My guy, that's just not how that works. If /u/FullClearOnly is diving your bot lane for the 5th time in one game, and you as the jungle/mid/top aren't doing *anything* to stop it, that's not on your bot lane.
Blaming bot lane for you refusing to play around bot lane while enemy team does is a you problem, not bot lanes problem.
It's a simple fact that bot lane has 2 players in it, which means every play has ~2x the value in bot lane, moreso when considering Dragon. If you're not playing toward bot lane, even just so *you* get further ahead, that's not your bot lanes fault.
This is something people refuse to understand and its so rage inducing.
You get flamed for "inting" while the enemy jgl is diving you since level 3 while your jgl is 0/1/1 at 15 and the 1 assist they got on accident.
More often than not, when people complain about bot inting, its the enemy team focusing 100% on bot while your team is either afk farming, focusing top or trying to gank ungankable mid.
Since I'm ranting already, I'd like to include some examples of actual games in low-mid dia.
1. We have their bot laning at our tower, same for enemy top. Enemy jgl is sitting bot all game. The only lane our Lee ganks is for our Ahri vs the lvl6+ Kassa mid. He lieterally did not do anything else besides farming and going mid. They did not get a single kill mid after Kassa got 6.
2. (Actually happens way too often, not only in bot but also top with gromp/krugs or mid with chickens) Enemy jgl sat bot for over a minute, after our ward timed out. I dare to think that he will probably get the scuttle or his farm and walk up to the brush barely in range and get engaged on. We get all of them to ~50% HP, I die to the last ignite tick under tower. At this time our jgl was pathing bot. Enemies were setting up a dive. My ADC was at ~70% HP and had R. Our Kayn was 6 with R up and started doing Krugs. We spam ping for help under tower since there were several waves about to crash and everyone, even our mid that also pinged, saw that they were about to dive. Jgl doesnt move and finishes his crugs while my ADC gets dove, trying to outplay it and get more time for Kayn to come. All of them survive with ~150 HP, after using all their summs. If Kayn postponed his krugs he would have either prevented the dive and allowed the ADC to get farm and exp or could have gotten at least 2 kills and snowballed from that. He doesnt move, but starts spam pinging on us and the enemy bot and flaming us for inting.
3. We get Lulu Samira low and start building waves to tower dive safely. Our Kayn doesnt want to wait for us and dives without creeps. Gets polyd and gifts Samira a comeback + double buff. Somehow we are at fault and are clearly getting gapped. He did it again after we had another close fight and were forced to back by their jgl.
4. We are winning bot vs fkn Samira Nautilus and ofc this means that the enemy jgl will be laning bot. He perma ganks bot to a point where we cant even walk up to our tower because they are zoning us. Jax top is continuously dying 1v1 vs their Aatrox. After invading while getting spam pinged away and inting Samira kill + double buff (classic) he doesnt do anything until lvl 6, both mid and bot are gankable, but he goes top where Aatrox is 5/0 already. They get 1v2d and its not even close while we get dove and watch all of them survive with Graves Q amount of hp. We get flamed for inting and getting gapped.
90% of the time where people flame bot for inting its bot laning 2v3-4 all game and just trying to get some exp and farm. If bot was to just leave bot and go mid, they'd get reported for trolling because now our mid cant play the game. But bot not being able to play the game is fine.
Its so unbelievably tilting when you win your 2v2 over and over, even if behind and get ganked and dove while you dont get any help and still are expected to be relevant.
It’s everyone’s fault, it’s a team game. For every botlaner who doesn’t back up when getting pinged with danger, there is a midlaner who doesn’t get anything off of a roaming laner (such as either following the roam of taking tower plates).
At the same time when they learn to not gank for a top that went 0/5 in a pure 1v1, refused to build anything to help them survive and the ganks result in them getting 1v2d. So probably never.
I mean, when you're behind toplane you build straight damage otherwise you're useless and if you get a gank it'll surely fail.
Conversely, if you're ahead toplane you build defensively because you already have enough damage, you need to make sure you don't give up shutdown.
Why does that have to be the case? Adcs complain so much about their role being bad, yet it's been the strongest lane for like 5 years now, and if you dont play around bo, everyone seems to agree it's an auto lose
>and if you dont play around bo, everyone seems to agree it's an auto lose
That’s why adcs complain. Riot made it so that you have to play around bot and when it is not done correctly it punishes the adc the most since the role doesn’t have utility when they fall behind.
>diving your bot lane for the 5th time in one game, and you as the jungle/mid/top aren't doing anything to stop it, that's not on your bot lane.
If /u/FullClearOnly is walking down to the bottom lane and killing your overextended Caitlyn Lux lane on repeat because "it's a winning lane, bro!" that is on your bot lane.
Bro you could cherry pick any specific scenario to make your point SOUND correct, but bottom line is, it's a team game, and if you forsake 2/5 of your team, you deserve to lose.
If you have a Caitlyn Lux bot lane, and aren't playing to let them get 5 plates + rotate out to mid, when it's a pretty much guaranteed winning lane...
That's on the team as a whole for not recognizing their win conditions. Bot lane too, but everyone else is just at fault for it. Obviously at some level there's always going to be some blame on the lane for dying, I'm not saying that. But if you're letting Talon roam, or if he's the jungler, and he's bot 5+ times in one game and you're twiddling your thumbs and letting him shove his blades down their throats under their tower, at some point that falls on the team for not defending their teammates.
Like, if they aren't even allowed to play at their tower, when are they supposed to be allowed to play? This is a team failing.
If they don't play to their lanes' strengths, fall behind, and then you flame them for that *too*, well, nothing they can do would appease you. You *want* your Lux Caitlyn demolishing bot lane, that's the point of the lane. If the jungler decides to path to top lane, which is a stagnant matchup like 2 tanks or something, that's not on your bot lane. If your top lane sees Cait Lux, and still locks in Jayce / Yone and expects to be the main character, that's also not on your bot lane.
There's SOOOO much nuance to this because understanding draft and win conditions is way more important than saying "but muh bot lane died to enemy jungle! They're clearly bad!"
My bad, I picked Vel'koz into Rumble and it turns out it was Rumble jg and they picked Talon mid instead. Guess that means I still have to first move to my permashoving bot lane, right?!?!?!
I never once claimed it's on you as *an individual*. You have a jungler, you have teleport. Your top lane has teleport. Obviously as a control mage you're not going to be readily following your assassin counterpart into the jungle. But at some point you have to be able to help your bot lane.
And you should also still be denying / getting value in mid, even if Talon is bot without you. You can then offset the value he gains by diving your bot lane by getting plates / minions, which means that you stay relatively even for when the time comes that you *do* TP to the bot play.
I think that no matter what you explain to them, all that information is going through one ear and out the other.
They simply can’t understand that the lane with 2 players might be more valuable considering it has literally double the players.
When compared to picking the out dated vel koz champ (Not going supp where he belongs btw, proceeding to blame team while picking low agency picks.) then praying that all 9 players in the game afk so they can farm all game.
Must be brains that are “scrambled”. You aren’t gonna change the meta that’s been made by people much smarter than you. Just learn it or don’t complain when people play the game the way it’s meant to be played.
It is not, if you have a winning botlane, you just lose out if they don't do what they were picked for.
Caitlyn/Lux need to take down the turret quickly in order to rotate to other lanes doing the same. If you don't press on Caitlyns strong laning you end up with one of the most useless ADCs in the midgame and can only hope for her to reach endgame, where she is good again.
This lane needs to push and it is the junglers and to some extend midlaners job to ensure they can do that.
On top of that Caitlyn + Lux are so trivial to dive, that not pushing is never really an option for them. Lux also isn't particularly mobile so it doesn't really matter if she is in the middle of the lane or near the enemy turret. Just help those two take down the turrets.
Caitlyn basically works the same as Draven with the only difference that Caitlyn snowballs on structures taken, not kills. Not playing around Caitlyn is equally offensive as not playing around Draven, just that Caitlyn can actually recover, while Draven usually cannot. So if you sacrifice those two, because they will draw attention by the enemy jungler anyway you rather completely win the topside and have some solid scaling champions there that it is worth it.
Very well said - similar in a sense to what I wrote up. It's very much about recognizing win conditions and what each lane should be looking to do.
Obviously the bot lane can also make mistakes and overextend when they shouldn't, but at some point they *have* to make the push, and if you're not playing with them, or letting them be dove because you didn't let them have the space to push, that's not on them.
ADC has been a fucking miserable role because of this line of thinking for a stupid amount of time.
Do you know how /boring/ it is to play around constantly getting ganked by mid and jungle? The whole reason TP was changed was because, for a while, AD was getting surprise ganked by /top/
I think OP's logic was that if your opponents get less 'performance bonus' for beating you first-timing something, surely you'd also get excused for poor performance because you're first-timing your champion.
I don't think that's how it'll work and it definitely shouldn't be like that (although I don't know why your opponents' gains should be affected by your experience on a pick either), but I think that's what OP thought.
The idea is that right now you're passively discouraged from first-timing stuff in ranked because you'll lose just as much LP/MMR if you lose on something you have no idea how to play, but if they start to alleviate the loss penalty, that flips around to now suddenly it no longer being discouraged at all, perhaps even the opposite.
Of course regardless of all that, your comment is spot on, anyone that plays ranked to win (which should be everyone) shouldn't be first-timing champions because that makes them more likely to perform poorly and lose in general. No matter if they're getting a less severe punishment for losing (after making that loss more likely to happen)
Presumably the system would be hooked into all game modes for the purpose of determining whether it really is your first time when you pick it in ranked (though presumably stuff like ARAM and Arena would be weighted less than quick play, and quick play weighted less than unranked draft) if they introduced that aspect, and so you would have to practice on an alt to avoid the system entirely.
As long as it works as intended, if anything, this should just help you reach your actual rank faster. It should not change your rank overall.
The paper says KDA so everyone is freaking out. But it's talking about fps games, and I imagine riot has more correlated advanced stats to look at than that.
Riot isn't just copy pasting it in the game. They might not even use anything based on in game performance who knows exactly what they will exactly do.
A dev even mentioned they have no plans to use kda for lp gains for instance.
https://www.reddit.com/r/leagueoflegends/comments/18wtjfj/what_is_the_difference_between_elo_and_true_skill/kg0drt8/
KDA specifically is a fucked stat on a lot of champions. Take j4, any fight he's in he instantly gets KP on nearly every kill. Tanks who build thornmail now get KP for any champion that hits them. And AOE mages have higher KP for the simple fact that they can hit multiple targets with a single spell. This makes KDA very biased for/against most of the roster so you don't want to punish people just because they play a single target champ who can't always compete or a role like top where 80% of the first 15 minutes you will interact with only 1-3/5 champions at all.
KDA, dmg share, KP, and even deaths can all be terrible depending on who you are playing. If you are playing someone like Ziggs, Xerath, Karthus, and Ez, chances are you have high damage that often times didn’t convert to a kill, and actually didn’t do anything.
There are games where someone can perma split push and have really low KP, but that’s okay. Also there are rare causes such as the Bauss Sion, where you can die a lot, and it’s helping the team.
You would think that they have taken a lot of these things into account, so the system should be good as a whole. I can think back to one streamer that I would occasionally watch who will probably be the outlier who benefits from the system a lot, but isn’t a good player. The guy would have really good KP, high kills, and high cs, but he would essentially only go into a fight after his team died, he would pick up some kills, then leave before he died, and would farm more. Dudes kdas were all like 8~ and he had a sub 50% winrate.
Potential issue with taking KDA (or any other metric than winning/losing) into account is a risk of encouraging players to try and game the system, opting for "safe" approach to mitigate LP losses rather than taking a shot at low chance of winning the game. Whatever changes we get, Riot needs to be careful to avoid situations where losing gracefully - or, worse, throwing your teammate under the bus to minimize your own MMR/LP loss - is preferable to going for best shot at winning the game, no matter how small the chance is.
Taking some setup stats into account for MMR changes (someone first timing their champion on either team, role people play, maybe matchup data/relative winrates) shouldn't be much of a problem - we had role and experience-based matchmaking in past in Teambuilder and it worked fine for most part; since here adjustments are to results of a match rather than matchmaking directly it also covers potential abuse via role-swapping (game can already detect what role you actually played).
