*** League of Legends ***

hehe I guess it just clarifies why I am trying to find something else to play :) Though 55:45 isn't exactly miles away - more Maths lessons I think :)
 
tals said:
Sorry I should have been clearer - however you play, if the matchmaking is working then you will lose 50% of the time. As you play better you're go against better opposition and then lose. So any assumptions that the better you play the more you win are unlikely to occur. You may find the game more rewarding - although I suspect the opposite is true.

Either way regardless if you play out of your skin you will still lose games and most likely 50% of them :)
Click to expand...

I kinda see where you are coming from.

Rather than each match having a 50% chance of you winning, it's more like "You just won 4 games in a row, so you need to lose the next 4 to keep the ratio" and it puts you up against people WAY better than you, making it more like 90% likely that you will lose the next 4 matches.
 
ELO gives you a rating, lets say 1200. You win a game and it gives you +20 points. So now you're at 1220 points. Your next game will put you in a game where there's people within about 50 ELO of you. What will happen is if you're on a streak of wins you'll get to a relatively high ELO for you. This will mean you'll be placed in a game with people who are the same ELO but may well CONSTANTLY be at that ELO. As such you'll likely come up against better players.

The thing that can happen though is if say two people duo queue and one is 1700 and the other is 900 then this will (roughly) balance out and they'll be playing with 1200 ELO players.

It's not a perfect system but it's about the best there is at present.
 
Well, had another few good games (been having a losing streak lately!) someone on the opposite team left, so they kept asking can one of us be afk to make it fair? :eek:
 
Deiwos said:
ELO gives you a rating, lets say 1200. You win a game and it gives you +20 points. So now you're at 1220 points. Your next game will put you in a game where there's people within about 50 ELO of you. What will happen is if you're on a streak of wins you'll get to a relatively high ELO for you. This will mean you'll be placed in a game with people who are the same ELO but may well CONSTANTLY be at that ELO. As such you'll likely come up against better players.

The thing that can happen though is if say two people duo queue and one is 1700 and the other is 900 then this will (roughly) balance out and they'll be playing with 1200 ELO players.

It's not a perfect system but it's about the best there is at present.
Click to expand...

That's the one, not quite sure how a 60:40 would come of that but that is the system. It could be improved in a number of areas, the type of champion in use and performance with that, more linkage with the team members you are with - rather than treating people as individuals, what impact you had on the team with the class of champ. IMHO these are not hard things to implement and the team aspect in particular would improve it a lot - apparently some changes for Season 2 are promised in that respect but that was a promise for Season 1 as well :)

I know I come across as grumpy in this area, I not - but just latched on in respect of if you play better you're win more. In some ways I really should just play ranked the whole time and then the system is more open - but at the same time it's team handling lets it down as does its inability to deal with players being experienced in some champs and noobs on others
 
Last edited:
It's 60:40 or 40:60 because you will most likely win or lose quite a few games and then even out at the "right" Elo, leaving you with a surplus or deficit in one that shouldn't go away if the system is working properly. It's not a comment on how "good" people are, it's simply how the system is designed.

The most likely reason that you are closer to 50:50 tals is because you have been playing with pre-mades pretty much always, which reduces the fluctuation due to the fact you are consistently re-balancing your side not based on matchmaking.

Also Deiwos, if two people of different Elo duo queue it does not take an average of the two. It ignores the lower rated person and matches you with a team purely based on the higher individual elo (taking an average of 4 and then subtracting a set amount based on what elo the other person is). This is part of the anti-smurf detection, and also stops people abusing the system to gain Elo (ie. Queuing with a 700 friend when you are 1600 to gain an easy win). Duo-queuing is a really weird system and there's more to it but I've rambled enough as is :D
 
Last edited:
mcknight said:
It's 60:40 or 40:60 because you will most likely win or lose quite a few games and then even out at the "right" Elo, leaving you with a surplus or deficit in one that shouldn't go away if the system is working properly. It's not a comment on how "good" people are, it's simply how the system is designed.

The most likely reason that you are closer to 50:50 tals is because you have been playing with pre-mades pretty much always, which reduces the fluctuation due to the fact you are consistently re-balancing your side not based on matchmaking.

Also Deiwos, if two people of different Elo duo queue it does not take an average of the two. It ignores the lower rated person and matches you with a team purely based on the higher individual elo (taking an average of 4 and then subtracting a set amount based on what elo the other person is). This is part of the anti-smurf detection, and also stops people abusing the system to gain Elo (ie. Queuing with a 700 friend when you are 1600 to gain an easy win). Duo-queuing is a really weird system and there's more to it but I've rambled enough as is :D
Click to expand...

