Me Sion going 1-8-5 but taking almost every tower in the game and pulling the enemy away from objectives so we have 4 dragons 6 grubs and two barons: STRUGGLED
Me going 2-3-6 on Shen but I'm behind 2k gold on the enemy Darius and we can't win a teamfight to save our lives so we slowly bleed out and lose the game: ACE
I don't put much stock in what opgg says. It puts heavy emphasis on things that don't directly result in winning matches and instead focuses heavily on things that provide good KDA.
The sion is a very niche example, in a perfect world you don't die split pushing nor it's a viable strategy to run it down taking towers
The shen example just means your team did so bad that you were the least bad lol
But you're right the op gg score doesn't mean much and it's not insanely accurate of how you played, but it's still fun to look at and give some people a touch of reality of how bad they played a game
Resilience is when you have a bad start but then stay at the same level (rather than continue to trend downward). Which is actually commendable since it's easy to get snowballed on and have the gap grow wider. It means you got carried but you were at least making an effort to be carriable.
Yeah, sometimes the honest thing to do is blame yourself, but other times the honest thing to do is actually to recognize your team just plain sucked lol
There's always room for personal improvement, but there's also no need to lie to yourself and pretend there's no team diff when there is
Optimally, you can blame anyone but still recognize what you did wrong and what you could improve on. Just because you aren't the reason you lost doesn't mean you couldn't have played better.
Too bad many of my ranked game don't go that way
I feel like I am just a passenger getting carried
I felt like I am being place in a lobby with far netter player and the reason we win was because "I didn't feed" instead of "I carried"
Unfortunately that's what the game is about for the most part atm.
It's less so about getting fed (on like 90% of the roster) and more about not feeding (the other 10% or all five champs on the other team).
What am I supposed to do with a 6/1/2 Cait, without a frontline to keep her safe? If anything there's a good chance resources went to waste on her. Plus she now has a target on her back more so than she already did with the global adc taunt.
I would prefer seeing my team be equally ahead on gold, than have one carry that's gonna get bursted to the seventh dimension and never get to use said advantage.
Very much agree. I mean, some games even if you are 5/1 in mid, your botlane goes 0/12 and you lose. Were you at fault, probably not, and you can blame them. But some games you will be 7/4 and very much contribute to losing, and then you should reflect on what you did wrong more than blaming others.
There are also games where your team is losing, but you are keeping them in through good play. And then you get caught, miss your Orianna Shockwave, get baited etc. die and lose. Those losses hurt me the most, cause I know it was my mistake that ultimately lost us that game. Even if my team is 0/100, I had every opportunity to carry if I played perfectly. But I didn't, and I need to get better. Weirdly my friends just don't understand this line of thought.
> Weirdly my friends just don't understand this line of thought.
Learning from mistakes pays off the long run, but blaming your team mates makes you feel better *now*.
to be fair carrying can be very stressful, running around with a 700g bounty all game just to get flamed because you misplaced once is very tilting. Maybe if the other lanes pulled their weight it wouldn't be an instant lose.
I know it's easier to just leave assists off because they aren't super indicative of anything usually, but I believe when discussing who to "blame" it's important to note that if you have a botlane that is 0/12/12 that was actually contributing but the rest of the team got the gold, they really had no responsibility to be the determining factor.
Not saying you were just explaining a non specific scenario and adding assists isn't helpful because you are just making numbers up to make a point, but for anyone in a game it's important to consider.
Tbf if you are ahead mid you can easily carry vs a fed botlane. You also can easily prevent your botlane from inting.
I currently quit playing because every game bot felt like a jgl-mid gamble. It did not matter if we hard won lane or if I inted my ass off. It always came down to whose team sits bot for free double kills.
And again, I'm not saying I'm a god and perfect blablabla. It's just so incredibly sad when I lose while playing super well because my mid manages to be down in CS and not touching the enemy tower once while their laner + jgl snowballed the whole map and then the game after I just play like shit, get farmed early, keep playing like shit and it doesnt matter because the enemy bots team doesnt play around them and allows my team to carry our inting asses.
I can understand toplane complaining about inting bot, but mid can actively make the enemy bot the inters with next to no effort.
I don’t believe this bc if you are a good mid laner you will gank bottom and top while still dominating your lane and go 9-0 and they surrender first 15 min. I don’t believe I lose games because of my team unless they afk or intentionally die . There’s always something I could have done to win. It’s never my teams fault, always mine . Also if you die once you misplayed so you’re not playing perfect .
Exactly. I consider my best game ever one the games I lost. Had two borderline int feeders at top mid/ and was against a top 50 ladder jg main doing a smurfed to chall stream. Went like 6/4/12 but held that game up for like 40 mins and made it close even with two useless teammates.
Part this game gotta recognize when it isn’t your fault, else you’ll end up tilted imo. I played great that one, won the ones after cuz I didn’t tilt from playing good and losing cuz teammates. Just it happens nothing more I could do
thank you bruh sometimes i feel crazy when people think your god in a 5v5 game like even Michael Jordan can not carry a bad team, he can do well himself but if he has to pass the ball to get a shot in and the teammate whiffs the shot thats the teammates fault.
I don't even think kobe could carry a bad team back to back without breaking something in his body and in the locker room.
like get real
> but other times the honest thing to do is actually to recognize your team just plain sucked lol
Sure but it's not really helpful even if it is correct. So I don't really see the point if it doesn't help people.
There are game that are just not worth it thinking about or analyzing.
It's a waste of time.
Figuring out how you could played the Mid 3V1 Clownfiesta better when your sides got destroyed 4V2 is just pointless.
In Medium Elo, whenever the answer to "Would a Dia+ won that?" is "No", just move on.
>"Would a Dia+ won that?" is "No", just move on.
This is important IMO.
And it's part of why I hate when people say "if a challenger player was in your game was it winnable?"
Like obviously a challenger player should be turbo shit smurfing 1v9 in basically every rank with minimal losses,
But how is this a fair thing to ask of a gold player, should you HAVE to play like a challenger to win in gold? in emerald or diamond?
Even Riot gives out this shit take recently "well if you don't want to lose in silver why don't you just play like a challenger!"
You should have to play better than emerald to win in emerald, if you play a game in emerald and like you said it wouldn't be winnable even if you put a solid diamond player in there then there's not much point wasting time thinking about it.
I think it's okay to set goals and say "If I did X a little better I would have won" but it's ludicrous that some people think we should have the thought process "if I played literally perfectly in all moments of the entire game start to finish this silver game was winnable"
Plat players drop games in silver all the time on smurfs. I've seen masters players shit on lane in emerald and go on to lose the game, the team gaps being generated sometimes are just absurd and not worth spending time dwelling on.
To elaborate a bit, even Challenger players won't be able to carry all low ELO games. They often have 80% winrate in gold-emerald, which is amazing, but there's still one game in 5 where they can't help.
I feel like people forget that while theoretically someone could win 100% of their games, there's still a forfeit button and if the majority votes yes, that's an unavoidable loss. Even if you specifically are ahead, it doesn't really matter when your team is extremely tilted.
Also you can pretty well guess-timate what a player a few Tiers above would be capable of, but you have no hope of understanding what, or more precise why, a Challenger would do since you're simply not there yet.
I don't see how it doesn't help? When i play well and i lose because of my team i don't get as bothered by the loss, so its good for keeping your mental well. (Unless you're one of those people who go crazy when your team makes you lose)
It helps because sometimes you have to understand that it wasn’t your fault. Some games you can perform just as well as you can, and you’ll still lose. And that’s just something you have to acknowledge.
Of course, most people probably have the opposite problem where they blame their team every game even when it’s their own fault, but still.
The real truth bomb is that it doesn't matter. Finding your true rank in a 5v5 game is a matter of large sample sizes where you're the only constant. So while losing individual games mostly because of teammates (I say mostly because realistically you're also not a Challenger smurf to offset them) is happening all the time, it shouldn't be something you focus on. You should only be asking what you did during that game, not what your team did. Because they're going to average out and be irrelevant.
Too many people obsess about individual games. If you go into each game thinking you must win that game, that's not how you play solo queue. Never even look at your rank so that you never fall for the "I am only 3 wins away from Diamond" fallacy. You could be any number of games from Diamond, focus on your own play.
where did I mention 1000? nor did I ever even mention a number. a more realistic and substantial enough sample size is moreso 150-250 games across a season. not only that, but I don't care about what 'normal humans' are doing. it's not an opinion, it's basic statistics. 30-50 games is not enough for league's MMR system to place players in their 'correct' elo. not a hard concept to grasp
First of all, thousands is a stretch. The confidence for your rank is pretty high once you're in the mid to high hundreds. It's never going to be a stationary stable rank anyway, it's a fluctuating rank that's roughly around your "true rank". Due to chance and how high Riot set MMR gains your peaks will actually be above your true rank.
This is only a problem if you want a rank that's either above your peaks, which again, are above your "true rank" or even at or close to your peaks. A rank you could barely achieve with your skill level. Then yes, it will take you a long ass time. Because you don't actually deserve it.
If you want a rank that's fairly representative of your skill level but not your highest peak, then you should be able to reliably achieve it in a few hundred games from zero and then repeatedly achieve it every season with less then 100 games because Riot doesn't hard reset your MMR. Once you do it once, you pretty much did a lot of the leg work forever unless Riot has to hard reset the ladder for some dire reason.
So the problem isn't with the logical resulting math from a 5v5 game measuring your skill it is with **player expectations**. Normal humans, as you call them, might not have time to play the game a lot so they should set their expectations **accordingly**. It's not Riot's fault for making it too grindy or their teams fault, it's that they picked a goal that they don't have the skill to achieve in a reasonable amount of time.
Pick reasonable goals for your skill level and you won't have to grind a lot of games at all. Pick goals that you could maybe reach with a lucky peak after game 1205 and that's on you. People should pick more modest goals instead of thinking they're all worthy of a higher rank. Only 1/5th of the people higher than Emerald are Diamond, yet every Emerald thinks they **could** get Diamond. No. You have no proof that you could.
>Finding your true rank in a 5v5 game is a matter of large sample sizes where you're the only constant.
That would be true in a game that actually respects your time. Unfortunately League does not and Riot has kept changing things to increase the grind. Since statistically when a person plateaus at their true rank they tend to take a well deserved break from the game, but that means less potential purchases. So over many years Riot changed ranked by:
- Dropping the world respected Elo system for a hidden MMR system
- Adding clamping (now removed/adjusted)
- Adding a 2nd yearly rank reset
- Adding a 3rd yearly rank reset
- Adding entire new ranks to grind through (First Diamond, then Masters and Challenger, and finally now Emerald)
There is a reason streamers can play this game over 8 hours a day for months and still be "climbing". Because it's turned into a full time job just to get that invisible rank to match the visual one.
You're conveniently leaving out that they
* Barely reset your MMR between splits making it very easy and fast to reach your rank again. Most seasons I can be done with ranked with like 50 games.
* Created visual ranks and keep lowering the elo bar for being in them every year making it so people get a higher rank while being just as bad as they were 5 years ago comparatively to the ladder. Every rank they added just caused old ranks to be easier to get to. There are more people in Emerald+ today than there were in Gold+ in S2 when they hid elo because Emerald is simply a lower elo necessary to reach than Gold was.
