[2021] Riot dev explains how match making works to Ardis

Hey guys, I'm the Dev from the twitter post!

There is lots of good feedback in this thread and I really want to talk about it. I'm seeing a few "If I'm playing against Immortal, Plat, etc. players, I deserver to be that rank". I agree technically you do! No matter what, after you play a handful of games, your MMR and your Rank will converge. So if you are playing Immortals/Radiants, after 20-50 games if you can maintain a 50:50 winrate you will reach that rank.

I know that means your rank isn't where your MMR believes you belong, and it feels unfair that you just don't get the rank you are playing at. This is both true, and not true. No matter what, once you play some games your MMR and Rank will converge. This is something you can't stop. We believe you belong at, whatever rank your MMR is testing you at, but it's up to you to perform at that level and climb. We would rather have you test up to your rank, instead of just putting you there and maybe we are wrong and you end up dropping. If you think about it, if we place you too high or over estimate your skill that is worse for match quality then us under estimating your skill and you climbing a little.

You guys are very in tune to how the system works, but to people who don't it would feel really sh*tty for us to just place you high and you chain lose to get to your rank. Rather then you get placed a little low, maybe you do a little better then your teammates in a few games, get MMR correct and you climb to the rank you deserve.

This still doesn't solve the concern that "I'm X MMR I deserver to be that Rank". The problem in thinking that is "At what point do you actually deserve a rank?". Yes our MMR can get a good idea of where you belong, but it takes many games for it to be confident in exactly where you belong. If we gave you the rank we thought you were in 5 games, is that fair? Is it fair if TenZ made a new account and got rank 1 on the leader board in 5 games? If that isn't fair then should it be 10 games, 20 games, 50? What amount of games do you think is fair to prove you belong at your rank? At the end of the day we want to make sure that people feel like ranks are valid, the only way to do that is to force you to play games to prove your rank. Elo systems depend on high game counts to be accurate, in fact most Elo systems need 1000+ games to have a true accuracy in rating your skill.

So the goal of the system is to make sure you play enough games to prove your rank, and it places you slightly lower because proving yourself upwards is more healthy for queue then proving yourself downwards. It also feels better, altho I don't like the excuse "We do this because psychologically it feels better." Yes that's part of the reason, but there are so many more reasons to do it this way besides that.

Lastly, the goal is to never create a "Fake Grind". I think any system that does that is instantly BS, and just feels gimmicky or like it's abusing player trust. The goal of our system is to create the most fair, balanced, competitive experience so people can identify their true rank/skill after engaging with ranked. If we want to foster players that can someday play in the top tournaments/teams in the world, we need a ranked system that can build those players up and help inform teams of skill.

Hopefully that helps, thank you all so much for the feedback. We do have some changes planned, and hopefully we can talk about some of those soon so you can see how we are improving the system. Ranked will always be work, and always need to be tweaked, it will never be perfect. My hope is that I can convince everyone that we will always support ranked and be working on it so it can be a better system for all of us(I play ranked too!).

Our match maker is actually extremely good at finding fair matches. It's hard to hear, because I feel like(even myself) finding a reason to blame why I may be losing or underperforming is hard - unfortunately teammates or match quality definitely becomes a target.

We've been getting a ton of reports that "My match making is unfair, I get stomped or I stomp every match!". We've actually investigated these claims a ton over the past week. I've actually had people say this, and I go to their match history and their matches are all 10-13, 11-13, 13-8, etc.

Now just because we don't see MMR shifts, bad match making, etc. Doesn't mean there isn't a problem, so we are always looking at data and we really want to see the data after the season plays out more. But so far, I think a lot of this is ranked anxiety and early season movement. You have players that played 2 months ago and may have had immortal act ranks then but haven't played Valorant since. We've changed weapon balanced, released new agents, new maps, changed maps, etc. 2 months right now is about 30% of the games released life span. That means being gone for 2 months, gives players at least 30% more time with the game then that player. Skill shifts happen, and it's a good thing we are seeing so many ranks changing right now. We need players who don't belong in higher ranks to fall, and new players who have improved to go up. That's the intention of a soft reset, and a ranked system.

Just as a last note, soft resets also won't be common. Right now my goal is to keep them per episode. I understand that they are good to clear out high ranks, but at the same time we also have to be aware of how exhausting it is to have to play your placements and have anxiety about losing your rank and having to prove it again.

Act Ranks will show your leaderboard standing based on end of Act, not whatever you are now. Our goal is to put a number on your Act Rank based on your leaderboard standing, again based on the end of Act.

Also soft resets are needed. Every game that has ranked has boosted players, players that don't belong in high ranks, players that quit playing the game, etc. Is it fair that someone could get a high rank, then play one game a week for months and maintain that rank? Is it fair if we just let TenZ get #1 on leaderboard after 5 games?

