|
On March 25 2016 02:47 wei2coolman wrote:Show nested quote +On March 24 2016 23:26 GrandInquisitor wrote:On March 24 2016 18:28 wei2coolman wrote:
I haven't been watching too many high elo streamers recently, but what exactly have been the problems of dynamic queue at the highest level?
I know imaqtpie's highlights have been amazing so far (mostly because of his editor), but even watching his stream, most of his games look pretty normal; haven't heard any real complaints about the dynamic queue system. If anything it's made some of his game even more hilarious when he's trio queuing himself. Last time I pointed out the stupidity of an anti-Riot circlejerk, I got banned for two weeks, which tells you a lot about this community. So this time I will simply note that op.gg has been tracking 20% more ranked players than last year at this point in the season, with significantly more players in Master Tier. This is true across every server I checked - NA, KR, EUW. I mean, I feel like the complaints about dynamic queue usually fall closer to "zomg i can't win cuz elo hell", than it does "oh, there's serious balance issues here". Also haven't really heard a good argument as to why it hurts high elo players (much less what constitutes "high" elo)
Yet most of the pros say fuck dynamic q and want soloq back. The ultimate "can't win cuz elo hell" crowd.
The new champ select is amazing though. I thought this is what team builder was going to be when it was announced and was very sad at how it turned out. It can be improved still but it is pretty good.
|
pretty much.
TLDR new champ select = amazing, one of the best things to ever happen to this game
Dynamic queue = pile of shit that warps the game considerably.
It's not like this wasn't known either, many MOBAs have tried dynamic Q and failed
|
My main problem with dynamic is that I feel if you are playing solo you have much less impact on the game outside early laning. If each team has a 3 person group and yours is not as organized as the others I see myself lose a lot of games where we had a huge lead because of this. I have had a lot of games going 3/0/3 out of jungle but in the mid game just getting out rotated and picked constantly because the other team is shitter players but are clearly on voice Comms and my trio are not.
* some pretty big poppy nerfs yesterday and graves nerfs on pbe today
|
wonder how long till riot realizes grasp of the undying is bonkers on tanks and reason they are so silly now, knowing them we are for a treat and 6 months of pointless nerfs to individual champions first
|
On March 25 2016 04:24 kongoline wrote:
wonder how long till riot realizes grasp of the undying is bonkers on tanks and reason they are so silly now, knowing them we are for a treat and 6 months of pointless nerfs to individual champions first
literally the only thing that keeps T-lord and fervor tops in check though, you can't just randomly gut it. The other 2 defensive keystones are nowhere near as good top. jax would have a field day if you couldn't just out sustain him. same thing with people like kindred/quinn/etc top who are already oppressive.
|
On March 24 2016 18:28 wei2coolman wrote:
I haven't been watching too many high elo streamers recently, but what exactly have been the problems of dynamic queue at the highest level?
I know imaqtpie's highlights have been amazing so far (mostly because of his editor), but even watching his stream, most of his games look pretty normal; haven't heard any real complaints about the dynamic queue system. If anything it's made some of his game even more hilarious when he's trio queuing himself.
It messes up the MMR in two ways for high ELO players. Besides the obvious that groups have advantages due to coordination at high levels the best players are playing together. So if the 4 best players on the server queue up as 4. There can be no game which splits them into two teams. And so they will play whomever is lower. It means that many games are very lopsided and makes it very difficult to rise if you're not playing with one of the top tier groups.
Basically if you queue solo you're not just playing against coordinated teams you're playing against coordinated teams of better players than you and the optimal strategy is to grab a group of players around your level so you can be that coordinated team playing against solo queue players.
For lower tier players it merely messes up MMR by adding coordinated teams. I don't feel like i should have to find a 4 or 5s group and practice with them in order to rank up. But that is what coordinated teams do. Because a platinum Lulu who is playing with a coordinated team certainly can rank up to diamond. The coordination will make up for a lot of deficit.*
And this is true basically so long as the game isn't perfect in matching 5s with 5s [and that has other MMR issues if it is true, because now team MMR is a separate queue and so a separate MMR and when playing outside of that you now have bias in MMR for queuing in different group sizes]
edit: There are other considerations for Vayne if he/she is a bot lane main. I feel like the meta is very top/mid focused right now and i have a hard time carrying, even if i win lane and provide vision and do everything right. I feel more at the mercy of my team (particularly getting and using rift herald effective) than i had in prior seasons
On March 24 2016 07:14 739 wrote:
It's true. He had MR scaling iirc then it was removed and he's getting it back cause they release Meowkai skin.