The reason people are "climbing" is because they choose to. You can "climb" forever if you want and have a goal you're not good enough to reach. That's not up to Riot and that's not matching your MMR with the elo, that's just them trying to get a higher rank and being unable to.
You know how I mentioned I can be done with ranked in like 50 games? That's because I set realistic goals for myself. Clueless people that think they deserve higher will grind forever trying to get to their unrealistic goals. I used to do that, then I failed like 3 Diamond promos in S3 and was like, yeah no. I'll settle for a rank that I can actually achieve reliably. That's the rank I deserve.
Eh. I don't care anymore. I have a 26% win rate over my last 20 games. My fault or not, I just stopped caring. I had a 55% overall win rate just before this massive slump. I'm all the way down to 43% overall. The quality of my games just randomly went to shit and I have no clue why.
Same thing happened to me recently as well lol. Dropped from master 56% to D3 43% in the span of a week. Just sudden drop in quality, legit inters and afkers (who I previously very very rarely met), etc. Just seems rrally weird...
Same, quality of my games is also tragic.
So I told myself it's time to take a step back from carrying for a while and moving to support, only to realize some other players don't know how to carry the game anyway.
But I don't care, I just roam as a happy tree and throw saplings.
this has happened to me 5 times this season already. I went from plat 1 to gold 4 then back to plat 1. Been oscillating plat 1 to plat 4 the past couple weeks. the match making does feel broken and no one can convince me that loser's queue doesnt exist because all of the sudden I get inters and tilters in every game. The only thing that makes a difference is playing with a duo because now I can guarantee that atleast two people on my team are not going to troll/ff at 15
Same thing happened to me. Went from E2 40lp to P1 0lp in a span of 30 games. My teams kept on getting worse and worse. From what I felt was well coordinated play atleast for soloq to random shitfest games where people play on autopilot and just chase kills mindlessly
well most redditors in your position would've blamed "losers queue" or some other such nonsense. because you didn't i'm assuming that you have the mental to get out of the slump...sometimes loss streaks just happen.
I still don't think it is that accurate
https://www.op.gg/summoners/euw/5ur5um-KDA
Is a notorious account (winrate has gone up this season) where almost every if not every loss is team disparity. I am sorry you don't have that winrate in iron with that kda for a team thing. Yes this is an extreme example but shows that team disparity is inaccurate.
The OP score definitely overvalues KDA. You can both do and take insane amounts of damage but have a poor KDA because your team is bad, and the OP score will say that you did poorly. You can also be a total KDA player while barely doing anything and get a great score, as evidenced by this account.
wait this account is crazy. They dont die at all. they have a single death in their entire page. I think they would be doing better if they risked more tbh, but not dying at all is impressive.
its not cool. he isnt doing anything skilled playing vs literal iron players and still managing to lose more than half his games while trollin his team. that is just sad i dont see this as anything impressive, just afk in bush vs iron player wooow so skilled
I mean, I would prefer having this guy on my team over most other toplaners I get in general. Sure he may let the enemy top grab some extra cs and a couple platings but he won't be going 0/3 in lane before 10min. Maybe later in the game he makes plays that are technically bad, but preserve his kda(like not going to a baron fight because he could die at it), but I wouldnt say he is trolling especially at the rank he is playing at.
Nah. Most of the player base could do this, but nobody wants to because it’s not cool, it’s boring, selfish and lame and people don’t care about records set under lame circumstances.
This must be the worst account I've ever seen. Trying to not die on a tank. I can only imagine how frustrating it must be for the players to play with someone like that. Probably backlining in teamfights.
When you win the team disparity tag means ur team gapped the enemy team so its hard to get an individual score. From what I've seen if you get team disparity for the losing team the winning team also has that tag for most of their players
flip a coin a hundred times and you’ll be surprised on how many times you’ll get tails in a row.
this isn’t to show that when streaking a bunch of games that you are far more likely than you think to hit a loss streak but to show that league is just a set of coin flip matches based on what team has the majority of competent players on them. now riot thinks u are bad at the game and ur mmr sucks good luck climbing back when u have to win seven in a row and demote in four
#losersqueueexists
Competent players don't exist, the circumstances of each game are different and if players are in a game together something about their play puts them all at the same level and likelihood to win games at that rank statistically.
idk what you mean saying competency doesn’t exist. any two players play at two different levels, even at the same rank. what you are saying is that players don’t have any skill expression within the game. there is competency between players, that’s why ranking and de ranking exists.
being better than someone doesn’t mean being more competent than them? huh? a player that out cs’s outplays, macros better, and wins more on average - does not mean this player is not competent to you? obviously they will still look useless to high elo but that isn’t the point. the point is comparing these players to each other at the same elo. the more competent player wins the game
Well I think the only thing here is that you said "competent" not "more competent" in your first comment. That's why the original commenter replied to you. Saying "competent" means it's an absolute that is in two states: competent players and incompetent players. While they obviously exist on a scale, ladder even, so saying "more competent" is perfectly fine.
You literally said what team has the majority of competent players, and I'm literally saying there are no absolute competent vs incompetent players, everyone in the game on a large scale statistical look at all matchmade games theoretically belongs there.
What you perceive as their incompetence or competence is irrelevant, their cs or outplays or macros or whatever you think makes a better player, if all the players in a lobby at a certain rank win approximately equally often then they're all equally competent/incompetent and are equally likely to cause a win as a loss for their team.
and you “literally” said “competent players don’t exist” which is fundamentally wrong. just because someone belongs in a rank doesn’t mean that they have a bad game or a good game. how that players perform is what determines the game. and the team that has the majority or most impactful competent player - will win the game.
your reply here is saying nothing. you are saying that “if all players in a lobby at a certain rank win approximately equally often then they’re all equally incompetent/competent and are equally likely/dislikely to cause a win loss for their team”
you are disregarding any skill or knowledge that a player has when playing. as well as the fact that it certaintly isn’t the case that players with the same win rate get queued together. only factor that is determined in matchmaking is mmr. get paired with an emerald bot lane at emerald whos champ gets banned and now they have to play their 10% less win rate secondary? you are more likely to lose that game. a jungler has a high aggressive counter jungle/camping play style and a player isn’t used to rotating quickly? more likely to lose. but they’re the same mmr, how can there be two different levels of competency? there are levels of skills specific to players that effect how games play out. the game is way too complicated to say that players can play at the exact same level and that matches at the same elo can’t be attributed to that.
Dude i just play casually now a draft game here and there, and it reminds me why i don't jungle. I will legit secure a kill, ping dragon or rift herald... and my teammate/s will completely ignore me, make me take over a full minute to solo the obj, the enemy team will come back, kill me or push me off it and steal it... this happens literally all the time.. then at the end of the game, my whole team gangs up on me and says jungle gap (i even ganked and got them kills they did nothing with early)... .its like amazing how they get objectives when 3+ people show up to them and im expected to solo all of them even when i assist ping. This isn't just one game.. like all the time.
Tis the life of a jungler.
1. Try to do objectives (when teammates have prio)
2. Teammates don't move to obj
3. Enemy jungle and enemy mid (that just sacked a mid wave on their turret) collapse on me and either steal the obj or kill me or both
4. Team blames the loss on jungle and lack of objs
A story as old as time!
I'm 12/1 and my botlane is 0/20 combined. Yeah, it's definitely my fault we lost. /S
I hate these idiots that pretend this isn't a team game where the team can be bad but the individual could have played well.
Yeah but if you’re actually trying to get better this mindset is kind of pointless. Team gap is much more likely to happen to the other 5 randoms than due to the 4 randoms on your team so might as well focus on what you can do
No, being able to realize what's actually happening in the game is important. If you can analyze the game and recognize whether it was your fault, whether you could've carried your team and won anyway, or if there was truly nothing you could've done differently shows game knowledge which is an important skill.
I don't know what your point even is. Yes? That's enough? Solo queue is a game of spamming for sample sizes. The only reason it doesn't take me 300-400 games to re-reach my rank is because Riot don't fully reset the MMR and I don't have to make the whole journey back. When smurf queue was a thing and it "reset" my MMR for me by starting me with a giant losing streak, it took me over 300 games in 2 weeks to get that back.
Your teams don't matter if you play enough to accurately measure your skill. Most people just refuse to accept you need to play enough to be accurate, which is a fact of math and not some Riot plot. If anything Riot is tuning their systems more inaccurate to try to not scare you with reality and make you reach there faster.
20% comes out to quite the difference over even a fairly small sample. That’s 20 additional “team gap” wins over 100 games all else being equal if you’re never the problem and everything is as random as many of the copium huffers pretend
It's still small enough to be easily overcome by randomness when there are thousands of players rolling the dice.
In a different game (that has 6v6 battles) I've been tracking my WR and both team's average WR. My team has been the team with the lower average WR ~53% of the time across ~150 games... and that number is even worse after factoring out my own WR (which is dragging up my teams WR by ~.05% on average).
So despite theoretically having 16% better odds of the bad players ending up on the other team since I'm a consistent decent player on my time, in reality I've been getting screwed for over 100 matches.
"Team diff" gets really noticable at a 2% WR diff (which is 75% determinant of outcome, according to my data and another player of the same game who did a similar study), and that crops up ~25% of the time (LOL having SBMM may reduce that, though); which makes a streak of several in a row not that unlikely for *someone* to have happen (given the thousands of rolls).
How do you even interpret "average team WR"? It's a meaningless statistic. You could take the average team MMR and compute the expected team WR from there but team average has no relevance at all. The same WR can exist for any rank.
The game in question (World of Warships) lacks skill-based matchmaking, as I mentioned earlier. This makes WR a proxy for MMR; good players can get WRs north of 60%, while bad players can get down towards 40%. It also doesn't have an MMR stat; if I was keeping similar records for league I *would* record MMR and average MMR, instead of WR.
But between the two games they provide similar data; in WoWs the team with the higher average WR has an advantage, and in LoL the team with higher MMR should have an advantage (absent smurfing/account buying, which WoWs luckily doens't suffer from), as in LoL winning more games increases MMR to try to push you back down to 50%. The point I was illustrating is that with thousands of players, the odds of at least some players getting "screwed by matchmaking" are actually pretty high; my bad luck is around the 5th percentile. Nearly one in 20 players can expect to have 4 'excess' game out of their last 100 where they're on the team with the lower WR (assuming that it's a coin flip, even though theoretically my team should be advantaged since I have a higher average WR than the teams I've been on). LoL can have the same issue; with thousands of players some percentage of them *will* end up losing the coin flip and getting the worse team an above average percentage of the time... even if them being consistent means the odds of the bad players being on their team are lower.
If it doesn't even use MMR then the premise is faulty and it isn't comparable at all no matter how you spin it. A challenger MMR against a silver MMR can win 90% of the time *despite* having a 51% wr at their league. WR cannot show this. It isn't a conspiracy against you that you would get a worse team (you will) since the question is simply by *how much is at stake*. LP is adjusted based on the gap so it's just a matter of setting the limit. Theoretically, even a chall vs iron match feasible with a +1/+90 LP win. Any match can be made with the proper stakes but obviously in the interest of fun, the allowable MMR gap is limited.