All Elo systems need you to play multiple games to know your true rank. This system is just doing that, after a handful of games you will converge with your MMR - you can't stop it. At some point I think it's fair to say "if you can't earn a rank, do you really deserve it in the current season". This is especially true because most players need less then 20 games to converge with their MMR. Top of the leaderboard may need more, but I think it's fair to say that you should probably have to prove you belong there and maintain a high MMR to earn top of the leaderboard.

Also in 40 days I'm willing to bet there are no Diamonds in the leaderboard, because a Diamond MMR player will be gaining 10ish RR a win but losing around 30. The system will force players who are above their MMR down. I think there is an unfair assumption that because a player was diamond last season they couldn't be top 500 this season. But who knows, it's been a week and a half and there is still a ton of time for the leaderboard to equalize.

Things like 5 stacks, not knowing who was actually in the top 500, etc. are all factors that really skewed perception of who the top players in Valorant were last season. Without 5 stacks you really have to prove your skill now.

You can't not do soft resets for ranked, you have to make players prove their rank to maintain a healthy ranked ecosystem. If we want pro players, and teams, to value ranked and the standings we need to keep having players prove they are high rank. We can't let players earn a high rank and sit there, that isn't proving anything. We don't want to enable players to sit at a high rank and coast at that rank for a long time.

Why would we create unfair matches just to let people stomp? That isn't proving skill, an immortal player will stomp a diamond player just as much as a Radiant.

In fact that isn't proving your rank, that's just proving your better then diamonds. Right now I think it's much healthier for players to be put at their skill, then be forced to maintain a 50:50 winrate and be moved to that Rank.

Also how does that effect smurfs? We can combat smurfs by quickly changing their MMR, so they aren't ruining games while they smurf through every single rank. Right now I don't think anyone can convince me that stomping on someone below your rank is good for the game health, or player enjoyment. I also don't think it's a good way to show your skill.

You also won't get better and improve your rank stomping low level players. We need you to play players of your skill, so you get better or we validate you belong against those players. The system would be complete chaos without match making, this isn't even taking into account all players in all ranks.

Could you imagine if you got into a match at gold, with some immortal, some radiant, some gold, some plat, etc. Then we threw them on all teams randomly? That would be awful, and not only that but there is a good chance you end up on a team of all golds, while someone lower skill then you ends up on a team of all plats and you lose because of it. There are more consequences to doing match making based on ranked, instead of MMR, and it makes no sense to do so.

The convergence is the same both ways. So if you were One full sub rank above your MMR you would go down the same amount as if you were one Sub Rank below and going up. That's a confusing sentence, but hopefully that makes sense? We only put a cap at the maximum you could lose/gain, and those are different, because we think it's more fair to give people a chance when they are dropping to raise their MMR and also to get people who are severely below their rank up to their rank quicker.

Yea, I think there are a ton of mixed things going on with feedback like this.

We never let people know where they really stacked up, aside from the top 100 that was posted at one point last season. We also let players 5 stack at the highest ranks. Now we are telling people exactly where they stand, and you can no longer five stack. At those high ranks your MMR is all about wins and doesn't factor in skill. Now players need to prove solo/duo that they actually belong at those high ranks, and it opens up players who were good but maybe didn't have 5 stacks the ability to climb easier.

I think it will be a healthier ranking system on the high end, but people may be a little upset to learn they may not be as high rated as they were last season(but on the flip side we may have new Faker's and TenZ's in the making!).

I've probably wrote at least 60 pages in a word doc worth of response on my twitter and on reddit about this. I completely see where you are coming from.

Either way, even if it was based not on a hidden MMR system, the math would be near identical just sold to you differently. In whatever system you are going to play ranked in you will have to put in X number of games to get to the rank you belong in. Yes there will be a while where you can stay at your rank, but eventually there will be a reset and you have to prove your worth again.

In this system if you play 20-30ish games your MMR and Rank will converge near 1:1.(I say 20-30 because Radiant/Immortal may require a few more, but that's just because technically the leaderboard is Immortal1/2/3 and Radiant combined right now)

I think people get lost in the weeds, when in reality if you play a handful of games your rank will be exactly where you belong. Different systems sell this in different ways, our goal is to maintain a healthy leaderboard/ranked system because that leaderboard will be used for scouting and clout. If we don't make people prove they belong there, that leaderboard will mean nothing.

Also your rewards will be based on the end of season standings. So if you really do belong at high ranks in the leaderboards, play your matches and you will get there. This system isn't magically targeting you, or anyone else, and holding you back. Everyone has the capacity to do well and climb, you are all on even footing.

I think it's hard to use specific match examples, only going off of act rank. The game has been out for about 9 months now(I'm sorry, I don't remember release and I am too lazy to google after typing so many response so quick :P ). Some of those players may have been playing 2-3 months ago at the beginning of the last Act. They could have easily filled up their triangle in a day or two, and then left valorant and have been gone for 3 months. 3 months is a very long time, especially when the game is only 9 months old. That means there are players that may have those act ranks that have missed out on 30% of the time the game has been out.

