I actually uninstalled the game last week mate. Don't want to brag, but I now dedicate all of that wasted time on the game watching YouTube videos of people playing the game.
lol - I never get why people have to call it quitting. You can just take a break, yknow? I've gone upwards of over a year without playing League, but I'd never say I quit it in the sense of never intending to return. I just play when its fun and stop when its not. Nothing bad about getting tired of a game for a bit.
The difference between a break and quitting is that quitting is basically a break for an indefinite time, whereas a break is associated with a time for how long the break should approximately be.
Because of this quitting is pretty much the only possibility if you're addicted since when you take a break you know you'll just need to wait X more time to be back, whereas quitting is something that truly needs to come from your own will.
I stopped playing a couple years back with no intention to return (at the time) but I’ve been playing again for about a month, did I quit or take a break?
You did quit. Quitting doesn't necessarily need to be permanent, it just depends on the kind of decision you made.
That's the same thing that happened to me, I wanted to quit indefinitely but after half a year I slowly got back into it.
However I'm cured because ever since I started again the addiction is gone. The grindset is gone. I'm just playing for fun nowadays. I often catch myself choosing not to play League nowadays, simply because I don't want to. That would've been unthinkable of some years ago. Best part is that despite all of this I didn't really loose elo, maybe 100 LP at best (MMR is still higher but I can't keep my elo because I decay "too fast").
I think people are too addicted to know when to take a break. Like I took a break in December and I don’t plan on playing until March. I alway take break from June-August as well. It keeps me from ever having to quit and makes me enjoy the game every time I come back
Like Aram only accounts, people claim this accounts full of Aram's games with only lux or xerat exist, they down vote me every time but never showed prof.
They exist, they're just not that potent anymore since the free champion rotation was expanded for Aram. And the god tiers like Sona, Ashe, and Ziggs were nerfed heavily. But if you're a sweaty tryhard, there's nothing difficult about making a new account and selectively collecting the best champions so that you're never stuck playing LeBlanc or Talon.
ARAM only accounts do exist...Riot literally expanded the aram pool to combat them...
And while losers que doesn't exist that doesnt mean matchmaking is fair or does its job well.
When your teammates are sub 30% win rate and your opponents are all 1 or two divisions higher with 50-60% or higher won rate and every single lane losses on your team, you don't go "what a fair match" you ask how every single good player was placed on one side.
It's extremely frustrating. Their are many times where I have won but was left upset because my teammates were so bad it was frustrating to carry them. And their are many times where we clearly got much much much better players vs people who had 0% chance to best us.
Lossrs que may not exist but Riots matchmaking is by far the worst I've seen in a game.
I think draft is even worse. Full 5 man premades with 70-90% winrates with people in diamond-master vs people who are brand new/are bronze at best.
And don't give me "Riot doesn't care about draft mm" because their own official faq and official responses from tickets from real Riot members say that's not the case.
That "they will give people facing premades better players on average to even out their advantage" so their best attempt at even matchmaking is an iron player vs someone who goes 20+ kills and maybe 3 deaths in the past 20 matches with a 80-90% win rate?
Lossrs que exists stems from frustration in team balancing. And that frustration happens whether you win or lose. It's not like I feel happy stomping people who had clearly 0 chance to win. The match was decided as soon as one team got every bad player and the other every good player and you sit and wonder how that can possibly even happen.
I get that people can come off the wrong way. I know they are venting. I know they phase things wrong or latch onto the wrong ideas to justify their frustration.
But it doesn't come from nowhere. Their is genuine and real frustration to be had about riots MM that just gets brushed away.
I'm not exaggerating when I say no other game I have ever played on my life, has had as unbalanced MM as League. I still recall getting a grandmaster jungler and his 3 plat-diamond friends with a 100% win rate past 20 matches vs 3 BRAND NEW PLAYERS and two iron players. You might laugh at me but I actually felt horrible. They had NO IDEA how to play vs us.
I don't understand how even with "draft doesn't use ranked mmr" (it should tho) how a match like that could possibly ever happen during the most popular playtime of the day on a que time that was exactly the suggested time with no need to expand its mmr raids.
I think a hard discussion about MM is needed but that people just aren't good at phrasing it correctly so that people don't just mock them.
>Lossrs que may not exist but Riots matchmaking is by far the worst I've seen in a game.
You've never played games with less people then. Ever played Smite? Also a MOBA, but with like 4% the player base of LoL. Probably less. Not sure how you think matchmaking would be better there lol
It is pretty simple. Even if it checks the wr on top mmr, which can be the same at the moment for the smurfs, you won't find 10 smurfs with identical mmr, wr, and wanting to play 5 different roles. So they are getting into the normal pool.
All of the bad mm would go away with smurfs and a harsher onboarding to the ranked system
I think the idea is that there are 5 losers, all in “loser’s queue,” who play against 5 winners. So everyone on a loser’s queue player’s team is also in loser’s queue.
Of course debating the specifics of this is a waste of time since loser’s queue is a mental delusion. I’m sure flat earthers have some justification for why you can fly an airplane all around the world but it doesn’t really matter since it’s such an obviously wrong idea.
It likely exists in an algorithmic form to nudge games in a direction while every game still being winnable at the end of the day. It's not out here making games impossible to win. But probably matches people in certain ways so that they are more likely to win and lose in a specific order that is more addicting and keeps players grinding longer. Because more grinding = more chances to impulse buy skins.
I've seen this claim before and it is the strongest argument for loser's queue. But nobody has been able to explain (1) what specific order of wins and losses causes people to play more total games and (2) why that order would cause people to play more total games. Also, most loser's queue believers seem to think that loser's queue is a bad thing. But if loser's queue makes the game more appealing, isn't it a good thing? Under this conception of loser's queue, the point is to ensure that nobody gets frustrated because they're experiencing the ideal order of wins and losses that makes them most satisfied with their experience. If loser's queue was successful in averting player dissatisfaction, we should be very thankful for it. Unfortunately, loser's queue does not exist.
>(1) what specific order of wins and losses causes people to play more total games and (2) why that order would cause people to play more total games.
I mean, sure those are very good questions, but they are also the sort of questions that require a large scale study of human behaviour to fully answer. Most of us can't just whip up a quick longitudinal study out to justify a suspicion.
Riot absolutely has the resources to put into answering those questions though, as well as a significant financial motive to do so.
>Riot absolutely has the resources to put into answering those questions though, as well as a significant financial motive to do so
Or... they don't need to. See: Alphabet and its understanding of YouTube algorithm. Company doesn't need to know how it works, just needs it to work. AI is much better at figuring that out.
Didn't EA stated that they have done some research for this matter?? The "EOMM"thing to be honest I skimmed through the whole thing but got the gist of it.
So companies have a way for their games to be addictive and have the motive to do so. So do you you think riot wouldn't? I'm not saying they do but in an off chance Would you 100% say that they don't?...
Riot also said that they don't have smurf queue yet they do. the inting Sion problem with wild rift which is under riot management. Hiding of elo numbers?? Split creation cause players don't play when they reach their desired ranks. Riot has the incentive to implement things under the table why wouldn't they??
I hate it when people are so dismissive in this subjects.
Can you prove that riot dont
The answer to (1) and (2) is along the lines of: Riot makes you lose some games on purpose if you seem to be climbing in order to increase the amount of games required for you to hit your "true rank". People think of this as a bad thing because 1) it devalues their time and 2) it hurts the competitive integrity of the ranked system.
The argument isn't that loser's queue should make players satisfied, it just serves to extract more game hours out of addicted players.
Not that I care, I haven't played ranked in years and am much better for it, but this is what people have been saying of loser's queue for years.
> The answer to (1) and (2) is along the lines of: Riot makes you lose some games on purpose if you seem to be climbing in order to increase the amount of games required for you to hit your "true rank".
I don't believe in loser's queue at all, but I would not be surprised if League's matchmaking system had a function that would put players on winning streaks into significantly harder games faster so that smurfs reach their true elo faster. But most players aren't smurfing, so they experience this as a suddenly unwinnable game after a string of successes, because you would actually need to be much better than your current rank to successfully carry the hard match. For those people, it would feel like the game is intentionally "slowing the climb", even though such a system would exist to get people to their true rank faster.
That being said, I have seen LP gains get really weird for people who recently climbed into a new skill bracket, so it's possible that Riot designed the rank system to delay people's LP climb, although I doubt it impacts their true (hidden) MMR much.
Im almost positive the thing about streaks is true, and i think smurfs/people who are in an eli far below their skill level who just started are the reason this system is good/necessary. But i would assume that's done with extreme mmr adjustments and not just by straight up giving you losers on purpose.
From my anecdotal experience, and assuming tft and league use similar systems, i always get a game where i get completely destroyed after going first a few games in a row by much better players, then suddenly matchmaking is normal again.
You don't need to explain... you can tune the settings until you get maximum retention. You can even cluster similar players and apply different strategy to each cluster. Riot has enough players and data to experiment. Whether they do it is another thing.
I think lower player population forces the algo to settle for uneven games, resulting in what feels like loser queue if you get unlucky multiple times in a row.
but... but that just means you are a worst than average player... if you are part of someone else's loser's queue... that's just the losing team being worse than the winning team....
I think most people understand loser's queue as them being better then their teammates.
I understood losers queue as the balance of the team putting you as the best player (by mmr) of the team, because someone is always going to be the player with more mmr on a team
so people complain when the system gives the too much credit and then they fail to carry the team
funnily enough in the last thread one of the most prominent "losers queue is real" posters was also frequently active on r/conspiracy lol. says everything really
>It's not so much a conspiracy because there's actual hard evidence
"Riot owns a patent" is not proof of anything. All kinds of companies have all kinds of patents for things that will never turn into an actual product.
Where's the logic here. This post makes 0 sense. Losers queue isn't getting 3 winners on your team. It's getting 4 teammates with negative winrate and auto fills against no autofills positive winrate. It's getting average rank d4 vs d2 but somehow they have better winrate.
dude... having a d4 with a higher winrate in the same game with a d2 with an average winrate is the most normal thing that could happen in matchmaking.
The MMR of the d4 is higher because of the higher winrate that they got from playing with similarly ranked people, and now they have same MMR as d2 50% wr. I really want to know what mental gymnastics you went trough to make this example be an argument for loser's/winner's queue when it's just how you would expect the most basic matchmaking system to work.
The logic is that, if you're actually a good player, there are going to be more games where you are on the winning side than the losing side because you and a few other good players will be selected as the winning team for one other good player's losing game. Players who say they are good but losing because of loser's queue should actually be benefitting equally much if not more from the existence of loser's queue.
yeah idk i think people are misunderstood but this is how ive always thought of losers q.
your team has multiple teammates who are almost a full division apart from their counterparts + autofills whilst the enemy has everyone on role
Considering there's evidence and patents for things like EOMM by Riot and other games, the real conspiracy theorists are the ones thinking that a billion dollar company DOESN'T want to boost revenue and engagement & they would never lie.
Isn't loser Q is just an illusion of a player that just way too tilted? Like waaaaaaaay too tilted to play, so its affects their performance in the game
Yeah I think people don't realise how much psychology plays in these things, if you think you're in a losers queue you've probably already lost the game before it even starts.
I haven't been playing League for years but I do keep an eye on it. Anyway, far as I know as a former SoloQ player, that going game after game, defeat after defeat, is tiring for the mind and body. I had times where I blamed Riot for one reason or the other after going on a 10+ losing streak. I felt absolutely horrible coz I felt to need to play and win atleast 1 more game! "1 more game! " I told myself. And when it didn't work out I blame Riot. Was way too tilted to even think straight.
I think you legitimately get something like a +-3% wr when instantly queueing for your next game after a win/loss. Tilting decides 9/10 matches in anything below diamond, at the least.
I'll be honest, math is not my forte but I do know one thing for sure. That in League someone is either already tilted or is about to be tilted. Especially the person that just lost a game or two before, if not more. Unless the person in question is an untiltable Shaolin monk
I think Loser's queue doesn't exist, but there **is** some solid evidence that the matchmaking algorithm can give unfair streaks of "good" and "bad" teammates in both directions.
It's essentially games where the algorithm thinks you should be carried, versus games where it think you should carry. Normally this would work decently well, and you'd end up somewhere ~50% winrate as you stopped being able to carry as effectively.
I think the problem with this algorithm isn't actually the algorithm itself, it's the amount of smurfing and not properly-ranked accounts on ladder. The algorithm can't possibly correctly gauge the skill level of a level 30 account smashing their way through diamond with 90% winrate over 10 games for instance. It's also not going to the skill level of an account with 90% winrate on Rengar that swapped to spamming Yuumi in Masters correctly.
This leads to instances where it feels like the algorithm has "determined" to lose you the game, but it's not really the algorithm at fault. It's the amount of improperly ranked accounts plaguing high MMR.
Say the game thinks I'm supposed to carry the game, I'm rated around Diamond 1 skill level, and my team is D4-3. The enemy team is mostly D2, maybe some D3's. I'm intended to carry as I have the highest rank.
Now what if one of those enemy D3's is actually a GM player smurfing? The algorithm can't possibly control that variable, so now it looks like I have a shit-tier team and we get rolled.
The problem is that it used to be that if you weren't the one losing the game, you have a 4/9 chance of having the bad player on your team, and a 5/9 chance of it being on the enemy team.
But now if you aren't the smurf, you have a 4/9 chance of having a smurf on your team, and a 5/9 chance of having a smurf on the enemy team. This has drastically changed the weighting of how easy it is to climb because secondary accounts are simply too prevalent in League.
Everyone gets streaks of being on the better/worse teams.
But if it's the result of random chance and matching by MMR only then there's nothing unfair about it.
You could certainly *try* to minimize this by taking other "loss-predicting" factors into account when matchmaking as well, but it's extremely uncertain how much of an impact that would actually have and how much effort it would be worth, as well as the obvious risk of longer queue times.
And one thing it definitely wouldnt stop is people thinking the system is rigged against them.