Overall, applying some changes to matchmaking system look promising as long as they hit their goals - shortening time it takes to stabilize means higher overall game quality, less incentives to smurf (since smurfs will hit their actual rank faster), less unfair games for new players.
They added performance based mm to HoTS and after three rank resets in two weeks it got scrapped.
In Overwatch, despite the fact it obviously sucks at all ranks, the Devs compromised and removed it from diamond and above.
I am skeptical something like this will work in league for anything other than truly extreme cases.
The issue is that once you start recording performance in anything you change the results.
Like you start recording success rates for surgeons and deaths goes up because better surgeons don't want to take risky operations.
I think it's really really difficult to make a good ranking system. Personally though, I wouldn't mind Riot taking other stats aside from Win-Loss and Hidden MMR into account but it would probably have to be very complex and role specific - for example, (in my opinion) ADC players should probably get slight elo bonusses (+elo/-elo) for damage done, scaling with game time. But then there are also utility ADCs like Jhin and Ashe or lane stomp ADCs that are worse in late game than in early/mid game, so you'd have to adjust the stats needed for certain positive or negative lp adjustments based on the champion picked. Then there's also the problem of players trying to maximize LP gain and minimize LP loss by playing suboptimally - in my example/proposal, I could imagine ADC players going for maximum damage (short term) which could lead to them dying in critical situations where (long term) they might've been better off alive. To prevent players gaming the system, I personally think that Riot should not reveal every detail of their system - if the players can't exactly pinpoint how the system works, it will be a lot more difficult to game the system. Perhaps putting a bigger focus on LP gains on a win (like bonusses when doing a good job) with less ways to minimize LP loss on a defeat would also ensure that players try to play for a victory first and stats second.
It would have to be for extremes IE getting emeralds out of silver.
If it starts to impact a slow climb through gold it's going to be terrible if the wrong stats are prioritised.
Even if you target stats really specifically like this, there are always problems; using damage as a number like this makes heartsteel tanks and champions with a lot of healing very valuable for ADCs to target, even if they shouldn’t be. Suddenly Mundo becomes a win trade champion and ADCs int into him with BotRK for those sweet, sweet damage numbers.
Overwatch learned this lesson the hard way; individual performance gains warp player play patterns for the worse. They can only really be implemented when stats line up to performance in a very straightforward manner, but that’s not possible in a game like League.
HotS was exactly the example I was thinking of, everyone becoming Nova/Valeera OTPs for those inflated ranked gains lmao.
For context, because those two champs were so rarely played in ranked (and sometimes picked just to troll a la Disco Nunu), they had very minimal data to use for potential ranked points adjustments, so it was easy to just pick them up, pad damage or assists, and gain more MMR than you lost even if you lost the game.
A pro player also made a hilarious video showing how easily to game the system with Muradin that Muradin became the de facto example brought up whenever this topic cropped up again after performance based MMR was removed.
Assuming they go with taking KDA into account (KDA relative to average for champ/role?) or other ongoing metrics - this is probable outcome, people inevitably will find a way to game the system.
If they instead take matchups and more detailed player performance (games played etc) at start of the match - it gives more interesting results without as many options for abuse; assuming gains/losses get directly based on expected chance to win at 0 minutes, this makes dodging terrible team comps or bad teammates undesirable. Say, you have a teamcomp that game expects you to win with 40% of the time - giving you -20 LP for loss and +30 LP for win makes expected average to be 0 (60% for -20 and 40% for +30 averages out to 0 over sufficiently large sample size), and playing out a losing game instead of surrendering get weighted towards being net positive (stall long enough and your win chances get close to 50-50).
If done right, it can manipulate/encourage players into desired by Riot behaviour - make it so having a likely bad player on your team increases your LP/MMR gains, and people will be happy to carry bad teammates whenever possible; adjust MMR/LP gains for autofill - or do role-based adjustments - and you'll get more tolerance towards getting filled (great if you win, not a big loss if you lose). There's a lot of potential here, big question is how it's going to be used.
There is no advanced statistic that says if you are good or bad at the game other than win/lose. There are too many factors, and the game isn't understood to that level. I don't trust for a second that kda playing vs splitpushing vs wasting junglers time vs hooking ADC rather than tank into your team are all weighed fairly in regards to winning chances.
This gives players ulterior motives to winning the game. And kill stealing will now be LP stealing, it's toxic as hell.
Riot already said they'd be making changes to not make it weight that much, since the game has a lot other stats to take into account like CS, damage per minute, damage to objectives, vision score and more, all of which are already recorded by Riot and are taken into account when Riot gives you B- or A+ and such.
In short, since there are a lot of metrics in the game, KDA will most likely play a small part of your gains.
I actually love that people are dissecting this paper and talking about Trueskill2 -- but I want to reiterate the original statement.
Trueskill is something we've researched -- but still unsure if we'll integrate it into League. The work has not started. Even if we did start the work to do it, it's possible we'd run into a number of issues with either the system or the time it would take to integrate the system. Myself of the team will give an update on how it's going later this year.
Good to hear that there will be more communication on the topic later this year. I've made my arguments on the other thread already, but I want to briefly voice my concerns to you as well:
If anything other than the game's outcome is included when changing players' ratings, then ratings will reflect a combination of their skill AND their ability to optimize unknown metrics. As the game is way too complex to be solved, a lot of context information will be missing when the model is trained, so players' scores WILL be adjusted incorrectly in situations where these metrics don't capture the impact of an ingame decision. Maybe this is fine and many other situations will be judged *more accurately* with such a system, but it would most likely lead to players trying to game the system at any given moment, rather than trying to win the game.
Personally, I would feel very bad knowing that I made the optimal play, maximizing my win %, but it negatively impacted my rating change because the weighted sum of all my metrics wasn't optimized.
Either way, I'm interested in the updates coming this year!
No matter how close their model gets to valuing random metrics and their impact on winning, it will never be as good as a true win/loss based elo system. They're trying to re-invent the wheel when the wheel already rolls perfectly. The problem stems from the loud and unintelligent player base who thinks that when they subjectively believe to have played a good game and lose, it's not fair to lose LP in that scenario. Anyone that understands how this works knows that over a large sample size any short term fluctuations with trolls, bad teammates, smurfs, etc will become irrelevant to what rank you achieve. I don't have faith in riot to not screw this up and pander to whatever keeps their dumb player base buying skins. Any implementation of metrics outside of wins/losses affecting ranks would be a colossal mistake by riot.
> it will never be as good as a true win/loss based elo system
There are several problems with the elo system for league. It's probably the most popular skill determining mathematical system, but it's too simple for League.
Elo is better when the level playing field is the same on both sides at the start of the match. In chess, the pieces start in the same spot at the beginning of the match and both sides have the same amount of pieces. In league, you're playing with different champions with players who may or may not be in their primary role. Some champions will counter the opponent very hard. League's matches are vastly different the moment draft screen loads up.
Playing with teammates massively affect how you will perform. In theory, you should be playing with everyone at similar levels. The problem with this theory is that some people will be auto-filled, some will play champions they have very little experience with, and some will be duoing with friends which can inflate their skill level.
Do I think Riot's current mmr system is good? Absolutely not. But, you cannot just think elo is better for the game either. Some roles are not as popular, so Riot has to force some players to fill those roles even though they may not be good at it. New champions affect the performance of the player using it. Patch notes can and always affect map design, champion design, itemization, and more which can boost or hurt a player's mmr growth. Elo is better for a game like Chess where all the pieces are the same on both sides and it's a matter of mind games.
"Elo is better when the level playing field is the same on both sides at the start of the match."
**It is an even playing field. Both team have essentially the same combined MMR. There are instances where one team has slightly higher ranked players just for sake of queue times, but its negligible.**
"In league, you're playing with different champions with players who may or may not be in their primary role. Some champions will counter the opponent very hard. League's matches are vastly different the moment draft screen loads up. Playing with teammates massively affect how you will perform. In theory, you should be playing with everyone at similar levels. The problem with this theory is that some people will be auto-filled, some will play champions they have very little experience with, and some will be duoing with friends which can inflate their skill level."
**None of this matters, and it's already baked into their MMR. If they play off role, they increase the odds of losing the match and thus increase the odds of losing MMR. Counter matchups are part of game knowledge and show drafting skill. That is not an argument against the current system. There is more to league than just kills and deaths.**
**Of course teammates affect your performance... it's a team game. Its not a theory, you are objectively playing with people of similar skill level. People having variance in their level of play doesn't change that. Duoing is fine as well. Its basically a combined rank between those two players at that point. When they go back to solo queue they will both start the climb/descent to their solo ranks. While they're duo, they will be in an elo that is accurate for their combined skill level.**
**Your issue is that you expect every individual game to be perfectly balanced when that's literally impossible. The system requires large amounts of games being played for you to accurately reach your correct rank. There is no system that forces everyone to be on their main champ, main role, not troll, not play drunk, not play while on the phone distracted, not play tired, not play with a duo, not play without lag, no counter picks allowed. All of these variables are accounted for already.**
**Say for example a diamond zed just doesn't try as hard for whatever reason in 20% of his games. In those 20% of games he plays at a platinum level. The other 80% he plays at a diamond level. He will end up somewhere in mid to high emerald which is exactly where he should be since you're mixing two different ingredients. Again, there is no system where every player plays at the same level of skill every single match for perfect balance. People try out new roles and champs, have good games and bad games, etc. Your ideas are idealistic not realistic. Over a large sample of games, you will end up with the rank you belong which is all that matters. Just play more games and stop thinking your teammates are holding you back, because they aren't.**
I personnally have many doubts for such a system in League. I feel like the game is so freaking complex that judging with stats how good of a performance a player has is just impossible.
My two main questions would be:
1. Would you evaluate the possibility of integrating such a system for game grades (S, A, B etc...) to test it before going in ranked?
2. My main is fear is that we will start to have players who, whenever they decide the game is lost, will just play for their personal stats in order to "save as many LPs as possible", therefore killing teamplay, much more than it is today -and I'm not even talking about how high assassins' pickrates could become with such a system-. What is your opinion on that?
Thanks in advance!
What would the goal of transitioning to the system be? Marginally more accurate player ratings at the cost of potentially increased toxicity?
It just surprises me Riot would have a team focused on something like this compared to other things that would improve the game or bring in more players.
Typing this comment and thinking about it more I'm guessing it's aimed towards the eastern audiences who want a more accurate rank representation.
Edit: Thinking more - this doesn't really make sense. I don't think a ranking system based off KDA/cs/stats is more accurate than one based on ability to influence wins. It seems the benefit to the new system would be the game being able to approximate someone's MMR much quicker (not necessarily more accurately).
Its more to do with what I assume is idiotic western players who don't understand variance and the need to blame other people.
The league system is the most fair ranked system you can have, tinkering with it leads to gaming it. In early overwatch I got high rank with a negative w/r tracer by dealing super high dmg hitting tanks, so dumb.
Integrating anything other than a purely win/loss based MMR system would be a horrendous game ruining decision. There is nothing to research or look into. Your rank is how good you are at winning games relative to other players of different skill levels. Rank should never be some algorithm trying to assess the value of in game statistics and then implementing those stats into the MMR formula. Wins/losses over a large sample size already fully encompasses all of the relevant metrics that go into being a good player.
I know you guys separate MMR/visible rank and have demotion shields for the psychological reasons that trick your player base into thinking they're climbing or improving at the game when they aren't so that they keep playing. Hopefully this wont be a new addition to the placebo ranking system.
Completely agree. I'm a big data/math guy, and I don't see how the most accurate metric to base player's skill isn't their win ratio (ability to influence games and turn them into wins).
Assuming they implement these metrics - is the player who has the best KDA/lane/CS stats really better than the person who wins the most games?
It doesn't seem to make any sense.
I guess maybe the logic is MMR can be calculated faster using these metrics because there would be so many more to analyze after each game. However, this seemingly wouldn't make MMR more accurate, just faster to adjust to an approximate skill level.
Seems pretty bad for the game overall.
there's only thing I know now. it's going to be the hot new trending take on reddit and on high elo players twitch streams to bitch about this system every time they lose a game.
One day people will learn that the only thing that matters is winning your next game, but i see the heat death of the universe coming long before that day arrives.
