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


Suggestions concerning the way Matchmaking works

Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Private Riem

Senior Member

06-24-2011

Quote:
Bane Wraith:
For the record, it would be easier if you answered Outside of quotes, somehow, so we can make it clear which points We're addressing of Yours. ^_^

The Votekick; ...It doesn't matter what its Purpose is, If it can be abused to simply Kick players for Any reason, I simply dislike it. The only saving grace of such a feature is that it's not directly affecting Live Gameplay here. It might still lead to quite a bit of abuse and prejudice in the lower levels.. and Anyone that has a visible leaving record as well...

Like I said, limit the number of times you can use it simply prevent people from abusing it. You use all your kicks because you don't like somebody, too bad you have to make another lobby (and lose all your teammates) or live with it. If it were to not be there you could have somebody just go afk and troll ad infinitum. Thats bad. You can have 4 players ready to work together and an idiot that simply doesn't care and is there just to annoy everybody.

Quote:
Bane Wraith:

In terms of Matchmaking, I'm afraid this would Still likely be considered Premade, in terms of average elo rating; it Should and Would be matched with other premades and teams, of the same (higher) average elo rating, as it happens now. You are lending players infinite ability to prepare themselves, Random group or not... Therefore, I remain rather Absolute that these are considered Premade teams. The elo rating mock-up however, would Not need to be included, if it abides the suggestions below:
...If I may clarify my own propositions for this system...

...Keep all previous ideas. Include inviting in these lobbies, Therefore making them the equivalent of a premade game.

Let No premade/lobby game enter queue without being a complete set of players ( 5 for 5vs5, 3 for 3vs3 )
...I'm Still against implementing the vote/kick system, and recommend the Hosting system. This would also eliminate the factor of deciding When a new lobby is made, as well as give arbitrary rights to a vote/kick... Rather than having the possible bully-by-the-majority... And of course, Players are still free to leave the lobby on a whim. However, if you still oppose this, then I would simply suggest Not having a vote/kick system; And players that leave simply won't be able to rejoin the same lobby. Regardless, you'd need to clarify How and When a new lobby is formed.

Original idea was to automatically join random people in a lobby instead of the character selection screen. So it would be the MM who made the teams. If you allow them to invite, it ruins the whole point as you could end up with random players getting kicked to make room for a friend. Thats bad too. However, if we were to make this premade and allow invites, it would have to work differently. A premade team would be made in a current "locked" lobby, and have a toggle "allow random players". It would tell the MM to assign a random player of similar elo to the lobby. THAT could work. I still think people should not be able to invite (exception being what I just said) as to not end up in an "invite" battle as to who can invite his friends first.
Quote:
Bane Wraith:

...Having Solo queue and Lobby/Premade queue on two different grounds Would split gamestyles, in what I believe is a Good way; Playing solo with a randomly selected team relies on certain skills, while playing with a team you've had the ability to plan with, relies on others. (Duo-queue would still likely be joined with Solo-queuers, though, instead of being Forced to join a lobby)

Having those separate would simply (like the current matchmaking we have) not be fun at all, especially at low elo (in ranked)
This is what I have an issue with. My system would be there to encourage teamwork instead of just "blindly-pick-whatever-you-want-to-play,-screw-you-guys-and-good-luck-everybody-else." It would help with 2 big issues with the MM right now:
1: Some players refuse to cooperate
2: Players don't have the time to cooperate before game starts
It would allow the community that actually team work to get rid the trolls and give them the time to communicate and work together before the game actually starts.
Is it comparable to an actual premade team? Of course not. Premade teams already had the chance to play together multiple times, know the strength and weaknesses of each other and know how to compensate for these. Random players can't and will never achieve this level of teamwork in one game no matter what we do.
Yes, kickvote can be abused, but its a necessary evil to a system that would greatly improve matchmaking.

Also, just showing the actual Elo instead of game won/lost/left (in ranked of course) would, I hope, stop people from actually checking the profile of the people they would play with.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Hughn Stone

Senior Member

06-24-2011

I love this idea! Voted up.

And, if I may, I would like to throw in a suggestion of my own -- if, during a game, a team hits the "surrender button", the team needs only a majority to surrender, rather than the current 80% (assuming full team). My reasoning is this: many times, people are either too stubborn // hopeful in the games. When a team is down 30 kills to 10, there is almost no way to come back from that point. Still, however, in almost every game I play, people try to trek on for the win, and the disparity gets greater and greater. With a majority-only ruling, at least the game does not have to be as long and drawn out as it would be in the current system.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Bane Wraith

Senior Member

06-24-2011

Quote:
Private Riem:


Original idea was to automatically join random people in a lobby instead of the character selection screen. So it would be the MM who made the teams. If you allow them to invite, it ruins the whole point as you could end up with random players getting kicked to make room for a friend. Thats bad too. However, if we were to make this premade and allow invites, it would have to work differently. A premade team would be made in a current "locked" lobby, and have a toggle "allow random players". It would tell the MM to assign a random player of similar elo to the lobby. THAT could work. I still think people should not be able to invite (exception being what I just said) as to not end up in an "invite" battle as to who can invite his friends first.

...