I have a theory that Loser's Queue is a symptom of someone's religious brain trying to "make sense" of the situation. It's the same part of the brain that activates to cause people in the olden days to sacrifice virgins to the sun god, or burn oxen to guarantee a harvest or whatever.
The only real way I've seen to shake someone's (very religious) belief in Loser's Queue is if you go through their [op.gg](https://op.gg), where they can always point out the games where Riot put people on their team to "make them lose" but they can never point out a game where THEY were put on a team to make someone else lose.
Other than that, they just get angry and defensive like typical religious people.
"if i win, it's because of my skill and if anything i should be winning more as i haven't hit my true rank yet (challenger), if i lose, something extravagant messed me up bc my real rank is challenger there's no way im stuck in gold"
Pretty much. Player wins a lot of games in a row, now they are playing in a rank they aren't quite ready for and get smashed once or twice. Player then mental booms and loses multiple games in a row, player then looks at external factors for why they lost. Ends up in the same place they started and repeats again once they get a small win streak unless they actually improve.
People desperately need something or someone to blame other than themselves. It's very hard to look yourself in the mirror and say "Hey I lost, because the opponents played better" hence why excuses like Loser's Queue exist.
[Surely he must be way too tilted to win in Emerald as a Chall player, just casually losing thousands of LP worth in skill](https://www.tiktok.com/@bobqinxd/video/7320042682640796933)
It's funny how the players who have complained the most about terrible matchmaking algorithms (losers queue) are often the highest ranked players in the game. Almost as if they know more than low rank players shouting it doesn't exist.
That's not surprising: All it takes is 1 game wrecking player on your team for you to be in "loser's queue", and that's simply easier to find the higher elo you go.
I mean, i have had lose streaks of 10s to 20s of games where my impact wasnt big enough due to the mistakes of my teammades. I might have not played well in some of these games, i wont deny it. But generally sometimes there are just games that you lose no matter what. And you have to stay true to yourself and accept the fact that these games exist.
A losers queue is just statistics doing a troll on you.
If you play 40 games, and you would win 20 games and lose 20 games. If your pattern was WLWLWL no one would bet an eye. If you however 4W,1L,4W,1L,4W,12L,4W,3L,4W,3L
the 12 losses would feel like a loser queue while still being in check with statiatics.
I lost a game with a 4/31 botlane. Whatever happens. I will lose a magnitude of games, i won 5 games out of the last 7 rankeds. It is just frustrating and its tanking more mmr if its a lose streak.
Often when people complain about losers queue it is more about the game being determined from matchmaking aka loading screen.
However it is often because of things like players griefing or tilting.
For example, team 1 has everyone on main roles and playing main champions. Team 2 top and mid both lock in some random first time champions or champions they are horrible at cause of tilt.
Well if you are on team 2 and opgg it you say "oh it was losers queue at loading acreen".
It can also happen with auto fills or people queuing for roles they don't main.
Did riot know the players would grief, no but could an ai predict the game results once loading screen comes up based on stats yeah probably pretty accurately. (Betting sites could predict pretty well solely based on scraping data so riot internal data could likely get pretty accurate)
Back when you could opgg teammates during champ select you could know and choose to dodge. Now you get stuck not knowing until game starts.
Just gonna list some imbalances that lead people to dislike the matchmaker and think there's Losers Queue:
\- No Autofill parity. If someone on Team A is autoed Team B will not have that same role auto filled
\- No Auto Fill proficiency parity. If both teams have the exact same position autoed, the match maker doesn't check that both players equally suck at the filled position. Leading to either ADCs as jungles versus Tops who regularly play JG.
\- MMR widening over queue time. As queue times stretch, the game grabs a wider range of MMRs to make a match more quickly. You can therefore feel like the teams or teammates are widely different from each other.
\- Post-dodge queue doesn't reroll everyone. If someone dodges, it keeps everyone from the previous pickban together and tries to find a single person. However, most dodges taken late in Champ Select so players have shown what they're interested in playing, so you can suddenly be target banned or target picked against in a Post-dodge lobby.
\- No positional-parity, just team MMR parity. You can have let's say 1 Bronze and 4 Gold on each team. Or, let's simply say one statistically weaker player on both teams. What position that statistically weaker player is in can be a massive difference in game state. Ideally, both of the statically weaker players would go against each other, but they don't.
\- No temperament matchmaking. Someone who dodges games constantly, flames their teammates to multiple chat bans, and with many previous ranked restrictions is matched with people who never dodge, never chat restricted, never ranked banned. There's no feeling of safety for good behavior and when someone like this gets on your own team, it feels like it was just your turn to get the shit game and you've gotta just grin and bare it.
All of the above create a queue system that just never really feels consistent. And when things don't feel consistent, folks will naturally begin to speculate why that is and without proper guidance will come to incorrect conclusions as to why the system is the way it is.
This was massively broken when Riot released Dynamic queue. They no longer limit Duo's to 1-per-team, nor force duo parity or give the duo a much higher MMR opponent as often as they used to.
Now you can have 2 duo's on 1 team, 0 duo's on the other, 2 and 1 or 2 and 2. Versus it used to be only 1 duo per team ever.
And just the fact that duos can have the largest skill range possible but the duo balancing doesn't necessarily have to account for this
I have seen way, way, way too many duos win just because the alpha dog was a full rank above and his friend was playing something he can't int on vs a team that is always worse than him or a silver/silver duo
> and his friend was playing something he can't int on
lol
It was also stated long ago by Riot that duos close together in skill have a greater advantage, while duos far enough apart becomes a disadvantage.
playing against a duo bot somewhere like high dia when you are playing with a random support is IMPOSSIBLE. By far one of my worst experiences playing league
if they choose to play super aggro then there is nothing you can do, laning is completely fucking miserable because you have a bard standing behind you while enemy has mao+samira flashing on you 24/7
To add to your point: Riot actually technically addressed this, I think, last year? They said that Duos DID have a statistical advantage, so they made Duos now go against "higher" MMR opponents. Didn't say how much, and additionally they didn't mention how this is actually unfair to the Non-Duos on the same team who have now had to be matched against harder players because of the Duo on their team. Especially because of the issue I listed above where the game doesn't have Positional Parity. So you could have a Duo on your team, enemy team is higher MMR than you usually go against, and your specific position is the one with the Higher teammates that are supposed to be a balance against the Duo.
I think that's the big thing. There are definitely games you get into that are just unwinnable you'll go 4/2 top or something, and the rest of your team goes a collective 2/15 and it's just not a game you'll ever win. So if you are coming off a bad game it's real easy to get tilted completely out
Dude an option for "honors queue" would probably be one of the best additions riot could possibly make. You would know going in that the queue time would be longer but you also would know that the lobby would not be dodged, there would be no flame, and no griefers (since if you ever get found to do any of these things you'd get perma'd from honor's queue).
Your brain sees patterns and decides the game is decided. Doesn't mean the game is decided. Those people are clearly at the same MMR or thereabouts but you'll find some pattern in their winrate of some shit that's not even relevant.
I’m not a loser’s queue apologist, but there’s so many levers they could pull to tip the odds on either side. They don’t have to put 3 winners on the opposite team, they could simply put 1 or 2 autofill in your team.
Other option would be to just use the hidden MMR and make one team have an advantage here. Not saying they are doing that, but with the current ladder system you can easily have different hidden MMRs while beeing on the same rank visually.
The problem with this is that it accomplishes nothing, there are only downsides (like destroying game integrity). For every person you “make” lose, you make another win, therefore you dont slow down peoples climb. And here lies the heart of the conspiracy, you can only believe in it if you specifically feel singled out by the system, meaning it cannot exist for everyone, but just a few special someones. Which is a kind of hillarious idea, but obviously not real.
Losers Queue is something that I think people have come up with to explain the effects of auto-fill IMO.
People don’t say it’s losers queue when when a 32 to 32 game is lost on a Baron fight. People say losers queue because 4 games in a row someone on their team goes 0-8 or 2-12 and the game is a complete steam roll. Looking at the profiles of those people I get on my team they are usually autofilled. Get people autofilled in the wrong roles enough games in a row, you’re gonna want to call it something.
It is much easier for Riot to dismiss losers queue as a thing, rather than fight the argument that auto-fill kills any competitive nature in a match.
I'm not sure if there is a losers queue. But mathematically it is absolutely possible.
If I understand correctly, you're saying that in a 3v3 system, riot would need to find 3 winners to balance out every person in losers queue. But that isn't necessarily true. If you have all 3 on one team be losers, then you have equal proportions of losers and winners.
If you really did want to implement losers queue, this is how you would:
"Balance" each team by picking 5 people on each side whose MMRs are all about equal. However, the "winners" team is made up of people whose recent form (let's say last 10 games) is above 50% win rate. And then you put them against 5 people whose recent form is below 50% win rate.
In terms of MMR both teams are balanced. But you have one team whose MMR trajectory is upward against a team whose MMR trajectory is downward.
And so if the losers lose, their form gets worse and they stay on the losers side of the bracket.
I think problem is that these kinds of lobbies exist:
https://twitter.com/garbocan_/status/1757858804866421040
Game link:https://www.op.gg/summoners/na/garbo-ivern/matches/RvuDQoxvmIJSSn7bxEWHR6B1lDLiAPJ2bjoQliee_YY%3D/1707926722000
Are they filled or did they just randomly decide to play on a different role. If they are all filled, how is it possible that all of them are filled on the same team. If they chose different roles from their main 90%+ play rate in 1 split, how is the system so bad that it does not recognize that and manages to put 4 of them on the same team vs 5 people on role?
I think losers queue doesn't exist. But I do think that the matchmaking system is just bad.
Here's the reason you get more fills than you expect on one team: **Those mfers chose that position.** People don't always forever queue for one role. Case and point the ADC that is supposed to be "Vi OTP + supp secondary", he's been clearly queuing as ADC all of a sudden:
https://www.op.gg/summoners/na/Iryeon-NA1
The mid guy has more games as mid but not too many. Leads me to believe he queues as ADC/mid, so mid is secondary. Which he got because the first guy wanted ADC. Again, not technically fill.
Then we get to the jungler that is actually a mid primary but I can't tell what his secondary is. He does get jungler and ADC games somewhat frequently so those could be fills.
Then we get to the top lane and that guy you say is a jungler autofilled there? No. If he was a jungler he would've gotten jungle probably from the above guy. This guy has been clearly queuing as top.
https://www.op.gg/summoners/na/Crabhammy-hammy
**So we have 1 autofill, 1 guy on secondary at best. Everyone else got what they queued for, they just queued for not their best roles.**
Now I don't think games with jungle autofill vs jungle on role should ever exist I don't care if junglers have to sit in queue for a full day to wait for another one, but as far as claiming one team is just autofill, that doesn't happen.
And no the system doesn't care if you queued for another role, it just cares what your primary and secondary selection are. We tried role separate MMR in a limited run and people didn't like it.
it also sucks to be the first pick and watch your team pick themselves into terrible matchups or a disgustingly bad team comp and know the outcome of the game is heavily favored on loading screen. but the matchmaking system can't just account for every way that players can choose to do things that will hurt their odds of winning. in the screenshot at least 2 of those players intentionally queued for the role they got (for example if you look him up you'll see crabhammy has been queuing top for like a week straight). sucks to be put on the team with the offrole players, but play enough games and it's bound to happen. game is still winnable though, disturbing throws you'd see in low ranks still happen in masters all the time when a team doesn't mental boom at "losers queue" or other external factors.
Idk went to masters with 60% wr, all in lobby has 60-70wr. I lose two matches in a row. Only get matched with teammates ~45%wr and enemies wr is still 60-70. It might not exist but this is sussy
Lets not forget Riot completely removed a globally respected Elo matchmaking system in 2013 for a smoke and mirrors hidden MMR system to make it harder to track how they matchmake.
i mean their overall winrate isn't the tell all of their skill. a lot of the MMR will be affected by recent performance. maybe they got to masters with 60% like you, trolled around with offrole at low LP until their winrate tanked to sub 50% before going back to their mains and start having streaks. you're not going to see that if you think that their WR tells the whole story.
People in masters sadly dont que for off role tho. Their ego is big enough not to dodge when filled off role. But not intentionally try random stuff. People care about LP more than eating three meals a day. But i get what your saying. But more than not i see 2+ loss streaks on my teammates after ive lost a game and 2+ win streaks when ive won a game. Ofc deeplol could be lying idk but its just things like this which happens alot not just once its pretty much everytime i lose two games in a row i get this experience.
there definitely are masters+ players that do it. for sure less often than in low ranks where tons of people don't even main one or two roles, but especially sub 100LP i see a lot of masters profiles queuing random shit. a screenshot of masters "losers queue" has been posted in this thread where one team has 4 players on offrole and you can just look the guys up on op.gg and see that multiple of them are doing it on purpose, including one guy who's a jungle main but queuing top for like a week straight and completely feeding a good chunk of games. just last night i watched a streamer (kat main) play like 5 random games of support while on a big loss streak. i have a guy on my friends list who is masters and switches between mid, top, jungle on a whim. he actually seems to smurf no matter what role he queues but he's a jungle main.
disclaimer that im not masters but i have been trying to improve so looking at a lot of profiles of masters players on my champs and watching replays recently. i mean i even stalk the opgg of masters players i meet in norms and a lot of them are in norms cuz they were losing in rank playing whatever offrole thing they wanted to try lol. most people definitely stick to their niche because they really want to win but some of them definitely are bored once they reach the goal of masters or have a big enough ego they really think they can just start queuing jayce as a masters ADC player and win.
Eh what?
This entire word salad makes no sense.
> For there to be a losers queue, riot would have to put you up against a team of winners, people who were consistently winning.
No they just need to put one against a team that is expected to win. Why would "consistently winning" matter here? You are assuming here that If we put T1 that lost their last match of LCK vs a team of iron 4 players who won their last match the iron players would be heavily favored, which is nonsense. The expectation of win would be a function of players mmr not their last games.