I know. I feel like he started out without, then got it, then lost it, and is now getting it again. But i can't find it in the patch notes so i am feeling that may be wrong.
*edit: If we accept that players will generally have different skill levels on different champions and also have different skill levels when playing with a coordinated team (some people better, some people worse, but on the whole better) then there are basically two possible MMR effects of a dynamic queue depending on how "segregated" the different queue types are.
1) Queues types are perfectly segregated. Such that you have a queue of 5v5 and 4/1 v 4/1. You can queue up however you want, but at the end of the day the system never matches a 4/1 against a solo team.
In this case whenever you play inside or outside of your primary queue your MMR will be some weighted average of your MMR in those queue types.
If we accept that people people don't have the same difference between their cooperative and solo MMR then this will increase MMR variance between teams because it will increase the effective MMR variance within a team.
That is, unless people never queue up outside of their primary queue. In which case dynamic behaves exactly like 7 different queues (a 5's Q, a 4's Queue, A 3/2 queue, a 3/1/1, a 2/1/1/1, a 2/2/1, and a solo queue).
2) Queues are not perfectly segregated. Such you can have a 5's team against a 4/1 or a 3/2 or even a solo team.
In this case, because teammates and coordination is almost always an advantage a coordinated team will raise higher than their individual skill levels would in a solo queue.
If no one queues up outside of their normal queue then players who play with other people have an overall absolute advantage in MMR because the difference in general power between a 5's team and a soloqueue team will eventually be reflected in MMR once enough overall games are played. And this will hold true even for teams that incidentally only get matched up into their queue type on the other team because other teams will have had that MMR adjustment from playing against solo players.
If people queue in other queues then they will have an advantage/disadvantage when playing in a group they don't normally play in and this will create general bias against/for them in that queue [which all things considered is worse than increased variance]. The bias will most assuredly go towards playing in a group.
So if you had the thought that "dynamic queue is unfair to solo players" you were right. It is, and its not ELO Hell.
|
On March 25 2016 03:30 nafta wrote:Show nested quote +On March 25 2016 02:47 wei2coolman wrote:On March 24 2016 23:26 GrandInquisitor wrote:On March 24 2016 18:28 wei2coolman wrote:
I haven't been watching too many high elo streamers recently, but what exactly have been the problems of dynamic queue at the highest level?
I know imaqtpie's highlights have been amazing so far (mostly because of his editor), but even watching his stream, most of his games look pretty normal; haven't heard any real complaints about the dynamic queue system. If anything it's made some of his game even more hilarious when he's trio queuing himself. Last time I pointed out the stupidity of an anti-Riot circlejerk, I got banned for two weeks, which tells you a lot about this community. So this time I will simply note that op.gg has been tracking 20% more ranked players than last year at this point in the season, with significantly more players in Master Tier. This is true across every server I checked - NA, KR, EUW. I mean, I feel like the complaints about dynamic queue usually fall closer to "zomg i can't win cuz elo hell", than it does "oh, there's serious balance issues here". Also haven't really heard a good argument as to why it hurts high elo players (much less what constitutes "high" elo) Yet most of the pros say fuck dynamic q and want soloq back. The ultimate "can't win cuz elo hell" crowd.
At that level it is a totally different problem because you don't have enough players that you can always match 5s vs 5s or even 4+1s. At every other skill level unequal matchmaking isn't an issue over large samples of games played.
|
On March 25 2016 07:58 Zess wrote:Show nested quote +On March 25 2016 03:30 nafta wrote:On March 25 2016 02:47 wei2coolman wrote:On March 24 2016 23:26 GrandInquisitor wrote:On March 24 2016 18:28 wei2coolman wrote:
I haven't been watching too many high elo streamers recently, but what exactly have been the problems of dynamic queue at the highest level?
