devtrackers.gg
It's likely due to everyone wanting to play the new support champ.
Yeah, probably. Role select rates always swing pretty heavily towards what new content is released.
It's likely due to everyone wanting to play the new support champ.
Yeah, probably. Role select rates always swing pretty heavily towards what new content is released.
It's based on MMR as well stopping people duoing.
To have it happen you must have extremely low masters MMR and you probably had a long queue time to start having ~d2 MMR duo thrown in
We lowered the MMR threshold this patch to make it harder for this to happen, since we did see some examples of duoing accounts that looked like they should've been cut off earlier. If anyone sees more examples after the most recent patch I'm happy to take a look.
EDIT: Got the timing wrong, it will probably go live next Wednesday, but anyways yeah we're being stricter on this.
player count doesn't matter, it's about percentages and if all roles aren't at 20% select rate you're going to need autofill. if 25% people want to mid and 15% want to jungle but you need 1 person in each role to start a game, you're going to need offroled players unfortunately.
but shouldn't the game be seeing that the account is challenger rank/iron MMR and give the account less gains as a result?
https://support-leagueoflegends.riotgames.com/hc/en-us/articles/4405781372051-MMR-Rank-and-LP
or is this effect outweighed by the effect you mentioned where since he is playing vs silver MMR as an iron MMR, his gains are increased?
u/Auberaun can you chime in here? should an iron MMR account with challenger LP see less LP gains?
I mean there's a minimum LP gain amount that's set, but it's not too relevant in this case because these people are all getting banned anyway
do you regret removing smurf queue now the sentiment is going back to complaining about smurfs in every game.
Grouping 9-10 smurfs and the occasional late player to ranked kept the average game integrity higher compared to spreading those 10 smurfs out into other games
No, because the way it was implemented was making the experience pretty unreasonable for any of those late returners. There are other tactics we should use to improve game integrity that don't have those other painful effects.
Hey Auberaun! Thanks for chiming in! So am I correct to infer from your statement that there was no separate and distinct "smurf queue", and that what people refer to as "smurf queue" is actually just the experience of having a disjointed MMR/rank, whether you're actually "smurfing" or not?
Yes that's correct. An oversimplified way of how matchmaking worked was to find players within X MMR and Y LP difference of each other. Those start out pretty tight, but if no full group can be formed, expand X and Y by some amount every Z seconds.
So it's just a consequence of that that you have the groups of people whose MMR and LP were close together (the bulk engaged players who'd been participating since the season began) and those who aren't (the everyone-else group already identified). If for some reason anyone in those groups had to wait an excessively long time to the extent that their search envelopes would overlap, they could still be put together, that was just pretty unlikely given the tuning.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3aIa1hZ8LuE
Yes, smurf queue was a thing, but it has been removed. The video kind of summarizes the history of it's implementation and removal
https://www.leagueoflegends.com/en-gb/news/game-updates/patch-13-1-notes/ In the part where they say "Visible rank is no longer used as matchmaking criteria, only MMR (Note: this was implemented in patch 12.23)", that's them removing the checking of how disjointed your MMR and visual rank were.
For some more context, grouping smurfs was a secondary benefit, the primary goal of using visible rank in matchmaking was to improve sentiment around fairness of matches for most players, stuff like "why is this Silver in my Gold game". Problem was the population who was in that bucket of disjointed MMR and visual rank: smurfs, decayed Diamond+ players, and people starting their season climb later than everyone else (returning players, new players). It was a pretty poor experience for that segment and most of those groups besides the smurfs are just going to go play a game or mode that isn't going to do that to them.
/u/Auberaun hopefully this guy gets permabanned banned as well since he's exploiting. Is this going to be fixed along with the brazilian solo q issues?
Yes
You're awesome! Thank you for the speedy action and response.
Sure, it's what you should expect and it's not cool that stuff like this is possible.
edit: to clarify you should expect speedy action when something illegitimate is actually happening because league's competitive integrity is really important, not necessarily public responses in cases like this
Holy f**king shit, the LP system breaking down because the nickname has too many characters might just be the single most unholy spaghetti bug I've ever seen. Istg, League is built on duct tape and hope lol
Anyway, letting /u/auberaun know might be helpful
They're gone and we'll look at what's going on.