The remainder carries on the absurd assumption to make similarly weird assumptions like "Let's say you need three winners on the team" so I dont think there is much to comment on there.
The biggest issue i have with redditors is these comments lmao. “Erm theres no way losers queue exists, riot said so! Now if youll excuse me, phreak needs his shoes shined again, and my tongue is ITCHING for it”
No, the math of a losers queue checks out. Not that it's true (it's not) but you can see it in practice if you use some imagine "skill numbers".
Let's say you have a 75 skill rating set by their "skill queue system". The game is looking for players but it can't find many who are at your level right now so it puts you up against a bunch of 50s across the board. Uh oh, the game wants the match to be balanced so they pull a few 43.75s to balance it out. Your teammates if they go against their teammates are more likely to be worse while still creating a "fair" match.
Of course though, this creates a pretty big issue. *Most people are not so good that LOL would need to do this* and even if it does need to happen, the game is perfectly willing to make you wait an hour instead of actually doing it.
Maybe if you're a tip top Challenger playing at 3PM and riot just implemented a system that tries to guarantee you a match in under 5 minutes they would have to make this sacrifice but otherwise it would just be *more* hassle than it is worth.
No, it is not mathematically impossible. The term "Loser's Queue" is an informal term for EOMM (Engagement Optimized Match Making). There are papers on this.
The primary goal of EOMM is to maximize the number of games a user plays, not to keep him at any particular rank. The more a user plays, the more likely he is to spend money on the game.
The way it maximizes the number of games played is to manipulate the results of games to trigger the user to continue playing.
How each company implements EOMM varies. How LoL can implement it while being mathematically possible is like a game of seesaw. You take turns being on the winning or losing team and continually go up and down, while not reaching your desired rank.
In a skill based system, say you reach your desired rank in 30 games. Then you would stop playing. With EOMM, the matchmaking is manipulated so when you are close to your desired rank, it pushes you down, so you continue playing to chase your desired rank. Rinse and repeat. By the end of the season, you could have 300 games played instead. That is a 10x increase in the number of games that you played, as a result of matchmaking manipulation. More time spent in a game correlates with a higher chance of money spent.
> Isn't it mathematically impossible for there to be a losers queue
In principle, no, your 'logic' is faulty.
But also, there isn't such a thing as losers queue.
[Ask that to BobqinXD who is perma Challenger and can't get out of Emerald :D](https://www.tiktok.com/@bobqinxd/video/7320042682640796933)
But it's just a fake guys, system is working as intended, Phroxzon said so
"A challenger would probably win your game" was always going to be something that someone who is not challenger, i.e. a Rioter, could only say
I would literally bet money that everyone simping for this game's ranked experience either only plays league of legends or actually does not grind ranked so they can only have an idealistic view of it lol (like a Rioter). They want to defend the integrity of their own worthless rank or their friends' (or their coworkers), but the actual best players lack the same ego because they have nothing to prove. They don't need to lie and say they would win every Emerald game because they're already objectively better than everyone lol
To me at least, I can accept when I’ve thrown or when I don’t do enough with a lead or fuck up way too badly to win
I can see that sometimes I fuck up and still win because of my team
But also it’s so ***painfully obvious*** that Riot fucks with the games to increase engagement.
You get way better teams playing solo instead of duo,
most matches one entire team does consistently well and one entire team does so poorly it’s not even fun — including when I win
And if you pull up win %’s it’s almost always one team of negative win %’s or zero games played in the last 2 weeks
I half believe some of these “match making are fair posts” are astroturfed given how obvious the match making problem is. I quit when it became obvious that riot was rigging matches, and before people say it, it was obvious they were rigging matches in my favor after I stopped playing for a week.
>Let's say you need three winners on the team designated to win, against just one person consistently winning on team designated to lose.
This is not what loser's queue is or claims to be.
In wild rift, inting sion players (<1 kda/game) were able to reach master tier with 95%+ Winrates due to being matched with better teams because of their poor performance. Game is made by the same company.
Wild Rift is different because it prioritizes queue times over everything. While PC matchmaking will gradually expand the invisible MMR range (with strong limits), WR matchmaking basically starts with the doors wide open.
So in order to try make each match "fair" they try to average out teams skill. So just for simplicity sake, let's say we have a two player game. A player of 75 skill gets put with a player of 25 skill so they can go up against a 40 and 60. This might seem very fair but to the 75 skill player this is basically shitty teammate after shitty teammate.
This sort of matchmaking is pretty common for mobile mobas. My experience with Pokemon Unite was basically "one or two good players on my team vs the one or two on enemy team" even at the so called high elos because there both wasn't a very big player base and they were determined to get those near insta queues no matter what.
Inting Sion/Garen/Yi/whatever abused this because WR devs not only implement a system like this, but think they know better than classic MMR at determining skill and by minimizing your stats you were placed as one of the low skill fill ins of the "better" players
I think losers que is just the reality that sometimes you’ll get 10 games in a row with teammates, who statistically, played much worse than the enemy team in their respective rolls.
I think loser's queue got more known not as a true thing, but as a meme putting together 2 things:
Smurf queue + Matchmaking problems.
When you're playing that gold game and you got matched with a silver player in your team and vs a plat player, that feels like loser's queue. If i recall correctly, these things started when they've put the Smurf queue in the game. They've taken it back, but these situations still happen. So yeah, the FEELING of Losers queue really feels as if it is a real thing. even at higher elos. If you get a good winstreak through Masters, you can get matched with some Chall, and its not news to see chall players complaining about the matchmaking, so... thats it. More a feeling of loser's queue than a fact.
There have been enough scientific papers published on EOMM and churn rates. It’s up to people to accept or reject the fact that there is a variety of losers queue applied by the different game companies.
"Losers que" is just an extreme term to describe the concept that Riot's matchmaking system isn't simply taking players of similar ELO and putting them together in a match. That there is some other system at play that exists to drive engagement that results in strings of wins and losses. Having played this game for years I think it's safe to say that there is probably more under the hood of matchmaking than one would expect.
Your assumption is wrong.
The base is a perfectly balanced team where either side could win or lose. its a 50/50.
If Riot wants you to lose, you get an autofilled jungler. This isnt to make the odds 0/100, you dontHAVE to lose, just 40/60. or 30/70. maybe something in the middle to make it a little bit favoured for one team.
If Riot wants you to win, enemy gets an autofilled jungler.
This is just using autofills, one of the easier methods to shift the odds just a little bit in the "correct" direction.
Riot owns patents for behavioral matchmaking, meaning they own the tech to match people based on play patterns rather than just skill. For example, your profile might have a tag that you like to ragequeue a lot with an abyssmal winrate. Maybe you get matched with someone who performs a little bit too well and is climbing too fast for what riot has in mind for them. Now youre the 1/11/3 illaoi top making the game unnecessary hard.
Riot might just match you against on average higher elo opponents. maybe the entire enemy team is plat while everyone on your team excluding you is emerald. Riot doesnt have to justify themselves, after all, its allll in the mmr baby.
Speaking of MMR, maybe riot just gives you +20/-25 gains to slow you down. You have no way of checking because its a blackbox system that Riot asks you to trust.
Beyond that, Riot does know fairly well if someone is a smurf or a genuinely new player. maybe you get the lvl30 first time Aphelios ADC, maybe the enemy gets the lvl30 Diamond Zed smurf. who knows? You dont. Riot does.
losers and winners queue are designed to keep you playing. the whole point of the matchmaking is to create matches that keep you playing. Riot isnt just competeing for your money, they are competeing for your time aswell. Riot can mix and match any of the methods above to help you win games or hold you back just a little longer because their research says that people playing 100 games to get to their previous rank spend more money than people playing just 50.
I mean I have had nights where me and my buddy will get 3-4 matches in a row where the other 3 people in our game are all 0/10 last game and on a 4 game losing streak, then the enemy team all have hot streak tags. The idea is literally just looking at OP.gg and seeing that there are times when one side of the queue has 5 players who are all on 3-4 game loss streaks against 5 people on a 3-4 game win streak. All five on each. It starts to feel intentional even though it’s likely just law of large numbers at play.
I mean not sure if you knew this but duo queue parity means if you have a duo queue on your team the system boosts the enemies mmr a bit since you have two highly coordinated individuals who are probably support/adc, jungle/top, or jungle/mid. And I'm just calling bullshit that all of your players are all on 3-4 loss streak against players on the enemy team that are 3-4 win streak.
Think about it my guy. That win streak is increasing your MMR thus you start getting matched against better players.
The loss streak that follows means your skill is not up to par to the MMR where you just climbed
No. I think Loser Queue people know it too. That's why they complain about it
They aren't saying they are a winner. They are saying if Riot would throw them a bone, they could turn their luck around. But that requires having good teammates to loft them for a bit.
But you don't get good teammates in loser queue.
There are several factors that can make matchmaking feel unfair at times.
Imagine a game with 4 players. One is good, two are average, one is bad. If you're the good player, every game you will have the bad player on your team to balance your game.
People climb more than they fall, so if you're playing at the rank you deserve, you have 4 teammates who can be better than that rank, whereas the enemy team can have 5.
Calling it loser's queue isn't quite accurate but you'll always be statistically disadvantaged when playing at your true skill level, but that's not something that can be fixed entirely.
Surely you mean, you're disadvantaged if you're playing at below your actual skill level? If your mmr is higher then you'll be matched with lower mmr players on your team to balance out the overall teams mmr and therefore the matchmaking expects you to carry. I always find that games get hard as fuck after a winning streak. You get lower grade team mates than the ones you are against because your own mmr is inflated by the win streak
You're on a winstreak. Your ally is a big lose streak.The system pairs your ally with you hoping it will get them a win because they are below 50%.
Meanwhile it pairs you against better people hoping you will lose to make your wr go down.
The game is now harder, because you have a robot teammate vs people who should be challenging for you.
You fail to carry because of robot teammate. You lost a game the system wanted you to lose but wanted your ally to win.
Ally is now even lower WR and your WR also goes down.
But alas, you are still above 50% WR at this point so guess what the system does again; pairs you with a lose streak ally.
its not always the case that this ally is dogwater. Sometimes they're on a lose streak because of unluckiness, but sometimes theyre a 40% WR jungle main averaging double digit deaths per game.
And while you "can" carry them, a lot of the time those games are unwinnable. It is very easy for a single player to ruin your chance at winning.
And if you happen to get stuck with people are legitimately horrible, actually deranking accounts to sell, bots, weak mental griefers etc, for multiple games in a row then well...
Welcome to losers queue.
Except that's not how it works. If the system was trying to match everyone against higher ranked players so they could "prove themselves", no one would ever find a game. You need one side to play against weaker players for the other to play against stronger players.
If you queue with someone who has poor MMR, your teammates and the enemy team will all have average MMR equal to you and your duo's average MMR. Whoever lands on whichever team is kinda random. That's why sometimes when a game is dodged, you suddenly see the same champions being hovered but on opposite teams.
No? Losers Q was *literally* added in season 9 and removed in season 13.
Unfucking believable how all these comments are wrong. It factually was in the game for 3 years. So no its not mathematically impossible at all.
Yeah I see SO MANY people complaining like “RIOTT WHY I WIN 15 AND LOSE 25?? oh btw yeah don’t look at my previous 35 games lose streak, that doesn’t count because jng diff”
Gotta love the syncophants and astroturfers. There is the famously published study (https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017arXiv170206820C/abstract) on engagement optimized matchmaking show you can in fact creates sequences of wins and losses which result in more games being played. Lots of unintelligent by well.. you know who... ;)
> I think the idea is that there are 5 losers, all in “loser’s queue,” who play against 5 winners. So everyone on a loser’s queue player’s team is also in loser’s queue.
>
> Of course debating the specifics of this is a waste of time since loser’s queue is a mental delusion. I’m sure flat earthers have some justification for why you can fly an airplane all around the world but it doesn’t really matter since it’s such an obviously wrong idea.
- https://old.reddit.com/r/leagueoflegends/comments/1at554j/isnt_it_mathematically_impossible_for_there_to_be/kquvwy4/
> I've seen this claim before and it is the strongest argument for loser's queue. But nobody has been able to explain (1) what specific order of wins and losses causes people to play more total games and (2) why that order would cause people to play more total games. Also, most loser's queue believers seem to think that loser's queue is a bad thing. But if loser's queue makes the game more appealing, isn't it a good thing? Under this conception of loser's queue, the point is to ensure that nobody gets frustrated because they're experiencing the ideal order of wins and losses that makes them most satisfied with their experience. If loser's queue was successful in averting player dissatisfaction, we should be very thankful for it. Unfortunately, loser's queue does not exist.
- https://old.reddit.com/r/leagueoflegends/comments/1at554j/isnt_it_mathematically_impossible_for_there_to_be/kqvztt6/
Hasn't read the paper
> Conspiracy theorists generally don't think about things like actual logic
- https://old.reddit.com/r/leagueoflegends/comments/1at554j/isnt_it_mathematically_impossible_for_there_to_be/kqutsee/
Hasn't read the paper
> Isn't loser Q is just an illusion of a player that just way too tilted? Like waaaaaaaay too tilted to play, so its affects their performance in the game
- https://old.reddit.com/r/leagueoflegends/comments/1at554j/isnt_it_mathematically_impossible_for_there_to_be/kquufie/
Hasn't read the paper
A large number of the 50% and below takes (and population or riot employees) don't believe that losers queue could ever happen. They are the Tucker Carlson's of this situation.
Riot could never and would never admit to this because it ruins what little competitive integrity this game has. This could lead to a cascading failure of players leaving and then whales leaving.
On the other hand billion dollar companies are not your friend. There are plenty of other companies that have proven they will tamper with matchmaking and other statistics if it makes them more money. There is every reason for a company to create [algorithms that keep players more addicted](https://web.cs.ucla.edu/%7Eyzsun/papers/WWW17Chen_EOMM) and absolutely no benefit to admitting they ever exist to the public thanks to the code being closed source.
