodge and therefore get off get off scot free as you cannot report them if the game does not start. Solution is to allow reporting in hero selection.
    2) The game starts and people report them after the game but since the tribunal cases do not show the hero chat log and activity they are not punished by the case reviewers. Solution is to include full chat log and hero banning/selection activity in tribunal cases
Id be okay with this, my question would be what about selections where someone dodges?

Quote:
7) Add "roles" to the matchmaking
  • Most of the troll behaviour in solo queue ranked hero select is caused by people clashing over what roles they want to play
  • Some people are happy to play any role but others want to play just one or two as they specialise. There is nothing wrong with this in principle.
  • The problem comes where people disagree over roles which seems to happen a high proportion of the time
  • Some people "call" their desired role by frantically typing it as quickly as they can into the chat log. They feel that gives them the right to trump the pick order. "I called first!"
  • Other people ignore chat and simply pick their role when their turn comes. They feel that "calling" roles is merely a request and pick order takes precedence. "I don't care what you typed! Ranked works in pick order"
  • Then it all spirals downhill from there resulting in trolling behaviour - verbal abuse, afk at fountain, doubling up of roles etc
  • The solution I feel is fairly simple
    • When you Queue it gives you a list of possible roles (all checked by default) and you can uncheck any that you are unwilling to play.
    • The matchmaking process would then assemble teams that had all roles covered.
    • In the hero selection it would actually show what roles the person had selected to help reduce arguments and would also allow people to focus on planning their hero composition without all having to frantically type their preferred roles
    • If the person doesn't change anything from the defaults then they will be shown as willing to play all roles
I mean this takes away another aspect of skill in the solo queue ladder, plasticity and teamwork, when you look at your rating in the macro sense, the more skills you have allows you to move up to higher brackets compared to players of equal skills as you, but lack the teamwork and flexibility that you have. It can be annoying and cause people to rage and troll, but ultimately thats sort of the point of "pug" matches, assigned roles are for arranged 5's. This doesnt even factor in that at higher elos this becomes a huge problem, extremely long queue times.

I also wanna point out that forcing players to play more roles does produce better players, they are forced to learn the powers and limits of different roles, which helps them when they return to their specialized role, there also becomes the problem that I would not be comfortable playing top lane, however if the enemy picks Vladimir I would have no problem going top lane if I am able to take Jarvan IV, there are many situations like that, where as a whole I wouldnt want to play the lane, however in specific matchups im willing to, and this gives me an advantage(that will over time be represented in elo) over players who specialize the same as me, but dont have access to being comfortable with certain matchups.

Quote:
8) Shelter the experienced players from the brand new players
  • Which would you rather have on your team? Someone playing their first ranked game ever or someone that has 500 wins and 500 losses?
  • I'm pretty sure 95% of people would answer the latter. Yet according to the ELO system they are rated the same.
  • It is VERY frustrating to be lumped with a bunch of brand new players to ranked just because you happen to currently be sitting in that awkward 1000 to 1300 ELO segment.
  • What would be great is if for their first few games games of ranked new ranked players were matched in their own pool sheltered from the rest of the more experienced player base.
  • They would only join the main pool of players when they hit a certain number of completed games (say 20?)
  • Riot could even extend this concept further to blend experience with ELO for match making purposes rather than merely having separate pools. However I cannot suggest exactly how they would do this.
I would still answer the new player, he's more likely to listen to what I want to achieve.

The thing about this complaint, is that players stuck in that bracket suggest that its the new players that are keeping them down, what they dont realize, is every time they remove the new players(IE they move up the brackets a little) they are unable to capitalize off the enemy new players, and they move back down due to the higher quality of players.

When you shelter players you create 2 different ladders completely, its possible to be placing an 800 elo player at 1600 due to him being constantly matched up against 600 elo quality player. Overall you are adding an unnecessary aspect to the game that doesnt really solve a big issue, but causes plenty of problems on its own. This concept only works if you have qualified people moderating games and then valuing new players at different ranks, however with the range of skills someone can be good at, its tough even with someone moderating games to make a fair estimate, a 1400 player can play 20 games and look like a 1k player in all of them if they're in the wrong situations.