Can we at least get a dev blog as why this is a hardship? I also work with legacy software so I understand the hardships. The dev blogs/post mortems of this type of shit is always appreciated.
When we resolve it I can see what's shareable, it's unlikely it'll warrant a whole blog post though :P
What about Match History showing 21 games instead of the usual 20, is that one harder than we would expect as well?
buy 20 matches get 1 free
It has not been forgotten, it's one of those bugs that seems like it should be simple to resolve but actually isn't unfortunately
So this is something I was wondering when the increased lp gains were announced but didn't see confirmed.
Let's say in the old system, you started having net negative lp gains once your lp was 100 points higher than your mmr.
Before, that would mean it'd take roughly 100/15 = 6 or 7 games until you lose more than you gain.
With the new system, does it still take that same amount of games, or does it now only take 100/22 = 5ish games?
Something like the latter, it'll happen faster
It feels like it's way worse now, it almost seems like they should've increased the amt of MMR you gain to make up for the sheer amount of LP your gaining compared to before the patch. This is also kind of an issue because some people will be masters but only playing in D2 lobbies. Which, isn't the biggest skill difference? But, there's a skill difference.
I guess the point is, if it was a problem before? Just imagine how bad it is now.
Net negative gains (losing more than you win) are really tragic because they basically say that your expected value for playing League is negative, if you go 50/50 in your matches you're going to end lower than you started. The reason they exist is to prevent rank inflation, so you can't luck your way upwards and sustain that rank if you don't belong there. We're pretty interested in addressing it somehow. Less time spent in a net-positive state was a known tradeoff of increasing LP amounts, since you'll be dragged upwards faster towards your target rank than you were before.
Part I want to comment on is when folks propose "increase MMR speed" as a solution - MMR is a system that outputs a number specifically optimized for skill assessment. The issue here is a ranked progression one rather than one with skill assessment, so we should solve it within the scope of the ranked system. Unless increasing MMR variance resulted in higher quality matches that wouldn't be the answer ...
Read moresometimes i flip a coin and when i get 3 tails in a row i shake my fist at Jesus for putting me in tails queue
lmao I love this
Thanks for the correction.
And it was definitely removed with 2016 Dynamic Queue. I remember that announcement very clearly.
It was probably just added back when solo queue was reinstated.
possible yes! that was before my time
A duo in a match has more of an advantage over the solo players in their match than they should right now, so we're making a change which should result in them being put in games with higher skilled players on both sides.
This f**ks over the soloq players though. Because if your team has 1 duo pair, and the enemy team has no duo pairs, you're basically guaranteed to lose the game since the enemy team will out-gap you.
Why are we punishing soloq players? This just makes it feel like an even bigger Losers Queue whatever soloq player gets matched on the team with the duo.
Right now in the scenario you're describing the duo has a small advantage, we're bringing it closer to 50/50 for both sides.
Crazy that duo queue had no MMR penalty.
That was removed in dynamic queue and only readded in this patch.
They've always had a penalty, we just determined it was a little lower than it should be.
How does that work with matchmaking variance? Can't put it in the words so here's a theoretical example:
Assume I am 1250 MMR and I matchmake in a lobby range of 1200-1300. Is there a difference if I keep winning in 1200mmr lobbies and losing in 1300mmr lobbies and the other way around(winning in 1300mmr lobbies losing in 1200mmr lobbies)?
Also, back in season 11 I ran into a situation when with 53% WR in over 200 games I was consistently(as in from like game 20? to game 200) losing more LP than I gained. How does that even happen?
To the first question yeah there could be, MMR gain and loss on a per-game basis can be affected by the MMRs of the other players in that game and how likely we think it is you'll win or lose - we matchmake as close to 50% as possible every time, but if you win a match we assessed was a 49% chance for you to win you'd gain more MMR than if you won a match we assessed had a 51% chance of your victory.
For your second question it's really hard to say without knowing more about your account or being able to trace your ranked journey, sorry.