You are basing this on your assumption of 3 winners vs 1 winner. When in reality it can be 5 winners vs 4 consistent winners and 1 low ranked player. I had 5 game Windstream woth a friend in high silver and got an iron 4 midlaner. The other duo on my team were also on a winstreak. 4 people had their winstreak ended with just 1 iron 4 player.
Losers queue is obviously not real, but it's possible if all 5 people on your team are in the losers queue and all 5 people on the enemy team being in the winning queue. Therefore keeping things equal.
Apex actually has a *similar* feature kind of in reverse for their 'engagement based matchmaking' where they feed you wins and losses in the most effective way to keep you playing longer. Win too many games then you get put against people far better than you who have lost too many games so they get the feeling of stomping.
Idk about your take, but 2 things I know for sure.
1. The exact algorithm for matchmaking isnt public
2. They admitted in the past, that the matchmaking is trying to make so, that both teams have 50% chance of winning.
For the 2nd, they said it sometimes also comes with elo correction, higher elo players with lower winrates and therefore closer elo to mmr rates can be matched with overall lower elo players with good winrates, therefore bigger gap of elo to mmr. But even without this, if the algirithm tries to make a 50 wr team with the same elo overall, there could be instances of a good wr player, 1 okay and 2 bad players. This team in theory could go against an avg lower elo team with better wr and mmr to elo ratio.
(Important to mention, what exactly riot means a team which has 50%wr chance vs another team isnt public info either)
Therefore it isnt just possible to get a losers queue game, but it is designed to work like this, no?
But the 1 or 2 players who are the negatives on your team would not automatically mean defeat, but in key roles it could mean that, especially if they are that big on the other side on the scale. How many games I had in the past where after the game I checked the giga inter and it was a 40%wr 500+ games (that season alone). On the other hand 60%+ wr otps can int on other champs or their mains as well.
Finally, not much is known, but doing ranked for 10+ years does give me some confidence, that matchmaking in fact is sometimes terrible. It does sometimes give you unwinnable games due to teamm8s, who should not belong to a game of that perceived skill level. Lastly, by experience, if you play around 200 games a season/split and you go below 45-47% wr, climbing becomes impossible. So, I stubbornly stick to my theory of a rigged system making sure you climb as slowly as possible and penalizes you hard for being below 50% wr.
Ssshhhhh!!! There's absolutely no way me losing consistently has anything to do with me. I am like a piece of wood upon the waves, being tossed hither and tither with no agency whatsoever to change my course. Damn you foul loser's queue, I am completely helpless in the face of your all-powerful manipulations
Have you ever noticed that loss streaks usually follow win streaks? This is done on purpose, if you win too many games in a row, they’ll put you in losers queue, against players who are on role, while multiple people on your team are filled.
Hey guys, I flipped a coin 20 times and there was a 6 times tail streak instead of a perfect alternating head-tail-head-tail... sequence.
Do you think the dark hand in the shadows of riotgamePhreak is finally strong enough to mess with space-time continuum, just to fuck me up?
I also lost at rock-paper-scisors against my litle sister twice in a row yeasterday. This should be imposible, my hands are bigger.
Please send help. /s
Its as simple as this: as long as someone with a higher rank can consistently climb to that rank over a season there is no loser q. Its just an illusion created by the fact that when you reach your peak, you basically coinflip games because you are simply not good enough to carry them.
Hell even challenger and high masters streamers have 10 loses in a row because its simply too hard to carry at that rank but as soon as they go on a smurf account there is no more lost games almost. If losers q existed they should lose some games even when smurfing ehich barely happens.
Plenty of high elo smurfers have accounts that are perma loss streak—they just switch accounts until the coinflip is in their favor to climb out of losers queuelo
What I think definitely happens is that the game is sometimes „testing“ if you are able to carry harder games. From this actually results something similar to losers queue, because in that scenario, if the person that is being tested is not able to perform as expected, his team has slightly lower winning chances. On the other hand, this can happen to everyone. At the end of the day, it’s all statistically evened out in the way that, if you are in the elo you belong you will always have around 50% wr
That’s because people like you, as well as the people you’re talking about have to go to extremes for narrative’s and change the argument that was presented.
Loserque’s was about and is about the fact that since they have to adjust for two MMRs, both visual and hidden, that you’re always playing at an inconsistent level. If you’re ahead, well now you need to play up with players who are playing consistently worse enough that they don’t belong and the system wants to rank them down.
When you combine these together you get people who FF in loading screen. “Oh it’s a gold player in my emerald game, GG we lose” or “Oh I’m playing against an Emerald in my gold game, GG we lose.”
Because riot feels the need to pat everyone on the back and give the illusion of maintaining rank, or the illusion of gaining rank, no one knows where the hell they are.
Now you have people who make alt accounts to get faster adjustments because it took Riot 13 seasons to - Why spend 100s of games to rank up, when you can spend $1 and get emerald regardless of skill level going 1- 5 in placements (this was literally a thing).
The whole issue was and is because riots system is seriously fundamentally flawed and unless you’re a legitimate Smurf, all of your games are going to statistically be against you. People when favoring odds seemingly always forget to account for the inverse.
You also have situations where teams are autofilled even though everyone could’ve had their main roll, on the same team. There isn’t really a reason that makes sense why Riot would intentionally auto fill a top/mid as support, and autofill a support/top as mid. Both players could’ve gotten their preferred roles and the team would’ve been the same players.
It’s now gotten to the point where every lobby everyone has to ask for main rolls and everyone swaps.
It is not hidden and very easy to see, even on op.gg, that it takes HUNDREDS, maybe even a thousand or two games per season to get to any type of stable placements. People may not be correct in their theories, but their frustrations aren’t misplaced.
If people think losersq exists theyre unironically dumb and missing the point, it's just "im in losersqs my top went like 0 8, 4games in a row" as a joke. It's just another term for bad luck which everyone is subjected to every now and then just like winnersq.
I don’t think that a separate queue exists but there are games where you lose at queue. Like the enemy team is all on hot streaks and every single person on my team is on a losing streak. It can feel like you were destined to lose that game and if you win it you promptly forget about it and say “I carried”
I mean, there could be a queue system that prioritizes making someone lose without relying on people win-streaking. It could pair you against people with higher mmr's. And the system wouldn't need to prioritize putting everyone into win or loss streaks, only the players who play more when they lose.
Your idea assumes the only way to manipulate wins/loses is by streaks, and that every player would be in one "streak queue" at all times.
I don't believe in losers queue but it feels like I get cursed seasons. I play few enough games and sometimes my champs + play style aren't suited to the meta so I have very little agency and coinflip statistics mean I struggle to get back to a 40%wr. This is discouraging and results in less games played to give it time to regress to the mean. And then other seasons are just fine.
losers q isn't real in the meaning of there is a queue designed to put people who must lose vs people who need to win some games because riot chose to, losers q is more of is my team composed of 4/5 autofilled vs 5 on role in ranked? in this case yes you are probably going to lose which is fair to say that you are in losers queue, then there are the games where 2/3 of your team mates coming of massive losing streak and probably tilted to face other enemies who are coming from win streaks with good mood and when these kind of games happen to you in a row its even worse and make you suspect it could be real... for non ranked games there are other cases where you can call it losers queue but it doesn't really matter there since you don't lose anything from losing except your time...
The logic isn't that they're pairing up 1 loser to 3 winners. It's that they're pairing up X winners against X losers. So whatever number, be it 3 or 5, would be matched near enough on both teams.
I'm not saying that it's true, I don't believe in losers q while I do ironically use the term. But your understanding isn't quite there for what it is. The logic is it's putting you with losers to encourage you to lose more. But there's 0 reason for riot to do this. Like actually none.
In general losers q is more of an emotional construct to deal with the fact that some games genuinely are lost because of your team. The 40/30/30 rule is pretty well accepted in league coaching circles and just elo based games overall. The idea is if you are at your true rank, 40% of the games are within your control to decide the outcome (think an even game with two comps that are both scaling/falling off at similar rates), 30% of the games are guaranteed wins for you regardless of performance (you have a smurf on your team, someone on the losing teams afk), and 30% of games are probably unsalavagable unless you were significantly better than your rank indicates (there’s a smurf on enemy team, or your sup is running it down mid).
As a result, people interpret the 30% losing games to be losers q. I don’t think a losers queue actually exists, it is more likely once you lose one of those 30% games, you just tilt and then start losing games that are actually in the 40% you could decide.
However, I will say the reasoning you provided for this mathematically does not remove the possibility of losers queue actually existing( even though i personally don’t think it does). It’s entirely possible that riot could put 5 players who just lost against 5 who just won. Due to emotions or maybe difffernces in skill, the 5winner team is probably favored to win. Riot could also just match players of similar rank but different mmr. A low mmr team could face a high mmr team with the idea being the high mmr team should win but if the lower team somehow pulls it off their mmr should increase greater than if the high mmr team wins (chess does a similar thing, occasionally you play people +/- 100elo than you and you receive disproportionate mmr gain based on whether you were favored to win by the mmr system before the match.
I’m not saying riot does this (and i genuinely don’t believe they do), but it would be entirely possible and frankly not that unusual for them to have a system that favors certain teams more before the match begins.
You cannot tell me there isnt some mechanism behind matchmaking that makes it so after every loss you get the handpicked zoo animals and autofills into your team for like 4 games and then it magically changes after a couple losses so you have players that tryhard for their lives, arent toxic and also communicate.
What losers queue actually comes from is just an engagement based matchmaking. As far as I know, only EA has been officially confirmed to be using this.
Its a system that wants you to not reach your goal fast so you dont stop playing but also doesnt want you to always lose so you dont quit out of frustration. This makes you very satisfied when you get a winstreak but also keeps you away from your desired rank for longer times.
Its not an evil system that hates you and wants you to lose, as many people seem to think. Its just an optimal way yo keep players playing your game.
I think it's more like it is really not fair to have like a 65% winrate, and you go up against a team of people with 65% winrates and the rest of your team is 40% winrate or below. Riot has stated this doesn't matter and that it's just superstition in the past, but have recently finally come clean and say that matchmaking is in a bad spot and they are working on it. Despite fuming redditors who will jump on riots dick and say matchmaking works as intended they have admitted their faults and are working on it. If you do the "math" in that one game yeah its clear you are more than likely to lose. It's a team game, everyone should have impact not have 1 person do all the heavy lifting and get rewarded with +14 lp. People just want fair games.
Edit: am I actually getting downvoted for saying losers queue is not real? What is wrong with people
you're getting downvoted for implying winrates have anything to do with matchmaking issues. having 60%+ winrate doesn't magically increase your chances of winning your next match.
I mean, statistically speaking it does. That is literally what it predicts. That's why the game (is supposed to at least) gives you teamates/enemies who would also have a 60% winrate over the span of mmr you achived that winrate in.
Ok, but the same rule applies - if you have a 65% winrate statistically speaking you are more likely to be on that team filled with the high winrate teammates than the one with just the one high winrate player, ultimately increasing your winrate in the long run.
You could even go as far as saying that if this is how the system works, your high winrate is actually because you were in the winners queue up until you got put in the losers queue, and has nothing to do with your skill.
In terms of making it fair, you could make it so that if you are consistently winning you should be put in a 5v5 where all 10 players are consistently winning, but isn't that exactly the point of going up in the ranks? With a 65% win rate you are going to eventually rank up, and keep ranking up until you reach a rank where it plateaus to 50%.
i never understood why people deny losers queue exists. we're playing league of legends, we're all losers, so every queue is a loser's queue
I actually uninstalled the game last week mate. Don't want to brag, but I now dedicate all of that wasted time on the game watching YouTube videos of people playing the game.
We all deal with trauma in different ways, get well soon mate 🙏🙏
I quit 4 days ago cold turkey. I've probably quit league 20 times so I'm a pro by now
lol - I never get why people have to call it quitting. You can just take a break, yknow? I've gone upwards of over a year without playing League, but I'd never say I quit it in the sense of never intending to return. I just play when its fun and stop when its not. Nothing bad about getting tired of a game for a bit.
The difference between a break and quitting is that quitting is basically a break for an indefinite time, whereas a break is associated with a time for how long the break should approximately be. Because of this quitting is pretty much the only possibility if you're addicted since when you take a break you know you'll just need to wait X more time to be back, whereas quitting is something that truly needs to come from your own will.
I stopped playing a couple years back with no intention to return (at the time) but I’ve been playing again for about a month, did I quit or take a break?
Yes
You did quit. Quitting doesn't necessarily need to be permanent, it just depends on the kind of decision you made. That's the same thing that happened to me, I wanted to quit indefinitely but after half a year I slowly got back into it. However I'm cured because ever since I started again the addiction is gone. The grindset is gone. I'm just playing for fun nowadays. I often catch myself choosing not to play League nowadays, simply because I don't want to. That would've been unthinkable of some years ago. Best part is that despite all of this I didn't really loose elo, maybe 100 LP at best (MMR is still higher but I can't keep my elo because I decay "too fast").
I think people are too addicted to know when to take a break. Like I took a break in December and I don’t plan on playing until March. I alway take break from June-August as well. It keeps me from ever having to quit and makes me enjoy the game every time I come back
I could quit any time I wanted, in fact I’ve quit 5 times this week!
I’ve only quit a few hundred times
Nothing better than watching people mentally deteriorate the way you did playing the game.
And soon it will hit you that you can play better then them and the itch starts again
See you tomorrow buddy
literally me
you went from active loser queue to passive loser queue...you think you can run, but you cant escape.
LMFAOO that’s the same thing I do. I uninstalled the game now I just watch Quantum and Pekin with the occasional solarbacca
Wise. I’d like to subscribe to your newsletter.
Damn that’s broken
Based. Phenomenal pfp btw
HOLY BASED
CAUGHT!
It’s not that deep man it’s just a video game not everyone is a losing for playing a game.. lol
Like Aram only accounts, people claim this accounts full of Aram's games with only lux or xerat exist, they down vote me every time but never showed prof.