Quote:
9) Add ward only item slots
  • This is a quality of life change that would encourage better teamwork in ranked and blind pick.
  • Right now in any game beyond a certain length only the designated support is able to ward as they are the only player has space left in their inventory.
  • I cannot tell you the amount of times I have seen conversations like this...
  • I don't mind if someone actively chooses not to ward for team but it is frustrating when you want to contribute but can't because the item slot is too precious to give up
  • Seems crazy that players have to choose between an item that may cost 3000+ gold or being able to place a 75 gold ward for the team.
  • Solution is to add an extra couple item slots that can only be filled by vision wards or sight wards.
It nerfs Wriggles Lantern for one thing, but also it takes away from decision making, do I buy that extra dorans or that next part to my big item? Do I sell one of my dorans so I have a slot for wards? These decisions are what separates players, by eliminating these choices, you are simplifying the game and taking away from the skill that many players have.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Ringadon

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

Member

11-13-2012

Overall I like things and pretty much echo what Selcopa just said. Also here's a bump just in case


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Gray the Grayte

Senior Member

11-14-2012

Hi Selcopa,

I appreciate you taking the time to give your thoughts. So I will take the time to give you mine.

1) Make the ELO system fairer for blatent 4v5 situations and have instant penalties for the leaver

Quote:
Originally Posted by Selcopa View Post

The basic problem with creating different ELO situations based on the content of the individual game is there becomes this minigame of optimal game theory that detracts from the actual gameplay. It becomes beneficial to 'play the system' as opposed to focusing on becoming as skill as possible in League of Legends, this is a bad thing.
Your general principle is right. However I disagree that there is any ability to "play the system" under my specific suggestion. At the end of the day you will still lose ELO if you lose and gain ELO if you win under my suggestion. It is in no way related to your individual performance so cannot be "gamed" in any way. It is effectively the same system with just some additional loading on the leaver to offset the partial reduction on the people that didn't leave. There is no concept of "forgiveness" of ELO either in my suggestion - it is a zero sum game to prevent ELO inflation. That slight ELO saving is all going to be loaded on the leaver/afk to ensure there is no "free lunch". This last point distinguishes my suggestion from the various "loss forgiven" ideas floating around.

If you disagree with my statement I would be interested in if you can provide specific examples on how my suggestion can be "gamed".

Quote:
Originally Posted by Selcopa View Post
If riot is able to identify easy 4v5's and prevent them I think they would, it probably is alot more complicated than we think though...
It is only complicated if you are assuming I am suggesting they have to comprehensively detect every single instance of AFK ever and apply my suggestion to all of them.

This is not what I am suggesting. I am suggesting that they start by taking some really easy to detect scenarios and apply it to those only to begin with. They can incrementally add to these over time as they come up with scenarios and work out how to detect them.

If you still doubt me here are the examples I gave in my original post...
  • How easy is it to detect if someone never connected to the game from level 1? Trivial
  • How hard is it to detect total disconnected time then compare it against a threshold? Easy as they have already written the code to detect someone has disconnected as it tells you in the client. All they have to do is add it up and compare it to a constant.
  • How hard is it to detect total consecutive AFK then compare it against a threshold? Easy as they already have written the code that measures time AFK then prompts you that will be disconnected if you don't start doing something. All they have to do is take the maximum time AFK and compare it against a constant.

3) Implement Hero swapping properly

Quote:
Originally Posted by Selcopa View Post
This takes away the benefit of having many champions, its important for Riot financially for there to be a way for players to spend money to gain an advantage without selling power, this is a core of their business model.
I say let Riot worry about their business model. What I have proposed is better for the players and that is what I am focused on.

Buying heros just in case you are the captain and want to swap someone is just such a dumb concept. It is simply poorly designed system that happens to have a potential financial benefit for Riot as a side effect. That in itself is not a reason to force player to live with a poorly designed system.

And I come from the school of thinking that better customer experience = happier players = more longer term revenue for Riot from customer retention, additional sales of skins, heros etc.

I understand you are probably a higher ELO player and probably play with people that have a lot of heros so would be indifferent to this. However at lower ELOs people do not own many champions so this would be a big improvement for them.

4) Have different penalty schemes for ranked vs blind pick
Quote:
Originally Posted by Selcopa View Post
... i'm hesitant to invoke harsh penalties quickly, the point isnt to remove people from the pool, but to adjust their behavior, we still want a large number of people playing the game, and we should only remove them when they absolutely have no plans to reform their ways
My suggestion allows for that. It does not remove people out of the community entirely as they can still participate in blind pick and custom games after the usual ban period. It does however force someone to transition back to ranked over a longer period of time giving them plenty of time to appreciate the competitive nature of it.

5) Have different honor pools for ranked vs blind pick

Quote:
Originally Posted by Selcopa View Post
5) Its interesting because you would think people are more likely to be a 'team player' in ranked than they are in solo queue,
I so wish this was true. Perhaps it is true at the higher ELO range you play in. It is certainly not true in the segment I play in.