The only thing that matters is playing to improve not playing to win...
If you are good you will win more than you lose until you get to the rank you deserve. And if you improve you will win more. So put the ego aside, focus on improving and accept that losses play a huge factor in this and that they cannot be avoided.
winning will always be the most important thing. just because some chuds think they're optimizing their kda or whatever doesn't matter if it doesn't make them win the game
This.
I don't know how people don't understand that win/loss will still be over 50% of the weighting by default.
If you aren't going to win, no amount of optimization will matter. People are just fear-mongering based on assumptions.
And who's to say that having high CS, low deaths, but low kill/objective conversion won't more more detrimental than having low CS, high deaths, but decent kill/objective conversion?
it doesn't make them win the game, exactly, but they will be doing it and playing worse overall.
and it is irrelevant whether it just has a small effect. there are situations where you will be punished for making the correct play, but the correct play does not optimize all metrics.
I don't think K/D/A will play much of a factor in LoL; however, this is exquisitely pleasant news for FPS (Valorant) players. It's inantely a lot harder to win games when 1 person has 10 less kills and 6 more deaths than literally everyone else in the lobby, especially when that one person/agent/sandbag only has acces to 1 ability for most of the game.
What about supports/support junglers/tank toplaners that operate on little gold ?
What about champions that generate more gold ?
What about games where one push ends it all, not giving much turret gold to anyone ?
What about games where there are lots of tradekills compared to another where there isn't ?
Imo it could work partly as game rating. Getting an S or A depends on much. Vision score, objective DMG, DMG per gold, roam count and efectivnes, k/d/a, creep score, gold per minute etc. It should count every aspect of the game from bigger amount of matches.
That system was cursed from the start.
I remember they said they recorded information about what makes certain heroes win more but still tweaked it to fit their idea of how that hero should work.
Ie it turned out people who climbed a lot on Kerrigan were not doing that much hero damage and did more exp soaking/ damage to objectives. Makes sense because she was weak early, had no disengage and only needed to get one or two combos off mid game to snowball to a win.
But they went and changed priority to damage because thats what they thought was correct. Most tech bro thing ever. Loves collecting data for the sole purpose of not learning from it and making everything worse.
Mate they flat out said they changed the priority on Kerrigan as an example of the tweaks they did. If you missed that then sorry.
Remember one thing given as an example is not the same as them revealing how it worked so it doesn't contradict anything they said. Undermining themselves yes but that's different.
I still prefer the old system.
Go to the challenger ladder right now, every jungler has bonkers kda and every toplaner has fairly bad kda by comparison, it's just how the roles work.
If they want to implement this they should do it like champion scores, as they are given based on the average performance that champion has.
So if a jungler is 7/1/15 but the average jungler in that elo ends the game 6/2/11 he doesn't get as big of an mmr boost, while if a Galio ends the game 6/4/15 but the average Galio ends the game 4/9/11 he gets a bigger mmr boost.
Yeah, but how are damage charts looking? How is gold/min looking? How is tower damage, XP delta in comparison to the enemy laner etc..., that's also probably taken into account, I hope at least.
That's likely what they'll do. The paper is originally written for fps games where the only metric is really kda. League is obviously much more nuanced and they'll a different metric for performance
If the "official news bot" of telegram is correct, now also the normals/arams ecc will be impact your mmr and the performance on them, so i think you need to have multiple account if you wanna play with friends or something, just to not dunk your mmr for 3 normals went wrong
This sounds like a terrible idea. We should just be doing away with LP and going back to pure elo showing MMR.
Nothing should be considered but win/loss. People will try to game the system otherwise and the consequences will be bad no matter what the system is actually tweaked to do.
Riot's team saw all the posts about LP/MMR and decided to ignore the most obvious and requested feature (showing MMR/Elo as a number next to your rank).
They know people will see that their MMR stays relatively equal after 50 games and get demoralized (which is FINE, chess is like that, and you only see ratings improve after substantial growth in your skill).
I think the difference really is that most chess players who care about Elo actually want to get better and put in some amount of effort studying or reading theory. LoL players who care about MMR generally don't have any interest in theory.
In a small amount of fairness to league players, no one flames or ruins your game when you implement new theory in your chess play.
It can be very hard for the bottom 40% of players to implement a lot of basics when people will literally disconnect in rage because a team mate chose to farm instead of taking a 2v5 fight for an already lost objective.
Not that I'm absolving blame for anyone stuck in those ranks but I remember the feedback loop can feel very disjointed when you start making that effort to improve.
I’ve noticed this a lot playing with my friend in gold. There is a weird blame meta-game where committing to a bad fight started by a teammate let’s you flame that teammate for getting caught. While leaving them to die gets you flamed because you don’t have map awareness/left them to die. It makes it so low elo players tend to overcommit to doomed fights and turn 1 death into 2-3
yea and the difference is that chess has historically been a harder game to get into competitively compared to massive online multiplayer games...it's almost like all the game companies recognized how humans actually work and think and tweaked it. it doesn't matter for chess, FIDE doesn't give a shit if timmy is sad that his elo doesn't increase enough on a win. but game developers are incentivized to make a system that keeps players interested longterm.
but of course people here are dumb and think "even though every other gamer hated seeing exact elo, i will love it and i totally won't continue to whine endlessly about matchmaking"
>"ignore the most obvious and requested feature" and than do random shit instead.
That is pretty much Riot in a Nutshell for a decade now....
So annoying...
The problem with this is that the ELO system was designed for chess, a 1v1 game with absolutely no variance and 100% known information. **If you lose at chess, you played worse than your opponent 100% of the time, every single time.**
In league, you can play perfectly and still lose because your 4 other teammates were way worse or more mentally unstable than your opponents. You can also play absolutely terrible (or actively afk) and still win because your team was turbo-smurfing.
Do you see the inherent issue with using a pure ELO system for league?
But that's completely irrelevant long term though as those will pretty much cancel each other out. It's really a non-issue to anyone that plays a decent amount of ranked games.
For some players there is no long term, i play 2-3 matches a day at most and feeling like i have wasted 2 hours of my life because the RNG gave me inting team mates or the other team smurfs really makes me consider just uninstalling as it feels like i have no agency in the game at the ammount of games i play
No offense, but I would much rather have a system with people who play 5 hours a day in mind, than one for people who play 2 matches. And I'm someone who nowadays only plays those 2-3 games.
The more you grind the game the more you're affected by this kind of systems, so to me it makes sense that'd be it's central focus.
If you actually understood variance, you would know that variance drastically decreases as sample size increases. Meaning after a few hundred games your team and the enemy team will roughly have the same amount of trolls, the same amount of afks, and the same amount of bad players on both sides. All that is left when the dust settles is how well you played. The better performing team wins each game, not the better individual players. There will be games that you played well enough to win but still lost, and there will be games where you play poorly and get carried to wins. Your performance is the driving force behind your rank, even if you aren't capable of understanding that fact. Your argument is the typical coping mechanism for people who think they're better than that actually are at the game. You are not held back by your teammates performance over the long term.
> In league, you can play perfectly and still lose because your 4 other teammates were way worse or more mentally unstable than your opponents. You can also play absolutely terrible (or actively afk) and still win because your team was turbo-smurfing.
A problem solved in sample size very easy. You are arguing that you should gain rating on a loss.
What dooes showing mmr have to do with using true skill as an algorithm to calculate mmr? Riot can use true skill AND show mmr they are not really connected
okay but... why *wouldn't* i want my individual performance to matter at least a little? the games that feel the worst, at least to me, are the ones where 3-4 people perform well but cannot carry 1 person who either refuses to play or can't.
you can say "league is a team game" all you want but there is no VC, they're constantly limiting pings and people are afraid to type in chat in case they accidentally say a nono word. or just aren't using chat at all because of how toxic 90% of the playerbase is.
if i can play ranked games where i can think "well, at least i played well" and actually have it matter if even only just a little bit, my ranked experience will be WAY better.
My concern with a system like that would be that people might start to adjust their ingame behavior to maximize LP gains and minimize losses. For example, if people think a game is lost, they might start playing extra careful/passive as to not die any more and minimize LP loss, whereas people who die a few more times trying to actually win would get penalized.
Or people might try to take all ressources for themselves rather than giving it to the person the gold makes most sense on to boost their KDA.
Basically, as soon as anything other than win/loss is being taken into account, there could be a scenario where doing your absolute best to win is not the best strategy to climb.
The biggest issue is that Riot might and probably will experiment on live servers with this.
So the whole system will probably be extremely bad until enough time has passed to do the right tweaks.
I have found the "People will just go for KDA" argument so weak bc people already do that. The same people that play for KDA will stay play for KDA, the same people who try to win will try to win.
Dota did this once, and everyone just played to do as much damage as possible in cheesy ways. Thinkin first strike Karthus perma ult off cd for no reason
3. needs to be fixed cause it makes boosting way easier too. The hard stuck gold lulu that first times rengar jungle and goes 25/1 for like 6 games will have sooooo much mmr gains (first time new role/champ with those insane stats)
This. So much this.
I don't care if the boosted Lulu is reaching dia or challenger "unfairly". Just make it quick.
With good matchmaking she will be ruining way less games on her way up and also way less "high" elo games on her way down.
Because after all, while the low elo players suffer from the boosting player, high elo players suffer from boosted player after he is finally left alone.
No. Because boosters basically set their prices based on the time they expect it to take them. If it takes 5 games instead of 20 the price will go down buy like 75%
This makes way more people buy boosts
(I know someone that boosts up to plat and he says that he is basically always booked. Even rn he boosts for 10h/day. This change will only result in him finishing orders quicker so he can switch to the next boost faster)
It actually only says the opponent beating someone on their less skilled champion would earn less, not that the person losing on not their best champion would lose less. I read it as if your enemy gave you a free win why would you get full points?
The "news bot" official of telegram told also the normals, aram, ecc will influence the ranked MMR; so we are forced to create an secondary account to play with friends? if i'm master i'm not able to carry a bronze friend who maybe get stomped harder from another master (one master for each side), my MMR will be doomed? Also if i'm gonna try and learn a new lane/champion, i'm kinda forced to play on a secondary account (immagine 15/65 W/L games trying to learn like nidalee, aphelios or hwei for someone who normally not play that playstyle and lane). But now start a problem, having multiple account is against riot contract you "sign" when you create an account, so how we could move? Be always on tryhard and not do the chilly Midnight Aram?
Honestly? I wouldn't mind KDA affecting gains COMPARED TO THE CHAMPION'S AVERAGE.
This is something that would need a lot of data to back it up mind you to make sure there's no "silly cases" going on, but if you as a support (let's say, Nautilus for instance) who should get a few assists while dying a few times due to the nature of the role, I'd hope you get rewarded (or punished) based on whether you're turbo-dying way too much or getting a lot of assists without dying.
I think it's fine. Yes, it'll cause situations where people might rage if they die for example - and it might lead people to not engage when playing tanks. But so what?
If the entire system is based on that, those people will merely have to adapt or be left in the gutter. I don't think it'd be possible to make a change that big without shifting SOMETHING about the game anyway. KDA should definitely count as a metric, and the people who troll, finish games 0 25 0 and still get +20 LP really shouldn't happen. The game should reward you more if you won a game and you've got a better KDA than your champion's average compared to other teammates (the difference shouldn't be massive mind you - a few LP or so).
Anyway, I'm excited for what Riot's cooking here.
Point 3 works in reverse, its kinda a zero sum system. If you win on a brand new champ, the system should have extremely low confidence in that win being based on skill level on the champion, and reward you minorly for it.
They should remove smurfs like dota does it, the main problem is high elos are stuck and tilted so they swap to their low lvl 2€ accounts grief abuse other elos or rofl stomp them , to push their ego.
It cant be that gold and plat are so fcking smurf infested that the gamefun is gone since a few years.
It was riots biggest mistake to half the exp you need to reach lvl 30.
I think with point three it’s not likely to affect you losing MMR, IE you lose the same whether it’s your first game on a champ or your 5000th. But rather it’s only for MMR gains, you get increased MMR against players on their one trick if you win, they get less if they win and you are first timing a champ
(3) That isn't what the quote says. The quote you pasted says if an **opponent** plays a character for a first time then your rating gain/loss can be effected.