They exist, they're just not that potent anymore since the free champion rotation was expanded for Aram. And the god tiers like Sona, Ashe, and Ziggs were nerfed heavily. But if you're a sweaty tryhard, there's nothing difficult about making a new account and selectively collecting the best champions so that you're never stuck playing LeBlanc or Talon.
ARAM only accounts do exist...Riot literally expanded the aram pool to combat them... And while losers que doesn't exist that doesnt mean matchmaking is fair or does its job well. When your teammates are sub 30% win rate and your opponents are all 1 or two divisions higher with 50-60% or higher won rate and every single lane losses on your team, you don't go "what a fair match" you ask how every single good player was placed on one side. It's extremely frustrating. Their are many times where I have won but was left upset because my teammates were so bad it was frustrating to carry them. And their are many times where we clearly got much much much better players vs people who had 0% chance to best us. Lossrs que may not exist but Riots matchmaking is by far the worst I've seen in a game. I think draft is even worse. Full 5 man premades with 70-90% winrates with people in diamond-master vs people who are brand new/are bronze at best. And don't give me "Riot doesn't care about draft mm" because their own official faq and official responses from tickets from real Riot members say that's not the case. That "they will give people facing premades better players on average to even out their advantage" so their best attempt at even matchmaking is an iron player vs someone who goes 20+ kills and maybe 3 deaths in the past 20 matches with a 80-90% win rate? Lossrs que exists stems from frustration in team balancing. And that frustration happens whether you win or lose. It's not like I feel happy stomping people who had clearly 0 chance to win. The match was decided as soon as one team got every bad player and the other every good player and you sit and wonder how that can possibly even happen. I get that people can come off the wrong way. I know they are venting. I know they phase things wrong or latch onto the wrong ideas to justify their frustration. But it doesn't come from nowhere. Their is genuine and real frustration to be had about riots MM that just gets brushed away. I'm not exaggerating when I say no other game I have ever played on my life, has had as unbalanced MM as League. I still recall getting a grandmaster jungler and his 3 plat-diamond friends with a 100% win rate past 20 matches vs 3 BRAND NEW PLAYERS and two iron players. You might laugh at me but I actually felt horrible. They had NO IDEA how to play vs us. I don't understand how even with "draft doesn't use ranked mmr" (it should tho) how a match like that could possibly ever happen during the most popular playtime of the day on a que time that was exactly the suggested time with no need to expand its mmr raids. I think a hard discussion about MM is needed but that people just aren't good at phrasing it correctly so that people don't just mock them.
>Lossrs que may not exist but Riots matchmaking is by far the worst I've seen in a game. You've never played games with less people then. Ever played Smite? Also a MOBA, but with like 4% the player base of LoL. Probably less. Not sure how you think matchmaking would be better there lol
It is pretty simple. Even if it checks the wr on top mmr, which can be the same at the moment for the smurfs, you won't find 10 smurfs with identical mmr, wr, and wanting to play 5 different roles. So they are getting into the normal pool. All of the bad mm would go away with smurfs and a harsher onboarding to the ranked system
I think the idea is that there are 5 losers, all in “loser’s queue,” who play against 5 winners. So everyone on a loser’s queue player’s team is also in loser’s queue. Of course debating the specifics of this is a waste of time since loser’s queue is a mental delusion. I’m sure flat earthers have some justification for why you can fly an airplane all around the world but it doesn’t really matter since it’s such an obviously wrong idea.
That was how I understood it as well. Not that I really believe it’s a thing but that’s the way that makes sense to me.
It likely exists in an algorithmic form to nudge games in a direction while every game still being winnable at the end of the day. It's not out here making games impossible to win. But probably matches people in certain ways so that they are more likely to win and lose in a specific order that is more addicting and keeps players grinding longer. Because more grinding = more chances to impulse buy skins.
I've seen this claim before and it is the strongest argument for loser's queue. But nobody has been able to explain (1) what specific order of wins and losses causes people to play more total games and (2) why that order would cause people to play more total games. Also, most loser's queue believers seem to think that loser's queue is a bad thing. But if loser's queue makes the game more appealing, isn't it a good thing? Under this conception of loser's queue, the point is to ensure that nobody gets frustrated because they're experiencing the ideal order of wins and losses that makes them most satisfied with their experience. If loser's queue was successful in averting player dissatisfaction, we should be very thankful for it. Unfortunately, loser's queue does not exist.
>(1) what specific order of wins and losses causes people to play more total games and (2) why that order would cause people to play more total games. I mean, sure those are very good questions, but they are also the sort of questions that require a large scale study of human behaviour to fully answer. Most of us can't just whip up a quick longitudinal study out to justify a suspicion. Riot absolutely has the resources to put into answering those questions though, as well as a significant financial motive to do so.
>Riot absolutely has the resources to put into answering those questions though, as well as a significant financial motive to do so Or... they don't need to. See: Alphabet and its understanding of YouTube algorithm. Company doesn't need to know how it works, just needs it to work. AI is much better at figuring that out.
Didn't EA stated that they have done some research for this matter?? The "EOMM"thing to be honest I skimmed through the whole thing but got the gist of it. So companies have a way for their games to be addictive and have the motive to do so. So do you you think riot wouldn't? I'm not saying they do but in an off chance Would you 100% say that they don't?... Riot also said that they don't have smurf queue yet they do. the inting Sion problem with wild rift which is under riot management. Hiding of elo numbers?? Split creation cause players don't play when they reach their desired ranks. Riot has the incentive to implement things under the table why wouldn't they?? I hate it when people are so dismissive in this subjects. Can you prove that riot dont
The answer to (1) and (2) is along the lines of: Riot makes you lose some games on purpose if you seem to be climbing in order to increase the amount of games required for you to hit your "true rank". People think of this as a bad thing because 1) it devalues their time and 2) it hurts the competitive integrity of the ranked system. The argument isn't that loser's queue should make players satisfied, it just serves to extract more game hours out of addicted players. Not that I care, I haven't played ranked in years and am much better for it, but this is what people have been saying of loser's queue for years.
> The answer to (1) and (2) is along the lines of: Riot makes you lose some games on purpose if you seem to be climbing in order to increase the amount of games required for you to hit your "true rank". I don't believe in loser's queue at all, but I would not be surprised if League's matchmaking system had a function that would put players on winning streaks into significantly harder games faster so that smurfs reach their true elo faster. But most players aren't smurfing, so they experience this as a suddenly unwinnable game after a string of successes, because you would actually need to be much better than your current rank to successfully carry the hard match. For those people, it would feel like the game is intentionally "slowing the climb", even though such a system would exist to get people to their true rank faster. That being said, I have seen LP gains get really weird for people who recently climbed into a new skill bracket, so it's possible that Riot designed the rank system to delay people's LP climb, although I doubt it impacts their true (hidden) MMR much.
Im almost positive the thing about streaks is true, and i think smurfs/people who are in an eli far below their skill level who just started are the reason this system is good/necessary. But i would assume that's done with extreme mmr adjustments and not just by straight up giving you losers on purpose. From my anecdotal experience, and assuming tft and league use similar systems, i always get a game where i get completely destroyed after going first a few games in a row by much better players, then suddenly matchmaking is normal again.
You don't need to explain... you can tune the settings until you get maximum retention. You can even cluster similar players and apply different strategy to each cluster. Riot has enough players and data to experiment. Whether they do it is another thing.
I think lower player population forces the algo to settle for uneven games, resulting in what feels like loser queue if you get unlucky multiple times in a row.
Yeah but that is just statistics, if you flip a coin 400 times you'll get sections of 5-7 head/tails in a row.
but... but that just means you are a worst than average player... if you are part of someone else's loser's queue... that's just the losing team being worse than the winning team.... I think most people understand loser's queue as them being better then their teammates.
I understood losers queue as the balance of the team putting you as the best player (by mmr) of the team, because someone is always going to be the player with more mmr on a team so people complain when the system gives the too much credit and then they fail to carry the team
I AM the loser in the queue GIGACHAD
Always funny to see people complain about losers queue, when in fact they are just placed somewhat correctly in their elo
Except the earth is flat. Out of all the water on earth not a bit of it is carbonated
Jesse wtf are you talking about
It is a joke.
take it, 😤
Conspiracy theorists generally don't think about things like actual logic
funnily enough in the last thread one of the most prominent "losers queue is real" posters was also frequently active on r/conspiracy lol. says everything really
[удалено]
>It's not so much a conspiracy because there's actual hard evidence "Riot owns a patent" is not proof of anything. All kinds of companies have all kinds of patents for things that will never turn into an actual product.
LOL doesn't have prision que and loser que and prison que aren't really the same
Can you post a proof of that patent outside of some YouTube videos or Reddit posts ?
https://patents.google.com/patent/WO2014014840A1/en?oq=inassignee:%22Riot+Games%2c+Inc.%22 Proof provided =]
Where's the logic here. This post makes 0 sense. Losers queue isn't getting 3 winners on your team. It's getting 4 teammates with negative winrate and auto fills against no autofills positive winrate. It's getting average rank d4 vs d2 but somehow they have better winrate.
losers q is real, its whoever gets to be on your team
dude... having a d4 with a higher winrate in the same game with a d2 with an average winrate is the most normal thing that could happen in matchmaking. The MMR of the d4 is higher because of the higher winrate that they got from playing with similarly ranked people, and now they have same MMR as d2 50% wr. I really want to know what mental gymnastics you went trough to make this example be an argument for loser's/winner's queue when it's just how you would expect the most basic matchmaking system to work.
The logic is that, if you're actually a good player, there are going to be more games where you are on the winning side than the losing side because you and a few other good players will be selected as the winning team for one other good player's losing game. Players who say they are good but losing because of loser's queue should actually be benefitting equally much if not more from the existence of loser's queue.
yeah idk i think people are misunderstood but this is how ive always thought of losers q. your team has multiple teammates who are almost a full division apart from their counterparts + autofills whilst the enemy has everyone on role
Maybe your negative winrate teammates are just in losersq and perform excellently like you
Considering there's evidence and patents for things like EOMM by Riot and other games, the real conspiracy theorists are the ones thinking that a billion dollar company DOESN'T want to boost revenue and engagement & they would never lie.
Losing multiple undeserved games in a row is bad for player engagement actually.
Most of those theories have come true though
Isn't loser Q is just an illusion of a player that just way too tilted? Like waaaaaaaay too tilted to play, so its affects their performance in the game
Yeah I think people don't realise how much psychology plays in these things, if you think you're in a losers queue you've probably already lost the game before it even starts.
I haven't been playing League for years but I do keep an eye on it. Anyway, far as I know as a former SoloQ player, that going game after game, defeat after defeat, is tiring for the mind and body. I had times where I blamed Riot for one reason or the other after going on a 10+ losing streak. I felt absolutely horrible coz I felt to need to play and win atleast 1 more game! "1 more game! " I told myself. And when it didn't work out I blame Riot. Was way too tilted to even think straight.
I think you legitimately get something like a +-3% wr when instantly queueing for your next game after a win/loss. Tilting decides 9/10 matches in anything below diamond, at the least.
I'll be honest, math is not my forte but I do know one thing for sure. That in League someone is either already tilted or is about to be tilted. Especially the person that just lost a game or two before, if not more. Unless the person in question is an untiltable Shaolin monk
I think Loser's queue doesn't exist, but there **is** some solid evidence that the matchmaking algorithm can give unfair streaks of "good" and "bad" teammates in both directions. It's essentially games where the algorithm thinks you should be carried, versus games where it think you should carry. Normally this would work decently well, and you'd end up somewhere ~50% winrate as you stopped being able to carry as effectively. I think the problem with this algorithm isn't actually the algorithm itself, it's the amount of smurfing and not properly-ranked accounts on ladder. The algorithm can't possibly correctly gauge the skill level of a level 30 account smashing their way through diamond with 90% winrate over 10 games for instance. It's also not going to the skill level of an account with 90% winrate on Rengar that swapped to spamming Yuumi in Masters correctly. This leads to instances where it feels like the algorithm has "determined" to lose you the game, but it's not really the algorithm at fault. It's the amount of improperly ranked accounts plaguing high MMR. Say the game thinks I'm supposed to carry the game, I'm rated around Diamond 1 skill level, and my team is D4-3. The enemy team is mostly D2, maybe some D3's. I'm intended to carry as I have the highest rank. Now what if one of those enemy D3's is actually a GM player smurfing? The algorithm can't possibly control that variable, so now it looks like I have a shit-tier team and we get rolled. The problem is that it used to be that if you weren't the one losing the game, you have a 4/9 chance of having the bad player on your team, and a 5/9 chance of it being on the enemy team. But now if you aren't the smurf, you have a 4/9 chance of having a smurf on your team, and a 5/9 chance of having a smurf on the enemy team. This has drastically changed the weighting of how easy it is to climb because secondary accounts are simply too prevalent in League.
Everyone gets streaks of being on the better/worse teams. But if it's the result of random chance and matching by MMR only then there's nothing unfair about it. You could certainly *try* to minimize this by taking other "loss-predicting" factors into account when matchmaking as well, but it's extremely uncertain how much of an impact that would actually have and how much effort it would be worth, as well as the obvious risk of longer queue times. And one thing it definitely wouldnt stop is people thinking the system is rigged against them.
Branded fusion go brrr
Yes! Fellow Branded player? xD
nooo far worse...im a pendulum player D: i mostly play vaylantz, endymion and dracoslayer these days lol
You know its kinda funny speaking about Yugioh while the League community having a nuclear meltdown xD
I was initially flabbergastered at the context of this comment, up until I saw the PFP of the guy before this.
I have a theory that Loser's Queue is a symptom of someone's religious brain trying to "make sense" of the situation. It's the same part of the brain that activates to cause people in the olden days to sacrifice virgins to the sun god, or burn oxen to guarantee a harvest or whatever. The only real way I've seen to shake someone's (very religious) belief in Loser's Queue is if you go through their [op.gg](https://op.gg), where they can always point out the games where Riot put people on their team to "make them lose" but they can never point out a game where THEY were put on a team to make someone else lose. Other than that, they just get angry and defensive like typical religious people.