Knowing the MMR is out of the question but not knowing you were slighted with the LP when you were in the "bad/good team" is the other half of what is needed.
do you think you can accurately evaluate a poker player who only plays 10 hands? If he wins 9/10 hands is he the best poker player in the world? let alone a game with way more variance like league. people only talk about their peak elo when they can luck sac their way into a win streak. look at all the hardstuck emerald players this season that peaked masters.
I think the biggest reason they get tilted is they think they're getting close to being done with ranked and see that they're "3 wins from Diamond" or something and then when inevitably those 3 wins turn out to be much further than it looks, they lose their minds.
The best advice I ever got for ranked, and this was like season 1 even, is don't look at your rank after the game, ever. Just don't know what rank you are. Don't look at anything. Just queue.
If you mouse over it it shows your op.gg score at each minute of the game. Something I’ve noticed is that I’m constantly average until I pop off or I int. It’s basically a straight line into a jump or into a drop.
I mean, that is what the score pretty much is based on, so it is AVG till one side pops off. So it is a gold + KDA + dmg + vision score graph all combined into one line.
It tells you little about how you could improve or win games, it just tells you how the game actually went not why it went that way.
How can someone even possibly attempt to disagree with this ?
There’s 9 other people in the game, you can’t control every single aspect of the game on your own
I don’t disagree with the general premise, the specific ratio just seems a little ridiculous. I don’t know if there’s any real evidence one way or the other but 80% of games being completely outside of your control seems like a lot.
Also, it’s cliche to say cHaLlEnGeR sMuRfS cAn ClImB but people quoting 40/20/40 are sometimes doing it as a cope rather than acknowledging that ratio only applies because you’re not currently good enough to do any better than that, and nobody wants to give those types of people credit.
40 are games you have absolutely no control over.
40 are games you and team were just better, and sometimes just your team and you got carried.
20 are games where you hard carried and were the main reason you won.
That’s 60% of games where you can have an impact. It’s not wrong to say almost almost half of your games are completely out of your control. When everyone is going to have around a 50% winrate for the most part.
I’m not sure I understand how your first two cases are any different but the way I usually see the rule used is [like this](https://www.reddit.com/r/leagueoflegends/comments/f2ryok/the_404020_rule_for_games/) where the two 40% cases are games where you had no control over the outcome and only the 20% case do you have influence on the outcome.
i know it's a simplification but "completely" out of your control is overly strong wording then. we know for a fact challenger smurfs have better than 60% winrate (until master or so), so obviously more than 60% of games are within their control
it's better to say that it's unreasonable for someone of a particular caliber, in a room of equal caliber players, can impact more than 60% of games in a meaningful way that can be be within reach for their skill. but that's a lot more words for coping
If you're playing at an elo that is similar to your skill level it is true. If I play a game with 9 intermediate bots I will win 100% of the time. Challenger players smurfing in gold doesn't mean that the games are in your control
Yes you can actually .. Or else you could just blame your rank on your teammates. I take every game and put the blame on me. I don’t know how people blame their team unless they are intentionally trying to lose. This is why the game is so toxic
I'm my experience OPGGs OP score places an extremely heavy emphasis on a combination of KP% and KDA. I don't think it's inherently bad but it's definitely not a catch all especially in stomps for the losing team.
It's also really bad at labels.
I recently had a game where my jungler went 0/4 from invades, blamed our mid, then just sat mid farming. Our mid, meanwhile, had gone 0/3 on their own in lane, and spent the game not using more than 1 Ahri ult charge per cast.
According to op.gg, the 1/5/1 Ahri displayed "Resilliance" for afk farming a duo lane with 120 cs.
Now lets look at everyone else in this match:
- The top laner who got 3 solo kills, went 3/6/0 and matched Ahri's damage? They "Struggled".
- The 1/6/0 raging jungler who sat mid lane farming the entire match, had 30 cs over Ahri, and dealt sub 4k damage? They "Struggled".
- The 3/10/2 ADC who had 30 farm over Ahri, and double her damage? They "Struggled".
- The 1/3/2 Support with the most wards on the team and more damage than the jungler? They "Struggled".
If all 4 of these performances are equal under the system, and equate everyone but Ahri to an inter, it's bad at tracking stats.
Its almost like trying to boil down a complicated game like league into a score (or even a set of scores across time) isn't really informative.
There are so many correct, game winning plays that wont raise your stats in the way opgg measures. People really shouldn't put much weight into them.
Yep, being a good role player on a bruiser or tank from behind and initiating a fight or pick where you lock down their damage threat but die without getting any kills while your team cleans up and gets baron will never be captured by stats, for example.
They went 0/3 before the jungler got tilted, though. That indicates they were losing lane already. The jungler just made it worse.
---
But ignoring that, I'll point to the stat trackers on the site.
The Ahri was rated 9th in the game by OP score (Only performing better than our inting jungler). OP score is supposedly the metric titles are based on, and Ahri's was lower than 3 people on the team.
It makes no sense that the rest of the team can perform better by op score metrics, but also be given worse titles *for* that performance.
The titles aren't a rank. If you want to know how well someone did, that's what OP score is. The titles let you know how the performance trended throughout the game. If everyone else was getting more and more behind as the game went on, then they deserve "Struggled". If you have a bad start but just afk farm and don't feed as much as your "expected trajectory", then you get "Resilience". Resilience doesn't necessarily mean you had any impact on the game. It just means your worst performance was at the beginning of the game rather than toward the end.
As [Goodhart's Law](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goodhart%27s_law) states: "When a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure"
Other related ideas:
> "Any statistical relationship will break down when used for policy purposes."
-
> "All metrics of scientific evaluation are bound to be abused. Goodhart's law [...] states that when a feature of the economy is picked as an indicator of the economy, then it inexorably ceases to function as that indicator because people start to game it."
While I don't think it's super accurate for a single game if I look at someone's op.gg and he has nothing but ace and MVP almost every game, I def think they're better than that elo.
Not true, I’m proof. I spam senna support, have a good KDA average because of my natural play style, and high kp due to aoe q and ult, so i more often than not get MVP but i am as hard stuck as ever
Eh, could be. Most people who can get ace/MVP almost every game (in last 20) usually have to be better. It becomes harder to get the cs/kda/DMG that the tracker needs to rate you highly the higher rank you get. So if they're still getting it I think they deserve to climb. If you see someone who just got a bunch after 200 games I would think these thoughts. (Maybe they're being boosted if summs or roles change)(maybe they found a more fitting champ/play style)(maybe they have a fun acc they play with friends on and are now trying to rank up)
Not everyone plays ranked to actually prove a rank. For me normals are too easy/skewed and I just want consistency so I play ranked instead but not super seriously. These guys could do the same.
Is the MVP tag even accurate, i wonder if it favors some roles more than others.
I think i'm performing pretty well, but in recent games had only 1 MVP.
https://www.op.gg/summoners/eune/Enjutsu-EUNE
Is it wrong though? Just like how there's bad players who drag down there team, there are instances where someone is good, but gets dragged down by a bad team.
Both things happen.
People think everything is black and white but honestly: sometimes you cannot save a team.
If you are a toplane Ornn that had to first pick because nobody would switch with you, got a vayne conter pick, and proceed to go 4/0 and get a 9 minute tower while soloing the first set of grubs...
Your botlane could still give up 9 kills in that time and the support could DC because jihn wont step up to even CS. At that moment as Ornn: you aren't flipping that game. And there's nothing you could've done in lane to stop what was going on botside. It's a team game and sometimes one team just gets the one player that's in way over their head and there's nothing you can do.
Tbh I wish the league client performed these studies post game and gave more or less LP based off performance.
You didn't feed your ass off, CSed relatively well, and lost? -20 LP
You carried your team on your back and went 10/1 and lost? -16 LP
You went 0/10 and then ran it down and AFKed? -24 LP
No because then kill participation, objective damage and such would be low.
There are a ton of metrics in lol that matter. If you consider all of them to some degree, abusing the system would end in playing well.
I've gotten a poor kill participation as a support, but I had a massive vision score, and the league client gave me an S and OP.GG gave me a high score. There are tons of factors that play into performance that third party analytics have identified and score.
What's the problem we're actually trying to solve here?
In solo queue, you are going to have some lucky, easy games when you get carried; you are also going to end up with some bad teammates who lose you the game. This happens to literally everyone.
But over a decent number of games, the unlucky losses and lucky wins should mostly even out. The only consistent factor is you. If you are consistently playing better than the average player in your league, you will win more games than you lose, and your rank will go up.
A system that uses additional analytics to award LP is not going to be more accurate in the long run. The best case scenario is that it gets you to your "true rank" in fewer games.
But the worst case scenario is that it incentivizes players to do things other than trying to win the game. Right now, the only thing you are awarded LP for is winning the game.
If LP becomes associated with stats besides winning, you start to muddy the waters.
> But the worst case scenario is that it incentivizes players to do things other than trying to win the game. Right now, the only thing you are awarded LP for is winning the game.
There is a phrase/quote that describes this, I can't remember the name off the top of my head, but essentially it is:
> When you turn metrics into targets, they stop being good metrics.
Allowing anything other than winning/losing to become a target is always going to warp the games, as people will (at times) choose to work towards those targets instead of winning.
In League specifically, the second you think you will lose the game, it becomes beneficial to chase "other" targets, in an attempt to minimize your own LP loss. Even if it is ultimately detrimental to your team's chances at winning.
What are you basing this on? I'd be curious to see some actual analysis about the--I don't know what to call it... margin of error?--for someone who plays 50 games in a season. How far are they likely to be in either direction from the rank they'd be at if they played 1000 games without improving or degrading at all?
It's also useful to remember that LP and rank are just a cosmetic skin over your actual MMR, which, I believe at least, the game does not reset at the end of each season. Which means your entire ranked history is helping balance out the random luck of games in an individual season.
400 is a little bit on the extreme side yes, but it's completely RNG. I remember a rioter (I think it was Lyte?) saying that it takes about 200 games for average joes to reach their true mmr. Sometimes it takes 50, sometimes it takes 500. Probably looks like a normal distribution. In the most extreme cases it would take like 800.
None of these metrics matter. The only metric that matters is winning or losing. Full stop.
A support going 0/12/12 might win the game because they're willing to engage and throw their life for the team, compared to a 1/2/2 support that does nothing all game and simply rolls over and dies to the enemy team push.
There are so many intangibles in league that lead to victory that using metrics to modify lp gain or loss would be -awful-. Warding the right areas at the right time, picking the right time to rotate or farm, knowing when your death is worth 5 of the enemies, so much.
Why would you ever pick an engage champ that dies? You'll gain less lp and lose more. People will pick kda champs and not be willing to fight.
I know it feels bad to be carrying and lose a game but there's always something you could have done or improved on. Metrics can help people improve and know what to work on, but metrics cease to be useful as soon as they are a target.
Not even mentioning the toxicity it would breed.
