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


LP system

12
Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

ImChenggg

Junior Member

06-17-2014

Alright so ranked is impossible for me to climb, Im gaining 10 lp a game so I thought oh that's not that bad, but I lose over 21 lp a game! in order for me to get into a series I would need to win 10 games in a row which is highly unlikely for most people including me. I've been at plat v for over a month now and i'm starting to think what is the point of ranked. They should just keep it so you lose less than you gain so it is possible to climb ranked.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Isamichi

Senior Member

06-17-2014

Apparently you're not meant for plat:
http://na.leagueoflegends.com/en/competitive/2014-season-faq/

http://leagueoflegends.wikia.com/wiki/League_system

But who knows? See if you can show Riot wrong and stick to plat


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Cat Eyed Liar

Senior Member

06-17-2014

Yup, if you lose much more LP than you gain, it's a sign that your MMR is substantially lower than Plat V. You'll need to improve or face potential relegation back to Gold I.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

OhBoyItsaMegaman

Senior Member

06-17-2014

The amount of LP you lose or gain depends on where your MMR is in relation to your division and tier. Although your profile says Platinum V, your MMR appears to be around Gold III or Gold IV, judging by the tiers of your recent teammates and opponents.

Playing against Gold players and winning only half of your games is a sign that you're not ready to play against real Plat players and not ready to move up to Plat IV, so that's why you're not seeing good gains. If you can consistently win even a fee more games than you lose against Gold III players, you will be gaining MMR even though your LP isn't going up. You will gradually start seeing larger win and smaller losses.

On the other hand, if you are stuck going roughly 50/50 vs. Gold IIIs, the system is designed to keep you in Plat V until you demonstrate that you've improved.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Quil Evrything

Senior Member

06-17-2014

Quote:
Cat Eyed Liar:
Yup, if you lose much more LP than you gain[add by Quil: "per match" ?] , it's a sign that your MMR is substantially lower than Plat V. You'll need to improve or face potential relegation back to Gold I.



waitwhut? I thought that's backwards:
I thought that if your MMR is HIGHER than your opponents, you get penalized by (low gain, high loss)
But if your MMR is LOWER than your opponents, you get boosted by (high gain, low loss)

From the official FAQ:
Quote:

There are numerous factors, but if your competitors are generally ranked higher than you, you’ll gain more LP for victories (and lose less from losses) and trend upwards even with a 50/50 record. If matchmaking favors your opponent, you’ll gain more LP than normal if you pull off the upset. The opposite is also true.


So, to the OP: Welcome to your own personal (the system is stupid) ELO-hell.

(The system is stupid because it works against itself like this. Tiers should just be straight MMR levels)


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Isamichi

Senior Member

06-17-2014

I'll clarify the post and everything.

To clarify, MMR = Matchmaking Rating (Formerly known as Elo)
LP = League points
Tiers = gold,silver,bronze, etc leagues.

Quote:
Quil Evrything:

From the official FAQ:
There are numerous factors, but if your competitors are generally ranked higher than you, you’ll gain more LP for victories (and lose less from losses) and trend upwards even with a 50/50 record. If matchmaking favors your opponent, you’ll gain more LP than normal if you pull off the upset. The opposite is also true.

The initial example is talking about team MMR vs your MMR and how it affects LP Gains. Not your MMR relative to the tier you're in.

There are general MMR ranges for each tier & division of a tier. How far you are from those assumed values determines your general LP gains... However, the gain is modified by the relative MMRs of the teams.

Quote:


So, to the OP: Welcome to your own personal (the system is stupid) ELO-hell.

(The system is stupid because it works against itself like this. Tiers should just be straight MMR levels)


Actually, the league system is only 2 years old at best (actually less.. around 1.75 yrs old). Previously, League used the Elo system rating and had a ranked ladder that placed you against EVERYONE IN THE REGION. Riot deemed it unproductive because seeing yourself jump from 1903845th to 1903840th isn't very encouraging.

Also, this created alot of anxiety in each tier: Since you could easily drop from gold -> silver in just one game, people are less likely to play so they can keep the "gold" title (divisions didn't exist at the time) which caused people to not play ranked due to the risk.