In the 1000-1300 ELOs bracket I actually find more trolls in ranked than blind pick. The reason is people have more emotionally invested in the outcome. Giving people pretty ribbons they earned in blind pick where there was nothing but a bit of IP at stake and then displaying them in ranked where they care much more about the result and the pressure is on is simply not an alignment of concerns.

7) Add "roles" to the matchmaking
Quote:
Originally Posted by Selcopa View Post
I mean this takes away another aspect of skill in the solo queue ladder, plasticity and teamwork, when you look at your rating in the macro sense, the more skills you have allows you to move up to higher brackets compared to players of equal skills as you, but lack the teamwork and flexibility that you have. It can be annoying and cause people to rage and troll, but ultimately thats sort of the point of "pug" matches, assigned roles are for arranged 5's. This doesnt even factor in that at higher elos this becomes a huge problem, extremely long queue times.

I also wanna point out that forcing players to play more roles does produce better players, they are forced to learn the powers and limits of different roles, which helps them when they return to their specialized role, there also becomes the problem that I would not be comfortable playing top lane, however if the enemy picks Vladimir I would have no problem going top lane if I am able to take Jarvan IV, there are many situations like that, where as a whole I wouldnt want to play the lane, however in specific matchups im willing to, and this gives me an advantage(that will over time be represented in elo) over players who specialize the same as me, but dont have access to being comfortable with certain matchups.
I understand where you are coming from. However please consider the following

At the ELO bracket I spend most of my time in (1000-1300) this would be the single biggest change for removing the trolling that so frequently occurs in hero select. I find about 50% of games there are severe arguments about lane positions that often result in people threatening each other, doubling up on lane positions, afk at fountain and other manifestation of this. It really is horrible to watch and no fun for anyone.

You would know better than me but from what I have seen in top level streams higher level ELO play also sometimes has these arguments - even some of the most well known streamers get into trouble for this sometimes (thinking of Saint Vicious's much publicised ban and other streamers I have seen)

I believe it should be up to the player to decide whether they want to be "well rounded" or specialised. You don't see the pro teams or arranged teams playing all roles - they all specialise. Higher level streamers tend to want to play specific roles too. I do not see Riot stating anywhere that everyone in Solo Queue has to play all roles so I can only assume that is actually just a personal mantra you have. Feel free to reference something external to the contrary if you have something.

Under my system those players who allow more roles and allow the less popular roles will have shorter queue times so I believe it will be self correcting to a certain extent.

Also don't forget that all roles will be ticked by default. Only someone that really cares will be unticking roles.

Lastly I would point out that in addition to giving roles to people the matchmaker can flag other roles that people have allowed so that roles can informally be swapped around in hero selection based on bans, counter picks etc. So I don't believe my suggestion "solidifies the meta" or other comments I have heard on other threads.

8) Shelter the experienced players from the brand new players
Quote:
Originally Posted by Selcopa View Post
The thing about this complaint, is that players stuck in that bracket suggest that its the new players that are keeping them down, what they dont realize, is every time they remove the new players(IE they move up the brackets a little) they are unable to capitalize off the enemy new players, and they move back down due to the higher quality of players.
I get your point and I am not in the habit of blaming people for losses. However I am focused on improving the ranked experience for people.

It is pretty frustrating to get a bunch of completely new players on your team compared to a team of seasoned guys that have not broken out of the 1000-1300 ELO segment yet.

Even just a few games in their own pool would allow the match maker to get a bit more confidence over their approximate ELO and guarantee they understand the way draft pick works before unleashing them on the rest of us.

9) Add ward only item slots
Quote:
Originally Posted by Selcopa View Post
It nerfs Wriggles Lantern for one thing, but also it takes away from decision making, do I buy that extra dorans or that next part to my big item? Do I sell one of my dorans so I have a slot for wards? These decisions are what separates players, by eliminating these choices, you are simplifying the game and taking away from the skill that many players have.
I agree it "takes away" some decisions from the game and simplifies things. However that is not a bad thing in itself. I can list countless examples where simplifying things is actually a good thing. The real question is whether the decision to carry an item or a ward adds value to the league of legends experience or detracts from it.

I believe it detracts so am happy to have it removed. Why is it that I have to choose between a 75/125 gold disposable item I carry from the shop and plop down vs a 3k item I keep indefinitely? Why is it that someone on team has to purposely choose to be weaker by an entire 3k gold item just to be able to carry some dumb 75/125 gold items and also has the burden of funding all those in late game because the rest of the team can't carry them? These are not choices that add to the game - they are choices that negatively impact on teamwork. Therefore getting rid of that "choice" is a good thing for the game.