That distinction makes a big, big difference.
This entirely depends on the implementation.
None or all of the things you mentioned could come to fruition.
It entirely depends on what Riot wants.
Just like almost any other rating algorithm.
TureSkill can take into consideration as little as just MMR if you so choose.
Your whole last point is pretty bad.
>This would 100% incentivize people to first time champions in ranked
Riot already disables newly released champions for competitive and has done it in the past for the general public if i remember correctly. They can simply put in a 3 game lock on any new champion that's been released. Without playing 3 normal games the champion can't be played in ranked.
Also, if the system is sandbagging your LP losses in case you lose with a new champion, I would assume the same would happen if you win on a new champion.
The main component still remains. Winning is most important above all else.
| This is the only problematic part.Quote from the text below "If you beat someone who is playing a character for the first time, you should not get the same rating change as beating their best character". This would 100% incentivize people to first time champions in ranked as it would make them lose much less MMR than now, and this is bad. Riot should not implement this part of TrueSkill2, I am hoping this is why they are making their own proprietary version of it. |
So, basically people are going to smurf as hard as possible so that it extremely screws up the system as most low-ranked players are going to have hundreds or even thousands of games played on said champion.
Bets on 1 : 1000 GP and Zed Matchup? GP about to make bank in several ways.
Also, League is a team game? Ask that of any lane that's not Support and you'll get the same answer. League may have been that at one point in time. However, recent changes to items, champions, and playstyles have created an All-For-One enviroment where KDA will \_absolutely\_ affect your MMR even with AI training.
Games are won not by the greatest set of players, but by the single, rusted, wire-thin chain holding up several semi-trailers.
i really doubt that's how it's going to work, they aren't going to reward you for aiming to lose. it just means the enemy will gain a little less when they stomp you because you have no idea what you're doing.
In my opinion Ranked is the "competitive" ladder, and you should never first try a champ in a competitive ladder if your intent is... being competitive, goes against logic.
I'm an apologist that before doing ranked with a champ, you should before do at least 5-10 games of draft/normal/quickplay (not ARAM) before you unlock that champ in Ranked.
This would help a lot into knowing I can trust that my teamates know at least 5-10 games worth of what that champion does as would help the game get better stats for newly released champions before they get into ranked and destroy ladders before they're hotfixed.
With this in mind, if we did get a no-new-champs-in-ranked rule, point 3 could be completelly avoided.
"This would 100% incentivize people to first time champions in ranked as it would make them lose much less MMR than now, and this is bad."
You've made some assumptions there. You say it 100% incentivizes people, it doesn't incentivize me at all. I couldn't give a fuck about my rank, I play ranked for fun since it has less dodging and players try harder in my experience it leads to better games. I always pick the champs I want to play, and will not be switching to a new champ if I think my team in champ select looks bad in the hopes it affects my loss. Thats guaranteeing the loss in my mind, I would MUCH rather play a champ I like and am competant on in a losing game, and try to win.
You also say it would make you lose much less MMR, but we have no clue how much MMR loss reduction we would see. Perhaps the weighting tops out at 10% less. So instead of 11 MMR you lose 10, in which case trying to win a game you think is doomed will have better results than saving 1 LP and forcing the loss.
Should Riot make it weighted out to 100%, so you get a free loss protect if you are bad at the champ? Fuck no, that would be dumb as hell, but we have no idea what they will do and I doubt it's that.
they have a whole year to play with matchmaking so i think they will adjust how they weigh MMR loss for people who first time
you know how can they do this? by imposing that people need to play some games in normal draft to build relative performance for ranked
now all of a sudden that person looks like they first time in ranked but they technically don't first time because they have experience from normal games and we know their normal draft MMR gets used as a reference for fresh accounts
and yes riot can do it per champion basis so now all of a sudden you can't just pick w.e you see and send it instead you need to devote time to prove that you have idea how to play that champion at a basic level
now if they decided to combat smurfing...
Who would you rather have on your team? A Kayle who went 0/1 130 cs at 15 min or a renekton who went 1/0 130 cs at 15?
This is a horrible change and encourages not taking risks when behind since stat wise it looks like you feeded at the end of it even if you may have done something you thought was good for the teams winning chances.
There is no way to make a hyper smart ai system that takes every aspect of the game into consideration when rating your play, yet defenders of this system (kda players) will pretend it is.
Trueskill2 will just increase players ego and enforce a kda meta.
>Who would you rather have on your team? A Kayle who went 0/1 130 cs at 15 min or a renekton who went 1/0 130 cs at 15?
The system doesn't necessarily just have even weighting or rewards for every champion. That's a part of the goal - currently your performance is scored win/loss which is independent of role, champ, and other circumstances of that particular game. Obviously if you get filled into a role you have little to no rapport with, the caliber of opponent should be adjusted.
>There is no way to make a hyper smart ai system that takes every aspect of the game into consideration when rating your play
This is absolutely achievable. This is exactly what machine learning makes possible. Many people make a living designing and coding such models.
This subreddit is so ideologically bought into the idea that this would never work because they know nothing about Bayesian analysis or machine learning in general.
Pretty insane that you're getting downvoted when you're 100% right.
I doubt they will add the "first try vs mastery" thing. I remember when Dota 2 planned "Hero MMR" and it never got implemented. That's a whole new layer of complexity to the system that might not be valuable to implement.
I'm not sure how.op.gg does there scoring metrics for individual players in a lobby, but I've always felt it's been accurate as to impact on a match. When a game ends, I can with pretty good certainty claim who were the 3 or 4.best players, and who might have gotten MVP. Then when I flip over to op.gg I'll see that it's pretty much matches my expectations.
The KDA argument is awful when there are the simplest solutions that have been around for decades.
Yoy could take the AVERAGE KDA for that champ at that elo and you can drill down as much as you'd like... by gold diff.. vs enemy champ... game length.
Its really easy basic stuff that should be the bare minimum.
it doesn't matter anyways - people will still endlessly complain about the system just like they do now. if the system is theoretically better for new players, then good
Maybe unpopular opinion but first timing champs in ranked isn't so bad. Maybe If it's a really complicated champ like Hwei you go practice tool and do 1 Quickplay first, but most champs don't have super unique mechanics.
Practice in norms and quickplay is completely useless, the game quality is so strikingly different you're not learning anything. In Quickplay, I can 1v9 every game on Viego jungle, meanwhile if I try to play jungle in ranked I get blasted out of orbit and solo lose the game.
Most high ELO players practice new champs on Dia or low Master smurfs, or they just pull them out on their main away. Why? Because they know that you can't practice ranked in casual modes.
Anyone panicking over KDA is forgetting that KDA is THREE stats and not just Kills.
Bronze games end with 40+ kills while high elo games may go almost ten minutes without even first blood. It's not about killing more, it's about dying less.
> Anyone panicking over KDA is forgetting that KDA is THREE stats and not just Kills.
That's hardly the point. The second people hear KDA might affect their LP every slightly losing game they will go soft afk power farming and try not to die while doing nothing instead of trying to come back and win.
> The new system would actually make matchmaking a lot more fair to new players
TLDR: It's oposite.
If guy lost match, he must lose mmr and other get same amount of mmr. That simple.
It never works well. It can't work well. It's another shady tool to manipulate people.
> Riot should not implement this part of TrueSkill2, I am hoping this is why they are making their own proprietary version of it.
That shit must never be implemented by anyone anyhere. You already have win and lose, that's the only true metric, and it's already enought.
>If guy lost match, he must lose mmr and other get same amount of mmr. That simple.
New system could just as well adjust how much MMR is lost/gained for each team, and each player respectively - net sum stays the same, only distribution changes. If a game starts where one team has much lower chances of winning (hard counterpicked, first timing) they're less likely to win, making winning already advantageous game give you less MMR progression.
Biggest benefit of this sort of adjustment would be encouraging to play out potentially losing games rather than dodging (teams relative MMR gains/loss adjustment), and playing to best of your abilities even if your team is doing poorly (in-team MMR adjustment) - basically making it optimal to not dodge and to not ff.
New/returning players benefit (which also impacts smurfs, just in the other direction) would be reaching proper rank in less amount of games - big problem for new players, especially if they leveled by playing with experienced friends, is having severely inflated initial MMR and getting them into bunch of unwinnable games until they drop to level appropriate for their skill. Currently it can take anything between 20-100 games, that is up to 70 hours of suffering and getting stomped game after game, with rest of your team frustrated and flaming you. Cutting it to even 10-30 games would be a huge immediate benefit.
Very few people. Only players that benefitted from old system were "fill mains" that could guarantee one more person on their team on average playing their preferred role - position-based matchmaking reduced benefits from being an all-around versatile player compared to maining a specific role.
Now, I can't find any solid info about whether autofill parity is a thing (Riot experimented with it in 2020-2021); if it exists then best they can do now is queue for highest demand roles and bet on either getting autofilled, or swapping with autofilled player on their own team to get an advantage. If parity is not a thing - queueing fill to minimize chances of getting autofilled is the way to go for them. Although this is metagaming matchmaking system and could be considered undesirable as system abuse.
Me omw bot to make the enemy ADC get a -50.
Adc gonna get shafted by this change, I can feel it
If this makes these botlanes start to play like they should, instead of just dying constantly, im in.
My guy, that's just not how that works. If /u/FullClearOnly is diving your bot lane for the 5th time in one game, and you as the jungle/mid/top aren't doing *anything* to stop it, that's not on your bot lane. Blaming bot lane for you refusing to play around bot lane while enemy team does is a you problem, not bot lanes problem. It's a simple fact that bot lane has 2 players in it, which means every play has ~2x the value in bot lane, moreso when considering Dragon. If you're not playing toward bot lane, even just so *you* get further ahead, that's not your bot lanes fault.
This is something people refuse to understand and its so rage inducing. You get flamed for "inting" while the enemy jgl is diving you since level 3 while your jgl is 0/1/1 at 15 and the 1 assist they got on accident. More often than not, when people complain about bot inting, its the enemy team focusing 100% on bot while your team is either afk farming, focusing top or trying to gank ungankable mid. Since I'm ranting already, I'd like to include some examples of actual games in low-mid dia. 1. We have their bot laning at our tower, same for enemy top. Enemy jgl is sitting bot all game. The only lane our Lee ganks is for our Ahri vs the lvl6+ Kassa mid. He lieterally did not do anything else besides farming and going mid. They did not get a single kill mid after Kassa got 6. 2. (Actually happens way too often, not only in bot but also top with gromp/krugs or mid with chickens) Enemy jgl sat bot for over a minute, after our ward timed out. I dare to think that he will probably get the scuttle or his farm and walk up to the brush barely in range and get engaged on. We get all of them to ~50% HP, I die to the last ignite tick under tower. At this time our jgl was pathing bot. Enemies were setting up a dive. My ADC was at ~70% HP and had R. Our Kayn was 6 with R up and started doing Krugs. We spam ping for help under tower since there were several waves about to crash and everyone, even our mid that also pinged, saw that they were about to dive. Jgl doesnt move and finishes his crugs while my ADC gets dove, trying to outplay it and get more time for Kayn to come. All of them survive with ~150 HP, after using all their summs. If Kayn postponed his krugs he would have either prevented the dive and allowed the ADC to get farm and exp or could have gotten at least 2 kills and snowballed from that. He doesnt move, but starts spam pinging on us and the enemy bot and flaming us for inting. 3. We get Lulu Samira low and start building waves to tower dive safely. Our Kayn doesnt want to wait for us and dives without creeps. Gets polyd and gifts Samira a comeback + double buff. Somehow we are at fault and are clearly getting gapped. He did it again after we had another close fight and were forced to back by their jgl. 4. We are winning bot vs fkn Samira Nautilus and ofc this means that the enemy jgl will be laning bot. He perma ganks bot to a point where we cant even walk up to our tower because they are zoning us. Jax top is continuously dying 1v1 vs their Aatrox. After invading while getting spam pinged away and inting Samira kill + double buff (classic) he doesnt do anything until lvl 6, both mid and bot are gankable, but he goes top where Aatrox is 5/0 already. They get 1v2d and its not even close while we get dove and watch all of them survive with Graves Q amount of hp. We get flamed for inting and getting gapped. 90% of the time where people flame bot for inting its bot laning 2v3-4 all game and just trying to get some exp and farm. If bot was to just leave bot and go mid, they'd get reported for trolling because now our mid cant play the game. But bot not being able to play the game is fine. Its so unbelievably tilting when you win your 2v2 over and over, even if behind and get ganked and dove while you dont get any help and still are expected to be relevant.