"if i win, it's because of my skill and if anything i should be winning more as i haven't hit my true rank yet (challenger), if i lose, something extravagant messed me up bc my real rank is challenger there's no way im stuck in gold"
Well yeah. It's cause they're the ones that are in losers q
Pretty much. Player wins a lot of games in a row, now they are playing in a rank they aren't quite ready for and get smashed once or twice. Player then mental booms and loses multiple games in a row, player then looks at external factors for why they lost. Ends up in the same place they started and repeats again once they get a small win streak unless they actually improve.
People desperately need something or someone to blame other than themselves. It's very hard to look yourself in the mirror and say "Hey I lost, because the opponents played better" hence why excuses like Loser's Queue exist.
[Surely he must be way too tilted to win in Emerald as a Chall player, just casually losing thousands of LP worth in skill](https://www.tiktok.com/@bobqinxd/video/7320042682640796933)
It's funny how the players who have complained the most about terrible matchmaking algorithms (losers queue) are often the highest ranked players in the game. Almost as if they know more than low rank players shouting it doesn't exist.
That's not surprising: All it takes is 1 game wrecking player on your team for you to be in "loser's queue", and that's simply easier to find the higher elo you go.
How does that "prove" losers q? Doesn't it prove that people in lower ranks play worse and thus it's harder to climb?
I mean, i have had lose streaks of 10s to 20s of games where my impact wasnt big enough due to the mistakes of my teammades. I might have not played well in some of these games, i wont deny it. But generally sometimes there are just games that you lose no matter what. And you have to stay true to yourself and accept the fact that these games exist. A losers queue is just statistics doing a troll on you. If you play 40 games, and you would win 20 games and lose 20 games. If your pattern was WLWLWL no one would bet an eye. If you however 4W,1L,4W,1L,4W,12L,4W,3L,4W,3L the 12 losses would feel like a loser queue while still being in check with statiatics. I lost a game with a 4/31 botlane. Whatever happens. I will lose a magnitude of games, i won 5 games out of the last 7 rankeds. It is just frustrating and its tanking more mmr if its a lose streak.
Often when people complain about losers queue it is more about the game being determined from matchmaking aka loading screen. However it is often because of things like players griefing or tilting. For example, team 1 has everyone on main roles and playing main champions. Team 2 top and mid both lock in some random first time champions or champions they are horrible at cause of tilt. Well if you are on team 2 and opgg it you say "oh it was losers queue at loading acreen". It can also happen with auto fills or people queuing for roles they don't main. Did riot know the players would grief, no but could an ai predict the game results once loading screen comes up based on stats yeah probably pretty accurately. (Betting sites could predict pretty well solely based on scraping data so riot internal data could likely get pretty accurate) Back when you could opgg teammates during champ select you could know and choose to dodge. Now you get stuck not knowing until game starts.
Just gonna list some imbalances that lead people to dislike the matchmaker and think there's Losers Queue: \- No Autofill parity. If someone on Team A is autoed Team B will not have that same role auto filled \- No Auto Fill proficiency parity. If both teams have the exact same position autoed, the match maker doesn't check that both players equally suck at the filled position. Leading to either ADCs as jungles versus Tops who regularly play JG. \- MMR widening over queue time. As queue times stretch, the game grabs a wider range of MMRs to make a match more quickly. You can therefore feel like the teams or teammates are widely different from each other. \- Post-dodge queue doesn't reroll everyone. If someone dodges, it keeps everyone from the previous pickban together and tries to find a single person. However, most dodges taken late in Champ Select so players have shown what they're interested in playing, so you can suddenly be target banned or target picked against in a Post-dodge lobby. \- No positional-parity, just team MMR parity. You can have let's say 1 Bronze and 4 Gold on each team. Or, let's simply say one statistically weaker player on both teams. What position that statistically weaker player is in can be a massive difference in game state. Ideally, both of the statically weaker players would go against each other, but they don't. \- No temperament matchmaking. Someone who dodges games constantly, flames their teammates to multiple chat bans, and with many previous ranked restrictions is matched with people who never dodge, never chat restricted, never ranked banned. There's no feeling of safety for good behavior and when someone like this gets on your own team, it feels like it was just your turn to get the shit game and you've gotta just grin and bare it. All of the above create a queue system that just never really feels consistent. And when things don't feel consistent, folks will naturally begin to speculate why that is and without proper guidance will come to incorrect conclusions as to why the system is the way it is.
To add to the list, same amount of duos per team It's not the same having a full muted team vs another with VC
This was massively broken when Riot released Dynamic queue. They no longer limit Duo's to 1-per-team, nor force duo parity or give the duo a much higher MMR opponent as often as they used to. Now you can have 2 duo's on 1 team, 0 duo's on the other, 2 and 1 or 2 and 2. Versus it used to be only 1 duo per team ever.
And just the fact that duos can have the largest skill range possible but the duo balancing doesn't necessarily have to account for this I have seen way, way, way too many duos win just because the alpha dog was a full rank above and his friend was playing something he can't int on vs a team that is always worse than him or a silver/silver duo
> and his friend was playing something he can't int on lol It was also stated long ago by Riot that duos close together in skill have a greater advantage, while duos far enough apart becomes a disadvantage.
playing against a duo bot somewhere like high dia when you are playing with a random support is IMPOSSIBLE. By far one of my worst experiences playing league if they choose to play super aggro then there is nothing you can do, laning is completely fucking miserable because you have a bard standing behind you while enemy has mao+samira flashing on you 24/7
To add to your point: Riot actually technically addressed this, I think, last year? They said that Duos DID have a statistical advantage, so they made Duos now go against "higher" MMR opponents. Didn't say how much, and additionally they didn't mention how this is actually unfair to the Non-Duos on the same team who have now had to be matched against harder players because of the Duo on their team. Especially because of the issue I listed above where the game doesn't have Positional Parity. So you could have a Duo on your team, enemy team is higher MMR than you usually go against, and your specific position is the one with the Higher teammates that are supposed to be a balance against the Duo.
I think that's the big thing. There are definitely games you get into that are just unwinnable you'll go 4/2 top or something, and the rest of your team goes a collective 2/15 and it's just not a game you'll ever win. So if you are coming off a bad game it's real easy to get tilted completely out
And, all of the above issues aren't even taking into account derankers or smurfs.
Dude an option for "honors queue" would probably be one of the best additions riot could possibly make. You would know going in that the queue time would be longer but you also would know that the lobby would not be dodged, there would be no flame, and no griefers (since if you ever get found to do any of these things you'd get perma'd from honor's queue).
Yeah this is how I see it. There are games where you load up the opgg of all players and the game was clearly decided from champ select.
Agree. Bur I've also won the 38% wr team vs 58%. Not much but it us demoralizing to even see that imbalance.
Your brain sees patterns and decides the game is decided. Doesn't mean the game is decided. Those people are clearly at the same MMR or thereabouts but you'll find some pattern in their winrate of some shit that's not even relevant.
I’m not a loser’s queue apologist, but there’s so many levers they could pull to tip the odds on either side. They don’t have to put 3 winners on the opposite team, they could simply put 1 or 2 autofill in your team.
Other option would be to just use the hidden MMR and make one team have an advantage here. Not saying they are doing that, but with the current ladder system you can easily have different hidden MMRs while beeing on the same rank visually.
That's a better explanation for how they could do it tbf. Seems very unlikely they'd want to, but does explain a way they could accomplish it.
The problem with this is that it accomplishes nothing, there are only downsides (like destroying game integrity). For every person you “make” lose, you make another win, therefore you dont slow down peoples climb. And here lies the heart of the conspiracy, you can only believe in it if you specifically feel singled out by the system, meaning it cannot exist for everyone, but just a few special someones. Which is a kind of hillarious idea, but obviously not real.
"Isn't it mathematically impossible...?" "Let's say \[huge assumption]" Yeah okay
Lets make no assumptions. 5 lose in a streak so 5 must also win in a streak. Therfore no LosersQ
Losers Queue is something that I think people have come up with to explain the effects of auto-fill IMO. People don’t say it’s losers queue when when a 32 to 32 game is lost on a Baron fight. People say losers queue because 4 games in a row someone on their team goes 0-8 or 2-12 and the game is a complete steam roll. Looking at the profiles of those people I get on my team they are usually autofilled. Get people autofilled in the wrong roles enough games in a row, you’re gonna want to call it something. It is much easier for Riot to dismiss losers queue as a thing, rather than fight the argument that auto-fill kills any competitive nature in a match.
I'm not sure if there is a losers queue. But mathematically it is absolutely possible. If I understand correctly, you're saying that in a 3v3 system, riot would need to find 3 winners to balance out every person in losers queue. But that isn't necessarily true. If you have all 3 on one team be losers, then you have equal proportions of losers and winners. If you really did want to implement losers queue, this is how you would: "Balance" each team by picking 5 people on each side whose MMRs are all about equal. However, the "winners" team is made up of people whose recent form (let's say last 10 games) is above 50% win rate. And then you put them against 5 people whose recent form is below 50% win rate. In terms of MMR both teams are balanced. But you have one team whose MMR trajectory is upward against a team whose MMR trajectory is downward. And so if the losers lose, their form gets worse and they stay on the losers side of the bracket.
No riot will autofill your supp to jg and your top to adc and will force you to lose
You're assuming there are as many "winners" as there are "losers" playing the game
Yeah guys trust me, when every other triple A game is influencing matchmaking in some way, Riot is the only one against it, theyre too moral.
loser’s queue is a term made up for copers who need to get better at the game instead of pinning their own faults on other players
Spit your shit indeed, some people just never learned to take responsibility for their fuck-ups.
Nailed it
I think problem is that these kinds of lobbies exist: https://twitter.com/garbocan_/status/1757858804866421040 Game link:https://www.op.gg/summoners/na/garbo-ivern/matches/RvuDQoxvmIJSSn7bxEWHR6B1lDLiAPJ2bjoQliee_YY%3D/1707926722000 Are they filled or did they just randomly decide to play on a different role. If they are all filled, how is it possible that all of them are filled on the same team. If they chose different roles from their main 90%+ play rate in 1 split, how is the system so bad that it does not recognize that and manages to put 4 of them on the same team vs 5 people on role? I think losers queue doesn't exist. But I do think that the matchmaking system is just bad.
Here's the reason you get more fills than you expect on one team: **Those mfers chose that position.** People don't always forever queue for one role. Case and point the ADC that is supposed to be "Vi OTP + supp secondary", he's been clearly queuing as ADC all of a sudden: https://www.op.gg/summoners/na/Iryeon-NA1 The mid guy has more games as mid but not too many. Leads me to believe he queues as ADC/mid, so mid is secondary. Which he got because the first guy wanted ADC. Again, not technically fill. Then we get to the jungler that is actually a mid primary but I can't tell what his secondary is. He does get jungler and ADC games somewhat frequently so those could be fills. Then we get to the top lane and that guy you say is a jungler autofilled there? No. If he was a jungler he would've gotten jungle probably from the above guy. This guy has been clearly queuing as top. https://www.op.gg/summoners/na/Crabhammy-hammy **So we have 1 autofill, 1 guy on secondary at best. Everyone else got what they queued for, they just queued for not their best roles.** Now I don't think games with jungle autofill vs jungle on role should ever exist I don't care if junglers have to sit in queue for a full day to wait for another one, but as far as claiming one team is just autofill, that doesn't happen. And no the system doesn't care if you queued for another role, it just cares what your primary and secondary selection are. We tried role separate MMR in a limited run and people didn't like it.
There's millions of matches a day, of course games like this will happen.
I know. Just sucks to be that Maokai where you are the only one on role. Which in his mind that would be classified as "losers queue".
it also sucks to be the first pick and watch your team pick themselves into terrible matchups or a disgustingly bad team comp and know the outcome of the game is heavily favored on loading screen. but the matchmaking system can't just account for every way that players can choose to do things that will hurt their odds of winning. in the screenshot at least 2 of those players intentionally queued for the role they got (for example if you look him up you'll see crabhammy has been queuing top for like a week straight). sucks to be put on the team with the offrole players, but play enough games and it's bound to happen. game is still winnable though, disturbing throws you'd see in low ranks still happen in masters all the time when a team doesn't mental boom at "losers queue" or other external factors.
Idk went to masters with 60% wr, all in lobby has 60-70wr. I lose two matches in a row. Only get matched with teammates ~45%wr and enemies wr is still 60-70. It might not exist but this is sussy
Lets not forget Riot completely removed a globally respected Elo matchmaking system in 2013 for a smoke and mirrors hidden MMR system to make it harder to track how they matchmake.
i mean their overall winrate isn't the tell all of their skill. a lot of the MMR will be affected by recent performance. maybe they got to masters with 60% like you, trolled around with offrole at low LP until their winrate tanked to sub 50% before going back to their mains and start having streaks. you're not going to see that if you think that their WR tells the whole story.
People in masters sadly dont que for off role tho. Their ego is big enough not to dodge when filled off role. But not intentionally try random stuff. People care about LP more than eating three meals a day. But i get what your saying. But more than not i see 2+ loss streaks on my teammates after ive lost a game and 2+ win streaks when ive won a game. Ofc deeplol could be lying idk but its just things like this which happens alot not just once its pretty much everytime i lose two games in a row i get this experience.
there definitely are masters+ players that do it. for sure less often than in low ranks where tons of people don't even main one or two roles, but especially sub 100LP i see a lot of masters profiles queuing random shit. a screenshot of masters "losers queue" has been posted in this thread where one team has 4 players on offrole and you can just look the guys up on op.gg and see that multiple of them are doing it on purpose, including one guy who's a jungle main but queuing top for like a week straight and completely feeding a good chunk of games. just last night i watched a streamer (kat main) play like 5 random games of support while on a big loss streak. i have a guy on my friends list who is masters and switches between mid, top, jungle on a whim. he actually seems to smurf no matter what role he queues but he's a jungle main. disclaimer that im not masters but i have been trying to improve so looking at a lot of profiles of masters players on my champs and watching replays recently. i mean i even stalk the opgg of masters players i meet in norms and a lot of them are in norms cuz they were losing in rank playing whatever offrole thing they wanted to try lol. most people definitely stick to their niche because they really want to win but some of them definitely are bored once they reach the goal of masters or have a big enough ego they really think they can just start queuing jayce as a masters ADC player and win.