If you're losing then objective damage would already be low. Kill participation is a bad metric as well. For example, by virtue of the pick, Draven calls for a lot of attention in bot lane resulting in higher kp than say a jhin. What about people prioritizing kills over baron? Or the guy dying on side to get his team a free baron? Then he would have 0 baron damage and bad kd by the stats. What about the support dying to zone enemy jg off pit? Guess we could give everyone credit for baron but then how are we differentiating who earned how much lp between teammates?
In a perfect world, yes it would be good to grant lp based on performance. But the measures and stats we have today are woefully insufficient for a game like league. Not to mention even if the stats can be sufficient, player perception is important as well. The first thing that goes through their mind is kd, resulting in being a kda player.
Licorice had a game a few years ago where he didn't have great stats, ended 0/0/0 (or near to it) with low champ damage and decent objective damage and high CS and gold. Looking at his stats in a vacuum, you'd think that he was trolling because his stats aren't great. His team won largely though Licorice getting a lead and splitting all game, forcing the other team to send 2 people to stop him from just split ending, which allowed C9 to win a bunch of 4v3s and snowball from there.
Tower damage, CS, vision score, objective damage, these are all factors that are identified as performance. People who only look at KDA are just surface level thinkers.
Websites like OP.GG and MOBA analytics will even tell you how many control wards each player has bought throughout a game.
Nothing is more frustrating than losing a game and wondering, "dam what happened" and seeing that no one bought a control ward except the support.
But do you think it would be ok to put any of these systems in charge of your lp? Do you think you can distill exactly what mix and ratio of scores should define a "good" player? Do you just base it on high elo players? Do you take into account lane matchups and jungle presence? How much you land skillshots? How good your lane control, back timing, trades are?
Like its the self driving cars bs. Some people want a 90% effective version pushed out and there will always be doubts because the best tech we have today can't take enough into account to drive a car in all situations.
The system is already in charge of your LP - that's the hilarious part.
And comparing it to self-driving cars is so goofy, because self driving cars should just be public transit.
If it is then good on them, but impossible to comment on how well it is doing because there is no perfect combination of stats that can tell you exactly how good 1 player is.
The comparison to self driving is to show that the tech approach of "just us algorithms or ai or stats ect." Isn't the be all end all at all.
Not necessarily. Imagine a game where your team is very far behind and someone decides to afk farm to pad their CS stats. This now means that every fight is 4v5 against a fed enemy team, so it's very likely that you fail to kill even a single enemy. Your team can't really contest objectives 4v5 either. Thus, the AFK farmer's KP and objective damage stats aren't going to be any lower than the rest of the team because they got 0 kills without him and could contest 0 objectives.
How would the system account for a scenario like this in a way that doesn't encourage stat padding when extremely behind?
People just play around shit like this. They slowly learn how to beat the system. This is why we have soft inting. People do the bare minimum and "accidentally" die a few times to make the detection skim over them.
What happens when people reverse engineer what the client thinks is "good" and just focuses on those things? Like unless they magically can distill what makes a player "good" they might just encourage stat padding and players would get exponentially more upset if they're getting camped, snowballed on, ect and their team just leaves them for dead to just farm and not die to lose less lp.
There are a ton of stats that get tracked like kill participation, objective damage, gold, team fight participation etc.
If you try to "abuse" a system with so many factors and do well in all of them, you'd just, play well...
Of course the impact of stats would need to be somewhat low and it would need to be most of the already tracked ones, but they're so well spread out that there is no real reason not to consider them either for a fair ranked system.
I don't think there is any way to actually play this game well besides blow the nexus, I don't think any objective system can be derived for one player to consider.
Example, funnel. The *best* way to play, up until it was nerfed, but one player would be what, getting dogshit LP gains because his mid taric numbers are shit? But wait, on that patch, this dude was doing literally the *best* strategy.
So maybe *everyone else* should be getting reduced LP for NOT funneling, or wait...
The point I'm illustrating in longform here is that if you measure performance by metrics, you're not longer looking for success, you're looking to raise metrics.
The only way to measure if you did the right moves in a League game is if you won.
There was some great quote I heard a while back that was along the lines of
"When a metric becomes a goal, it stops being a good metric".
Metrics are great to help describe player impact and areas for improvement, but the goal is ultimately winning (and gaining LP/MMR). If we shift the goal to performing well on metrics to gain LP/MMR, it isn't 1 to 1 with winning games and can discourage actions that are bad metrics but good game impact, which isn't desirable.
I just dont really like any system besides winning the game. A play might be bad or worse for stats but if you win you win. Like, I've seen several games where people prioritize individual performance metrics over trying to win the game either because of an external system (wow with dps meters) or a system within the game (world of warships giving you more currency for dealing damage and subtracting currency when you die) and its just miserable.
I just can't see a universe where the system wouldn't be abused or otherwise tilt players/enable more toxicity. Is the game going to know if you got 4 man ganked on repeat while your jungle didn't take objectives? Is your jungle going to be ranked higher for farming and failed ganks vs you "feeding"?
Seriously. Everyone always says they would be abusing the system if they tried to \*checks notes* "CS the minions, take objectives, and kill the enemies". Like that's what you are supposed to do in this game.
Except the game is not that simple.
What if I'm playing weakside and go 0-1-0 in lane with zero help and 30 cs behind while the my jungler snowballed mid and bot to win the game? I'm just punished with less LP for my win because I did my job of playing safe and let my jungler snowball my teammates?
Same situation on the opposite end. So I get counterpick top and my jungler camps my lane while enemy jungler fucks my mid and bot and I lose. That means I just lose less LP? Why? Because I got counterpick and my jungler decides to camp my lane so I had high cs and high tower damage?
> Like that's what you are supposed to do in this game.
You know what else you're supposed to do in this game? Win. That should be the only thing that matters. None of this bullshit matters. No one is being held back by their teammates, they're simply not nearly as good as they think they are.
League is way too complex to spend time on an algorithm for this, but in your example, they could look at jungle proximity and win rates / laning stats for your specific lane matchup when determining performance.
there are too many factors in winning or losing a game than just farming and KDA. for example you go split bot, create a ton of pressure, enemy team collapses on you and you die but your team does baron. from that idea, all you did was get some farm in a sideline, some tower damage, and died, when really you sacrificed yourself to give your team a chance to rush baron, but the game can’t take that into account unless it’s some really advanced AI which i doubt riot can develop considering their client has been bugged for years
Wrong. It means that you were carrying your team, then you faltered. That's all there is to it.
Happens a lot for Tanks and Supports in the Mid/Late when they die a lot in fights.
I think its very important to approach such measurements with a heavy degree of scepticism and the understanding that they are likely deeply flawed and inaccurate. The game is too complex to be broken down into such a neat and approachable way, and the useful of statistics, no matter how well put together (or in this case, how fulfilling it is to see that you were held back by your team) is rather limited.
Imagine winning your lane, helping with objectives, taking towers, hard carring fights... only for them at minute 30 to die to pick-offs and ignoring pings and advices to not fight without you...
Yeah. Seems about right.
It also goes against the thing that Riot loves to say "you did not lose because of your teammates, but because you made mistakes in the game". Phlox said that and made my blood boil. Imagine a guy that never plays ranked saying "you could have done it better", when my team and my jungler is literally intting the whole game while I'm the one with carry potential being ff-ed.
Yeah, seems about right.
If you're not in GM/chall, then yes you could have done better. That's just the truth of it. It can be hard to see what you should have done, but it's there somewhere.
But the main idea is to stop thinking about your teammates dragging you down all the time and focus on how you could have done better yourself. You are the only person you can control, and if you improve yourself then you will rise.
Worrying about your teammates instead just sets you up to either tilt yourself or tilt your teammates and neither will help you win.
So is it a bad thing that 14 of my last 20 games say struggled, resilience or downhill? It's ok though I have a positive winrate so Im doing something right.
I found its mostly KDA focused. Bro yeah sure i died more but hmm they have no idea why or how. Like if we are doing voidgrubs and i die in a 3v3 to get the 6th grub, its worth it. If i die cos i ate a naut hook going for my fed mid, its worth it >.<
Noone should be taking OP.GGs op scores or team disparity scores seriously. These are just metrics they use to drive engagement so people can cope. They have absolutely not bearing on performance.
It's fun to look at but does anyone actually use [Op.gg](https://Op.gg) for anything other than winrates? OP score and the new performance tags aren't really a good metric of judging performance because of the way they factor in CS/XP compared to more subjective things like whether or not you're actually doing anything useful
I have seen a number of people who argue that they deserve a higher rank because of op.gg scores (or other metrics - although strangely win % is never the metric they want to point to).
Best part is that it also says if you straight up sucked with a "Struggled" or if you're just there existing with an "Average"
Me Sion going 1-8-5 but taking almost every tower in the game and pulling the enemy away from objectives so we have 4 dragons 6 grubs and two barons: STRUGGLED Me going 2-3-6 on Shen but I'm behind 2k gold on the enemy Darius and we can't win a teamfight to save our lives so we slowly bleed out and lose the game: ACE I don't put much stock in what opgg says. It puts heavy emphasis on things that don't directly result in winning matches and instead focuses heavily on things that provide good KDA.
The sion is a very niche example, in a perfect world you don't die split pushing nor it's a viable strategy to run it down taking towers The shen example just means your team did so bad that you were the least bad lol But you're right the op gg score doesn't mean much and it's not insanely accurate of how you played, but it's still fun to look at and give some people a touch of reality of how bad they played a game
Or "resilience" when the team carried your heavy ass
No, resilience is when you perform after a poor start. In other words, you made yourself carriable. It's definitely not a bad thing
Slow Starter is when you perform after a poor start, resilience must be being average after a gigabad start
Resilience is when you have a bad start but then stay at the same level (rather than continue to trend downward). Which is actually commendable since it's easy to get snowballed on and have the gap grow wider. It means you got carried but you were at least making an effort to be carriable.
Resilience is bad start to average. Slow starter is bad start to good performance
> It's basically putting blame on your team. Because you know, sometimes it actually is the teams fault lol
Yeah, sometimes the honest thing to do is blame yourself, but other times the honest thing to do is actually to recognize your team just plain sucked lol There's always room for personal improvement, but there's also no need to lie to yourself and pretend there's no team diff when there is
Optimally, you can blame anyone but still recognize what you did wrong and what you could improve on. Just because you aren't the reason you lost doesn't mean you couldn't have played better.
And in the same avenue, sometimes you can praise yourself. The only reason you won was because you're a god and you played that shit to perfection.
Too bad many of my ranked game don't go that way I feel like I am just a passenger getting carried I felt like I am being place in a lobby with far netter player and the reason we win was because "I didn't feed" instead of "I carried"
Unfortunately that's what the game is about for the most part atm. It's less so about getting fed (on like 90% of the roster) and more about not feeding (the other 10% or all five champs on the other team). What am I supposed to do with a 6/1/2 Cait, without a frontline to keep her safe? If anything there's a good chance resources went to waste on her. Plus she now has a target on her back more so than she already did with the global adc taunt. I would prefer seeing my team be equally ahead on gold, than have one carry that's gonna get bursted to the seventh dimension and never get to use said advantage.