As to your point on wriggles it does not devalue it in the way you suggest. At the point that wriggles is at its most potent (early to mid game) people always have free item slots to carry wards anyway. The benefit of wriggles is not having to go back to base every 2 mins and spend 75 gold to keep a ward up on a key location plus the ability to mow through jungle or lane minions quickly. Very late game people generally ditch wriggles in favour of pricier item like bloodthirster and leave the support to do the warding which is a meta I do not personally like.

Regarding Dorans, people that buy 5 Dorans are going to have to sell them anyway to make space for more expensive items. And they will lose gold in the process.

Regarding dodging....

Quote:
Originally Posted by Selcopa View Post
In addition to the dodge time, id be fine with reintroducing the elo loss accompanied with it, the original purpose of eliminating the elo loss was supposedly to prevent players from tanking their elo via dodging in order to stomp bad players, if you kept the 30 minute scaling timer that would make it take a significant amount of time to tank your elo, but you would eliminate the mini game of being 'forced to dodge'
Quote:
Originally Posted by Selcopa View Post
Id be okay with this, my question would be what about selections where someone dodges?
These comments around dodge timers etc goes outside of the suggestions on my thread but since you brought it up multiple times I will give you my thoughts on it. It is obviously a hot topic for you.

We both agree that dodging is a bad thing for ranked. However IMHO removing the ELO hit for dodging was a good change as it all but removed ELO tanking from LOL. Playing against a significantly better player that happens to dodge a lot was not fun. Dodging has nothing to do with skill so does not belong in a reflection of ELO.

What is wrong is that the dodge timer is the same for ranked as blind pick. This is stupid given a dodge in ranked wastes potentially 5+ mins of people's time vs a dodge in blind pick which only wastes approx 1 min. I believe the best solution is to have the timers aligned with total player time wasted rather than reintroducing the ELO dodge penalty. I would propose having the timer visible in hero selection and have count upwards up in the hero selection itself. The longer you wait to dodge the more penalty you should get because the more of other people's time you wasted. The exact numbers would be up to Riot to choose but say for example it started at 15 mins and counted up 9 sec for every 1 sec in hero select (due to their being 9 other players). This means if all the banning and hero selection activity takes 5 mins and you dodge at the end you would have to wait 15 + 9 x 5 = 60 mins. If you left immediately you would only be hit with a 15 min penalty. If you left after 1 min you would be hit with a 15 + 9 = 24 min penalty, etc


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

gClips

Member

11-19-2012

Quote:
Originally Posted by DukeSkills View Post
So what I was discussing with a couple WoW friends of mine, is that it could be similar to the Dungeon Finder that was implemented during Cataclysm. The big issue with role calls is that queue times increase, as there will be fewer supports to queue into the system. This was fixed for tanks and heals in WoW by giving them bonuses and extra daily incentives to queue as that role to increase queue times. Also, the biggest problem I feel is the champion selection. There are multiple champs like Zyra, Lux, Nid, Fiddle. etc that people see pros play and feel are viable supports. If you were choosing the support role, could you pick any champion? Heck, if you choose any role, what determines the champion for that role? People could still troll by picking retarded ADCs or what not, as well as take advantage of the support incentive. I believe to fix this issue, Riot should talk with the eSports division, and talk to the pro players and give each champion up to 3 roles, most only 2. For example, Zyra is of course a viable mid, and secondary can be played as support. Each player would then be given a set list of champions base on what they own. Yet, this then poses a problem of, "what if I want to trade my selection down in order to counter?" In this instance, your for-mentioned solution of implementing a system of asking a player to trade pick order would suffice.

Just my 2 cents.
Dungeon System got ****ed up to where if you were a tank and healer you would get insta pops while DPS would have long ass pop times.

Same thing would probably happen.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Gray the Grayte

Senior Member

11-21-2012

Quote:
Originally Posted by SixxTwinWounds View Post
Um funny how you didn't say to remove elo in general.
Thanks for your comment.

I have deliberately focused this thread on some non controversial suggestions that will incrementally improve the ranked experience noticeably without requiring a ground up rebuild of the matchmaker.

For better or for worse, the use of the 1v1 ELO system for multiplayer is well and truly embedded in Riot's philosophy. I do not see it changing any time soon.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Khaz and Effect

Member

11-21-2012

Roles. riot pls.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Selcopa

Senior Member

11-21-2012

Wanted to just mention that I haven't forgotten about this thread. I just haven't had time to put a concise thoughtful post that covers everything. Also move been on my phone posting lately and that is much slower


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

SugÓrFreeMints

Senior Member

11-22-2012

Bump for a good cause..
+ you should add remove duo que from solo ranked..