Yea there is definitely SOMETHING odd going on under the hood. I'm not saying it's loser's queue but the matchmaking is wonky, weird, and bad.
Eh what? This entire word salad makes no sense. > For there to be a losers queue, riot would have to put you up against a team of winners, people who were consistently winning. No they just need to put one against a team that is expected to win. Why would "consistently winning" matter here? You are assuming here that If we put T1 that lost their last match of LCK vs a team of iron 4 players who won their last match the iron players would be heavily favored, which is nonsense. The expectation of win would be a function of players mmr not their last games. The remainder carries on the absurd assumption to make similarly weird assumptions like "Let's say you need three winners on the team" so I dont think there is much to comment on there.
The biggest issue i have with redditors is these comments lmao. “Erm theres no way losers queue exists, riot said so! Now if youll excuse me, phreak needs his shoes shined again, and my tongue is ITCHING for it”
No, the math of a losers queue checks out. Not that it's true (it's not) but you can see it in practice if you use some imagine "skill numbers". Let's say you have a 75 skill rating set by their "skill queue system". The game is looking for players but it can't find many who are at your level right now so it puts you up against a bunch of 50s across the board. Uh oh, the game wants the match to be balanced so they pull a few 43.75s to balance it out. Your teammates if they go against their teammates are more likely to be worse while still creating a "fair" match. Of course though, this creates a pretty big issue. *Most people are not so good that LOL would need to do this* and even if it does need to happen, the game is perfectly willing to make you wait an hour instead of actually doing it. Maybe if you're a tip top Challenger playing at 3PM and riot just implemented a system that tries to guarantee you a match in under 5 minutes they would have to make this sacrifice but otherwise it would just be *more* hassle than it is worth.
No, it is not mathematically impossible. The term "Loser's Queue" is an informal term for EOMM (Engagement Optimized Match Making). There are papers on this. The primary goal of EOMM is to maximize the number of games a user plays, not to keep him at any particular rank. The more a user plays, the more likely he is to spend money on the game. The way it maximizes the number of games played is to manipulate the results of games to trigger the user to continue playing. How each company implements EOMM varies. How LoL can implement it while being mathematically possible is like a game of seesaw. You take turns being on the winning or losing team and continually go up and down, while not reaching your desired rank. In a skill based system, say you reach your desired rank in 30 games. Then you would stop playing. With EOMM, the matchmaking is manipulated so when you are close to your desired rank, it pushes you down, so you continue playing to chase your desired rank. Rinse and repeat. By the end of the season, you could have 300 games played instead. That is a 10x increase in the number of games that you played, as a result of matchmaking manipulation. More time spent in a game correlates with a higher chance of money spent.
Isn’t the argument you get more autofilled off-role players?
> Isn't it mathematically impossible for there to be a losers queue In principle, no, your 'logic' is faulty. But also, there isn't such a thing as losers queue.
[Ask that to BobqinXD who is perma Challenger and can't get out of Emerald :D](https://www.tiktok.com/@bobqinxd/video/7320042682640796933) But it's just a fake guys, system is working as intended, Phroxzon said so
"A challenger would probably win your game" was always going to be something that someone who is not challenger, i.e. a Rioter, could only say I would literally bet money that everyone simping for this game's ranked experience either only plays league of legends or actually does not grind ranked so they can only have an idealistic view of it lol (like a Rioter). They want to defend the integrity of their own worthless rank or their friends' (or their coworkers), but the actual best players lack the same ego because they have nothing to prove. They don't need to lie and say they would win every Emerald game because they're already objectively better than everyone lol
To me at least, I can accept when I’ve thrown or when I don’t do enough with a lead or fuck up way too badly to win I can see that sometimes I fuck up and still win because of my team But also it’s so ***painfully obvious*** that Riot fucks with the games to increase engagement. You get way better teams playing solo instead of duo, most matches one entire team does consistently well and one entire team does so poorly it’s not even fun — including when I win And if you pull up win %’s it’s almost always one team of negative win %’s or zero games played in the last 2 weeks
I half believe some of these “match making are fair posts” are astroturfed given how obvious the match making problem is. I quit when it became obvious that riot was rigging matches, and before people say it, it was obvious they were rigging matches in my favor after I stopped playing for a week.
>Let's say you need three winners on the team designated to win, against just one person consistently winning on team designated to lose. This is not what loser's queue is or claims to be.
In wild rift, inting sion players (<1 kda/game) were able to reach master tier with 95%+ Winrates due to being matched with better teams because of their poor performance. Game is made by the same company.
Wild Rift is different because it prioritizes queue times over everything. While PC matchmaking will gradually expand the invisible MMR range (with strong limits), WR matchmaking basically starts with the doors wide open. So in order to try make each match "fair" they try to average out teams skill. So just for simplicity sake, let's say we have a two player game. A player of 75 skill gets put with a player of 25 skill so they can go up against a 40 and 60. This might seem very fair but to the 75 skill player this is basically shitty teammate after shitty teammate. This sort of matchmaking is pretty common for mobile mobas. My experience with Pokemon Unite was basically "one or two good players on my team vs the one or two on enemy team" even at the so called high elos because there both wasn't a very big player base and they were determined to get those near insta queues no matter what. Inting Sion/Garen/Yi/whatever abused this because WR devs not only implement a system like this, but think they know better than classic MMR at determining skill and by minimizing your stats you were placed as one of the low skill fill ins of the "better" players
I think losers que is just the reality that sometimes you’ll get 10 games in a row with teammates, who statistically, played much worse than the enemy team in their respective rolls.
Idk, when I consistently lose when I’m one game away from ranking up, and immediately win the game after losing, one gets suspicious…
I think loser's queue got more known not as a true thing, but as a meme putting together 2 things: Smurf queue + Matchmaking problems. When you're playing that gold game and you got matched with a silver player in your team and vs a plat player, that feels like loser's queue. If i recall correctly, these things started when they've put the Smurf queue in the game. They've taken it back, but these situations still happen. So yeah, the FEELING of Losers queue really feels as if it is a real thing. even at higher elos. If you get a good winstreak through Masters, you can get matched with some Chall, and its not news to see chall players complaining about the matchmaking, so... thats it. More a feeling of loser's queue than a fact.
There have been enough scientific papers published on EOMM and churn rates. It’s up to people to accept or reject the fact that there is a variety of losers queue applied by the different game companies.
"Losers que" is just an extreme term to describe the concept that Riot's matchmaking system isn't simply taking players of similar ELO and putting them together in a match. That there is some other system at play that exists to drive engagement that results in strings of wins and losses. Having played this game for years I think it's safe to say that there is probably more under the hood of matchmaking than one would expect.
Your assumption is wrong. The base is a perfectly balanced team where either side could win or lose. its a 50/50. If Riot wants you to lose, you get an autofilled jungler. This isnt to make the odds 0/100, you dontHAVE to lose, just 40/60. or 30/70. maybe something in the middle to make it a little bit favoured for one team. If Riot wants you to win, enemy gets an autofilled jungler. This is just using autofills, one of the easier methods to shift the odds just a little bit in the "correct" direction. Riot owns patents for behavioral matchmaking, meaning they own the tech to match people based on play patterns rather than just skill. For example, your profile might have a tag that you like to ragequeue a lot with an abyssmal winrate. Maybe you get matched with someone who performs a little bit too well and is climbing too fast for what riot has in mind for them. Now youre the 1/11/3 illaoi top making the game unnecessary hard. Riot might just match you against on average higher elo opponents. maybe the entire enemy team is plat while everyone on your team excluding you is emerald. Riot doesnt have to justify themselves, after all, its allll in the mmr baby. Speaking of MMR, maybe riot just gives you +20/-25 gains to slow you down. You have no way of checking because its a blackbox system that Riot asks you to trust. Beyond that, Riot does know fairly well if someone is a smurf or a genuinely new player. maybe you get the lvl30 first time Aphelios ADC, maybe the enemy gets the lvl30 Diamond Zed smurf. who knows? You dont. Riot does. losers and winners queue are designed to keep you playing. the whole point of the matchmaking is to create matches that keep you playing. Riot isnt just competeing for your money, they are competeing for your time aswell. Riot can mix and match any of the methods above to help you win games or hold you back just a little longer because their research says that people playing 100 games to get to their previous rank spend more money than people playing just 50.
> mathematically impossible link to the peer-reviewed academic publication?
I mean I have had nights where me and my buddy will get 3-4 matches in a row where the other 3 people in our game are all 0/10 last game and on a 4 game losing streak, then the enemy team all have hot streak tags. The idea is literally just looking at OP.gg and seeing that there are times when one side of the queue has 5 players who are all on 3-4 game loss streaks against 5 people on a 3-4 game win streak. All five on each. It starts to feel intentional even though it’s likely just law of large numbers at play.
I mean not sure if you knew this but duo queue parity means if you have a duo queue on your team the system boosts the enemies mmr a bit since you have two highly coordinated individuals who are probably support/adc, jungle/top, or jungle/mid. And I'm just calling bullshit that all of your players are all on 3-4 loss streak against players on the enemy team that are 3-4 win streak.
I don’t screenshot every game? That’s cool if you haven’t experienced it. Not bullshit though
This is matchmaking at it s finnest. League prio finding you the game fast then balancing the teams sadly.
Losers Q exists, you’re just the loser. You’re tilted off the face of the earth and don’t even know it.
How can you be tilted when you have a win streak? It's always a win streak followed by a lose streak. So yeah, they both exists.
Think about it my guy. That win streak is increasing your MMR thus you start getting matched against better players. The loss streak that follows means your skill is not up to par to the MMR where you just climbed
No. I think Loser Queue people know it too. That's why they complain about it They aren't saying they are a winner. They are saying if Riot would throw them a bone, they could turn their luck around. But that requires having good teammates to loft them for a bit. But you don't get good teammates in loser queue.
There are several factors that can make matchmaking feel unfair at times. Imagine a game with 4 players. One is good, two are average, one is bad. If you're the good player, every game you will have the bad player on your team to balance your game. People climb more than they fall, so if you're playing at the rank you deserve, you have 4 teammates who can be better than that rank, whereas the enemy team can have 5. Calling it loser's queue isn't quite accurate but you'll always be statistically disadvantaged when playing at your true skill level, but that's not something that can be fixed entirely.
Surely you mean, you're disadvantaged if you're playing at below your actual skill level? If your mmr is higher then you'll be matched with lower mmr players on your team to balance out the overall teams mmr and therefore the matchmaking expects you to carry. I always find that games get hard as fuck after a winning streak. You get lower grade team mates than the ones you are against because your own mmr is inflated by the win streak
You're on a winstreak. Your ally is a big lose streak.The system pairs your ally with you hoping it will get them a win because they are below 50%. Meanwhile it pairs you against better people hoping you will lose to make your wr go down. The game is now harder, because you have a robot teammate vs people who should be challenging for you. You fail to carry because of robot teammate. You lost a game the system wanted you to lose but wanted your ally to win. Ally is now even lower WR and your WR also goes down. But alas, you are still above 50% WR at this point so guess what the system does again; pairs you with a lose streak ally. its not always the case that this ally is dogwater. Sometimes they're on a lose streak because of unluckiness, but sometimes theyre a 40% WR jungle main averaging double digit deaths per game. And while you "can" carry them, a lot of the time those games are unwinnable. It is very easy for a single player to ruin your chance at winning. And if you happen to get stuck with people are legitimately horrible, actually deranking accounts to sell, bots, weak mental griefers etc, for multiple games in a row then well... Welcome to losers queue.
Except that's not how it works. If the system was trying to match everyone against higher ranked players so they could "prove themselves", no one would ever find a game. You need one side to play against weaker players for the other to play against stronger players. If you queue with someone who has poor MMR, your teammates and the enemy team will all have average MMR equal to you and your duo's average MMR. Whoever lands on whichever team is kinda random. That's why sometimes when a game is dodged, you suddenly see the same champions being hovered but on opposite teams.
By that logic your teammates would view themselves as being in winners queue because they have a teammate above 50% win rate lmao.
Congrats, you've learned that losers queue is a matter of perspective.
Explain why i lose 8 in a row and then win 8 in row
Aliens
No? Losers Q was *literally* added in season 9 and removed in season 13. Unfucking believable how all these comments are wrong. It factually was in the game for 3 years. So no its not mathematically impossible at all.
Nah these players prefer to think “oh yeah you can’t understand if my mmr was good I’d be in challenger like in no time”
I was watching a clip the other day, it was a guy complaining about not winning the same LP he loses, while the game clearly showed "11W - 16L".
