Just because we are working on matchmaking does not mean we are not working on other things!

I agree, player behavior is one of our most important problems. But, I am doing research on several things right now related to player behavior, and wanted to at least update the community about the matchmaking projects first.

not in the same subject (at least its close to it..)... but you should make so everytime you win a match and are in a streak you K value raise a little topping at 40... and the same for loses streaks... winning during a losing streak or a losing in a winning streak resets the k value (or something like that....maybe cut the bonus in half for the first diferent result and reset for the 2nd diferent result in a row).

ex....
win/lose first game - k value = 15
win/lose 2nd game in a row - k value = 20
win/lose 3rd game - k value in a row = 25
win/lose 30129830129 game - k value in a row = 40

that should help reducing the number of streaks and will help people get to their true elo faster

if you are winning lots of matches in a row...you will climb the ladder faster and ll face harder oponnents faster meaning that you ll eventually lose a game without going 15 games noobstomping....same for the losses....you wont gonna have to lose 20 matches in a row to face an oponnent of ur lvl (and if you manage to not quit)....

the example is a little extreme and the numbers needs to be tweaked and some other things must be taken in consideration (like...how it would work for the top and botton of the ladder) but i think it would be a really good thing that ll help removing streaks and ll make a more dynamic ladder where you ll change ur position without having to play 100 games

grammar ftw

Make people have to stake something to play. Incentivize the win, disincentivize the loss. Give people some currency they can use for either rewards and rating. So, spend your capital to get X, or stake it for ranked games. Have it be something different than skins or runes or something. The higher your Elo gets, the more things you can unlock, and use this currency to affect it. No idea what that could be (Accelerators. Icons. Badges. I dunno.)

This, sort of. I like the idea, although it almost scares me. Yes, I get mad when I think about the bad people tanking my elo because they want to troll/afk/feed/rage/whatever, BUT, I also know that even being a very low elo player, I am much more dedicated player. I play several games every day. If you earned some type of currency by playing games, and actually had to put it on the line when you play ranked, I think it would make alot more people take it seriously. And for the people that dont take it seriously, well, sooner or later they will run out of their currency.

We do have a currency in LoL, IP, and we also have elo. Unfortunately, when people screw over tanked game after ranked game, it doesn't really effect their ability to play ranked more, and continue what they do. Also, this could help keep 'fresh' level 30s out of ranked. Maybe start gaining this currency at lvl30 in normal draft modes. There, teach people how ranked is supposed to be handled. Once you accrue enough of these points, you can que for ranked. If you lose your first 10 games and lose all of your currency, sorry, back to normal draft. Gain some more and try again. Perhaps this would at least create a lag in the trolls. Like, if you have to play 50 normal draft games and win half of them to be able to que for ranked, and then go on to lose 15 games, you no longer have enough currency to continue in ranked. You have to atleast maintain a CLOSE to even w/l ratio to continue playing ranked.

tl;dr If you make a system where X normal draft games get you enough 'currency' to play .5X ranked games(if you lose every one), it would force people you have a consistent losing trend to stay in draft mode and practice more. This would keep consistently losing players(often times trolls, afks, seriously bads) out of ranked until they are better or take it more seriously.

edit: Another thought, don't think this would replace the current ELO system. There are many ranking systems that have more than one counter. SC2 ranks are often listed as "Masters League, 1200pts" where the points are where you are placed on your individual ladder(division) of 100 other players. So LoL could express it as "1800 elo with 680 currency" or something of the like.

Whenever you get the chance....

http://na.leagueoflegends.com/board/....php?t=1982126

A perfect example of flawed matchmaking. It's all there, you don't have to give me a definitive answer about what happened right now, but I'd at least appreciate a response saying you've seen it.

I have 80% chance to meet seeding player..

WTF THIS ****** MATCHING SYSTEM

FKING ELO HELL

This is an interesting point. I can see both sides of the issue: Grouping placement match players makes the result of those games more random, making placement hard. However, placement match players mess up the matchmaking for any game they're in, so you're sacrificing some game quality for the established players who get partnered with them otherwise.

Restricting games to one placement player per game would eliminate some of the placement noise, but this noise instead gets transferred to all the non-placement players in the game. Now, these players have a lower k-factor, so this might be a good idea to minimize noise in general. Honestly, I'm finding it hard to come up with a strong argument against this.

Personally, though, I like the idea of grouping the placement match players, as there's going to be huge randomness in any game w/ a placement player, so you might as well get it out of the way. Sure, it'll suck if you get stuck into an incorrect ELO range, but if placement players are kept out from your non-placement matches, there should be less noise to deal with as you carry yourself out. Now, the counterargument is that players will still trickle down into the wrong ELO ranges, making this also noisy (for instance, if you fall to 900 after placement, but are actually a 1300 player). I can't dispute this, but I think the noise of placement is a necessary evil - you won't be able to escape it completely no matter what you do.

tl;dr: I honestly think your idea (1 placement player per match) is the most logically sound. However, the idea of getting placement players out of the way early (placement matches have only placement players) is comforting to me, as I can "do my time" in placement to achieve lower noise after.

You are a 2000+ Elo player, so the matchmaker is trying to find you opponents that actually are challenging. The problem is, you are on a smurf, and there are no players below Level 30 that actually are 2000+ Elo.

Even though you lost that game, you were easily competitive with them because of your skill. We are adjusting level parameters a bit so that you are less likely to face Level 30s when you are < Level 30, but for you in particular, there will probably never be opponents < Level 30 who can match with a 2000+ Elo player.

The matchmaker isn't broken in this case, the top players in the game are simply always going to have some issues like this.

OMFG GET Rid of the d4mn AFKers !!!!!!!!!!!!!

for someone who has normaly 1400 elo on normal games and because of bad matchmaking is now stuck on 900 elo ranked, i vote on "Provisional Matches in Ranked"