Because of stuff like that, Act Ranks are not the best gauge of current skill or actual rank. They are to show off what you accomplished last act.

We didn't change anyones MMR for the soft reset. You are getting the same quality matches as you were last season. It may be hard to hear, but if you think this season is currently unfair and you are getting unfair matches - these are the exact same matches you were getting 2 weeks ago before reset. Nothing has changed in terms of how we match you, or the quality of players you get in your games.

Part of me also wonders how many players have come back, may have been high rating a few weeks ago, and now are on their way down because they aren't that good. I think the pressure of having to climb, a soft reset, and the new ranked system has people trying to point fingers at why they are the rank they are.

We have some changes planned, that we think will make ranked better. Hopefully we can talk about them soon. But right now are definitely listening to the players who are talking about unfair matches, but when we are investigating we aren't seeing evidence of it. So clearly there is a perception problem, or some other issue, we need to identify and solve(if there really is a problem).

Thanks! I love talking to the community. I think getting out there and answering questions, and letting people know how the system works helps a ton!

We get better feedback if people know what's going on, rather then making assumptions and just getting angry - because they my be wrong in those assumptions and have no idea how the system actually works.

My hope is that we can be visible in wanting to improve ranked, and to make sure that we are listening to feedback and get faith from the community that we will constantly be trying to improve it.

If you are Radiant and Squashing diamonds, how many diamond players do you need to squash on to prove you are above diamond. How do we know that you squashing a diamond player makes you Radiant? We don't you are just some rank above Diamond. So stomping a diamond lobby doesn't reflect your skill, it is just saying you are above them somewhere(we don't know where). That isn't skill expression that's just stomping on players below you.

Could you imagine the chaos? People complain about bad teammates, but what if we just grabbed plat, silver, gold, immortal, etc. players and put them all in a match together. I mean they need to prove they are above that rank, so we need to just let it work itself out and let the good players stomp the lower ranked players until it works itself out. That will not improve the skill of immortals or radiants, it won't improve the skill of low rank players, and it won't be enjoyable except for the 1-2 players each match that stomp and win. If you are playing ranked you should be playing to have fair competitive matches, with the goal of improving so you can climb ranked. Getting matched against an opponent at your skill is how you do that. Not someone far below your skill, that's a waste of both you and the lower skilled players time.

Soft resets won't happen often, and they will most likely only come per episode. We are still talking about how to handle leaderboard act-act.

Unfortunately, you need soft resets to clear out high ranks. Last Act was almost 3 months long. If a player climbed to immortal/Radiant week 1, then stopped playing, they are in a much different place skill wise then last Act. If that player came back and played once a week, I'm willing to bet they could coast and stay in Radiant/Immortal all Act even tho their skills may have gone down.

Soft resets lets us clear out players who don't play, and the players that do play will not climb back up to their intended rank. You can't stop your Rank converging with your MMR. If you play matches, the system will non-stop be pulling you to your MMR.

We can't just let players instantly get the rank they deserve for a few reasons. Lets say TenZ makes a new account, and we can tell he's probably Radiant right away after his placements. Would it be fair if after 5 matches we put that account in Radiant right away? Would it be fair if we just let him start in silver, gold, or plat and match made him against those ranked players? He would end up stomping games non-stop and getting to radiant anyways.

In our system he will be playing in fair matches, at the MMR we thinks he belongs, and after he plays enough matches it his Rank and MMR will converge and he will be exactly where he belongs. There has to be a certain amount of matches to do this, otherwise we could have a leaderboard where 1 player could have 4+ alts that are on the leaderboard in the same spot. We have to have some sort of buffer to make sure the leaderboard is actually top 500 players, not the top 150 players and their alt accounts.

While we can't stop players from having alt accounts on the leaderboards, we can test them and make sure they belong there and make them atleast put some effort into getting there.

I also think it's fair to say that just because you're good at a game doesn't mean you deserve a rank without some effort or work put in. If you are a master painter, but aren't willing to finish a painting, at what point are you really putting in work to claim you are a master painter?

This is also beneficial to ELO systems as a whole. Ranked systems actually need you to play 1000+ matches to get an accurate "this is your rank" picture. We make you play 5 placements, so that you can start seeing your ELO change as the system starts to hone in on where you belong. Right now if we put you right at the rank we think you belong, after placements, you would wildly swing up and down because 5 matches isn't enough info to know. So having this grace period, where you are being tested at the MMR we believe, and converging at that MMR with your Rank, is extremely healthy to get you where you belong.

The previous system had a short buffer just like the one we have now, you just didn't know because you wouldn't see how many points you gained or lost.

I appreciate the feedback. Our goal is to create fair competitive matches that you can play and improve in. Seriously thank you so much, debate and discussions around this let us understand how things are perceived and potential issues that need to be fixed. The system will never be perfect, so we need to make sure are non-stop improving it and understand the issues the community has with it.