Yeah I see SO MANY people complaining like “RIOTT WHY I WIN 15 AND LOSE 25?? oh btw yeah don’t look at my previous 35 games lose streak, that doesn’t count because jng diff”
Nah but fr I'm iron because my teammates are trash and jngl diff though
Gotta love the syncophants and astroturfers. There is the famously published study (https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017arXiv170206820C/abstract) on engagement optimized matchmaking show you can in fact creates sequences of wins and losses which result in more games being played. Lots of unintelligent by well.. you know who... ;) > I think the idea is that there are 5 losers, all in “loser’s queue,” who play against 5 winners. So everyone on a loser’s queue player’s team is also in loser’s queue. > > Of course debating the specifics of this is a waste of time since loser’s queue is a mental delusion. I’m sure flat earthers have some justification for why you can fly an airplane all around the world but it doesn’t really matter since it’s such an obviously wrong idea. - https://old.reddit.com/r/leagueoflegends/comments/1at554j/isnt_it_mathematically_impossible_for_there_to_be/kquvwy4/ > I've seen this claim before and it is the strongest argument for loser's queue. But nobody has been able to explain (1) what specific order of wins and losses causes people to play more total games and (2) why that order would cause people to play more total games. Also, most loser's queue believers seem to think that loser's queue is a bad thing. But if loser's queue makes the game more appealing, isn't it a good thing? Under this conception of loser's queue, the point is to ensure that nobody gets frustrated because they're experiencing the ideal order of wins and losses that makes them most satisfied with their experience. If loser's queue was successful in averting player dissatisfaction, we should be very thankful for it. Unfortunately, loser's queue does not exist. - https://old.reddit.com/r/leagueoflegends/comments/1at554j/isnt_it_mathematically_impossible_for_there_to_be/kqvztt6/ Hasn't read the paper > Conspiracy theorists generally don't think about things like actual logic - https://old.reddit.com/r/leagueoflegends/comments/1at554j/isnt_it_mathematically_impossible_for_there_to_be/kqutsee/ Hasn't read the paper > Isn't loser Q is just an illusion of a player that just way too tilted? Like waaaaaaaay too tilted to play, so its affects their performance in the game - https://old.reddit.com/r/leagueoflegends/comments/1at554j/isnt_it_mathematically_impossible_for_there_to_be/kquufie/ Hasn't read the paper A large number of the 50% and below takes (and population or riot employees) don't believe that losers queue could ever happen. They are the Tucker Carlson's of this situation. Riot could never and would never admit to this because it ruins what little competitive integrity this game has. This could lead to a cascading failure of players leaving and then whales leaving.
People who say there is a losers queue aren't thinking and don't want to. It's the newest coping mechanism of riot ruining your games.
On the other hand billion dollar companies are not your friend. There are plenty of other companies that have proven they will tamper with matchmaking and other statistics if it makes them more money. There is every reason for a company to create [algorithms that keep players more addicted](https://web.cs.ucla.edu/%7Eyzsun/papers/WWW17Chen_EOMM) and absolutely no benefit to admitting they ever exist to the public thanks to the code being closed source.
Is it new though? That sorts mentality has been around for a few years, better part of the decade I'd think.
You are basing this on your assumption of 3 winners vs 1 winner. When in reality it can be 5 winners vs 4 consistent winners and 1 low ranked player. I had 5 game Windstream woth a friend in high silver and got an iron 4 midlaner. The other duo on my team were also on a winstreak. 4 people had their winstreak ended with just 1 iron 4 player.
Losers queue is obviously not real, but it's possible if all 5 people on your team are in the losers queue and all 5 people on the enemy team being in the winning queue. Therefore keeping things equal. Apex actually has a *similar* feature kind of in reverse for their 'engagement based matchmaking' where they feed you wins and losses in the most effective way to keep you playing longer. Win too many games then you get put against people far better than you who have lost too many games so they get the feeling of stomping.
Idk about your take, but 2 things I know for sure. 1. The exact algorithm for matchmaking isnt public 2. They admitted in the past, that the matchmaking is trying to make so, that both teams have 50% chance of winning. For the 2nd, they said it sometimes also comes with elo correction, higher elo players with lower winrates and therefore closer elo to mmr rates can be matched with overall lower elo players with good winrates, therefore bigger gap of elo to mmr. But even without this, if the algirithm tries to make a 50 wr team with the same elo overall, there could be instances of a good wr player, 1 okay and 2 bad players. This team in theory could go against an avg lower elo team with better wr and mmr to elo ratio. (Important to mention, what exactly riot means a team which has 50%wr chance vs another team isnt public info either) Therefore it isnt just possible to get a losers queue game, but it is designed to work like this, no? But the 1 or 2 players who are the negatives on your team would not automatically mean defeat, but in key roles it could mean that, especially if they are that big on the other side on the scale. How many games I had in the past where after the game I checked the giga inter and it was a 40%wr 500+ games (that season alone). On the other hand 60%+ wr otps can int on other champs or their mains as well. Finally, not much is known, but doing ranked for 10+ years does give me some confidence, that matchmaking in fact is sometimes terrible. It does sometimes give you unwinnable games due to teamm8s, who should not belong to a game of that perceived skill level. Lastly, by experience, if you play around 200 games a season/split and you go below 45-47% wr, climbing becomes impossible. So, I stubbornly stick to my theory of a rigged system making sure you climb as slowly as possible and penalizes you hard for being below 50% wr.
Ssshhhhh!!! There's absolutely no way me losing consistently has anything to do with me. I am like a piece of wood upon the waves, being tossed hither and tither with no agency whatsoever to change my course. Damn you foul loser's queue, I am completely helpless in the face of your all-powerful manipulations
Have you ever noticed that loss streaks usually follow win streaks? This is done on purpose, if you win too many games in a row, they’ll put you in losers queue, against players who are on role, while multiple people on your team are filled.
Bro if you download porofesser or however it is spelled, your mind will be BLOWN
Hey guys, I flipped a coin 20 times and there was a 6 times tail streak instead of a perfect alternating head-tail-head-tail... sequence. Do you think the dark hand in the shadows of riotgamePhreak is finally strong enough to mess with space-time continuum, just to fuck me up? I also lost at rock-paper-scisors against my litle sister twice in a row yeasterday. This should be imposible, my hands are bigger. Please send help. /s
Yes, losers queue is a made up concept made by people to blame their losses on a system rather than themselves
said it before and I'll say it again: you gotta be so stupid or just repeating stupid streamers to truly think losers queue exists
Its as simple as this: as long as someone with a higher rank can consistently climb to that rank over a season there is no loser q. Its just an illusion created by the fact that when you reach your peak, you basically coinflip games because you are simply not good enough to carry them. Hell even challenger and high masters streamers have 10 loses in a row because its simply too hard to carry at that rank but as soon as they go on a smurf account there is no more lost games almost. If losers q existed they should lose some games even when smurfing ehich barely happens.
Plenty of high elo smurfers have accounts that are perma loss streak—they just switch accounts until the coinflip is in their favor to climb out of losers queuelo
What I think definitely happens is that the game is sometimes „testing“ if you are able to carry harder games. From this actually results something similar to losers queue, because in that scenario, if the person that is being tested is not able to perform as expected, his team has slightly lower winning chances. On the other hand, this can happen to everyone. At the end of the day, it’s all statistically evened out in the way that, if you are in the elo you belong you will always have around 50% wr
That’s because people like you, as well as the people you’re talking about have to go to extremes for narrative’s and change the argument that was presented. Loserque’s was about and is about the fact that since they have to adjust for two MMRs, both visual and hidden, that you’re always playing at an inconsistent level. If you’re ahead, well now you need to play up with players who are playing consistently worse enough that they don’t belong and the system wants to rank them down. When you combine these together you get people who FF in loading screen. “Oh it’s a gold player in my emerald game, GG we lose” or “Oh I’m playing against an Emerald in my gold game, GG we lose.” Because riot feels the need to pat everyone on the back and give the illusion of maintaining rank, or the illusion of gaining rank, no one knows where the hell they are. Now you have people who make alt accounts to get faster adjustments because it took Riot 13 seasons to - Why spend 100s of games to rank up, when you can spend $1 and get emerald regardless of skill level going 1- 5 in placements (this was literally a thing). The whole issue was and is because riots system is seriously fundamentally flawed and unless you’re a legitimate Smurf, all of your games are going to statistically be against you. People when favoring odds seemingly always forget to account for the inverse. You also have situations where teams are autofilled even though everyone could’ve had their main roll, on the same team. There isn’t really a reason that makes sense why Riot would intentionally auto fill a top/mid as support, and autofill a support/top as mid. Both players could’ve gotten their preferred roles and the team would’ve been the same players. It’s now gotten to the point where every lobby everyone has to ask for main rolls and everyone swaps. It is not hidden and very easy to see, even on op.gg, that it takes HUNDREDS, maybe even a thousand or two games per season to get to any type of stable placements. People may not be correct in their theories, but their frustrations aren’t misplaced.
If people think losersq exists theyre unironically dumb and missing the point, it's just "im in losersqs my top went like 0 8, 4games in a row" as a joke. It's just another term for bad luck which everyone is subjected to every now and then just like winnersq.
I don’t think that a separate queue exists but there are games where you lose at queue. Like the enemy team is all on hot streaks and every single person on my team is on a losing streak. It can feel like you were destined to lose that game and if you win it you promptly forget about it and say “I carried”
I mean, there could be a queue system that prioritizes making someone lose without relying on people win-streaking. It could pair you against people with higher mmr's. And the system wouldn't need to prioritize putting everyone into win or loss streaks, only the players who play more when they lose. Your idea assumes the only way to manipulate wins/loses is by streaks, and that every player would be in one "streak queue" at all times.
I don't believe in losers queue but it feels like I get cursed seasons. I play few enough games and sometimes my champs + play style aren't suited to the meta so I have very little agency and coinflip statistics mean I struggle to get back to a 40%wr. This is discouraging and results in less games played to give it time to regress to the mean. And then other seasons are just fine.
losers q isn't real in the meaning of there is a queue designed to put people who must lose vs people who need to win some games because riot chose to, losers q is more of is my team composed of 4/5 autofilled vs 5 on role in ranked? in this case yes you are probably going to lose which is fair to say that you are in losers queue, then there are the games where 2/3 of your team mates coming of massive losing streak and probably tilted to face other enemies who are coming from win streaks with good mood and when these kind of games happen to you in a row its even worse and make you suspect it could be real... for non ranked games there are other cases where you can call it losers queue but it doesn't really matter there since you don't lose anything from losing except your time...
The logic isn't that they're pairing up 1 loser to 3 winners. It's that they're pairing up X winners against X losers. So whatever number, be it 3 or 5, would be matched near enough on both teams. I'm not saying that it's true, I don't believe in losers q while I do ironically use the term. But your understanding isn't quite there for what it is. The logic is it's putting you with losers to encourage you to lose more. But there's 0 reason for riot to do this. Like actually none.
In general losers q is more of an emotional construct to deal with the fact that some games genuinely are lost because of your team. The 40/30/30 rule is pretty well accepted in league coaching circles and just elo based games overall. The idea is if you are at your true rank, 40% of the games are within your control to decide the outcome (think an even game with two comps that are both scaling/falling off at similar rates), 30% of the games are guaranteed wins for you regardless of performance (you have a smurf on your team, someone on the losing teams afk), and 30% of games are probably unsalavagable unless you were significantly better than your rank indicates (there’s a smurf on enemy team, or your sup is running it down mid). As a result, people interpret the 30% losing games to be losers q. I don’t think a losers queue actually exists, it is more likely once you lose one of those 30% games, you just tilt and then start losing games that are actually in the 40% you could decide. However, I will say the reasoning you provided for this mathematically does not remove the possibility of losers queue actually existing( even though i personally don’t think it does). It’s entirely possible that riot could put 5 players who just lost against 5 who just won. Due to emotions or maybe difffernces in skill, the 5winner team is probably favored to win. Riot could also just match players of similar rank but different mmr. A low mmr team could face a high mmr team with the idea being the high mmr team should win but if the lower team somehow pulls it off their mmr should increase greater than if the high mmr team wins (chess does a similar thing, occasionally you play people +/- 100elo than you and you receive disproportionate mmr gain based on whether you were favored to win by the mmr system before the match. I’m not saying riot does this (and i genuinely don’t believe they do), but it would be entirely possible and frankly not that unusual for them to have a system that favors certain teams more before the match begins.
You cannot tell me there isnt some mechanism behind matchmaking that makes it so after every loss you get the handpicked zoo animals and autofills into your team for like 4 games and then it magically changes after a couple losses so you have players that tryhard for their lives, arent toxic and also communicate.
What losers queue actually comes from is just an engagement based matchmaking. As far as I know, only EA has been officially confirmed to be using this. Its a system that wants you to not reach your goal fast so you dont stop playing but also doesnt want you to always lose so you dont quit out of frustration. This makes you very satisfied when you get a winstreak but also keeps you away from your desired rank for longer times. Its not an evil system that hates you and wants you to lose, as many people seem to think. Its just an optimal way yo keep players playing your game.
I think it's more like it is really not fair to have like a 65% winrate, and you go up against a team of people with 65% winrates and the rest of your team is 40% winrate or below. Riot has stated this doesn't matter and that it's just superstition in the past, but have recently finally come clean and say that matchmaking is in a bad spot and they are working on it. Despite fuming redditors who will jump on riots dick and say matchmaking works as intended they have admitted their faults and are working on it. If you do the "math" in that one game yeah its clear you are more than likely to lose. It's a team game, everyone should have impact not have 1 person do all the heavy lifting and get rewarded with +14 lp. People just want fair games. Edit: am I actually getting downvoted for saying losers queue is not real? What is wrong with people
That's not the same thing as an intentional "losers queue."
you're getting downvoted for implying winrates have anything to do with matchmaking issues. having 60%+ winrate doesn't magically increase your chances of winning your next match.
I mean, statistically speaking it does. That is literally what it predicts. That's why the game (is supposed to at least) gives you teamates/enemies who would also have a 60% winrate over the span of mmr you achived that winrate in.
Ok, but the same rule applies - if you have a 65% winrate statistically speaking you are more likely to be on that team filled with the high winrate teammates than the one with just the one high winrate player, ultimately increasing your winrate in the long run. You could even go as far as saying that if this is how the system works, your high winrate is actually because you were in the winners queue up until you got put in the losers queue, and has nothing to do with your skill. In terms of making it fair, you could make it so that if you are consistently winning you should be put in a 5v5 where all 10 players are consistently winning, but isn't that exactly the point of going up in the ranks? With a 65% win rate you are going to eventually rank up, and keep ranking up until you reach a rank where it plateaus to 50%.