Bronze elo, used my 3rd dodge of the day. So if my team is all 40-30% wr, and I'm the one with 51%wr, should the enemy also have equally poor wr overall? I let one pass for sh*ts and giggles (didn't want to use 3rd dodge yet) and they're all 50-52%wr while my team was all 45-40% wr, and go figure it was a ff15 game, could not carry.
External link →No, game's are intentionally unfair.
They don't put you in a game where you theoretically have a 50% chance to win based on ranks, otherwise you reach true MMR too quickly and stop playing. They give you 5 games where you have a 55% chance of winning, then 5 games where you have a 45% chance of winning and you climb by consistently outperforming in games you're supposed to lose. Makes the climb significantly harder than if you were consistently placed in fairly matched games. Pretty disgusting practice, but it keeps players playing.
Enjoy the grind.
no we don't do that. aim for as close to 50% every time.
winrate is not a criteria. if an iron player gets better or a silver player gets worse and they both end up in bronze, they'll be matchmade with other bronze players.
Anybody who plays the game knows this isn't true and you are lying. Bronzies get matched with golds all the time, specifically hardstuck golds with 2k games negative winrate per season, solely to make the bronze player lose because the system sees they're winning too often and climbing too fast. You can replicate this indefinitely with different accounts. Clear indicator that the mm algorithm is rigged. Unless you can prove it through the data you stored, I think you are trying to deceive and defraud children.
you caught me, I love to deceive and defraud children on the internet
-Says the system aim for 50%
-Everyone ignores the deep implications of such a algorithm.
Honestly pretty easy money, don't even need to obscure terms for any possible jury people will just eat anything they.
what deep implications
Just wondering. If aiming as close to 50% is fact isn't that unfair? I mean if I performance way better than average of players in my division system won't choose worse team to make it the closest to 50%?
I mean. If sentence above is right that means playing league is actually pure coin flip. The more you're better the more you're playing with worse and opposite.
I still believe that if you're performing well your mmr should increase much faster to pump you up even faster (which solves problem with smurfs).
Idea where smurfes gain low ammount of LP is actually sick cause they break even more games than it usually would take.
What would be the alternative? We give you, personally, matches where we statistically know you are meaningfully more or less likely to win than the 5 other humans you're playing against?
We match you with others based on your current MMR. If you are actually a better player than what your current MMR is, you will start winning more than 50% of games, and your MMR will increase. As your MMR increases, the players you play with and against start to match you in skill level. As your MMR starts to align with your true skill, you will win around 50% of matches because the primary factor we're matchmaking you for = reality. If you want to continue climbing after your MMR matches your actual skill, you need to improve as a player or find other advantages. Plenty of ways to do this - pick better champions, get better at warding, CSing, work on being a better teammate.
At a high level agree that performance influencing MMR is typically a good thing and there are improvements we can make in that space.
How is winrate not a criteria?
This might be a really sh*tty analogy so apologies: if I'm looking for people who have 5 apples to match with other people who have 5 apples, it's not really relevant if you started with 3 apples and found 2 more to play the game or if you had 20 and lost 15, I only care about how many apples you have right now.
However, after that game is done and we see the result, it can be relevant to know how many apples you've had in the past to inform skill updates. If you had 20 apples but are now down to 5, we were probably pretty off and shouldn't have as much confidence that you have the right number of apples. If you have a history of being around 3-5 apples, we can be more confident that you're in the right orchard.
Ok so TL;DR winrate IS a criteria?
We might have different definitions. When you say "winrate" what I think about is a player's winrate for the duration of the season. For example, trying to match someone with a 30% winrate against someone on the other team who has a 30% winrate, which is not something we do.
Winrate will inform how you got to your MMR, but for the purposes of making matches we don't look at how you got there.
devtrackers.gg