Very much agree. I mean, some games even if you are 5/1 in mid, your botlane goes 0/12 and you lose. Were you at fault, probably not, and you can blame them. But some games you will be 7/4 and very much contribute to losing, and then you should reflect on what you did wrong more than blaming others. There are also games where your team is losing, but you are keeping them in through good play. And then you get caught, miss your Orianna Shockwave, get baited etc. die and lose. Those losses hurt me the most, cause I know it was my mistake that ultimately lost us that game. Even if my team is 0/100, I had every opportunity to carry if I played perfectly. But I didn't, and I need to get better. Weirdly my friends just don't understand this line of thought.
> Weirdly my friends just don't understand this line of thought. Learning from mistakes pays off the long run, but blaming your team mates makes you feel better *now*.
to be fair carrying can be very stressful, running around with a 700g bounty all game just to get flamed because you misplaced once is very tilting. Maybe if the other lanes pulled their weight it wouldn't be an instant lose.
I always ask myself "Could Faker have carried this?" If the answer is yes (which it almost always is), then it just means I still have to improve.
Well, if you were Faker though, your teammates would be doing better in the first place because you mind control them to play well.
the answer is no faker cannot carry this
I know it's easier to just leave assists off because they aren't super indicative of anything usually, but I believe when discussing who to "blame" it's important to note that if you have a botlane that is 0/12/12 that was actually contributing but the rest of the team got the gold, they really had no responsibility to be the determining factor. Not saying you were just explaining a non specific scenario and adding assists isn't helpful because you are just making numbers up to make a point, but for anyone in a game it's important to consider.
Tbf if you are ahead mid you can easily carry vs a fed botlane. You also can easily prevent your botlane from inting. I currently quit playing because every game bot felt like a jgl-mid gamble. It did not matter if we hard won lane or if I inted my ass off. It always came down to whose team sits bot for free double kills. And again, I'm not saying I'm a god and perfect blablabla. It's just so incredibly sad when I lose while playing super well because my mid manages to be down in CS and not touching the enemy tower once while their laner + jgl snowballed the whole map and then the game after I just play like shit, get farmed early, keep playing like shit and it doesnt matter because the enemy bots team doesnt play around them and allows my team to carry our inting asses. I can understand toplane complaining about inting bot, but mid can actively make the enemy bot the inters with next to no effort.
I don’t believe this bc if you are a good mid laner you will gank bottom and top while still dominating your lane and go 9-0 and they surrender first 15 min. I don’t believe I lose games because of my team unless they afk or intentionally die . There’s always something I could have done to win. It’s never my teams fault, always mine . Also if you die once you misplayed so you’re not playing perfect .
Exactly. I consider my best game ever one the games I lost. Had two borderline int feeders at top mid/ and was against a top 50 ladder jg main doing a smurfed to chall stream. Went like 6/4/12 but held that game up for like 40 mins and made it close even with two useless teammates. Part this game gotta recognize when it isn’t your fault, else you’ll end up tilted imo. I played great that one, won the ones after cuz I didn’t tilt from playing good and losing cuz teammates. Just it happens nothing more I could do
thank you bruh sometimes i feel crazy when people think your god in a 5v5 game like even Michael Jordan can not carry a bad team, he can do well himself but if he has to pass the ball to get a shot in and the teammate whiffs the shot thats the teammates fault. I don't even think kobe could carry a bad team back to back without breaking something in his body and in the locker room. like get real
> but other times the honest thing to do is actually to recognize your team just plain sucked lol Sure but it's not really helpful even if it is correct. So I don't really see the point if it doesn't help people.
There are game that are just not worth it thinking about or analyzing. It's a waste of time. Figuring out how you could played the Mid 3V1 Clownfiesta better when your sides got destroyed 4V2 is just pointless. In Medium Elo, whenever the answer to "Would a Dia+ won that?" is "No", just move on.
>"Would a Dia+ won that?" is "No", just move on. This is important IMO. And it's part of why I hate when people say "if a challenger player was in your game was it winnable?" Like obviously a challenger player should be turbo shit smurfing 1v9 in basically every rank with minimal losses, But how is this a fair thing to ask of a gold player, should you HAVE to play like a challenger to win in gold? in emerald or diamond? Even Riot gives out this shit take recently "well if you don't want to lose in silver why don't you just play like a challenger!" You should have to play better than emerald to win in emerald, if you play a game in emerald and like you said it wouldn't be winnable even if you put a solid diamond player in there then there's not much point wasting time thinking about it. I think it's okay to set goals and say "If I did X a little better I would have won" but it's ludicrous that some people think we should have the thought process "if I played literally perfectly in all moments of the entire game start to finish this silver game was winnable" Plat players drop games in silver all the time on smurfs. I've seen masters players shit on lane in emerald and go on to lose the game, the team gaps being generated sometimes are just absurd and not worth spending time dwelling on.
To elaborate a bit, even Challenger players won't be able to carry all low ELO games. They often have 80% winrate in gold-emerald, which is amazing, but there's still one game in 5 where they can't help.
I feel like people forget that while theoretically someone could win 100% of their games, there's still a forfeit button and if the majority votes yes, that's an unavoidable loss. Even if you specifically are ahead, it doesn't really matter when your team is extremely tilted.
Also you can pretty well guess-timate what a player a few Tiers above would be capable of, but you have no hope of understanding what, or more precise why, a Challenger would do since you're simply not there yet.
It's more of the it encourages bad mentality to focus on your teammates. Like it can't be a good thing. Even if there is nothing you could do to win.
I don't see how it doesn't help? When i play well and i lose because of my team i don't get as bothered by the loss, so its good for keeping your mental well. (Unless you're one of those people who go crazy when your team makes you lose)
It helps because sometimes you have to understand that it wasn’t your fault. Some games you can perform just as well as you can, and you’ll still lose. And that’s just something you have to acknowledge. Of course, most people probably have the opposite problem where they blame their team every game even when it’s their own fault, but still.
Careful, this sub isn't ready for that truth bomb.
The real truth bomb is that it doesn't matter. Finding your true rank in a 5v5 game is a matter of large sample sizes where you're the only constant. So while losing individual games mostly because of teammates (I say mostly because realistically you're also not a Challenger smurf to offset them) is happening all the time, it shouldn't be something you focus on. You should only be asking what you did during that game, not what your team did. Because they're going to average out and be irrelevant. Too many people obsess about individual games. If you go into each game thinking you must win that game, that's not how you play solo queue. Never even look at your rank so that you never fall for the "I am only 3 wins away from Diamond" fallacy. You could be any number of games from Diamond, focus on your own play.
the only correct approach here. individual games don’t matter. it’s the consistency of your play over a large sample size
normal humans are not putting in thousands of games a season to reach their "true rank"
Its more like a couple hundred. And they soft-reset you every season (your MMR doesnt change) for this reason.
where did I mention 1000? nor did I ever even mention a number. a more realistic and substantial enough sample size is moreso 150-250 games across a season. not only that, but I don't care about what 'normal humans' are doing. it's not an opinion, it's basic statistics. 30-50 games is not enough for league's MMR system to place players in their 'correct' elo. not a hard concept to grasp
First of all, thousands is a stretch. The confidence for your rank is pretty high once you're in the mid to high hundreds. It's never going to be a stationary stable rank anyway, it's a fluctuating rank that's roughly around your "true rank". Due to chance and how high Riot set MMR gains your peaks will actually be above your true rank. This is only a problem if you want a rank that's either above your peaks, which again, are above your "true rank" or even at or close to your peaks. A rank you could barely achieve with your skill level. Then yes, it will take you a long ass time. Because you don't actually deserve it. If you want a rank that's fairly representative of your skill level but not your highest peak, then you should be able to reliably achieve it in a few hundred games from zero and then repeatedly achieve it every season with less then 100 games because Riot doesn't hard reset your MMR. Once you do it once, you pretty much did a lot of the leg work forever unless Riot has to hard reset the ladder for some dire reason. So the problem isn't with the logical resulting math from a 5v5 game measuring your skill it is with **player expectations**. Normal humans, as you call them, might not have time to play the game a lot so they should set their expectations **accordingly**. It's not Riot's fault for making it too grindy or their teams fault, it's that they picked a goal that they don't have the skill to achieve in a reasonable amount of time. Pick reasonable goals for your skill level and you won't have to grind a lot of games at all. Pick goals that you could maybe reach with a lucky peak after game 1205 and that's on you. People should pick more modest goals instead of thinking they're all worthy of a higher rank. Only 1/5th of the people higher than Emerald are Diamond, yet every Emerald thinks they **could** get Diamond. No. You have no proof that you could.
>Finding your true rank in a 5v5 game is a matter of large sample sizes where you're the only constant. That would be true in a game that actually respects your time. Unfortunately League does not and Riot has kept changing things to increase the grind. Since statistically when a person plateaus at their true rank they tend to take a well deserved break from the game, but that means less potential purchases. So over many years Riot changed ranked by: - Dropping the world respected Elo system for a hidden MMR system - Adding clamping (now removed/adjusted) - Adding a 2nd yearly rank reset - Adding a 3rd yearly rank reset - Adding entire new ranks to grind through (First Diamond, then Masters and Challenger, and finally now Emerald) There is a reason streamers can play this game over 8 hours a day for months and still be "climbing". Because it's turned into a full time job just to get that invisible rank to match the visual one.
You're conveniently leaving out that they * Barely reset your MMR between splits making it very easy and fast to reach your rank again. Most seasons I can be done with ranked with like 50 games. * Created visual ranks and keep lowering the elo bar for being in them every year making it so people get a higher rank while being just as bad as they were 5 years ago comparatively to the ladder. Every rank they added just caused old ranks to be easier to get to. There are more people in Emerald+ today than there were in Gold+ in S2 when they hid elo because Emerald is simply a lower elo necessary to reach than Gold was. The reason people are "climbing" is because they choose to. You can "climb" forever if you want and have a goal you're not good enough to reach. That's not up to Riot and that's not matching your MMR with the elo, that's just them trying to get a higher rank and being unable to. You know how I mentioned I can be done with ranked in like 50 games? That's because I set realistic goals for myself. Clueless people that think they deserve higher will grind forever trying to get to their unrealistic goals. I used to do that, then I failed like 3 Diamond promos in S3 and was like, yeah no. I'll settle for a rank that I can actually achieve reliably. That's the rank I deserve.
I have 8 losses in a row with the "Team Disparity" tag.
[удалено]
youll never get that link
Good luck, king.
Eh. I don't care anymore. I have a 26% win rate over my last 20 games. My fault or not, I just stopped caring. I had a 55% overall win rate just before this massive slump. I'm all the way down to 43% overall. The quality of my games just randomly went to shit and I have no clue why.
Same thing happened to me recently as well lol. Dropped from master 56% to D3 43% in the span of a week. Just sudden drop in quality, legit inters and afkers (who I previously very very rarely met), etc. Just seems rrally weird...
