Pink wards are still incredible gold efficient. The time wasted and vision gained when an enemy destroys them can be in itself more valuable than 75g, let alone, when you can actually have them last for a couple minutes ... Pink wards are NOT gold misused. So, yes, buy pinks, everyone should... Think about it like this, if you have vision, you can take the wave, if you dont, you cant, bcs you might get killed, and then you lose another wave... So a ward can be worth everything from 125g up to 2,5mins worth of minion waves (so a maximum of 5 -> 5*125g = 625g). Pink Wards also can setup ganks, dont count towards your sightstone ward limit and can help to negate the efficiency of enemy warding. There is a reason, why in early season, supports basically only bought gold income items and wards and why there now is a limit to wards to enforce a team based approach on vision.

idk what this is supposed to mean ... he expects silver player to have a good understanding of the game, when the reality is, that silver players are players, who most likely play and played very little of the game and it is therefore expected, that they have limited understanding of the game. I added a quote to make the point more clear. And 2nd) show me your non smurf acc with > 200 games with significantly higher W/R of 50% ... but better comment on probably your 5th smurf acc, so you can brag with your 60% W/R in silver ...

Guys, he talked about how his teammates lacked understanding of the game, but in Silver it is pretty much expected that ppl lack understanding of the game ... that was the point, the point was not, OH, look you're silver, therefore you can't talk. I see, that the post might be misleading, if you read it with a certain interpretation already in mind, but please, read it with an open mind, before jumping to conclusions ... And 2nd) if it is so easy, why dont you do it yourself to get out of gold ...

I did say what counters your initial post and made some points, that you never rly adressed 1) your lack of an actual fact based argument, you dont make any profound arguments, like math about f.e. gold efficiency 2) taking anectotal "evidence" of 2 completly different games as some kind of proof 3) showing that you dont know what youre talking about, since you claimed T2 old spellthiefs did give 22g per stack, when it was 15g 4) completly strawmaning my point about how games are short right now and decided in the mid game, and that gold generation after T3 upgrade did and does not rly matter. 5) you only rly going on about elo for ppl who disagree with you and 6) personally attacking ppl instead of actually constructing a valid argument and 7) lieing about your elo And an argument frrom authority is arguably the weakest logical argument, if not a fallacy ... Flawed logic stays flawed logic ... And having manners != agreeing with you :)

are you serious ... i did post the EXACT QOUTE in my initial post .... you just added random things, that you guesstimate, and i asked you to support these ... and im not sure, but i think, you completly made up the EXP nonsense, or are trying to express with "EXP" some kind of honor progress, so basically HonorPoints? i guess... but, im reinterpreting your statements here, that are both confusing and not well supported.

sighh .... when you compare 2 normal, blind pick games, with different game lengths, different stats, and completly different match progress over time (shutdowns, which cs was taken canon/caster/jgl cs), you can make all kind of number scrumbles, does it rly matter... no. He briefly goes over how the item compare, just to stop short on taking gold efficiency into account, what would actually matter. He stops on the math: - how long would it take to break even from free upgrades with the gold generating passives, ideally you would take the 2/3gp10 also into account, even though it is minor. - how many gold is actually won/lost over the course of the game - how and where the powerspikes lie for certain champions - what items are now in what cases unavailable or maybe earlier available and how this affects winrates for certain scenarios these would be the numbers, that are interesting, the math that would support an argument. just talking about how dissatisfied he is, taking 2 random games and point to how he has less gold in the second, is not making the math on the change.

So i tried it in training modus, you cant repeat the QUEST passive, on purchase of another item it resets to the old progress, since the items all share the same NAMED PASSIVE "QUEST"

It is a NAMED UNIQUE passive, im not 100% certain how it is implemented right now for support items, but NAMED UNIQUE passives should not be stackable, meaning, if you have 2 zhonyas for example and you activate the effect, they both go on cooldown. Same should apply to QUEST, meaning you should not be able to repeat the QUEST passive. If it is currently different, it should be a bug, or it is a special interaction, that is omitted in the tooltip.

you cant repeat the quest ...

dude, you started the discussion, everyone is free to join it, no matter how much you wanna silence it, you barked at me personally and still are, while i try to argue on a logical basis, go play 450 games on a non smurf acc and show me your 70%wr, i wait, and while youre at it, send it to riot, bcs that would mean they would need to fix matchmaking... > Some things are better left unsaid, i guess you can take that advice and don't say stupid things like this an refrain from making a fool of yourself. ??? what is better left unsaid, i wonder, another personal shananigan? idk man ... if you have an argument, make it... and please dont take 2 completly different games, even for anectodical evidence ...