I know imaqtpie's highlights have been amazing so far (mostly because of his editor), but even watching his stream, most of his games look pretty normal; haven't heard any real complaints about the dynamic queue system. If anything it's made some of his game even more hilarious when he's trio queuing himself. Last time I pointed out the stupidity of an anti-Riot circlejerk, I got banned for two weeks, which tells you a lot about this community. So this time I will simply note that op.gg has been tracking 20% more ranked players than last year at this point in the season, with significantly more players in Master Tier. This is true across every server I checked - NA, KR, EUW. I mean, I feel like the complaints about dynamic queue usually fall closer to "zomg i can't win cuz elo hell", than it does "oh, there's serious balance issues here". Also haven't really heard a good argument as to why it hurts high elo players (much less what constitutes "high" elo) Yet most of the pros say fuck dynamic q and want soloq back. The ultimate "can't win cuz elo hell" crowd. At that level it is a totally different problem because you don't have enough players that you can always match 5s vs 5s or even 4+1s. At every other skill level unequal matchmaking isn't an issue over large samples of games played.
Ignoring everything else, being the solo player in a 1,1,,3 or a 1,4 team is sometimes incredibly unpleasant for a wide variety of reasons. Sure it's not every game, (I mean, I could be having 4/3 mans every single game and just not noticing because it's not an issue) but I have multiple games a week that are just terrible in ways they never were before dynamic queue, and every time I look it up after, it's a 4 stack >.>
|
On March 25 2016 07:58 Zess wrote:Show nested quote +On March 25 2016 03:30 nafta wrote:On March 25 2016 02:47 wei2coolman wrote:On March 24 2016 23:26 GrandInquisitor wrote:On March 24 2016 18:28 wei2coolman wrote:
I haven't been watching too many high elo streamers recently, but what exactly have been the problems of dynamic queue at the highest level?
I know imaqtpie's highlights have been amazing so far (mostly because of his editor), but even watching his stream, most of his games look pretty normal; haven't heard any real complaints about the dynamic queue system. If anything it's made some of his game even more hilarious when he's trio queuing himself. Last time I pointed out the stupidity of an anti-Riot circlejerk, I got banned for two weeks, which tells you a lot about this community. So this time I will simply note that op.gg has been tracking 20% more ranked players than last year at this point in the season, with significantly more players in Master Tier. This is true across every server I checked - NA, KR, EUW. I mean, I feel like the complaints about dynamic queue usually fall closer to "zomg i can't win cuz elo hell", than it does "oh, there's serious balance issues here". Also haven't really heard a good argument as to why it hurts high elo players (much less what constitutes "high" elo) Yet most of the pros say fuck dynamic q and want soloq back. The ultimate "can't win cuz elo hell" crowd. At that level it is a totally different problem because you don't have enough players that you can always match 5s vs 5s or even 4+1s. At every other skill level unequal matchmaking isn't an issue over large samples of games played.
Actually it is. So long as the % of matches 5v 4+1 or 5v solo doesn't approach zero as games goes to infinity then as you increase the number of games played the MMR differences between queues manifests normally.
It works just like the standard MMR argument regarding getting to your level. If 99.99% of the games are random and only .01% of the games are determined by your skill you still reach your proper MMR eventually. It just takes longer.
If 1% of the games you queue up 5s will get you against a non-5's team then the MMR difference between 5's and non will almost assuredly have been manifested by now in the million upon millions of games that have been played.[This is because, even if your 5's team never matches up with solo players you will play against 5's who have had the MMR boost associated with playing against solo players]
Edit: Basically, if MMR works at all(and it does) then Dynmaic Queue is fundamentally unfair* to players who do not coordinate and do not coordinate with the same people over and over again.
*unfair in terms of your MMR. So maybe we would consider it unfair in terms of end season rewards but frankly i don't really see that as much of an issue.
|
|
|
On March 25 2016 08:22 JimmiC wrote:
Life is not fair, get over it and play =-)
It also has negative effects on the quality of games because players playing outside of their queue have an advantage/disadvantage due to the discrepancy of what their MMR is, and what it would be in that situation.
This increases the variance of MMR in the game which makes them more likely to be one sided. Its not simply unfair to soloqueue players. It also makes their games worse.