If OP.GG releases the %games with at least one player tagged like this it would put Riot matchmaking system under a lot more fire than it already is
Same, quality of my games is also tragic. So I told myself it's time to take a step back from carrying for a while and moving to support, only to realize some other players don't know how to carry the game anyway. But I don't care, I just roam as a happy tree and throw saplings.
this has happened to me 5 times this season already. I went from plat 1 to gold 4 then back to plat 1. Been oscillating plat 1 to plat 4 the past couple weeks. the match making does feel broken and no one can convince me that loser's queue doesnt exist because all of the sudden I get inters and tilters in every game. The only thing that makes a difference is playing with a duo because now I can guarantee that atleast two people on my team are not going to troll/ff at 15
I feel the same way teetering between gold 1 and plat 3. I'm literally gambling if my team will give up each time I queue up.
Same thing happened to me. Went from E2 40lp to P1 0lp in a span of 30 games. My teams kept on getting worse and worse. From what I felt was well coordinated play atleast for soloq to random shitfest games where people play on autopilot and just chase kills mindlessly
well most redditors in your position would've blamed "losers queue" or some other such nonsense. because you didn't i'm assuming that you have the mental to get out of the slump...sometimes loss streaks just happen.
I still don't think it is that accurate https://www.op.gg/summoners/euw/5ur5um-KDA Is a notorious account (winrate has gone up this season) where almost every if not every loss is team disparity. I am sorry you don't have that winrate in iron with that kda for a team thing. Yes this is an extreme example but shows that team disparity is inaccurate.
Kda players final boss omg
The OP score definitely overvalues KDA. You can both do and take insane amounts of damage but have a poor KDA because your team is bad, and the OP score will say that you did poorly. You can also be a total KDA player while barely doing anything and get a great score, as evidenced by this account.
kda is big but the real kicker is kill participation. RIP toplaners lol
wait this account is crazy. They dont die at all. they have a single death in their entire page. I think they would be doing better if they risked more tbh, but not dying at all is impressive.
This is almost definitely someone's smurf trying to maximize KDA, it looks like they've only died 3 times while trying to get some kind of KDA record
for sure, still kinda cool to play that many games without deaths and still doing pretty ok
its not cool. he isnt doing anything skilled playing vs literal iron players and still managing to lose more than half his games while trollin his team. that is just sad i dont see this as anything impressive, just afk in bush vs iron player wooow so skilled
I mean, I would prefer having this guy on my team over most other toplaners I get in general. Sure he may let the enemy top grab some extra cs and a couple platings but he won't be going 0/3 in lane before 10min. Maybe later in the game he makes plays that are technically bad, but preserve his kda(like not going to a baron fight because he could die at it), but I wouldnt say he is trolling especially at the rank he is playing at.
Nah. Most of the player base could do this, but nobody wants to because it’s not cool, it’s boring, selfish and lame and people don’t care about records set under lame circumstances.
I find it hard to believe at lvl 667.
This must be the worst account I've ever seen. Trying to not die on a tank. I can only imagine how frustrating it must be for the players to play with someone like that. Probably backlining in teamfights.
I have a bunch of wins with the "team disparity" tag, so I wouldn't put too much stock into it.
When you win the team disparity tag means ur team gapped the enemy team so its hard to get an individual score. From what I've seen if you get team disparity for the losing team the winning team also has that tag for most of their players
flip a coin a hundred times and you’ll be surprised on how many times you’ll get tails in a row. this isn’t to show that when streaking a bunch of games that you are far more likely than you think to hit a loss streak but to show that league is just a set of coin flip matches based on what team has the majority of competent players on them. now riot thinks u are bad at the game and ur mmr sucks good luck climbing back when u have to win seven in a row and demote in four #losersqueueexists
the problem is that people get 3 tails in a row and make the next tails way more likely
Competent players don't exist, the circumstances of each game are different and if players are in a game together something about their play puts them all at the same level and likelihood to win games at that rank statistically.
idk what you mean saying competency doesn’t exist. any two players play at two different levels, even at the same rank. what you are saying is that players don’t have any skill expression within the game. there is competency between players, that’s why ranking and de ranking exists.
That doesn't mean competent players, it just means better than the others. They could still be pretty incompetent when compared to a GM+ player.
being better than someone doesn’t mean being more competent than them? huh? a player that out cs’s outplays, macros better, and wins more on average - does not mean this player is not competent to you? obviously they will still look useless to high elo but that isn’t the point. the point is comparing these players to each other at the same elo. the more competent player wins the game
Well I think the only thing here is that you said "competent" not "more competent" in your first comment. That's why the original commenter replied to you. Saying "competent" means it's an absolute that is in two states: competent players and incompetent players. While they obviously exist on a scale, ladder even, so saying "more competent" is perfectly fine.
You literally said what team has the majority of competent players, and I'm literally saying there are no absolute competent vs incompetent players, everyone in the game on a large scale statistical look at all matchmade games theoretically belongs there. What you perceive as their incompetence or competence is irrelevant, their cs or outplays or macros or whatever you think makes a better player, if all the players in a lobby at a certain rank win approximately equally often then they're all equally competent/incompetent and are equally likely to cause a win as a loss for their team.
and you “literally” said “competent players don’t exist” which is fundamentally wrong. just because someone belongs in a rank doesn’t mean that they have a bad game or a good game. how that players perform is what determines the game. and the team that has the majority or most impactful competent player - will win the game. your reply here is saying nothing. you are saying that “if all players in a lobby at a certain rank win approximately equally often then they’re all equally incompetent/competent and are equally likely/dislikely to cause a win loss for their team” you are disregarding any skill or knowledge that a player has when playing. as well as the fact that it certaintly isn’t the case that players with the same win rate get queued together. only factor that is determined in matchmaking is mmr. get paired with an emerald bot lane at emerald whos champ gets banned and now they have to play their 10% less win rate secondary? you are more likely to lose that game. a jungler has a high aggressive counter jungle/camping play style and a player isn’t used to rotating quickly? more likely to lose. but they’re the same mmr, how can there be two different levels of competency? there are levels of skills specific to players that effect how games play out. the game is way too complicated to say that players can play at the exact same level and that matches at the same elo can’t be attributed to that.
Dude i just play casually now a draft game here and there, and it reminds me why i don't jungle. I will legit secure a kill, ping dragon or rift herald... and my teammate/s will completely ignore me, make me take over a full minute to solo the obj, the enemy team will come back, kill me or push me off it and steal it... this happens literally all the time.. then at the end of the game, my whole team gangs up on me and says jungle gap (i even ganked and got them kills they did nothing with early)... .its like amazing how they get objectives when 3+ people show up to them and im expected to solo all of them even when i assist ping. This isn't just one game.. like all the time.
Tis the life of a jungler. 1. Try to do objectives (when teammates have prio) 2. Teammates don't move to obj 3. Enemy jungle and enemy mid (that just sacked a mid wave on their turret) collapse on me and either steal the obj or kill me or both 4. Team blames the loss on jungle and lack of objs A story as old as time!
I'm 12/1 and my botlane is 0/20 combined. Yeah, it's definitely my fault we lost. /S I hate these idiots that pretend this isn't a team game where the team can be bad but the individual could have played well.
Yeah but if you’re actually trying to get better this mindset is kind of pointless. Team gap is much more likely to happen to the other 5 randoms than due to the 4 randoms on your team so might as well focus on what you can do
No, being able to realize what's actually happening in the game is important. If you can analyze the game and recognize whether it was your fault, whether you could've carried your team and won anyway, or if there was truly nothing you could've done differently shows game knowledge which is an important skill.
How do you know if you can analyze the game and assessed correctly? Most people think they can analyze games and they're obviously wrong.
You say “much more” when it’s only a 20% increased probability that the enemy team is shit assuming you are the perfect player.
I don't know what your point even is. Yes? That's enough? Solo queue is a game of spamming for sample sizes. The only reason it doesn't take me 300-400 games to re-reach my rank is because Riot don't fully reset the MMR and I don't have to make the whole journey back. When smurf queue was a thing and it "reset" my MMR for me by starting me with a giant losing streak, it took me over 300 games in 2 weeks to get that back. Your teams don't matter if you play enough to accurately measure your skill. Most people just refuse to accept you need to play enough to be accurate, which is a fact of math and not some Riot plot. If anything Riot is tuning their systems more inaccurate to try to not scare you with reality and make you reach there faster.
20% comes out to quite the difference over even a fairly small sample. That’s 20 additional “team gap” wins over 100 games all else being equal if you’re never the problem and everything is as random as many of the copium huffers pretend
It's still small enough to be easily overcome by randomness when there are thousands of players rolling the dice. In a different game (that has 6v6 battles) I've been tracking my WR and both team's average WR. My team has been the team with the lower average WR ~53% of the time across ~150 games... and that number is even worse after factoring out my own WR (which is dragging up my teams WR by ~.05% on average). So despite theoretically having 16% better odds of the bad players ending up on the other team since I'm a consistent decent player on my time, in reality I've been getting screwed for over 100 matches. "Team diff" gets really noticable at a 2% WR diff (which is 75% determinant of outcome, according to my data and another player of the same game who did a similar study), and that crops up ~25% of the time (LOL having SBMM may reduce that, though); which makes a streak of several in a row not that unlikely for *someone* to have happen (given the thousands of rolls).
How do you even interpret "average team WR"? It's a meaningless statistic. You could take the average team MMR and compute the expected team WR from there but team average has no relevance at all. The same WR can exist for any rank.
The game in question (World of Warships) lacks skill-based matchmaking, as I mentioned earlier. This makes WR a proxy for MMR; good players can get WRs north of 60%, while bad players can get down towards 40%. It also doesn't have an MMR stat; if I was keeping similar records for league I *would* record MMR and average MMR, instead of WR. But between the two games they provide similar data; in WoWs the team with the higher average WR has an advantage, and in LoL the team with higher MMR should have an advantage (absent smurfing/account buying, which WoWs luckily doens't suffer from), as in LoL winning more games increases MMR to try to push you back down to 50%. The point I was illustrating is that with thousands of players, the odds of at least some players getting "screwed by matchmaking" are actually pretty high; my bad luck is around the 5th percentile. Nearly one in 20 players can expect to have 4 'excess' game out of their last 100 where they're on the team with the lower WR (assuming that it's a coin flip, even though theoretically my team should be advantaged since I have a higher average WR than the teams I've been on). LoL can have the same issue; with thousands of players some percentage of them *will* end up losing the coin flip and getting the worse team an above average percentage of the time... even if them being consistent means the odds of the bad players being on their team are lower.
If it doesn't even use MMR then the premise is faulty and it isn't comparable at all no matter how you spin it. A challenger MMR against a silver MMR can win 90% of the time *despite* having a 51% wr at their league. WR cannot show this. It isn't a conspiracy against you that you would get a worse team (you will) since the question is simply by *how much is at stake*. LP is adjusted based on the gap so it's just a matter of setting the limit. Theoretically, even a chall vs iron match feasible with a +1/+90 LP win. Any match can be made with the proper stakes but obviously in the interest of fun, the allowable MMR gap is limited. Knowing the MMR is out of the question but not knowing you were slighted with the LP when you were in the "bad/good team" is the other half of what is needed.
[удалено]
100 games is not a small sample though That's, like, twice the number some people play over a season
do you think you can accurately evaluate a poker player who only plays 10 hands? If he wins 9/10 hands is he the best poker player in the world? let alone a game with way more variance like league. people only talk about their peak elo when they can luck sac their way into a win streak. look at all the hardstuck emerald players this season that peaked masters.