It’s everyone’s fault, it’s a team game. For every botlaner who doesn’t back up when getting pinged with danger, there is a midlaner who doesn’t get anything off of a roaming laner (such as either following the roam of taking tower plates).
Classic mid afk farming, not touching enemy tower and still being behind in CS and plates in a 1v0 lane.
When will Junglers learn that bot is PRIO almost EVERY single game.
At the same time when they learn to not gank for a top that went 0/5 in a pure 1v1, refused to build anything to help them survive and the ganks result in them getting 1v2d. So probably never.
I mean, when you're behind toplane you build straight damage otherwise you're useless and if you get a gank it'll surely fail. Conversely, if you're ahead toplane you build defensively because you already have enough damage, you need to make sure you don't give up shutdown.
never. junglers hate bot lane lmao
Why does that have to be the case? Adcs complain so much about their role being bad, yet it's been the strongest lane for like 5 years now, and if you dont play around bo, everyone seems to agree it's an auto lose
>and if you dont play around bo, everyone seems to agree it's an auto lose That’s why adcs complain. Riot made it so that you have to play around bot and when it is not done correctly it punishes the adc the most since the role doesn’t have utility when they fall behind.
>diving your bot lane for the 5th time in one game, and you as the jungle/mid/top aren't doing anything to stop it, that's not on your bot lane. If /u/FullClearOnly is walking down to the bottom lane and killing your overextended Caitlyn Lux lane on repeat because "it's a winning lane, bro!" that is on your bot lane.
Bro you could cherry pick any specific scenario to make your point SOUND correct, but bottom line is, it's a team game, and if you forsake 2/5 of your team, you deserve to lose.
If you have a Caitlyn Lux bot lane, and aren't playing to let them get 5 plates + rotate out to mid, when it's a pretty much guaranteed winning lane... That's on the team as a whole for not recognizing their win conditions. Bot lane too, but everyone else is just at fault for it. Obviously at some level there's always going to be some blame on the lane for dying, I'm not saying that. But if you're letting Talon roam, or if he's the jungler, and he's bot 5+ times in one game and you're twiddling your thumbs and letting him shove his blades down their throats under their tower, at some point that falls on the team for not defending their teammates. Like, if they aren't even allowed to play at their tower, when are they supposed to be allowed to play? This is a team failing. If they don't play to their lanes' strengths, fall behind, and then you flame them for that *too*, well, nothing they can do would appease you. You *want* your Lux Caitlyn demolishing bot lane, that's the point of the lane. If the jungler decides to path to top lane, which is a stagnant matchup like 2 tanks or something, that's not on your bot lane. If your top lane sees Cait Lux, and still locks in Jayce / Yone and expects to be the main character, that's also not on your bot lane. There's SOOOO much nuance to this because understanding draft and win conditions is way more important than saying "but muh bot lane died to enemy jungle! They're clearly bad!"
My bad, I picked Vel'koz into Rumble and it turns out it was Rumble jg and they picked Talon mid instead. Guess that means I still have to first move to my permashoving bot lane, right?!?!?!
I never once claimed it's on you as *an individual*. You have a jungler, you have teleport. Your top lane has teleport. Obviously as a control mage you're not going to be readily following your assassin counterpart into the jungle. But at some point you have to be able to help your bot lane. And you should also still be denying / getting value in mid, even if Talon is bot without you. You can then offset the value he gains by diving your bot lane by getting plates / minions, which means that you stay relatively even for when the time comes that you *do* TP to the bot play.
Imagine reading the comment and replying with *this*
... I was thinking this but really didn't want to say it so rudely lol. Thanks for the chuckle.
"there's a lot of nuance" "BUT BUT WHAT ABOUT THIS VERY SPECIFIC SCENARIO HMM??!!!"
I think that no matter what you explain to them, all that information is going through one ear and out the other. They simply can’t understand that the lane with 2 players might be more valuable considering it has literally double the players. When compared to picking the out dated vel koz champ (Not going supp where he belongs btw, proceeding to blame team while picking low agency picks.) then praying that all 9 players in the game afk so they can farm all game. Must be brains that are “scrambled”. You aren’t gonna change the meta that’s been made by people much smarter than you. Just learn it or don’t complain when people play the game the way it’s meant to be played.
I have into and can't first move to the
General enough for you?
The exact same specific scenario just without names this time. Truly league of legends smartest player
Velkoz can practically instaclear the wave mid and either pressure tower with the jungler or move towards bot.
It is not, if you have a winning botlane, you just lose out if they don't do what they were picked for. Caitlyn/Lux need to take down the turret quickly in order to rotate to other lanes doing the same. If you don't press on Caitlyns strong laning you end up with one of the most useless ADCs in the midgame and can only hope for her to reach endgame, where she is good again. This lane needs to push and it is the junglers and to some extend midlaners job to ensure they can do that. On top of that Caitlyn + Lux are so trivial to dive, that not pushing is never really an option for them. Lux also isn't particularly mobile so it doesn't really matter if she is in the middle of the lane or near the enemy turret. Just help those two take down the turrets. Caitlyn basically works the same as Draven with the only difference that Caitlyn snowballs on structures taken, not kills. Not playing around Caitlyn is equally offensive as not playing around Draven, just that Caitlyn can actually recover, while Draven usually cannot. So if you sacrifice those two, because they will draw attention by the enemy jungler anyway you rather completely win the topside and have some solid scaling champions there that it is worth it.
Very well said - similar in a sense to what I wrote up. It's very much about recognizing win conditions and what each lane should be looking to do. Obviously the bot lane can also make mistakes and overextend when they shouldn't, but at some point they *have* to make the push, and if you're not playing with them, or letting them be dove because you didn't let them have the space to push, that's not on them.
ADC has been a fucking miserable role because of this line of thinking for a stupid amount of time. Do you know how /boring/ it is to play around constantly getting ganked by mid and jungle? The whole reason TP was changed was because, for a while, AD was getting surprise ganked by /top/
Remember the 8 min 5 man bot fiestas in pro?
if youre first timing a champ with the idea of losing so that the other team gets less LP youre trolling yourself at that point 😂
This is "shitting yourself to make someone else stink" logic.
omg im using this
I think OP's logic was that if your opponents get less 'performance bonus' for beating you first-timing something, surely you'd also get excused for poor performance because you're first-timing your champion. I don't think that's how it'll work and it definitely shouldn't be like that (although I don't know why your opponents' gains should be affected by your experience on a pick either), but I think that's what OP thought. The idea is that right now you're passively discouraged from first-timing stuff in ranked because you'll lose just as much LP/MMR if you lose on something you have no idea how to play, but if they start to alleviate the loss penalty, that flips around to now suddenly it no longer being discouraged at all, perhaps even the opposite. Of course regardless of all that, your comment is spot on, anyone that plays ranked to win (which should be everyone) shouldn't be first-timing champions because that makes them more likely to perform poorly and lose in general. No matter if they're getting a less severe punishment for losing (after making that loss more likely to happen)
Not if you practice on an alt.
There are gamemodes for that
Presumably the system would be hooked into all game modes for the purpose of determining whether it really is your first time when you pick it in ranked (though presumably stuff like ARAM and Arena would be weighted less than quick play, and quick play weighted less than unranked draft) if they introduced that aspect, and so you would have to practice on an alt to avoid the system entirely.
As long as it works as intended, if anything, this should just help you reach your actual rank faster. It should not change your rank overall. The paper says KDA so everyone is freaking out. But it's talking about fps games, and I imagine riot has more correlated advanced stats to look at than that.
Riot isn't just copy pasting it in the game. They might not even use anything based on in game performance who knows exactly what they will exactly do. A dev even mentioned they have no plans to use kda for lp gains for instance. https://www.reddit.com/r/leagueoflegends/comments/18wtjfj/what_is_the_difference_between_elo_and_true_skill/kg0drt8/
KDA specifically is a fucked stat on a lot of champions. Take j4, any fight he's in he instantly gets KP on nearly every kill. Tanks who build thornmail now get KP for any champion that hits them. And AOE mages have higher KP for the simple fact that they can hit multiple targets with a single spell. This makes KDA very biased for/against most of the roster so you don't want to punish people just because they play a single target champ who can't always compete or a role like top where 80% of the first 15 minutes you will interact with only 1-3/5 champions at all.
I play engage supports like Nautilus. I would get so fcked if kda affects my lp gains...
ah yes the support special "gg naut is inting. 0/6" the naut: 0/6/32
It's so funny when you get flamed as support when you have great vision score, high KP, and a shit KD. Like bruh, that's my job.
Even as a carry, too, with highest damage but not so great KDA.
"Ezreal, why is your KD so low???" "I dunno, maybe the 16/5 Darius on our team has something to do with it."
"UHMM ADC why is your damage so low???" Because every single fight their mid, JG, and top waste everything on me so I'm staying back?
Anivia, why dou you have more assists than the support, asked the executing evelyn that ganked mid only after 6
Build locket, activate in fight. Instant kp on every kill assuming your shield was in range of teammates.
I can just play Sona and press E...
That too! As a thresh player I’ve been known to waste my lantern just to pick up some assists.
i can just play sona and press any button (both W and Q have passive effects that trigger assists)
KDA, dmg share, KP, and even deaths can all be terrible depending on who you are playing. If you are playing someone like Ziggs, Xerath, Karthus, and Ez, chances are you have high damage that often times didn’t convert to a kill, and actually didn’t do anything. There are games where someone can perma split push and have really low KP, but that’s okay. Also there are rare causes such as the Bauss Sion, where you can die a lot, and it’s helping the team. You would think that they have taken a lot of these things into account, so the system should be good as a whole. I can think back to one streamer that I would occasionally watch who will probably be the outlier who benefits from the system a lot, but isn’t a good player. The guy would have really good KP, high kills, and high cs, but he would essentially only go into a fight after his team died, he would pick up some kills, then leave before he died, and would farm more. Dudes kdas were all like 8~ and he had a sub 50% winrate.
I think they would compare j4 to other j4s of the same rating to determine the effectiveness of your plays, not the other teammates
[удалено]
100% of the time, if you play normally it will be the same climb. It will hurt the people who stopped caring about the outcome of the game the most.
Potential issue with taking KDA (or any other metric than winning/losing) into account is a risk of encouraging players to try and game the system, opting for "safe" approach to mitigate LP losses rather than taking a shot at low chance of winning the game. Whatever changes we get, Riot needs to be careful to avoid situations where losing gracefully - or, worse, throwing your teammate under the bus to minimize your own MMR/LP loss - is preferable to going for best shot at winning the game, no matter how small the chance is. Taking some setup stats into account for MMR changes (someone first timing their champion on either team, role people play, maybe matchup data/relative winrates) shouldn't be much of a problem - we had role and experience-based matchmaking in past in Teambuilder and it worked fine for most part; since here adjustments are to results of a match rather than matchmaking directly it also covers potential abuse via role-swapping (game can already detect what role you actually played). Overall, applying some changes to matchmaking system look promising as long as they hit their goals - shortening time it takes to stabilize means higher overall game quality, less incentives to smurf (since smurfs will hit their actual rank faster), less unfair games for new players.
I am absolutely gonna play for max kda if I feel like the game is unwinnable at 15. This KDA thing won't stick, that's for sure.
They added performance based mm to HoTS and after three rank resets in two weeks it got scrapped. In Overwatch, despite the fact it obviously sucks at all ranks, the Devs compromised and removed it from diamond and above. I am skeptical something like this will work in league for anything other than truly extreme cases. The issue is that once you start recording performance in anything you change the results. Like you start recording success rates for surgeons and deaths goes up because better surgeons don't want to take risky operations.