Its not a big deal for people who don't care if MMR is accurate or who don't care about their MMR but its not right to dismiss the effect it has on the game.
|
So what goumindong is saying is that if a 5 stack plays 100 games as a 5 stack, and as such plays 1 game against a non 5 stack, and wins that game because of it, it then has inflated mmr and when it plays other 5 stacks at a 1 game mmr discrepancy it dilutes the accuracy of the system.
That sounds to me like splitting hairs over an incredibly tiny problem. I'd bet having your MMR unfairly affected by people bitching about the system in game and tilting is a bigger issue than that.
|
|
|
On March 25 2016 08:46 Ketara wrote:
So what goumindong is saying is that if a 5 stack plays 100 games as a 5 stack, and as such plays 1 game against a non 5 stack, and wins that game because of it, it then has inflated mmr and when it plays other 5 stacks at a 1 game mmr discrepancy it dilutes the accuracy of the system.
That sounds to me like splitting hairs over an incredibly tiny problem. I'd bet having your MMR unfairly affected by people bitching about the system in game and tilting is a bigger issue than that.
there is no chance anyone can prove that they won that 1 game solely because they were a 5 stack
|
On March 25 2016 08:46 Ketara wrote:
So what goumindong is saying is that if a 5 stack plays 100 games as a 5 stack, and as such plays 1 game against a non 5 stack, and wins that game because of it, it then has inflated mmr and when it plays other 5 stacks at a 1 game mmr discrepancy it dilutes the accuracy of the system.
That sounds to me like splitting hairs over an incredibly tiny problem. I'd bet having your MMR unfairly affected by people bitching about the system in game and tilting is a bigger issue than that.
Its more like, If every 5 stack plays 99 games against other 5 stacks, but 1 game against non-5 stacks then collectively all of their MMR increases in small increments for every non-5 stack game they play. This occurs until the MMR difference between the 5 stack and 1 stack player is the same is the same as the MMR difference that would occur if 5 stacks always played 1 stacks. This is true even for the exact same player.
If you take any player, and put them in a coordinated team, their MMR will(almost certainly) increase over what it would be playing soloqueue.
There is no end MMR difference between the system, the only difference is the time it takes to get there. If 5's always played 1 stacks it would occur very fast. If 5's very rarely play 1 stacks it occurs relatively slowly. But Dynamic queue has millions of games. So even if it occurs relatively slowly it should probably still have happened by now.
Its exactly the same system that keeps YOU at your proper MMR despite being only 1/5th of a team or not having played some other specific person in your same MMR range. This even happens for 5s vs 4/1 so long as 4/1 will play a 3/2 and a 3/2 might play a 3/1/1 and so on and so forth for the same reason that two players of similar quality who have never played each other will still have similar MMR.
It is not the same as the effect of your MMR from people bitching. Because people bitching is unbiased with regards to who has to deal with it (unless of course you're a 5 but this is the same effect as the cooperative effect) and so doesn't effect overall MMR.
Its a tiny problem if you don't care about your MMR. But lots of people do care about their MMR.
And even if you discount the MMR issue you also have the other game issues with increased variance due to queue mixing, and dealing with groups as a solo.
On March 25 2016 09:55 Frolossus wrote:Show nested quote +On March 25 2016 08:46 Ketara wrote:
So what goumindong is saying is that if a 5 stack plays 100 games as a 5 stack, and as such plays 1 game against a non 5 stack, and wins that game because of it, it then has inflated mmr and when it plays other 5 stacks at a 1 game mmr discrepancy it dilutes the accuracy of the system.
That sounds to me like splitting hairs over an incredibly tiny problem. I'd bet having your MMR unfairly affected by people bitching about the system in game and tilting is a bigger issue than that. there is no chance anyone can prove that they won that 1 game solely because they were a 5 stack
Well that is not how it works. Suppose you have a group of 5's at their "proper" mmr when they all play together. They play 99 games vs 5's and 1 game vs 1's.
Against 5's their win rate is 50% because this is the population of 5's and its mathematically forced. Overall no one moves.
But against 1's their win rate is 51%.[so a small effect]
Collectively then the win rate of 5's teams is 50.01% And this will occur until all of the 5's is forced to 50%. Which means that the win rate of 5's against non-5's would also have to be 50%.
