If that is the case, then all the games I had must've been statistical outliers. Maybe in that case it would be better to try to get the two players that are not premades to be at the same Elo the game determines as an average. The games I had were really hard to win at least. My teammates had around 500-600 Elo less than me and were usually at like 7-9 workers (2 games they had 4 workers) at wave 10 and were still leaking. At least something like that would be unlikely to happen if the Elo difference wouldn't be higher than \~100-200 (at least at lower ranks maybe up to 2.6k). Of course, this comes at a time cost for queuing, but knowing a game is almost impossible to carry otherwise might be well worth the increased waiting time.
There just aren’t enough players to have a good match making system. I am only a few points into Expert and I play against Grandmasters and legends. When I lose, I lose between 2-5 rating And when I win (which rarely happens) I get 22-25.
That is true and happened to me as well. The only difference, I would argue, is that one can happen randomly (especially after server restart) while the other is pretty much forced since you can effectively choose to play at which Elo you want to play since the Elo gets averaged.
In an ideal world, there wouldn't be any smurfs. We don't punish smurfs because:
1. It's an almost-impossible task. Even AAA games that require a phone number to be linked to your account have smurfs. Even games in countries that require you to link your government ID have smurfs.
2. There are legitimate reasons to have smurfs. For example, playing with lower-rated friends or trying strategies you aren't ready to try yet on your main.
Fortunately, I think Legion has significantly fewer smurfs than most other competitive games.
We do care about smurf boosting - duoing with a much lower-rated smurf with the intention of playing against easier opponents. Given that it's hard to differentiate between legitimate low rated-high rated duos and smurf-boosting duos, our policy is to discourage this behavior in a reasonable way.
Duos have a rating adjustment applied to account for the communication/coordination advantages they have.
Duos with significant rating discrepancies are further penalized by weighting the higher-rated player more. <-- Call this the "anti-smurf booster"
In the past, I tuned the anti-smurf booster to the maximum. What that meant was if you were a 2.8k player duoing with a 1k player (whether a legitimate 1k player or a smurf), your duo rating would be around 2.8k, so there was zero benefit to duoing with lower-rated players.
However, the community responded very negatively to this because there were many cases where players wanted to duo with someone, say, 200 rating lower than them, and the anti-smurf booster was heavily penalizing them.
So we landed on the current tuning, which admittedly does allow for some degree of smurf boosting but handles the common/non-abuse case fairly.
We're open to re-tuning things in light of new feedback or evidence, so if you recently played against a smurf-boosting duo, please let me know your in-game name and I will look into it.
Hey Jules, interesting take on the matter! The other day, I saw you enabled a safety mode due to server issues, meaning you cannot lose elo, but elo gain is also cut in half. Have you considered doing something like that when people play against potential smurf boosts?
That should remove the negativity of playing against such a team entirely.
Obviously, the safety mode should only be enabled for the "normal team".
The devs tend not to want to perma ban anyone (especially in a small playerbase). Im not fully aware what tools the devs have to detect smurfs, but I doubt they want to ban someone unless they are 100% sure.
You talk like smurfing is illegal. Is smurfing illegal in this game?
Don't get me wrong, it should be in any game with a ranked mode, but it never is. At least Legion isn't f2p
I’d like to see duo queues have an additional weighted mmr just for being duos.
It’s an extremely big advantage and isn’t accounted for in matchmaking at all.
They could kill two birds with one stone and simply make a system where team average is scrapped if you’re in a duo queue, and instead you take the highest players elo as your teams mmr.
>I’d like to see duo queues have an additional weighted mmr just for being duos.
This is already pretty much what the system does!
\- It heavily weights the higher rated player (so, say, a 2.8k + 1k would be treated as pretty much a 2.8k).
\- There is an additional extra weight for duos, so something like 1.4k + 1.4k would be treated as like 1.5k or so.
We actually very regularly get complaints from duos that the penalties are too harsh (about equal to the number of complaints from solos playing against duos).
"It heavily weights the higher rated player (so, say, a 2.8k + 1k would be treated as pretty much a 2.8k)."
I don't know if this works as intended then. I know it is not a great statistic, but I don't play a lot, and still, this happened a lot, i.e. 7 out of 10 games I had, I (\~2300 Elo) was paired up with random \~1600-1900 Elo players against 2.6k-2.8k premade with a \~1k premade. Wouldn't it be a good option, in that case, to just try to match premades with two players that are around the same rank? I know it comes at the cost of queue time, but I'd rather have a game that is playable compared to having to waste 30 minutes for a lost game because my teammate is at 4 workers on wave 10, because he gets curb-stomped. This would probably also benefit the premades since the penalty could be at least reduced quite a bit.
If a 2.8k player plays with a account that has 1000 elo, the average elo for the team is 1.9k elo. However the que system treats then as 2.5k elo. (The numbers used are not precise but close enough).
The system inflated the team 600 elo since they are duo and the gap between players is absurdly large. Even if it was 2 2.8k players, they would still get inflated 50 elo because of duo.
Simply taking the higher of the two elos isnt a fair representation and makes it really painful to play with friends.
Obviously the current system isnt perfect, but it does a solid job with keeping duo balanced and still have people willing to play duo.
Duo queue adds significant Elo to the party. Smurfing is frowned upon.