Is it comparable to an actual premade team? Of course not. Premade teams already had the chance to play together multiple times, know the strength and weaknesses of each other and know how to compensate for these. Random players can't and will never achieve this level of teamwork in one game no matter what we do.
Yes, kickvote can be abused, but its a necessary evil to a system that would greatly improve matchmaking.

...
.


...I want to hear other peoples' opinion for the votekick, and leave that aside for now... Though, just as a reminder, I'm still against it.. XD

...And as for the Comparison between This and Premade, Same deal; However, it's starting to look like it's going to be a Compromise between the two... a Slight rise in rating, but not quite comparable to a premade.

Anyways, That aside, I'm sorry, should probably be focusing on the fundamentals: I think it's Vital you go into detail about How these lobbies are formed, And whether or not they have a Time Limit.

...Your first post mentions the players entering a Lobby Before actually entering Queue, to find an enemy team. But what you Actually mean is having Two lobbies formed at the exact same time, Destined to fight one another, but relying on each one to "ready up first", before every match?

Also, to the gentleman that proposed the Surrender by Majority.... Make another thread. =P Doesn't belong here, and there were several others before it.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Private Riem

Senior Member

06-25-2011

Quote:
Bane Wraith:
...I want to hear other peoples' opinion for the votekick, and leave that aside for now... Though, just as a reminder, I'm still against it.. XD


...Your first post mentions the players entering a Lobby Before actually entering Queue, to find an enemy team. But what you Actually mean is having Two lobbies formed at the exact same time, Destined to fight one another, but relying on each one to "ready up first", before every match?


No? Why would it be any different than the way MM handle current premade teams?


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Bane Wraith

Senior Member

06-25-2011

Quote:
Private Riem:
No? Why would it be any different than the way MM handle current premade teams?


Because a Premade Queue involves a Host, and a Lobby, Before it goes into Queue. Therefore my other suggestion.

...How is MM going to group 5 random people together, without anticipating what they'll be up against? That's what the current Solo-queue does, if I'm not mistaken; It doesn't create a team, and match them with another... it simultaneously creates both teams, where average elo is matched up.

Your first post mentions this being made Before the team actually enters Q... and That would be *roughly* okay, though there'd still be the chance of a skill gap. My question then was, "How would MM know when to Start a new group?"... But the only say I see a team being Instantly assembled with a party the exact equivalent of what you'd find in Solo-Queue Now, Is that the party would also have a predetermined Enemy party, made at the same time...

...Don't hesitate to ask for clarification. 24 hours no sleep does that... But I still believe the argument to be sound...


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Private Riem

Senior Member

06-25-2011

Quote:
Bane Wraith:
Because a Premade Queue involves a Host, and a Lobby, Before it goes into Queue. Therefore my other suggestion.

...How is MM going to group 5 random people together, without anticipating what they'll be up against? That's what the current Solo-queue does, if I'm not mistaken; It doesn't create a team, and match them with another... it simultaneously creates both teams, where average elo is matched up.

Your first post mentions this being made Before the team actually enters Q... and That would be *roughly* okay, though there'd still be the chance of a skill gap. My question then was, "How would MM know when to Start a new group?"... But the only say I see a team being Instantly assembled with a party the exact equivalent of what you'd find in Solo-Queue Now, Is that the party would also have a predetermined Enemy party, made at the same time...

...Don't hesitate to ask for clarification. 24 hours no sleep does that... But I still believe the argument to be sound...


This system involves a lobby before it goes into queue. The only difference would be the lack of Host. So it would go like this. A player decide to join a lobby. Matchmaking check his elo and try to find a lobby suitable for him. He finds one, the party is now full.
Or: MM doesn't find a lobby. He looks for players with similar elo, finds them, then create a lobby.

When the party is ready, the matchmaking checks for a suitable team to play against.

There will always be a small skill gap, because the current MM already does that and it seems like its not going to change. Also a reason why it should not count as premade.

Premade lobbies don't have a predermined enemy team. My lobby would work the same way.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Bane Wraith

Senior Member

06-25-2011

That system, unfortunately, does Not seem like it'd bode well for Varying Elo ratings... Since it then provides no real way of counteracting lower or higher elo players, that may be far less populous than the mainstream. It does not give the player a 50/50 chance of winning, Always imbalanced in some respect or form...

At the same time, it has a kind of appeal, since it would group Everyone by their percentile. But it would need a certain threshold to determine When to create a new room... Since modern MM system simply Extends its possible range over time. I would Solidify the concept of an "Elo Hell", in a terrifying manner, since it's Quite possible to have a steep difference between groups of players... A small void, where only few players fit; Anything higher would be Decent players, Anything lower would be "Elo Hell"...

Again, just a train of thought. Will read up tomorrow.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Private Riem

Senior Member

06-30-2011

Quote:
Bane Wraith:
That system, unfortunately, does Not seem like it'd bode well for Varying Elo ratings... Since it then provides no real way of counteracting lower or higher elo players, that may be far less populous than the mainstream. It does not give the player a 50/50 chance of winning, Always imbalanced in some respect or form...


I don't understand how it would be unbalanced unless we allow players to invite.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Private Riem

Senior Member

07-01-2011

Bump


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Chevalier12

Senior Member

07-02-2011

This is a very good idea, I'm just waiting for a red to troll this topic now.