So then the question becomes. Suppose you have players of the same MMR outside of a group. Half plays as 1's and half plays as 5. Initially when they have the same MMR, what do you think the 5's win rate would be against the 1's? 55%? 60%?
I am not even sure its better to say "well things haven't adjusted yet' because if things haven't adjusted you're saying that randomly you will get matched up against groups who will have an advantage against you not corrected for in your quality of play.
|
On March 25 2016 09:56 Goumindong wrote:Show nested quote +On March 25 2016 08:46 Ketara wrote:
So what goumindong is saying is that if a 5 stack plays 100 games as a 5 stack, and as such plays 1 game against a non 5 stack, and wins that game because of it, it then has inflated mmr and when it plays other 5 stacks at a 1 game mmr discrepancy it dilutes the accuracy of the system.
That sounds to me like splitting hairs over an incredibly tiny problem. I'd bet having your MMR unfairly affected by people bitching about the system in game and tilting is a bigger issue than that. Its more like, If every 5 stack plays 99 games against other 5 stacks, but 1 game against non-5 stacks then collectively all of their MMR increases in small increments for every non-5 stack game they play. This occurs until the MMR difference between the 5 stack and 1 stack player is the same is the same as the MMR difference that would occur if 5 stacks always played 1 stacks. This is true even for the exact same player. If you take any player, and put them in a coordinated team, their MMR will(almost certainly) increase over what it would be playing soloqueue. There is no end MMR difference between the system, the only difference is the time it takes to get there. If 5's always played 1 stacks it would occur very fast. If 5's very rarely play 1 stacks it occurs relatively slowly. But Dynamic queue has millions of games. So even if it occurs relatively slowly it should probably still have happened by now. Its exactly the same system that keeps YOU at your proper MMR despite being only 1/5th of a team or not having played some other specific person in your same MMR range. This even happens for 5s vs 4/1 so long as 4/1 will play a 3/2 and a 3/2 might play a 3/1/1 and so on and so forth for the same reason that two players of similar quality who have never played each other will still have similar MMR. It is not the same as the effect of your MMR from people bitching. Because people bitching is unbiased with regards to who has to deal with it (unless of course you're a 5 but this is the same effect as the cooperative effect) and so doesn't effect overall MMR. Its a tiny problem if you don't care about your MMR. But lots of people do care about their MMR. And even if you discount the MMR issue you also have the other game issues with increased variance due to queue mixing, and dealing with groups as a solo. Show nested quote +On March 25 2016 09:55 Frolossus wrote:On March 25 2016 08:46 Ketara wrote:
So what goumindong is saying is that if a 5 stack plays 100 games as a 5 stack, and as such plays 1 game against a non 5 stack, and wins that game because of it, it then has inflated mmr and when it plays other 5 stacks at a 1 game mmr discrepancy it dilutes the accuracy of the system.
That sounds to me like splitting hairs over an incredibly tiny problem. I'd bet having your MMR unfairly affected by people bitching about the system in game and tilting is a bigger issue than that. there is no chance anyone can prove that they won that 1 game solely because they were a 5 stack Well that is not how it works. Suppose you have a group of 5's at their "proper" mmr when they all play together. They play 99 games vs 5's and 1 game vs 1's. Against 5's their win rate is 50% because this is the population of 5's and its mathematically forced. Overall no one moves. But against 1's their win rate is 51%.[so a small effect] Collectively then the win rate of 5's teams is 50.01% And this will occur until all of the 5's is forced to 50%. Which means that the win rate of 5's against non-5's would also have to be 50%. So then the question becomes. Suppose you have players of the same MMR outside of a group. Half plays as 1's and half plays as 5. Initially when they have the same MMR, what do you think the 5's win rate would be against the 1's? 55%? 60%? I am not even sure its better to say "well things haven't adjusted yet' because if things haven't adjusted you're saying that randomly you will get matched up against groups who will have an advantage against you not corrected for in your quality of play.
so you have 2 groups of 1900 elo players. a team collectively that got to 1900 and 5 solo players that all got to 1900 playing their main roles.
the winrate should be 50/50 because despite the communication/coordination advantage the 5 stack would still be incapable of playing at a level greater than what matchmaking deems to be an equal match.