no matter how long youre posts get, your logic is still flawed .... theres no proof in your posts, no math, just what you think > Yes, I did comapre 2 Normal Blind PIck games with different stats and different game length. But since you're making a BIG THING OUT OF NOTHING no, i just pointed out, your logic is flawed, and it still is, that comparison is invalid. > So, your opinion means nothing when it comes down to a debate revolved around arugements and proving a point, I brought facts on the table, you're just brining words backed up by nothing. at least i state my opinions as such, and dont camouflage them as facts. > How can they last 30 mins when they're decided at the 15min mark? You're contradicting yourself, unless you reffer to the fact the game is decided at the 15 min mark and people just extend it to the 30 min mark because they don't know how to end the game? i dont contradict myself here, your logic is again flawed, you might end the game at 30 min, but at the 15 min mark you swing the game in your favor, so your winrate becomes 95% after that 15 min mark, it doesnt matter who made the last hit at the nexus, that was basically inevitable after the 15 min mark, how you can not understand this basic thing about how games play out, is beyond me ... > Previous Spellthiefs gave 11g on T1, 22g on T2 and T3 per proc. Comparison to live which is 15g on EVERY TIER which is 7g less per proc. comparison to before. previous gave 11g on T1, 15g on T2 and 22g on T3, just shows how well you are informed ... new gives actually 4g more per proc in early, which is rly everything that matters in short length games. and last: >As with previous people I did a check up on their backstory behind their account so I have some sort of a picture behind their name and why they are saying what they are saying. flawed logic again here... you could just take the argument for what it is and argue against it, instead you first chose to divide attention to the people behind them, as if it would matter...

You did compare 2 games from a NORMAL BLIND PICK, with DIFFERENT STATS and DIFFERENT GAME LENGTHS. It's getting ridicolous... Im all for getting a good rage train going on riot changes, but in all seriousness, make some effort to proof the point. I think support item changes are good. Avg game lengths are around 30 mins, and often the game is decided around 15. New Items give you a better power spike with the 1st and 2nd item you can get (shurelyias, redemption, ardent, you name it) and they give better options to a range of supports (pyke, rakan, senna, thresh, ...)

> Nowadays, i dont know what is happening with matching, but in almost every game there is one guy who dont know basics of the game and basically ruins everything You're Silver ... (Edit, since most ppl mistook this point for some reason ... i added a quote, making the reference clear, basically it references to the whole of the original post, except the last added part) > Yea almost forgot, FIX JUNGER EXP, beacuse if u give up on farming for ganking and ur gank fail, u will end up a lot behind.. Quite the opposite, many ppl say, rubberbanding leads to jglers not having to care if they fall behind on cs, while camping a lane. > but in almost every game there is one guy who dont know basics of the game and basically ruins everything does this mean, he loses lane? he does not rotate properly? he chases after opponents instead of taking objectives? maybe he does not know the matchup or is just inexperienced? Smart pings can help, but it's soloq and ppl have their own head. I think in every elo, you have frustrating moments, where one teammember was not quite on the same page with you ...

> I just explained to you how the honor system works. You explained, how YOU think honor works, without statements from riot or something backing up your claims, its all just guesstimation. And even in that you contradict yourself, to point out one thing, you say honors from premades dont matter much, then that honors themselves only give EXP boosts, and now, that playing with premades and the guaranteed honors do help ...

I mean, looking at your match history, it rather proofs my point, you played 200 games in non-competitive game modes with premades / friends and got honor lvl5 with ease, i got to lvl4 max in soloQ over 450 games. Ofc, this is all anecdotal, but it looks more like it supports my statements, rather than contradict them ... And it's a bit unpleseant to hear you say, that i must be toxic, if i dont hit lvl5... when that is exactly the type of suspicion, that makes honor somewhat questionable. Besides we both basically try and look at a crystal ball...

So basically you mean "punishments"? If there was a rule break, a report should result in a punishment, if not, it should not... Or do you mean something else, woobly doobly, what nobody can check or verify, or even knows what it really means...

But what constitutes a "valid" report, by how much is honor progress improved by receiving honors, it's all just speculation.

Even if this is the case, which we dont rly know, since noone but riot knows. Wouldn't this couple honor progress basically to how many games you win / hard carry over a season, cause ofc, you get more honor, if you stomp and carries are more likely to receive honors, because everybody remembers the kills. Is this rly fair?

Well, not that it would matter, but every real justice system has appeal deadlines, and 5 years is pretty long for every commercial process. So i guess you missed the time window, where you actually couldve appealed, and instead, the decision was finalized by you not acting in 5 years.