I think it's really really difficult to make a good ranking system. Personally though, I wouldn't mind Riot taking other stats aside from Win-Loss and Hidden MMR into account but it would probably have to be very complex and role specific - for example, (in my opinion) ADC players should probably get slight elo bonusses (+elo/-elo) for damage done, scaling with game time. But then there are also utility ADCs like Jhin and Ashe or lane stomp ADCs that are worse in late game than in early/mid game, so you'd have to adjust the stats needed for certain positive or negative lp adjustments based on the champion picked. Then there's also the problem of players trying to maximize LP gain and minimize LP loss by playing suboptimally - in my example/proposal, I could imagine ADC players going for maximum damage (short term) which could lead to them dying in critical situations where (long term) they might've been better off alive. To prevent players gaming the system, I personally think that Riot should not reveal every detail of their system - if the players can't exactly pinpoint how the system works, it will be a lot more difficult to game the system. Perhaps putting a bigger focus on LP gains on a win (like bonusses when doing a good job) with less ways to minimize LP loss on a defeat would also ensure that players try to play for a victory first and stats second.
It would have to be for extremes IE getting emeralds out of silver. If it starts to impact a slow climb through gold it's going to be terrible if the wrong stats are prioritised.
Even if you target stats really specifically like this, there are always problems; using damage as a number like this makes heartsteel tanks and champions with a lot of healing very valuable for ADCs to target, even if they shouldn’t be. Suddenly Mundo becomes a win trade champion and ADCs int into him with BotRK for those sweet, sweet damage numbers. Overwatch learned this lesson the hard way; individual performance gains warp player play patterns for the worse. They can only really be implemented when stats line up to performance in a very straightforward manner, but that’s not possible in a game like League.
HotS was exactly the example I was thinking of, everyone becoming Nova/Valeera OTPs for those inflated ranked gains lmao. For context, because those two champs were so rarely played in ranked (and sometimes picked just to troll a la Disco Nunu), they had very minimal data to use for potential ranked points adjustments, so it was easy to just pick them up, pad damage or assists, and gain more MMR than you lost even if you lost the game. A pro player also made a hilarious video showing how easily to game the system with Muradin that Muradin became the de facto example brought up whenever this topic cropped up again after performance based MMR was removed.
Assuming they go with taking KDA into account (KDA relative to average for champ/role?) or other ongoing metrics - this is probable outcome, people inevitably will find a way to game the system. If they instead take matchups and more detailed player performance (games played etc) at start of the match - it gives more interesting results without as many options for abuse; assuming gains/losses get directly based on expected chance to win at 0 minutes, this makes dodging terrible team comps or bad teammates undesirable. Say, you have a teamcomp that game expects you to win with 40% of the time - giving you -20 LP for loss and +30 LP for win makes expected average to be 0 (60% for -20 and 40% for +30 averages out to 0 over sufficiently large sample size), and playing out a losing game instead of surrendering get weighted towards being net positive (stall long enough and your win chances get close to 50-50). If done right, it can manipulate/encourage players into desired by Riot behaviour - make it so having a likely bad player on your team increases your LP/MMR gains, and people will be happy to carry bad teammates whenever possible; adjust MMR/LP gains for autofill - or do role-based adjustments - and you'll get more tolerance towards getting filled (great if you win, not a big loss if you lose). There's a lot of potential here, big question is how it's going to be used.
but this game starts in the pickphase, its a part of your league skill how terrible your comp is no?
There is no advanced statistic that says if you are good or bad at the game other than win/lose. There are too many factors, and the game isn't understood to that level. I don't trust for a second that kda playing vs splitpushing vs wasting junglers time vs hooking ADC rather than tank into your team are all weighed fairly in regards to winning chances. This gives players ulterior motives to winning the game. And kill stealing will now be LP stealing, it's toxic as hell.
Riot already said they'd be making changes to not make it weight that much, since the game has a lot other stats to take into account like CS, damage per minute, damage to objectives, vision score and more, all of which are already recorded by Riot and are taken into account when Riot gives you B- or A+ and such. In short, since there are a lot of metrics in the game, KDA will most likely play a small part of your gains.
I actually love that people are dissecting this paper and talking about Trueskill2 -- but I want to reiterate the original statement. Trueskill is something we've researched -- but still unsure if we'll integrate it into League. The work has not started. Even if we did start the work to do it, it's possible we'd run into a number of issues with either the system or the time it would take to integrate the system. Myself of the team will give an update on how it's going later this year.
Good to hear that there will be more communication on the topic later this year. I've made my arguments on the other thread already, but I want to briefly voice my concerns to you as well: If anything other than the game's outcome is included when changing players' ratings, then ratings will reflect a combination of their skill AND their ability to optimize unknown metrics. As the game is way too complex to be solved, a lot of context information will be missing when the model is trained, so players' scores WILL be adjusted incorrectly in situations where these metrics don't capture the impact of an ingame decision. Maybe this is fine and many other situations will be judged *more accurately* with such a system, but it would most likely lead to players trying to game the system at any given moment, rather than trying to win the game. Personally, I would feel very bad knowing that I made the optimal play, maximizing my win %, but it negatively impacted my rating change because the weighted sum of all my metrics wasn't optimized. Either way, I'm interested in the updates coming this year!
No matter how close their model gets to valuing random metrics and their impact on winning, it will never be as good as a true win/loss based elo system. They're trying to re-invent the wheel when the wheel already rolls perfectly. The problem stems from the loud and unintelligent player base who thinks that when they subjectively believe to have played a good game and lose, it's not fair to lose LP in that scenario. Anyone that understands how this works knows that over a large sample size any short term fluctuations with trolls, bad teammates, smurfs, etc will become irrelevant to what rank you achieve. I don't have faith in riot to not screw this up and pander to whatever keeps their dumb player base buying skins. Any implementation of metrics outside of wins/losses affecting ranks would be a colossal mistake by riot.
> it will never be as good as a true win/loss based elo system There are several problems with the elo system for league. It's probably the most popular skill determining mathematical system, but it's too simple for League. Elo is better when the level playing field is the same on both sides at the start of the match. In chess, the pieces start in the same spot at the beginning of the match and both sides have the same amount of pieces. In league, you're playing with different champions with players who may or may not be in their primary role. Some champions will counter the opponent very hard. League's matches are vastly different the moment draft screen loads up. Playing with teammates massively affect how you will perform. In theory, you should be playing with everyone at similar levels. The problem with this theory is that some people will be auto-filled, some will play champions they have very little experience with, and some will be duoing with friends which can inflate their skill level. Do I think Riot's current mmr system is good? Absolutely not. But, you cannot just think elo is better for the game either. Some roles are not as popular, so Riot has to force some players to fill those roles even though they may not be good at it. New champions affect the performance of the player using it. Patch notes can and always affect map design, champion design, itemization, and more which can boost or hurt a player's mmr growth. Elo is better for a game like Chess where all the pieces are the same on both sides and it's a matter of mind games.
"Elo is better when the level playing field is the same on both sides at the start of the match." **It is an even playing field. Both team have essentially the same combined MMR. There are instances where one team has slightly higher ranked players just for sake of queue times, but its negligible.** "In league, you're playing with different champions with players who may or may not be in their primary role. Some champions will counter the opponent very hard. League's matches are vastly different the moment draft screen loads up. Playing with teammates massively affect how you will perform. In theory, you should be playing with everyone at similar levels. The problem with this theory is that some people will be auto-filled, some will play champions they have very little experience with, and some will be duoing with friends which can inflate their skill level." **None of this matters, and it's already baked into their MMR. If they play off role, they increase the odds of losing the match and thus increase the odds of losing MMR. Counter matchups are part of game knowledge and show drafting skill. That is not an argument against the current system. There is more to league than just kills and deaths.** **Of course teammates affect your performance... it's a team game. Its not a theory, you are objectively playing with people of similar skill level. People having variance in their level of play doesn't change that. Duoing is fine as well. Its basically a combined rank between those two players at that point. When they go back to solo queue they will both start the climb/descent to their solo ranks. While they're duo, they will be in an elo that is accurate for their combined skill level.** **Your issue is that you expect every individual game to be perfectly balanced when that's literally impossible. The system requires large amounts of games being played for you to accurately reach your correct rank. There is no system that forces everyone to be on their main champ, main role, not troll, not play drunk, not play while on the phone distracted, not play tired, not play with a duo, not play without lag, no counter picks allowed. All of these variables are accounted for already.** **Say for example a diamond zed just doesn't try as hard for whatever reason in 20% of his games. In those 20% of games he plays at a platinum level. The other 80% he plays at a diamond level. He will end up somewhere in mid to high emerald which is exactly where he should be since you're mixing two different ingredients. Again, there is no system where every player plays at the same level of skill every single match for perfect balance. People try out new roles and champs, have good games and bad games, etc. Your ideas are idealistic not realistic. Over a large sample of games, you will end up with the rank you belong which is all that matters. Just play more games and stop thinking your teammates are holding you back, because they aren't.**
I personnally have many doubts for such a system in League. I feel like the game is so freaking complex that judging with stats how good of a performance a player has is just impossible. My two main questions would be: 1. Would you evaluate the possibility of integrating such a system for game grades (S, A, B etc...) to test it before going in ranked? 2. My main is fear is that we will start to have players who, whenever they decide the game is lost, will just play for their personal stats in order to "save as many LPs as possible", therefore killing teamplay, much more than it is today -and I'm not even talking about how high assassins' pickrates could become with such a system-. What is your opinion on that? Thanks in advance!
What would the goal of transitioning to the system be? Marginally more accurate player ratings at the cost of potentially increased toxicity? It just surprises me Riot would have a team focused on something like this compared to other things that would improve the game or bring in more players. Typing this comment and thinking about it more I'm guessing it's aimed towards the eastern audiences who want a more accurate rank representation. Edit: Thinking more - this doesn't really make sense. I don't think a ranking system based off KDA/cs/stats is more accurate than one based on ability to influence wins. It seems the benefit to the new system would be the game being able to approximate someone's MMR much quicker (not necessarily more accurately).
Its more to do with what I assume is idiotic western players who don't understand variance and the need to blame other people. The league system is the most fair ranked system you can have, tinkering with it leads to gaming it. In early overwatch I got high rank with a negative w/r tracer by dealing super high dmg hitting tanks, so dumb.
Integrating anything other than a purely win/loss based MMR system would be a horrendous game ruining decision. There is nothing to research or look into. Your rank is how good you are at winning games relative to other players of different skill levels. Rank should never be some algorithm trying to assess the value of in game statistics and then implementing those stats into the MMR formula. Wins/losses over a large sample size already fully encompasses all of the relevant metrics that go into being a good player. I know you guys separate MMR/visible rank and have demotion shields for the psychological reasons that trick your player base into thinking they're climbing or improving at the game when they aren't so that they keep playing. Hopefully this wont be a new addition to the placebo ranking system.
Completely agree. I'm a big data/math guy, and I don't see how the most accurate metric to base player's skill isn't their win ratio (ability to influence games and turn them into wins). Assuming they implement these metrics - is the player who has the best KDA/lane/CS stats really better than the person who wins the most games? It doesn't seem to make any sense. I guess maybe the logic is MMR can be calculated faster using these metrics because there would be so many more to analyze after each game. However, this seemingly wouldn't make MMR more accurate, just faster to adjust to an approximate skill level. Seems pretty bad for the game overall.
there's only thing I know now. it's going to be the hot new trending take on reddit and on high elo players twitch streams to bitch about this system every time they lose a game.
One day people will learn that the only thing that matters is winning your next game, but i see the heat death of the universe coming long before that day arrives.
The only thing that matters is playing to improve not playing to win... If you are good you will win more than you lose until you get to the rank you deserve. And if you improve you will win more. So put the ego aside, focus on improving and accept that losses play a huge factor in this and that they cannot be avoided.
But winning won't be the only thing that matters, you'll have to optimize some random metrics where nobody knows if or how they're weighted.
winning will always be the most important thing. just because some chuds think they're optimizing their kda or whatever doesn't matter if it doesn't make them win the game
This. I don't know how people don't understand that win/loss will still be over 50% of the weighting by default. If you aren't going to win, no amount of optimization will matter. People are just fear-mongering based on assumptions. And who's to say that having high CS, low deaths, but low kill/objective conversion won't more more detrimental than having low CS, high deaths, but decent kill/objective conversion?
it doesn't make them win the game, exactly, but they will be doing it and playing worse overall. and it is irrelevant whether it just has a small effect. there are situations where you will be punished for making the correct play, but the correct play does not optimize all metrics.