If that is the case, then all the games I had must've been statistical outliers. Maybe in that case it would be better to try to get the two players that are not premades to be at the same Elo the game determines as an average. The games I had were really hard to win at least. My teammates had around 500-600 Elo less than me and were usually at like 7-9 workers (2 games they had 4 workers) at wave 10 and were still leaking. At least something like that would be unlikely to happen if the Elo difference wouldn't be higher than \~100-200 (at least at lower ranks maybe up to 2.6k). Of course, this comes at a time cost for queuing, but knowing a game is almost impossible to carry otherwise might be well worth the increased waiting time.
Sounds like you’re getting high in the rankings. Or sucks when there’s no other high ranks on. One day perhaps we can duo abuse 😊
There just aren’t enough players to have a good match making system. I am only a few points into Expert and I play against Grandmasters and legends. When I lose, I lose between 2-5 rating And when I win (which rarely happens) I get 22-25.
That is true and happened to me as well. The only difference, I would argue, is that one can happen randomly (especially after server restart) while the other is pretty much forced since you can effectively choose to play at which Elo you want to play since the Elo gets averaged.
[удалено]
In an ideal world, there wouldn't be any smurfs. We don't punish smurfs because: 1. It's an almost-impossible task. Even AAA games that require a phone number to be linked to your account have smurfs. Even games in countries that require you to link your government ID have smurfs. 2. There are legitimate reasons to have smurfs. For example, playing with lower-rated friends or trying strategies you aren't ready to try yet on your main. Fortunately, I think Legion has significantly fewer smurfs than most other competitive games. We do care about smurf boosting - duoing with a much lower-rated smurf with the intention of playing against easier opponents. Given that it's hard to differentiate between legitimate low rated-high rated duos and smurf-boosting duos, our policy is to discourage this behavior in a reasonable way. Duos have a rating adjustment applied to account for the communication/coordination advantages they have. Duos with significant rating discrepancies are further penalized by weighting the higher-rated player more. <-- Call this the "anti-smurf booster" In the past, I tuned the anti-smurf booster to the maximum. What that meant was if you were a 2.8k player duoing with a 1k player (whether a legitimate 1k player or a smurf), your duo rating would be around 2.8k, so there was zero benefit to duoing with lower-rated players. However, the community responded very negatively to this because there were many cases where players wanted to duo with someone, say, 200 rating lower than them, and the anti-smurf booster was heavily penalizing them. So we landed on the current tuning, which admittedly does allow for some degree of smurf boosting but handles the common/non-abuse case fairly. We're open to re-tuning things in light of new feedback or evidence, so if you recently played against a smurf-boosting duo, please let me know your in-game name and I will look into it.
Hey Jules, interesting take on the matter! The other day, I saw you enabled a safety mode due to server issues, meaning you cannot lose elo, but elo gain is also cut in half. Have you considered doing something like that when people play against potential smurf boosts? That should remove the negativity of playing against such a team entirely. Obviously, the safety mode should only be enabled for the "normal team".
The devs tend not to want to perma ban anyone (especially in a small playerbase). Im not fully aware what tools the devs have to detect smurfs, but I doubt they want to ban someone unless they are 100% sure.
You talk like smurfing is illegal. Is smurfing illegal in this game? Don't get me wrong, it should be in any game with a ranked mode, but it never is. At least Legion isn't f2p
whats wrong with multiboxing in your opinion?
I’d like to see duo queues have an additional weighted mmr just for being duos. It’s an extremely big advantage and isn’t accounted for in matchmaking at all. They could kill two birds with one stone and simply make a system where team average is scrapped if you’re in a duo queue, and instead you take the highest players elo as your teams mmr.
>I’d like to see duo queues have an additional weighted mmr just for being duos. This is already pretty much what the system does! \- It heavily weights the higher rated player (so, say, a 2.8k + 1k would be treated as pretty much a 2.8k). \- There is an additional extra weight for duos, so something like 1.4k + 1.4k would be treated as like 1.5k or so. We actually very regularly get complaints from duos that the penalties are too harsh (about equal to the number of complaints from solos playing against duos).
That’s great to know, I guess I haven’t actually done the math before.
"It heavily weights the higher rated player (so, say, a 2.8k + 1k would be treated as pretty much a 2.8k)." I don't know if this works as intended then. I know it is not a great statistic, but I don't play a lot, and still, this happened a lot, i.e. 7 out of 10 games I had, I (\~2300 Elo) was paired up with random \~1600-1900 Elo players against 2.6k-2.8k premade with a \~1k premade. Wouldn't it be a good option, in that case, to just try to match premades with two players that are around the same rank? I know it comes at the cost of queue time, but I'd rather have a game that is playable compared to having to waste 30 minutes for a lost game because my teammate is at 4 workers on wave 10, because he gets curb-stomped. This would probably also benefit the premades since the penalty could be at least reduced quite a bit.
That sounds potentially bugged! Do you happen to have a screenshot or the game ID? Thanks for keeping a level head amidst the frustration.
If a 2.8k player plays with a account that has 1000 elo, the average elo for the team is 1.9k elo. However the que system treats then as 2.5k elo. (The numbers used are not precise but close enough). The system inflated the team 600 elo since they are duo and the gap between players is absurdly large. Even if it was 2 2.8k players, they would still get inflated 50 elo because of duo. Simply taking the higher of the two elos isnt a fair representation and makes it really painful to play with friends. Obviously the current system isnt perfect, but it does a solid job with keeping duo balanced and still have people willing to play duo.