essentially any single player or groups mmr is limited by their biggest weaknesses. if a team has better communication or whatever than a group of solo players then for them to be at the same mmr it means they are sorely lacking in other areas like decision making or mechanical ability relative to the solo players they are matched against
|
On March 25 2016 10:08 Frolossus wrote:
so you have 2 groups of 1900 elo players. a team collectively that got to 1900 and 5 solo players that all got to 1900 playing their main roles.
the winrate should be 50/50 because despite the communication/coordination advantage the 5 stack would still be incapable of playing at a level greater than what matchmaking deems to be an equal match.
essentially any single player or groups mmr is limited by their biggest weaknesses. if a team has better communication or whatever than a group of solo players then for them to be at the same mmr it means they are sorely lacking in other areas like decision making or mechanical ability relative to the solo players they are matched against
Snipped quote tree for long
Yes. But if the team would otherwise be 1700 playing solo you might see how someone who is 1700 playing solo might resent the fact that, in order to climb to where they should/could be in the ladder, they need to get a 5's team.
Or someone on the border of silver or gold. Or anyone dealing with the variance that adds to the system when one guy from the 1900 team decides they're going to play a couple of solo queue games and then is 200 MMR above where he should be, just like someone who was boosted.
Its most obvious around the top of the ladder. But it still effects everyone.
|
On March 25 2016 10:15 Goumindong wrote:Show nested quote +On March 25 2016 10:08 Frolossus wrote:
so you have 2 groups of 1900 elo players. a team collectively that got to 1900 and 5 solo players that all got to 1900 playing their main roles.
the winrate should be 50/50 because despite the communication/coordination advantage the 5 stack would still be incapable of playing at a level greater than what matchmaking deems to be an equal match.
essentially any single player or groups mmr is limited by their biggest weaknesses. if a team has better communication or whatever than a group of solo players then for them to be at the same mmr it means they are sorely lacking in other areas like decision making or mechanical ability relative to the solo players they are matched against Snipped quote tree for long Yes. But if the team would otherwise be 1700 playing solo you might see how someone who is 1700 playing solo might resent the fact that, in order to climb to where they should/could be in the ladder, they need to get a 5's team. Or someone on the border of silver or gold. Or anyone dealing with the variance that adds to the system when one guy from the 1900 team decides they're going to play a couple of solo queue games and then is 200 MMR above where he should be, just like someone who was boosted. Its most obvious around the top of the ladder. But it still effects everyone.
not really
if you are 1700 you are 1700. anyone who claims otherwise is looking for excuses as to why they can't climb.
the solo player only has to worry about them and their mistakes. the team queuing together has to worry about all of the individual mistakes that their teammates make holding back their mmr on top of all of the mistakes that they make collectively as a team.
say the team has a top laner that sucks at using tp correctly. that suddenly limits the mmr of not only him, but the other 4 players on his team too.
i'd say the system works pretty well.
when one guy plays solo again he drops. simple as that. it doesn't affect anyone else over time just him.
the literal same thing happens if you play an off role or champ in solo queue. your mmr drops to match the level it thinks you play that character at.
it's always going to be easier to climb solo than in a group simply because you only have to worry about yourself. your group has to worry about every single person in the group if they want to climb.
for every bad person in a 5 man team that is slightly above where they ought to be due to playing in that team, there would be someone(or multiple people) slightly below where they ought to be because that bad guy is actually holding their team back.
|
On March 25 2016 10:23 Frolossus wrote:
if you are 1700 you are 1700. anyone who claims otherwise is looking for excuses as to why they can't climb.
I literally just explained how that isn't the case.
Remember back when dodging would lower your MMR? And how you could intentionally tank your MMR by dodging games. This is kind of like that. Your MMR goes up playing with 5's and then when you play solo you're now over where you should be.
That is true so long as you believe that 5 1700 solo queue players who make a 5s team and practice and play together will be better in general than 5 1700 solo queue players who play solo and end up on the same team by luck.
Do you believe that? If no, then i think you would have to justify it.
the solo player only has to worry about them and their mistakes. the team queuing together has to worry about all of the individual mistakes that their teammates make holding back their mmr on top of all of the mistakes that they make collectively as a team.