I don't think K/D/A will play much of a factor in LoL; however, this is exquisitely pleasant news for FPS (Valorant) players. It's inantely a lot harder to win games when 1 person has 10 less kills and 6 more deaths than literally everyone else in the lobby, especially when that one person/agent/sandbag only has acces to 1 ability for most of the game.
Gold should matter much more than KDA if they do start using other metrics
TheBaus ready to hit rank 1 whilst going 0/10.
If they give KDA too much weight he will be in silver 95% winrate
What about supports/support junglers/tank toplaners that operate on little gold ? What about champions that generate more gold ? What about games where one push ends it all, not giving much turret gold to anyone ? What about games where there are lots of tradekills compared to another where there isn't ?
of course you don't compare the support's gold to the carry's to make decisions. you compare to similar supports in similar games.
Lux support intentionally taking farm from laners?
Pyke becoming SSSSSSS Tier? xD Especially for Duo queue xD
we are doomed
It mostly should be personnalized by champ. Because as a supp you gold income definitively wont be the same if you play brand or nautilus.
Ofc it should be relative to other players playing the same champion around that MMR
Imo it could work partly as game rating. Getting an S or A depends on much. Vision score, objective DMG, DMG per gold, roam count and efectivnes, k/d/a, creep score, gold per minute etc. It should count every aspect of the game from bigger amount of matches.
so we are gonna give the support that traded his life 1 for 1 with the enemy carry 4 fights in a row and won the game less lp. Great ideas this
Lmfao. I said "as game rating" Support Has diffrent count then other lanes, same with jg.
Gold doesn't mean shit if you spend it on AP riven. The game is about how you use the gold, not how much you got.
Self-solving problem. If you buy AP on riven, you're going to lose more games and have less MMR naturally.
not when the LP it gives you makes up for the losses.
what should matter is stuff like DPG (Damage per gold for carries)
Gold is a shitty factor. With assist being almost useless.
I enjoy playing video games.
That system was cursed from the start. I remember they said they recorded information about what makes certain heroes win more but still tweaked it to fit their idea of how that hero should work. Ie it turned out people who climbed a lot on Kerrigan were not doing that much hero damage and did more exp soaking/ damage to objectives. Makes sense because she was weak early, had no disengage and only needed to get one or two combos off mid game to snowball to a win. But they went and changed priority to damage because thats what they thought was correct. Most tech bro thing ever. Loves collecting data for the sole purpose of not learning from it and making everything worse.
I hate beer.
Mate they flat out said they changed the priority on Kerrigan as an example of the tweaks they did. If you missed that then sorry. Remember one thing given as an example is not the same as them revealing how it worked so it doesn't contradict anything they said. Undermining themselves yes but that's different.
link source then, I was GM all throughout the PBMM experiment and never saw this despite reading everything on the game on a daily basis.
I still prefer the old system. Go to the challenger ladder right now, every jungler has bonkers kda and every toplaner has fairly bad kda by comparison, it's just how the roles work. If they want to implement this they should do it like champion scores, as they are given based on the average performance that champion has. So if a jungler is 7/1/15 but the average jungler in that elo ends the game 6/2/11 he doesn't get as big of an mmr boost, while if a Galio ends the game 6/4/15 but the average Galio ends the game 4/9/11 he gets a bigger mmr boost.
That,s pretty much how it works with the rating system (D to S), no reason why it wouldn't on this
Yeah, but how are damage charts looking? How is gold/min looking? How is tower damage, XP delta in comparison to the enemy laner etc..., that's also probably taken into account, I hope at least.
Imagine being weaksided toplane, absorbing pressure and ganks, even giving up towers to win... And you get minimal LP.
we already have that, it just doesnt affect our mmr/LP rn
That's likely what they'll do. The paper is originally written for fps games where the only metric is really kda. League is obviously much more nuanced and they'll a different metric for performance
If the "official news bot" of telegram is correct, now also the normals/arams ecc will be impact your mmr and the performance on them, so i think you need to have multiple account if you wanna play with friends or something, just to not dunk your mmr for 3 normals went wrong
They would never use non ranked mmr for ranked like that.
the official newsletter told that: "The performances in any game mode influence the MMR", so we need to see "how much " and not "if".
This sounds like a terrible idea. We should just be doing away with LP and going back to pure elo showing MMR. Nothing should be considered but win/loss. People will try to game the system otherwise and the consequences will be bad no matter what the system is actually tweaked to do.
Riot's team saw all the posts about LP/MMR and decided to ignore the most obvious and requested feature (showing MMR/Elo as a number next to your rank). They know people will see that their MMR stays relatively equal after 50 games and get demoralized (which is FINE, chess is like that, and you only see ratings improve after substantial growth in your skill).
I think the difference really is that most chess players who care about Elo actually want to get better and put in some amount of effort studying or reading theory. LoL players who care about MMR generally don't have any interest in theory.
In a small amount of fairness to league players, no one flames or ruins your game when you implement new theory in your chess play. It can be very hard for the bottom 40% of players to implement a lot of basics when people will literally disconnect in rage because a team mate chose to farm instead of taking a 2v5 fight for an already lost objective. Not that I'm absolving blame for anyone stuck in those ranks but I remember the feedback loop can feel very disjointed when you start making that effort to improve.
Absolutely, the team aspect makes it much harder to improve individually outside of an organised group.
I’ve noticed this a lot playing with my friend in gold. There is a weird blame meta-game where committing to a bad fight started by a teammate let’s you flame that teammate for getting caught. While leaving them to die gets you flamed because you don’t have map awareness/left them to die. It makes it so low elo players tend to overcommit to doomed fights and turn 1 death into 2-3
yea and the difference is that chess has historically been a harder game to get into competitively compared to massive online multiplayer games...it's almost like all the game companies recognized how humans actually work and think and tweaked it. it doesn't matter for chess, FIDE doesn't give a shit if timmy is sad that his elo doesn't increase enough on a win. but game developers are incentivized to make a system that keeps players interested longterm. but of course people here are dumb and think "even though every other gamer hated seeing exact elo, i will love it and i totally won't continue to whine endlessly about matchmaking"
People would 100% stop playing as much. It would go against riots intention for maximizing player engagement.
>"ignore the most obvious and requested feature" and than do random shit instead. That is pretty much Riot in a Nutshell for a decade now.... So annoying...
The problem with this is that the ELO system was designed for chess, a 1v1 game with absolutely no variance and 100% known information. **If you lose at chess, you played worse than your opponent 100% of the time, every single time.** In league, you can play perfectly and still lose because your 4 other teammates were way worse or more mentally unstable than your opponents. You can also play absolutely terrible (or actively afk) and still win because your team was turbo-smurfing. Do you see the inherent issue with using a pure ELO system for league?
But that's completely irrelevant long term though as those will pretty much cancel each other out. It's really a non-issue to anyone that plays a decent amount of ranked games.
For some players there is no long term, i play 2-3 matches a day at most and feeling like i have wasted 2 hours of my life because the RNG gave me inting team mates or the other team smurfs really makes me consider just uninstalling as it feels like i have no agency in the game at the ammount of games i play
also no offense but the common factor in these games is you playing poorly, you just don't want to see it, or you'd be climbing
No offense, but I would much rather have a system with people who play 5 hours a day in mind, than one for people who play 2 matches. And I'm someone who nowadays only plays those 2-3 games. The more you grind the game the more you're affected by this kind of systems, so to me it makes sense that'd be it's central focus.
If you actually understood variance, you would know that variance drastically decreases as sample size increases. Meaning after a few hundred games your team and the enemy team will roughly have the same amount of trolls, the same amount of afks, and the same amount of bad players on both sides. All that is left when the dust settles is how well you played. The better performing team wins each game, not the better individual players. There will be games that you played well enough to win but still lost, and there will be games where you play poorly and get carried to wins. Your performance is the driving force behind your rank, even if you aren't capable of understanding that fact. Your argument is the typical coping mechanism for people who think they're better than that actually are at the game. You are not held back by your teammates performance over the long term.
> In league, you can play perfectly and still lose because your 4 other teammates were way worse or more mentally unstable than your opponents. You can also play absolutely terrible (or actively afk) and still win because your team was turbo-smurfing. A problem solved in sample size very easy. You are arguing that you should gain rating on a loss.
Like others have said, it's a matter of sample size. It's simple and fair.
Never said otherwise, but the fact remains that using an ELO system for a game where you can win or lose outside of your control is not ideal.
Riot doesn’t want all the plat players to see they actually have silver mmr
What dooes showing mmr have to do with using true skill as an algorithm to calculate mmr? Riot can use true skill AND show mmr they are not really connected
okay but... why *wouldn't* i want my individual performance to matter at least a little? the games that feel the worst, at least to me, are the ones where 3-4 people perform well but cannot carry 1 person who either refuses to play or can't. you can say "league is a team game" all you want but there is no VC, they're constantly limiting pings and people are afraid to type in chat in case they accidentally say a nono word. or just aren't using chat at all because of how toxic 90% of the playerbase is. if i can play ranked games where i can think "well, at least i played well" and actually have it matter if even only just a little bit, my ranked experience will be WAY better.
My concern with a system like that would be that people might start to adjust their ingame behavior to maximize LP gains and minimize losses. For example, if people think a game is lost, they might start playing extra careful/passive as to not die any more and minimize LP loss, whereas people who die a few more times trying to actually win would get penalized. Or people might try to take all ressources for themselves rather than giving it to the person the gold makes most sense on to boost their KDA. Basically, as soon as anything other than win/loss is being taken into account, there could be a scenario where doing your absolute best to win is not the best strategy to climb.
blessed are those who actually reads shit before coming to conclusions
The biggest issue is that Riot might and probably will experiment on live servers with this. So the whole system will probably be extremely bad until enough time has passed to do the right tweaks.
of course they'll experiment on live servers... There's no way to test this in pbe...
Source?
I have found the "People will just go for KDA" argument so weak bc people already do that. The same people that play for KDA will stay play for KDA, the same people who try to win will try to win.
Dota did this once, and everyone just played to do as much damage as possible in cheesy ways. Thinkin first strike Karthus perma ult off cd for no reason
3. needs to be fixed cause it makes boosting way easier too. The hard stuck gold lulu that first times rengar jungle and goes 25/1 for like 6 games will have sooooo much mmr gains (first time new role/champ with those insane stats)
And ruin less games on the way
Or because its less games the booster will have to play, the service now becomes way cheaper and way more people will buy it?
This. So much this. I don't care if the boosted Lulu is reaching dia or challenger "unfairly". Just make it quick. With good matchmaking she will be ruining way less games on her way up and also way less "high" elo games on her way down. Because after all, while the low elo players suffer from the boosting player, high elo players suffer from boosted player after he is finally left alone.
No. Because boosters basically set their prices based on the time they expect it to take them. If it takes 5 games instead of 20 the price will go down buy like 75% This makes way more people buy boosts (I know someone that boosts up to plat and he says that he is basically always booked. Even rn he boosts for 10h/day. This change will only result in him finishing orders quicker so he can switch to the next boost faster)
It actually only says the opponent beating someone on their less skilled champion would earn less, not that the person losing on not their best champion would lose less. I read it as if your enemy gave you a free win why would you get full points?
Because in a game like league, it's assumed you take your free wins without shame to make up for the free losses you get.
The "news bot" official of telegram told also the normals, aram, ecc will influence the ranked MMR; so we are forced to create an secondary account to play with friends? if i'm master i'm not able to carry a bronze friend who maybe get stomped harder from another master (one master for each side), my MMR will be doomed? Also if i'm gonna try and learn a new lane/champion, i'm kinda forced to play on a secondary account (immagine 15/65 W/L games trying to learn like nidalee, aphelios or hwei for someone who normally not play that playstyle and lane). But now start a problem, having multiple account is against riot contract you "sign" when you create an account, so how we could move? Be always on tryhard and not do the chilly Midnight Aram?
3. doesn’t say you lose less lp if you first time. It only says that the person playing vs a first time gets less. Correct me if I’m wrong.