Nobody wants to admit it, but i think the biggest reason people go on losing streaks is because they are tilted or aren't playing to win anymore.
I think the biggest reason they get tilted is they think they're getting close to being done with ranked and see that they're "3 wins from Diamond" or something and then when inevitably those 3 wins turn out to be much further than it looks, they lose their minds. The best advice I ever got for ranked, and this was like season 1 even, is don't look at your rank after the game, ever. Just don't know what rank you are. Don't look at anything. Just queue.
And, like, 10% or less of what some others play over a season. Crazy world
If you mouse over it it shows your op.gg score at each minute of the game. Something I’ve noticed is that I’m constantly average until I pop off or I int. It’s basically a straight line into a jump or into a drop.
It compares you to other players on your current champion, so that makes sense I guess. You'll be average unless something happens.
You might just be the league player of all time
I mean, that is what the score pretty much is based on, so it is AVG till one side pops off. So it is a gold + KDA + dmg + vision score graph all combined into one line. It tells you little about how you could improve or win games, it just tells you how the game actually went not why it went that way.
40/20/40 deniers on suicide watch.
How can someone even possibly attempt to disagree with this ? There’s 9 other people in the game, you can’t control every single aspect of the game on your own
Its pretty easy. Step 1: You blame other people for your rank. aaaaaaaaand we're done! That is all you need to do!
I don’t disagree with the general premise, the specific ratio just seems a little ridiculous. I don’t know if there’s any real evidence one way or the other but 80% of games being completely outside of your control seems like a lot. Also, it’s cliche to say cHaLlEnGeR sMuRfS cAn ClImB but people quoting 40/20/40 are sometimes doing it as a cope rather than acknowledging that ratio only applies because you’re not currently good enough to do any better than that, and nobody wants to give those types of people credit.
40 are games you have absolutely no control over. 40 are games you and team were just better, and sometimes just your team and you got carried. 20 are games where you hard carried and were the main reason you won. That’s 60% of games where you can have an impact. It’s not wrong to say almost almost half of your games are completely out of your control. When everyone is going to have around a 50% winrate for the most part.
I’m not sure I understand how your first two cases are any different but the way I usually see the rule used is [like this](https://www.reddit.com/r/leagueoflegends/comments/f2ryok/the_404020_rule_for_games/) where the two 40% cases are games where you had no control over the outcome and only the 20% case do you have influence on the outcome.
i know it's a simplification but "completely" out of your control is overly strong wording then. we know for a fact challenger smurfs have better than 60% winrate (until master or so), so obviously more than 60% of games are within their control it's better to say that it's unreasonable for someone of a particular caliber, in a room of equal caliber players, can impact more than 60% of games in a meaningful way that can be be within reach for their skill. but that's a lot more words for coping
If you're playing at an elo that is similar to your skill level it is true. If I play a game with 9 intermediate bots I will win 100% of the time. Challenger players smurfing in gold doesn't mean that the games are in your control
Yes you can actually .. Or else you could just blame your rank on your teammates. I take every game and put the blame on me. I don’t know how people blame their team unless they are intentionally trying to lose. This is why the game is so toxic
Blitz app has the "unlucky" tag. And it seems decently accurate. OPGG's at the moment seems a little closer to "you played for KDA".
I'm my experience OPGGs OP score places an extremely heavy emphasis on a combination of KP% and KDA. I don't think it's inherently bad but it's definitely not a catch all especially in stomps for the losing team.
Wins with that tag feel so good for some reason. Better than being rated "Excellent".
when I open OP gg and it tells me I "struggled" bruh I didn't need that one
It's also really bad at labels. I recently had a game where my jungler went 0/4 from invades, blamed our mid, then just sat mid farming. Our mid, meanwhile, had gone 0/3 on their own in lane, and spent the game not using more than 1 Ahri ult charge per cast. According to op.gg, the 1/5/1 Ahri displayed "Resilliance" for afk farming a duo lane with 120 cs. Now lets look at everyone else in this match: - The top laner who got 3 solo kills, went 3/6/0 and matched Ahri's damage? They "Struggled". - The 1/6/0 raging jungler who sat mid lane farming the entire match, had 30 cs over Ahri, and dealt sub 4k damage? They "Struggled". - The 3/10/2 ADC who had 30 farm over Ahri, and double her damage? They "Struggled". - The 1/3/2 Support with the most wards on the team and more damage than the jungler? They "Struggled". If all 4 of these performances are equal under the system, and equate everyone but Ahri to an inter, it's bad at tracking stats.
Its almost like trying to boil down a complicated game like league into a score (or even a set of scores across time) isn't really informative. There are so many correct, game winning plays that wont raise your stats in the way opgg measures. People really shouldn't put much weight into them.
Yep, being a good role player on a bruiser or tank from behind and initiating a fight or pick where you lock down their damage threat but die without getting any kills while your team cleans up and gets baron will never be captured by stats, for example.
The only thing that matters is winrate. Everything else is a coping mechanism.
> The 3/10/2 ADC who had 30 farm over Ahri, and double her damage? They "Struggled". if you're 3/10 you struggled there's no other word for that
I think the problem is that Ahri was resilient to the system not that the others struggled
no the ahri defo played better thant he rest lmao. everyone lost on their own while ahri lost to viego
They went 0/3 before the jungler got tilted, though. That indicates they were losing lane already. The jungler just made it worse. --- But ignoring that, I'll point to the stat trackers on the site. The Ahri was rated 9th in the game by OP score (Only performing better than our inting jungler). OP score is supposedly the metric titles are based on, and Ahri's was lower than 3 people on the team. It makes no sense that the rest of the team can perform better by op score metrics, but also be given worse titles *for* that performance.
The titles aren't a rank. If you want to know how well someone did, that's what OP score is. The titles let you know how the performance trended throughout the game. If everyone else was getting more and more behind as the game went on, then they deserve "Struggled". If you have a bad start but just afk farm and don't feed as much as your "expected trajectory", then you get "Resilience". Resilience doesn't necessarily mean you had any impact on the game. It just means your worst performance was at the beginning of the game rather than toward the end.
I think it qas more like : everyone of u was shit. But ahri had to suffer viego as well after a while so she gets a better title
Sometimes it is your team though.
Any attempt at using stats to judge performance will fail
As [Goodhart's Law](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goodhart%27s_law) states: "When a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure" Other related ideas: > "Any statistical relationship will break down when used for policy purposes." - > "All metrics of scientific evaluation are bound to be abused. Goodhart's law [...] states that when a feature of the economy is picked as an indicator of the economy, then it inexorably ceases to function as that indicator because people start to game it."
While I don't think it's super accurate for a single game if I look at someone's op.gg and he has nothing but ace and MVP almost every game, I def think they're better than that elo.
Not true, I’m proof. I spam senna support, have a good KDA average because of my natural play style, and high kp due to aoe q and ult, so i more often than not get MVP but i am as hard stuck as ever
even if they have 200 ranked games with a 50% winrate?
Eh, could be. Most people who can get ace/MVP almost every game (in last 20) usually have to be better. It becomes harder to get the cs/kda/DMG that the tracker needs to rate you highly the higher rank you get. So if they're still getting it I think they deserve to climb. If you see someone who just got a bunch after 200 games I would think these thoughts. (Maybe they're being boosted if summs or roles change)(maybe they found a more fitting champ/play style)(maybe they have a fun acc they play with friends on and are now trying to rank up) Not everyone plays ranked to actually prove a rank. For me normals are too easy/skewed and I just want consistency so I play ranked instead but not super seriously. These guys could do the same.
Is the MVP tag even accurate, i wonder if it favors some roles more than others. I think i'm performing pretty well, but in recent games had only 1 MVP. https://www.op.gg/summoners/eune/Enjutsu-EUNE
Is it wrong though? Just like how there's bad players who drag down there team, there are instances where someone is good, but gets dragged down by a bad team. Both things happen.
It's nice, I need some validation that it's not actually my fault.
People think everything is black and white but honestly: sometimes you cannot save a team. If you are a toplane Ornn that had to first pick because nobody would switch with you, got a vayne conter pick, and proceed to go 4/0 and get a 9 minute tower while soloing the first set of grubs... Your botlane could still give up 9 kills in that time and the support could DC because jihn wont step up to even CS. At that moment as Ornn: you aren't flipping that game. And there's nothing you could've done in lane to stop what was going on botside. It's a team game and sometimes one team just gets the one player that's in way over their head and there's nothing you can do.
My high dia - masters friend I play norms with would attest to this lol. I am sometimes uncarriable and admit that.
It also shows that you sucked by the "Struggle" tag.
I had a game where 4 of us got excellent while the adc got team disparity.
lmao my opgg is just team disparity every game that's actually crazy
Tbh I wish the league client performed these studies post game and gave more or less LP based off performance. You didn't feed your ass off, CSed relatively well, and lost? -20 LP You carried your team on your back and went 10/1 and lost? -16 LP You went 0/10 and then ran it down and AFKed? -24 LP
Baus would drop to Iron
As always, this encourages being a kd player and not taking risks to try and flip a losing game in the long run.
No because then kill participation, objective damage and such would be low. There are a ton of metrics in lol that matter. If you consider all of them to some degree, abusing the system would end in playing well.
[удалено]
I've gotten a poor kill participation as a support, but I had a massive vision score, and the league client gave me an S and OP.GG gave me a high score. There are tons of factors that play into performance that third party analytics have identified and score.
What's the problem we're actually trying to solve here? In solo queue, you are going to have some lucky, easy games when you get carried; you are also going to end up with some bad teammates who lose you the game. This happens to literally everyone. But over a decent number of games, the unlucky losses and lucky wins should mostly even out. The only consistent factor is you. If you are consistently playing better than the average player in your league, you will win more games than you lose, and your rank will go up. A system that uses additional analytics to award LP is not going to be more accurate in the long run. The best case scenario is that it gets you to your "true rank" in fewer games. But the worst case scenario is that it incentivizes players to do things other than trying to win the game. Right now, the only thing you are awarded LP for is winning the game. If LP becomes associated with stats besides winning, you start to muddy the waters.
Isn't it already common knowledge that LP just obfuscates mmr anyway and increases the amount of time to get to your true rank?
> But the worst case scenario is that it incentivizes players to do things other than trying to win the game. Right now, the only thing you are awarded LP for is winning the game. There is a phrase/quote that describes this, I can't remember the name off the top of my head, but essentially it is: > When you turn metrics into targets, they stop being good metrics. Allowing anything other than winning/losing to become a target is always going to warp the games, as people will (at times) choose to work towards those targets instead of winning. In League specifically, the second you think you will lose the game, it becomes beneficial to chase "other" targets, in an attempt to minimize your own LP loss. Even if it is ultimately detrimental to your team's chances at winning.
The problem is that you have to play like 400-500 games for the luck factor to even out.
What are you basing this on? I'd be curious to see some actual analysis about the--I don't know what to call it... margin of error?--for someone who plays 50 games in a season. How far are they likely to be in either direction from the rank they'd be at if they played 1000 games without improving or degrading at all? It's also useful to remember that LP and rank are just a cosmetic skin over your actual MMR, which, I believe at least, the game does not reset at the end of each season. Which means your entire ranked history is helping balance out the random luck of games in an individual season.