If you dont like the system, propose a NEW system that addresses the current problems and acknowledges its own inherent problems. Else, talking about it but not proposing a solution is just air... (and dont pull up that talkign about it lets people know about it CUZ EVERYONE KNOWS ABOUT IT)


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Quil Evrything

Senior Member

06-17-2014

Quote:
Isamichi:
Previously, League used the Elo system rating and had a ranked ladder that placed you against EVERYONE IN THE REGION. Riot deemed it unproductive because seeing yourself jump from 1903845th to 1903840th isn't very encouraging.

Also, this created alot of anxiety in each tier: Since you could easily drop from gold -> silver in just one game, people are less likely to play so they can keep the "gold" title (divisions didn't exist at the time) which caused people to not play ranked due to the risk.

If you dont like the system, propose a NEW system that addresses the current problems and acknowledges its own inherent problems.



So, make it percentage output based.

people dont see meaningless 10 digit numbers any more; they'd see truncated "you are in the xy.z% tier now" values.

When they cleanly transition to (?? tiervalue??) then they get to be called gold or whatever.
And once you hit a new, higher tier, you get a grace period similar to now, where you can drop a bit under the percentile mark for a few games, and still cling onto your title, so long as you climb back up soon.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Cat Eyed Liar

Senior Member

06-17-2014

Quote:
Quil Evrything:
waitwhut? I thought that's backwards:
I thought that if your MMR is HIGHER than your opponents, you get penalized by (low gain, high loss)
But if your MMR is LOWER than your opponents, you get boosted by (high gain, low loss)

From the official FAQ:


So, to the OP: Welcome to your own personal (the system is stupid) ELO-hell.

(The system is stupid because it works against itself like this. Tiers should just be straight MMR levels)


Nope, and I can even refute that with personal experience. This season, I've skipped tiers twice since placing into Gold III (so upon winning my promos for G3, I went straight to G1 instead of G2, and the same occurred with my P5 to P3 promos). For all of those games I was getting matched with players at least one or two, sometimes three whole tiers above me, and for every game I won I got 25-28LP, and for every game I lost I dropped 12-17 LP. Team MMRs for those games were still about even.

And yes, as Isaimichi has elaborated on, before the League system Ranked used to be based on an ELO score from 0-2400, with 1200 being the median and starting point for all players (and is probably equivalent to Silver II or III). You would have no promotions and pass in and out of divisions if you passed certain ELO values, which would make dropping from Gold to Silver (or getting from Silver into Gold) extremely unsatisfying and unrewarding. The League and promo system attributes more worth to ranking up, as well as encourages continued good play and improvement to keep moving up the ladder as well as granting leniency for dropping tiers unless your MMR is so poor that it would warrant a tier demotion.

In Season 3, once you got promoted up a League (Bronze to Silver, Silver to Gold, etc. EXCEPT Diamond to Challenger), it would be impossible to be demoted back down no matter how many games you lost at Tier V, 0LP. Unfortunately, this promoted toxic gameplay and an IDGAF attitude at every Tier V, which made climbing out of them an especially unpleasant experience, so they changed it to be a demotion if your MMR falls 2 tiers below your current ranking in order to keep everyone from slacking off.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Matthias9119

Senior Member

06-17-2014

Quote:
people dont see meaningless 10 digit numbers any more; they'd see truncated "you are in the xy.z% tier now" values.


Seen this debates back and forth many times before. Some other games, notably SC2, do percentage-of-active-players "tiers".

It's nice because it's clearly defined, but it's also extremely arbitrary where you draw the lines and the meaning of being "top X%" can change drastically over time.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Isamichi

Senior Member

06-18-2014

Quote:
Quil Evrything:
So, make it percentage output based.

people dont see meaningless 10 digit numbers any more; they'd see truncated "you are in the xy.z% tier now" values.

When they cleanly transition to (?? tiervalue??) then they get to be called gold or whatever.
And once you hit a new, higher tier, you get a similar grace period where you can drop a bit under the percentile mark for a few games, and still cling onto your title.


hmm actually.. that's a very interesting proposition that can be strongly considered.

The only question I pose concerning that now is one of the core benefits of the league system:
The league system divides going up the ladder (in this case.. lower in percent, assuming top ?% of players) into smaller, bite-sized goals to accomplish. For example, the creation of divisions within each tier/league allows visible progress and encouragement to keep going at it (because .. you know.. you WERE X-tier division 5 three weeks ago and now you're division 2!). How would you address the, in the way riot would put it, lack of clarity or significant observable reward in progressing up the ladder? or would you write that off as a negative of the % ladder system you've created?


12