No. Unless when you solo queue you don't have a top lane and its 1v1 at baron the entire time and whomever wins decides the game. But i don't recall that map being implemented and certainly not in dynamic queue.
say the team has a top laner that sucks at using tp correctly. that suddenly limits the mmr of not only him, but the other 4 players on his team too.
OK so basically what you're saying right here is "suppose 5 players who would be 1700 in soloqueue if they played in soloqueue alone actually would have one of them be 1400 in soloqueue if they played soloqueue alone despite actually having made it to 1700 alone and that is their proper MMR"
Its non-sense. Yes if you play in a group you may have to deal with weaker players but those weaker players effect your MMR and those weaker players will still increase their MMR relative to not playing in a group because playing in a group is advantageous
it's always going to be easier to climb solo than in a group simply because you only have to worry about yourself. your group has to worry about every single person in the group if they want to climb.
No. The math does not work that way i am sorry. Unless being in a 5's group is a disadvantage (good lord no its not). The easiest counterexample is that pro teams do not lose to soloqueue teams even when those teams have higher individual or group soloqueue MMR.
|
On March 25 2016 10:31 Goumindong wrote:Show nested quote +On March 25 2016 10:23 Frolossus wrote:
if you are 1700 you are 1700. anyone who claims otherwise is looking for excuses as to why they can't climb. I literally just explained how that isn't the case. Remember back when dodging would lower your MMR? And how you could intentionally tank your MMR by dodging games. This is kind of like that. Your MMR goes up playing with 5's and then when you play solo you're now over where you should be. That is true so long as you believe that 5 1700 solo queue players who make a 5s team and practice and play together will be better in general than 5 1700 solo queue players who play solo and end up on the same team by luck. Do you believe that? If no, then i think you would have to justify it. Show nested quote +
the solo player only has to worry about them and their mistakes. the team queuing together has to worry about all of the individual mistakes that their teammates make holding back their mmr on top of all of the mistakes that they make collectively as a team.
No. Unless when you solo queue you don't have a top lane and its 1v1 at baron the entire time and whomever wins decides the game. But i don't recall that map being implemented and certainly not in dynamic queue. Show nested quote +
say the team has a top laner that sucks at using tp correctly. that suddenly limits the mmr of not only him, but the other 4 players on his team too.
OK so basically what you're saying right here is "suppose 5 players who would be 1700 in soloqueue if they played in soloqueue alone actually would have one of them be 1400 in soloqueue if they played soloqueue alone despite actually having made it to 1700 alone and that is their proper MMR" Its non-sense. Yes if you play in a group you may have to deal with weaker players but those weaker players effect your MMR and those weaker players will still increase their MMR relative to not playing in a group because playing in a group is advantageous
there is no case of how you play solo vs how you play in a team in regards to how mmr works. it simply measures how well you perform in the game. playing in a group does have certain advantages in a game. but it has so many disadvantages for climbing. mainly that if you don't belong in the elo you are playing at, you are a burden to the rest of your team regardless of whether or not you are playing solo or in a group. your mmr reflects this fact either way. if you are in a team then your whole team's mmr will be affected by it.
not every player has the same reasons they are stuck at their mmr. 5 solo players at 1700 vs a team of players who collectively got to 1700 should have a roughly equal chance to win. if it didn't think so then one side or the other would be rated above or below 1700. the mmr will try to approximate how much "skill" being a coordinated team is worth and give you appropriate matches.
if someone plays solo and is convinced their teammates are holding them back, they will never, ever, ever climb past that point.
if 5 people play in a team and can't get their weakest player to improve, every single person's individual mmr(and season rewards) hinge on the weakest player's inability to improve.
to matchmaking 5 players that play the game together and never solo it'd probably treat them as a single "player". for everyone else playing the game and trying to climb it doesn't affect them at all.
for players that sometimes solo and sometimes play with friends the system is still always going to try to find an equal match for both teams.
it's not somehow less equal just because you got your buddies together and pressed play.
i think when discussing this it's very important be aware that when you get put into a game, no matter who you play with. both teams have an mmr that is roughly the average of the 5 players playing the game.
5 solo players have more variance in their individual rankings than teams that play exclusively with themselves do. but the result is that the system still puts teams of similar mmr to play against each other.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