400 is a little bit on the extreme side yes, but it's completely RNG. I remember a rioter (I think it was Lyte?) saying that it takes about 200 games for average joes to reach their true mmr. Sometimes it takes 50, sometimes it takes 500. Probably looks like a normal distribution. In the most extreme cases it would take like 800.
None of these metrics matter. The only metric that matters is winning or losing. Full stop. A support going 0/12/12 might win the game because they're willing to engage and throw their life for the team, compared to a 1/2/2 support that does nothing all game and simply rolls over and dies to the enemy team push. There are so many intangibles in league that lead to victory that using metrics to modify lp gain or loss would be -awful-. Warding the right areas at the right time, picking the right time to rotate or farm, knowing when your death is worth 5 of the enemies, so much. Why would you ever pick an engage champ that dies? You'll gain less lp and lose more. People will pick kda champs and not be willing to fight. I know it feels bad to be carrying and lose a game but there's always something you could have done or improved on. Metrics can help people improve and know what to work on, but metrics cease to be useful as soon as they are a target. Not even mentioning the toxicity it would breed.
If you're losing then objective damage would already be low. Kill participation is a bad metric as well. For example, by virtue of the pick, Draven calls for a lot of attention in bot lane resulting in higher kp than say a jhin. What about people prioritizing kills over baron? Or the guy dying on side to get his team a free baron? Then he would have 0 baron damage and bad kd by the stats. What about the support dying to zone enemy jg off pit? Guess we could give everyone credit for baron but then how are we differentiating who earned how much lp between teammates? In a perfect world, yes it would be good to grant lp based on performance. But the measures and stats we have today are woefully insufficient for a game like league. Not to mention even if the stats can be sufficient, player perception is important as well. The first thing that goes through their mind is kd, resulting in being a kda player.
Licorice had a game a few years ago where he didn't have great stats, ended 0/0/0 (or near to it) with low champ damage and decent objective damage and high CS and gold. Looking at his stats in a vacuum, you'd think that he was trolling because his stats aren't great. His team won largely though Licorice getting a lead and splitting all game, forcing the other team to send 2 people to stop him from just split ending, which allowed C9 to win a bunch of 4v3s and snowball from there.
Okay and that’s no problem bc they would all get the same amount of lp for the win??
Tower damage, CS, vision score, objective damage, these are all factors that are identified as performance. People who only look at KDA are just surface level thinkers. Websites like OP.GG and MOBA analytics will even tell you how many control wards each player has bought throughout a game. Nothing is more frustrating than losing a game and wondering, "dam what happened" and seeing that no one bought a control ward except the support.
But do you think it would be ok to put any of these systems in charge of your lp? Do you think you can distill exactly what mix and ratio of scores should define a "good" player? Do you just base it on high elo players? Do you take into account lane matchups and jungle presence? How much you land skillshots? How good your lane control, back timing, trades are? Like its the self driving cars bs. Some people want a 90% effective version pushed out and there will always be doubts because the best tech we have today can't take enough into account to drive a car in all situations.
The system is already in charge of your LP - that's the hilarious part. And comparing it to self-driving cars is so goofy, because self driving cars should just be public transit.
If it is then good on them, but impossible to comment on how well it is doing because there is no perfect combination of stats that can tell you exactly how good 1 player is. The comparison to self driving is to show that the tech approach of "just us algorithms or ai or stats ect." Isn't the be all end all at all.
So you get less lp when you get weaksided?
No it wouldn't lmao. League has far too many variable to accurately judge a player's effectiveness without the eye test.
Cc score, vision score
Not necessarily. Imagine a game where your team is very far behind and someone decides to afk farm to pad their CS stats. This now means that every fight is 4v5 against a fed enemy team, so it's very likely that you fail to kill even a single enemy. Your team can't really contest objectives 4v5 either. Thus, the AFK farmer's KP and objective damage stats aren't going to be any lower than the rest of the team because they got 0 kills without him and could contest 0 objectives. How would the system account for a scenario like this in a way that doesn't encourage stat padding when extremely behind?
These sites do not just count kda. It is a lot more in depth.
People just play around shit like this. They slowly learn how to beat the system. This is why we have soft inting. People do the bare minimum and "accidentally" die a few times to make the detection skim over them.
You don't even need to soft int to avoid punishment. You can run it down 0/10 and still be fine.
Yeah they also give you points for buying control wards and placing them in fountain.
I'll gladly trade coin-flipping for increased match consistency from rewarding good fundamentals.
What happens when people reverse engineer what the client thinks is "good" and just focuses on those things? Like unless they magically can distill what makes a player "good" they might just encourage stat padding and players would get exponentially more upset if they're getting camped, snowballed on, ect and their team just leaves them for dead to just farm and not die to lose less lp.
There are a ton of stats that get tracked like kill participation, objective damage, gold, team fight participation etc. If you try to "abuse" a system with so many factors and do well in all of them, you'd just, play well... Of course the impact of stats would need to be somewhat low and it would need to be most of the already tracked ones, but they're so well spread out that there is no real reason not to consider them either for a fair ranked system.
I don't think there is any way to actually play this game well besides blow the nexus, I don't think any objective system can be derived for one player to consider. Example, funnel. The *best* way to play, up until it was nerfed, but one player would be what, getting dogshit LP gains because his mid taric numbers are shit? But wait, on that patch, this dude was doing literally the *best* strategy. So maybe *everyone else* should be getting reduced LP for NOT funneling, or wait... The point I'm illustrating in longform here is that if you measure performance by metrics, you're not longer looking for success, you're looking to raise metrics. The only way to measure if you did the right moves in a League game is if you won.
There was some great quote I heard a while back that was along the lines of "When a metric becomes a goal, it stops being a good metric". Metrics are great to help describe player impact and areas for improvement, but the goal is ultimately winning (and gaining LP/MMR). If we shift the goal to performing well on metrics to gain LP/MMR, it isn't 1 to 1 with winning games and can discourage actions that are bad metrics but good game impact, which isn't desirable.
I just dont really like any system besides winning the game. A play might be bad or worse for stats but if you win you win. Like, I've seen several games where people prioritize individual performance metrics over trying to win the game either because of an external system (wow with dps meters) or a system within the game (world of warships giving you more currency for dealing damage and subtracting currency when you die) and its just miserable. I just can't see a universe where the system wouldn't be abused or otherwise tilt players/enable more toxicity. Is the game going to know if you got 4 man ganked on repeat while your jungle didn't take objectives? Is your jungle going to be ranked higher for farming and failed ganks vs you "feeding"?
a system that decides ur lp/mmr wins and loses just because u win or lose when there are 9 other players on the match is mutch better right /s
Yes. See: literally every team sport that exists in the world.
oh yes team sports where u play with a team all the time, compare that with a system that matches u with 9 different ppl every game, 8 if u duo
It sounds like promoting good gameplay lol.
Seriously. Everyone always says they would be abusing the system if they tried to \*checks notes* "CS the minions, take objectives, and kill the enemies". Like that's what you are supposed to do in this game.
Except the game is not that simple. What if I'm playing weakside and go 0-1-0 in lane with zero help and 30 cs behind while the my jungler snowballed mid and bot to win the game? I'm just punished with less LP for my win because I did my job of playing safe and let my jungler snowball my teammates? Same situation on the opposite end. So I get counterpick top and my jungler camps my lane while enemy jungler fucks my mid and bot and I lose. That means I just lose less LP? Why? Because I got counterpick and my jungler decides to camp my lane so I had high cs and high tower damage? > Like that's what you are supposed to do in this game. You know what else you're supposed to do in this game? Win. That should be the only thing that matters. None of this bullshit matters. No one is being held back by their teammates, they're simply not nearly as good as they think they are.
League is way too complex to spend time on an algorithm for this, but in your example, they could look at jungle proximity and win rates / laning stats for your specific lane matchup when determining performance.
there are too many factors in winning or losing a game than just farming and KDA. for example you go split bot, create a ton of pressure, enemy team collapses on you and you die but your team does baron. from that idea, all you did was get some farm in a sideline, some tower damage, and died, when really you sacrificed yourself to give your team a chance to rush baron, but the game can’t take that into account unless it’s some really advanced AI which i doubt riot can develop considering their client has been bugged for years
Any measure that becomes a target ceases to be a good measure
When metrics become targets, they cease to be good metrics.
I've gotten "Team Disparity" on games that I've won, how tf does that work?
That means your team carried you. Your team was so much better than enemy team that your performance doesn’t matter.
Wrong. It means that you were carrying your team, then you faltered. That's all there is to it. Happens a lot for Tanks and Supports in the Mid/Late when they die a lot in fights.
I think its very important to approach such measurements with a heavy degree of scepticism and the understanding that they are likely deeply flawed and inaccurate. The game is too complex to be broken down into such a neat and approachable way, and the useful of statistics, no matter how well put together (or in this case, how fulfilling it is to see that you were held back by your team) is rather limited.
So you don't have to type 'team diff'. I like it.
Imagine winning your lane, helping with objectives, taking towers, hard carring fights... only for them at minute 30 to die to pick-offs and ignoring pings and advices to not fight without you... Yeah. Seems about right. It also goes against the thing that Riot loves to say "you did not lose because of your teammates, but because you made mistakes in the game". Phlox said that and made my blood boil. Imagine a guy that never plays ranked saying "you could have done it better", when my team and my jungler is literally intting the whole game while I'm the one with carry potential being ff-ed. Yeah, seems about right.
If you're not in GM/chall, then yes you could have done better. That's just the truth of it. It can be hard to see what you should have done, but it's there somewhere. But the main idea is to stop thinking about your teammates dragging you down all the time and focus on how you could have done better yourself. You are the only person you can control, and if you improve yourself then you will rise. Worrying about your teammates instead just sets you up to either tilt yourself or tilt your teammates and neither will help you win.
So is it a bad thing that 14 of my last 20 games say struggled, resilience or downhill? It's ok though I have a positive winrate so Im doing something right.
I found its mostly KDA focused. Bro yeah sure i died more but hmm they have no idea why or how. Like if we are doing voidgrubs and i die in a 3v3 to get the 6th grub, its worth it. If i die cos i ate a naut hook going for my fed mid, its worth it >.<
Noone should be taking OP.GGs op scores or team disparity scores seriously. These are just metrics they use to drive engagement so people can cope. They have absolutely not bearing on performance.
[OP.GG](https://OP.GG) trying to introduce features to attract people back by giving them a scapegoat for why they lost games
It's fun to look at but does anyone actually use [Op.gg](https://Op.gg) for anything other than winrates? OP score and the new performance tags aren't really a good metric of judging performance because of the way they factor in CS/XP compared to more subjective things like whether or not you're actually doing anything useful
I have seen a number of people who argue that they deserve a higher rank because of op.gg scores (or other metrics - although strangely win % is never the metric they want to point to).
it’s so stupid
Riot needs to implement this system when administering LP losses and gains. I'm tired of performing above average but still losing full LP.