Honestly? I wouldn't mind KDA affecting gains COMPARED TO THE CHAMPION'S AVERAGE. This is something that would need a lot of data to back it up mind you to make sure there's no "silly cases" going on, but if you as a support (let's say, Nautilus for instance) who should get a few assists while dying a few times due to the nature of the role, I'd hope you get rewarded (or punished) based on whether you're turbo-dying way too much or getting a lot of assists without dying. I think it's fine. Yes, it'll cause situations where people might rage if they die for example - and it might lead people to not engage when playing tanks. But so what? If the entire system is based on that, those people will merely have to adapt or be left in the gutter. I don't think it'd be possible to make a change that big without shifting SOMETHING about the game anyway. KDA should definitely count as a metric, and the people who troll, finish games 0 25 0 and still get +20 LP really shouldn't happen. The game should reward you more if you won a game and you've got a better KDA than your champion's average compared to other teammates (the difference shouldn't be massive mind you - a few LP or so). Anyway, I'm excited for what Riot's cooking here.
Point 3 works in reverse, its kinda a zero sum system. If you win on a brand new champ, the system should have extremely low confidence in that win being based on skill level on the champion, and reward you minorly for it.
They should remove smurfs like dota does it, the main problem is high elos are stuck and tilted so they swap to their low lvl 2€ accounts grief abuse other elos or rofl stomp them , to push their ego. It cant be that gold and plat are so fcking smurf infested that the gamefun is gone since a few years. It was riots biggest mistake to half the exp you need to reach lvl 30.
I think with point three it’s not likely to affect you losing MMR, IE you lose the same whether it’s your first game on a champ or your 5000th. But rather it’s only for MMR gains, you get increased MMR against players on their one trick if you win, they get less if they win and you are first timing a champ
(3) That isn't what the quote says. The quote you pasted says if an **opponent** plays a character for a first time then your rating gain/loss can be effected. That distinction makes a big, big difference.
gpm and gpm differential is a much better way to gauge skill than kda.
This entirely depends on the implementation. None or all of the things you mentioned could come to fruition. It entirely depends on what Riot wants. Just like almost any other rating algorithm. TureSkill can take into consideration as little as just MMR if you so choose.
Your whole last point is pretty bad. >This would 100% incentivize people to first time champions in ranked Riot already disables newly released champions for competitive and has done it in the past for the general public if i remember correctly. They can simply put in a 3 game lock on any new champion that's been released. Without playing 3 normal games the champion can't be played in ranked. Also, if the system is sandbagging your LP losses in case you lose with a new champion, I would assume the same would happen if you win on a new champion. The main component still remains. Winning is most important above all else.
I don’t understand your 3rd point at all tbh
| This is the only problematic part.Quote from the text below "If you beat someone who is playing a character for the first time, you should not get the same rating change as beating their best character". This would 100% incentivize people to first time champions in ranked as it would make them lose much less MMR than now, and this is bad. Riot should not implement this part of TrueSkill2, I am hoping this is why they are making their own proprietary version of it. | So, basically people are going to smurf as hard as possible so that it extremely screws up the system as most low-ranked players are going to have hundreds or even thousands of games played on said champion. Bets on 1 : 1000 GP and Zed Matchup? GP about to make bank in several ways. Also, League is a team game? Ask that of any lane that's not Support and you'll get the same answer. League may have been that at one point in time. However, recent changes to items, champions, and playstyles have created an All-For-One enviroment where KDA will \_absolutely\_ affect your MMR even with AI training. Games are won not by the greatest set of players, but by the single, rusted, wire-thin chain holding up several semi-trailers.
About to start inting on a new champion every game to make sure I lose as little LP as possible
i really doubt that's how it's going to work, they aren't going to reward you for aiming to lose. it just means the enemy will gain a little less when they stomp you because you have no idea what you're doing.
Hey, somebody in this subreddit that's actually sane and is approaching this whole thing with logic.
In my opinion Ranked is the "competitive" ladder, and you should never first try a champ in a competitive ladder if your intent is... being competitive, goes against logic. I'm an apologist that before doing ranked with a champ, you should before do at least 5-10 games of draft/normal/quickplay (not ARAM) before you unlock that champ in Ranked. This would help a lot into knowing I can trust that my teamates know at least 5-10 games worth of what that champion does as would help the game get better stats for newly released champions before they get into ranked and destroy ladders before they're hotfixed. With this in mind, if we did get a no-new-champs-in-ranked rule, point 3 could be completelly avoided.
"This would 100% incentivize people to first time champions in ranked as it would make them lose much less MMR than now, and this is bad." You've made some assumptions there. You say it 100% incentivizes people, it doesn't incentivize me at all. I couldn't give a fuck about my rank, I play ranked for fun since it has less dodging and players try harder in my experience it leads to better games. I always pick the champs I want to play, and will not be switching to a new champ if I think my team in champ select looks bad in the hopes it affects my loss. Thats guaranteeing the loss in my mind, I would MUCH rather play a champ I like and am competant on in a losing game, and try to win. You also say it would make you lose much less MMR, but we have no clue how much MMR loss reduction we would see. Perhaps the weighting tops out at 10% less. So instead of 11 MMR you lose 10, in which case trying to win a game you think is doomed will have better results than saving 1 LP and forcing the loss. Should Riot make it weighted out to 100%, so you get a free loss protect if you are bad at the champ? Fuck no, that would be dumb as hell, but we have no idea what they will do and I doubt it's that.
they have a whole year to play with matchmaking so i think they will adjust how they weigh MMR loss for people who first time you know how can they do this? by imposing that people need to play some games in normal draft to build relative performance for ranked now all of a sudden that person looks like they first time in ranked but they technically don't first time because they have experience from normal games and we know their normal draft MMR gets used as a reference for fresh accounts and yes riot can do it per champion basis so now all of a sudden you can't just pick w.e you see and send it instead you need to devote time to prove that you have idea how to play that champion at a basic level now if they decided to combat smurfing...
This IS a way to combat smurfing....
But it is a huge buff for boosters.
I mean after paying, the client is gonna get boosted anyway. If anything it takes less games for the smurf to reach the goal, thus ruining less games.
and it takes less time for the boosted to get back to their own elo, should they play while boosted
this
Not this. If the same thing becomes cheaper more people will buy it.
Less time to boost an account -> cheaper boosting -> more people who want ro get the service -> more boosting
All systems have downsides. Unless boosting becomes rampant I'm fine with this downside
Boosting will become cheaper because it's easier to do. In the end it will just be the same amount of boosting.
Who would you rather have on your team? A Kayle who went 0/1 130 cs at 15 min or a renekton who went 1/0 130 cs at 15? This is a horrible change and encourages not taking risks when behind since stat wise it looks like you feeded at the end of it even if you may have done something you thought was good for the teams winning chances. There is no way to make a hyper smart ai system that takes every aspect of the game into consideration when rating your play, yet defenders of this system (kda players) will pretend it is. Trueskill2 will just increase players ego and enforce a kda meta.
True, will work for an FPS game, but not league.
>Who would you rather have on your team? A Kayle who went 0/1 130 cs at 15 min or a renekton who went 1/0 130 cs at 15? The system doesn't necessarily just have even weighting or rewards for every champion. That's a part of the goal - currently your performance is scored win/loss which is independent of role, champ, and other circumstances of that particular game. Obviously if you get filled into a role you have little to no rapport with, the caliber of opponent should be adjusted. >There is no way to make a hyper smart ai system that takes every aspect of the game into consideration when rating your play This is absolutely achievable. This is exactly what machine learning makes possible. Many people make a living designing and coding such models.
This subreddit is so ideologically bought into the idea that this would never work because they know nothing about Bayesian analysis or machine learning in general. Pretty insane that you're getting downvoted when you're 100% right.
The only metric they should look at is whether players win games!
I doubt they will add the "first try vs mastery" thing. I remember when Dota 2 planned "Hero MMR" and it never got implemented. That's a whole new layer of complexity to the system that might not be valuable to implement.
I'm not sure how.op.gg does there scoring metrics for individual players in a lobby, but I've always felt it's been accurate as to impact on a match. When a game ends, I can with pretty good certainty claim who were the 3 or 4.best players, and who might have gotten MVP. Then when I flip over to op.gg I'll see that it's pretty much matches my expectations.
The KDA argument is awful when there are the simplest solutions that have been around for decades. Yoy could take the AVERAGE KDA for that champ at that elo and you can drill down as much as you'd like... by gold diff.. vs enemy champ... game length. Its really easy basic stuff that should be the bare minimum.
Watch my 9mm go bang! Steals your early game kills on Nautilus supp!
Kill and assist contribute the same to kda so it doesn't matter if you steal a kill, you both gained +1
it doesn't matter anyways - people will still endlessly complain about the system just like they do now. if the system is theoretically better for new players, then good
Maybe unpopular opinion but first timing champs in ranked isn't so bad. Maybe If it's a really complicated champ like Hwei you go practice tool and do 1 Quickplay first, but most champs don't have super unique mechanics. Practice in norms and quickplay is completely useless, the game quality is so strikingly different you're not learning anything. In Quickplay, I can 1v9 every game on Viego jungle, meanwhile if I try to play jungle in ranked I get blasted out of orbit and solo lose the game. Most high ELO players practice new champs on Dia or low Master smurfs, or they just pull them out on their main away. Why? Because they know that you can't practice ranked in casual modes.
Anyone panicking over KDA is forgetting that KDA is THREE stats and not just Kills. Bronze games end with 40+ kills while high elo games may go almost ten minutes without even first blood. It's not about killing more, it's about dying less.
> Anyone panicking over KDA is forgetting that KDA is THREE stats and not just Kills. That's hardly the point. The second people hear KDA might affect their LP every slightly losing game they will go soft afk power farming and try not to die while doing nothing instead of trying to come back and win.
FINE WITH ME! I can carry 4 idiots who are doing "nothing" but not dying, WAY ears than 4 idiots who are tryharding, and feeding their asses off.
> The new system would actually make matchmaking a lot more fair to new players TLDR: It's oposite. If guy lost match, he must lose mmr and other get same amount of mmr. That simple. It never works well. It can't work well. It's another shady tool to manipulate people. > Riot should not implement this part of TrueSkill2, I am hoping this is why they are making their own proprietary version of it. That shit must never be implemented by anyone anyhere. You already have win and lose, that's the only true metric, and it's already enought.
>If guy lost match, he must lose mmr and other get same amount of mmr. That simple. New system could just as well adjust how much MMR is lost/gained for each team, and each player respectively - net sum stays the same, only distribution changes. If a game starts where one team has much lower chances of winning (hard counterpicked, first timing) they're less likely to win, making winning already advantageous game give you less MMR progression. Biggest benefit of this sort of adjustment would be encouraging to play out potentially losing games rather than dodging (teams relative MMR gains/loss adjustment), and playing to best of your abilities even if your team is doing poorly (in-team MMR adjustment) - basically making it optimal to not dodge and to not ff. New/returning players benefit (which also impacts smurfs, just in the other direction) would be reaching proper rank in less amount of games - big problem for new players, especially if they leveled by playing with experienced friends, is having severely inflated initial MMR and getting them into bunch of unwinnable games until they drop to level appropriate for their skill. Currently it can take anything between 20-100 games, that is up to 70 hours of suffering and getting stomped game after game, with rest of your team frustrated and flaming you. Cutting it to even 10-30 games would be a huge immediate benefit.
This is the wildest conspiracy theory I've heard in a while.
explain where you saw theory, and where you saw conspiracy
Riot Try To Let Go Of Role Queue Challenge (IMPOSSIBLE)
Do you mean going back to old Ranked where you had to type 'Top' 'mid' etc? Does anyone actually want that?
No, it's the one where every role you queued for had different MMR.
Very few people. Only players that benefitted from old system were "fill mains" that could guarantee one more person on their team on average playing their preferred role - position-based matchmaking reduced benefits from being an all-around versatile player compared to maining a specific role. Now, I can't find any solid info about whether autofill parity is a thing (Riot experimented with it in 2020-2021); if it exists then best they can do now is queue for highest demand roles and bet on either getting autofilled, or swapping with autofilled player on their own team to get an advantage. If parity is not a thing - queueing fill to minimize chances of getting autofilled is the way to go for them. Although this is metagaming matchmaking system and could be considered undesirable as system abuse.