Having duo'd with my friend with a significantly higher elo than myself I can say for sure that we were matched with people almost exactly in between our ELOs.
 
Really? They must have changed something then. The closer your Elo's are the more accurate the matching will be. If you are only ~200 apart of course it will factor you in, but your example was like 800-1000 apart and I can tell you that's not how the system works at that point. Or at least, this was all accurate at the start of season 1. It's entirely possible Riot have refined their matching-making since then, I don't have access to that information anymore :D
 
mcknight said:
Really? They must have changed something then. The closer your Elo's are the more accurate the matching will be. If you are only ~200 apart of course it will factor you in, but your example was like 800-1000 apart and I can tell you that's not how the system works at that point. Or at least, this was all accurate at the start of season 1. It's entirely possible Riot have refined their matching-making since then, I don't have access to that information anymore :D
Click to expand...

He was 1700, I was 1150-1200 so a pretty big different. Played vs 1400 or so players. This was start of August so fairly recent.
 
tals said:
That is absolutely incorrect - otherwise certain teams would have 100% win rates, I suspect most have a 50% win rate - anyone want to give me percentages to dispute this :)
Click to expand...

Wow, this is the comment that started all that? Explains the tone of your other comments tals! Wish I had seen this before now :p

What a weird and random comment to make on what Deiwos said*. I mean you took what he said completely out of context and then spawned a silly argument out of it. Logically the team that plays better always wins (or as close to always that it doesn't matter), end of story :D

*(It doesn't even really make much sense; as the team that plays better will fluctuate every game. In your example what are these certain teams? I'm pretty sure it's humanly impossible for a team to play perfectly every single game and thus maintain a perfect win rate. If however such a thing was possible and a team did play absolutely perfectly every game then yes, they should, by the law of averages and how the game is designed, have a 100% win ratio or at least close enough to 100% for statistical purposes. But I mean all that is completely intellectual discussion :D)
 
Last edited:
Deiwos said:
He was 1700, I was 1150-1200 so a pretty big different. Played vs 1400 or so players. This was start of August so fairly recent.
Click to expand...

Yea they must have definitely changed it then, my bad :D

Not sure if I like it though, that's an incredible advantage to put in the hands of players duo-queuing. I'm sure Riot know what they are doing better then I do though :p
 
mcknight said:
Wow, this is the comment that started all that? Explains the tone of your other comments tals! Wish I had seen this before now :p

What a weird and random comment to make on what Deiwos said*. I mean you took what he said completely out of context and then spawned a silly argument out of it. Logically the team that plays better always wins (or as close to always that it doesn't matter), end of story :D

*(It doesn't even really make much sense; as the team that plays better will fluctuate every game. In your example what are these certain teams? I'm pretty sure it's humanly impossible for a team to play perfectly every single game and thus maintain a perfect win rate. If however such a thing was possible and a team did play absolutely perfectly every game then yes, they should, by the law of averages and how the game is designed, have a 100% win ratio or at least close enough to 100% for statistical purposes. But I mean all that is completely intellectual discussion :D)
Click to expand...

I think we've covered this. My point and I did clarify it later - it is unlikely - I would suggest impossible that you will win every match regardless how you play as you will be slowly going up the 'elo' tree. Sure if you are at the top of the elo then it's possible - but non of us are anywhere near that :)

It was made on the basis that Deiwos was suggesting if you play well you will win all your games which isn't going to happen at our level.

re 50:50 elo, I suggest it is more likely i'm at that because I played on US first - very few people I won't play with :)

It's all kind of mute and you need to go back higher to get the full thread which all seems a tad pointless, good stuff for bringing it back up :)
 
mcknight said:
Yea they must have definitely changed it then, my bad :D

Not sure if I like it though, that's an incredible advantage to put in the hands of players duo-queuing. I'm sure Riot know what they are doing better then I do though :p
Click to expand...

I think you were thinking of 5 player premade, in that the 5th player's elo is ignored - could be more but I always thought it was based on total elo of the 5 and if a 5th was low level that had it's elo upped. That said games where we have 4 lev 30's and 1 low level tends to end up against similarly matched teams

2 players - I just thought they added them together - makes sense as you're basically solo queuing anyway so you get an advantage with duo queue regardless.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom