I've played faithfully for years, bought boosts and skins, supported this game as I could. That means something in this day and age when salaries are hard fought and securing a position in your company means something. That said can someone at riot please explain to me how someone makes it to lvl 30 with 3 wins much less a set of players who both have 3 wins at lvl 30 are still playing ranked as a duo q team?
This is your brand... don't you have any real invested interest in protecting that brand? A freshman at any school worth talking about could write an algorithm to find such obvious behavior. The question to be answered is how much have they spent to make you look the other way. I will link the game history for anyone who doubts the validity of this claim.

http://www.lolking.net/summoner/na/28443093#history

Look for the two players who play together

If it took me 3 minutes to do this research why is it that people paid to protect the name of your produsct havn't seen that between them they have 3 ranked wins and 20 losses this ratio isn't explainable by a lack of skill if one looks at their normal game w/l ratios

So not only do you think having bad players in an online, free game is somehow not protecting their brand or whatever, you can't realize that some people... Are bad. Going 3-20 isn't that hard to believe if the player is bad. Also, the first player looked just fine. Maybe the second player was trolling, but he could just be bad.

Also, I suggest you remove their names since calling players out on the forums isn't allowed.

ok so no name s but playing as a team 3/20 is a clear pattern of behavior when you feed 15 + deaths consistently what argument do you offer against that?

and not to put too fine a point on it how do two players as a duo with a 7:1 loss to win ratio end up on the same team with a player with a 3:2 l to win ratio?

And for most companies this type of abuse does fall under the flag of brand protection

You want to know the argument? It's called being bad. If I took you and put you at 2k Elo right now, you'd probably go something like 10-200 as you fell back down to wherever you belong. Perhaps those 3 wins were the first 3 they got, and then they lost a lot in a row and slowly fell down to wherever they are now.

And on top of that, Elo is the only thing that matchmaking takes into account. It doesn't take into account your wins or losses at all. I can be 500-0, and if I'm 1k Elo, I'll be paired with other 1k Elo players, even if they're 0-500.

Also, you're telling me that if I go play, say, DotA (a game which I am rather bad at) and get placed with players significantly better than myself, and therefore feed - Valve is going to ban me for being bad at their game?

I doubt that, I sincerely doubt that.

your arguments are all ignorant and inflammatory

gj troll

How so? Please, instead of saying "oh you're a troll" tell me how I'm trolling, and how my arguments are ignorant and inflammatory.

The Elo system works just fine for hundreds of thousand of players. The tribunal is fairly effective at weeding out the trolls and ragers from the community. Sure, there are still dicks, but most of the time a player is just bad. Remember, never attribute to malice that which can be easily attributed to stupidity.

Just because I don't agree with you and have presented different facts about how the matchmaking system works and how some people are bad at a computer game doesn't mean I'm a troll.

There are no I repeat no statistics to support the ludicrous numbers you posted. people at the same "Elo" ( I placed it in quotes for 2 reasons: first it's a person's name, second his work is loosely interpreted in the system at work here) people with win loss ratios more dis-congruent than 10-15% should never be considered in a matchmaking system that is remotely based in mathematics,

To spell that out a win loss ratio (top player in a team) of 2:3 would dictate a minimum win loss ratio worst player on the team of 2:5. A gap of 2:3 to 1:7 is inconceivable in the world where math applies

and that is being generous where the actual ratios were 7 losses 1 win to 3 losses 2 wins, when the scale is larger as in this case 21 losses to 3 wins for the 7:1 ratio vs a player with a 20 win 30 loss ratio for a 3:2 in the world of statistics this is laughable and would be considered an outlier. Then add to the mix that two players in the match have the exact same ranked win to loss ratio and it's not even a ridiculous coincidence it's clear intent.

And to clarify with real numbers, last season I hovered around 1100 to 1200 rating this season , thanks to intentional feeding being on the rise I'm stuck lower and lower around 800

First of all, I invite you to look at my previous posts in the thread. I am fully aware, as a rather avid chess player, that the system was invented by a man named Arpad Elo and that League of Legends uses a modified version of it. I don't see how you thought posting this was of any help at all.

Second of all, I also invite you to think about how Elo works. If I have 10 players with 1k Elo, 5 of which started at 1.5k Elo and 5 of which started at 500 Elo, you're going to quickly realize that the system believes they are of the same skill level (1k Elo). Yet if you look at their win losses, it would be something like 75% compared to 25%. The matchmaking system doesn't take win/loss into account because there's no REASON to. Elo is a measure of your ability to win games - and win ratio has nothing to do with that.

Let's take my normal games win/loss, for example:

I have 1257 wins and 1115 losses. This means that I have 142 wins over losses. If we assumed that each win gave roughly 12 Elo, and I started at 1200 Elo, this would put my estimated Elo around 2900. However, if you look at my win:loss ratio, I get just under 53% win rate. Now clearly my Elo is not 2900, or I'd be a pro player right now, but the more games you play, the more your win/loss gravitates towards 50%.

There are pro players with a far lower win rate than your 66%. Dyrus, for example, had a 54% win rate over 1750 games (that's pretty good). Would you like the matchmaking system to take into account his 54% win rate, and place him with 1200 Elo players than have a 54% win rate? Or would you like it to take into account his 2.5k+ Elo, and place him with other 2.5k+ Elo players, regardless of their win rate?

And remember - there are a massive amount of players out there. Having one player be 1:7 doesn't necessarily mean that they lost 7 games and won 1 game against the exact same 5 people. You could have 5 0:8 players and 40 1:0 players, very easily. On top of that, I guarantee you there are players with 7:1 win ratios.

http://www.lolking.net/summoner/euw/23888394#profile

There's a guy with an 88% win ratio, for your viewing pleasure.

The logic... is astounding.


How is going 3/20 in one match a "clear pattern of behavior"? How does a single match count as "consistently" anything?


EDIT: And by the way... win/loss ratio never effects your seeding in chess tournaments where Elo is used (or any other rating system or modified Elo system).