Know that feel, his mobility and off-vision-healing can be irritating / tilting to play against. Poking is hard against him and when you yourself get low its always dangerous to face him with ult. And on top he can cause heavy gold swings, what can make a won game to a losing one, when you dont respect his ultimate (execute). I would say, its a bit like with everything that heals, just dont get baited, dont get too hard focused on him and just try to focus the carry with your all in and your poke. It rly comes down to knowing when you can take the fight. But this whole "oh you got me - Not - cause im healing - and dashing - and invis" - shananigan is rly a problem in the recent designs from riot ...

So, you compare items with regard to gold efficiency to just throw these stats out the window, say they're worse, never talk about the 1450g you saved from not upgrading again, and just come to the conclusion, its a nerf? What a pseudo-science conclusion... Is it a nerf early? Pure stat wise, yes, a SMALL one. But in everything else NO, rather a buff. Do you generate less gold early? NO, a big NO, 3 stacks on new targons vs 2 on old, 15g on new spellthiefs vs 11g old, 3gp10 instead of 2gp10. Do you have less gold at 15? NO, a big NO, you can actually get your first full item at min ~13, which was pretty hard with the old items, and this is a BIG advantage. Do you GET less gold after 20? Yes, but not that much, ever tried procing spellthiefs or targons at max rate after 20? gl with that ... if you're lucky you might proc it 2-3 times a minute. And besided support gold rly doesnt matter that much after 20. Do you HAVE less gold at 20? NO, you actually have more gold, since you had no spending on upgrades. Do you have less gold at 40? Maybe, but who really cares, games are decided in the early mid right now, nothing is changed from you having your 4th item 5 mins earlier in min 40 instead of 45, when your team is down 3 drks, 6 turrets, 15 kills and 150 cs, gl with outscaling now ... Is the first back awkward right now? Yes, but thats just because its new and nobody rly knows what to do right now. Idk in what world, you got to your 4th item in s9... but it certainly didnt matter, what matters is, did you get to your locket/redemption/ardent early enough to decide the first teamfights and get the lead to get you rolling. and in that, the new support items make it easier for you to do so, and therefore are more useful. Idk why everyone is whining about having 20g less than before in the min 35 or so, when you hit your 100th spellthiefs proc (after the upgrade in min 15/20), where you actually compensated for upgrade costs ... Bottom line: I rather have my first support item 5 min earlier and get my 4th item 5 mins later, than the other way around.

What are you talking about? Did you ever actually bother to stop and look at the items, lets adress the spellthiefs nerf, first, cause yes, the new item is a bit weaker, but is it that bad? lvl1: you lose: 2 ap and the old passive with 13 magic dmg onhit/onspell, 25% mana regen you gain: 10 hp this comes down to not getting 1 kill in like 1/10 games, but only the kill, the enemy still has to go b because hes low, he still misses the cs and the exp, he still has to use summoners. that is such a minor disadvantage in like 1 out of 10 game. gold income: new: you get 15g per hit, old: you get 11 g per hit so even though its a nerf for the aggressive players, you still accumulate MORE gold early. Lets talk about upgrades: Old: upgrades costs 450 for 1st->2nd, 1000 for 2nd->3rd tier, so all togehter 1450 (for coin it was 650), for spellthiefs 3rd tier was: +35 ability power +10% cooldown reduction +Gold 2 per 10 seconds +200 health +50% base mana regeneration New: upgrades do costs 0, so right from the start you made 1450g in comparison to old, and you get now spellthiefs 3rd: +60 ability power +Gold 3 per 10 seconds +150 health you get 25 ap more, for -50%mana regen, -10%cdr, and -50hp, that is an okayish tradeoff. and here comes the kicker, you actually make 1g more per 10sec on the items passively. idk in what world you did get >1450g from procing >100 times spellthiefs ... lets take any other support, that previously used spellthiefs because there were not rly other options, how about rakan, now he has a perfect fit item with ap+health, how about pyke, now he can go ad+health or just ad, how about literally every support, that didnt use spellthiefs, they all basically get better options, more fitting to them, than before, where it was basically relic and tank or spellthiefs and poke.

Idk, i guess you were using spellthiefs often, and now that 2 (!) AP and the passive are gone, you feel weaker, but in reality, nothing rly changed. yes, spellthief supports are a bit weaker, but not by that much, and when you account for the free upgrades you dont actually lose money to very late in the game, where, realistically, nothing rly is changed by the support having 200g more or not ... Its important in the early for your first item, where that redemption or locket can swing the fight, but when everyone has 4 items, you either have the drks/turrets/heralds/etc. or you dont. The changes make it so you can get that first item earlier and thats what matters. And for every support that was not using spellthiefs, there are now just straight up better options, with the new ad, ap+health, ad+health support items.

Actually, i think the support items are fine, its easier to finish the quests now, for any support that didnt use the old spellthiefs, for old spellthiefs users its basically the same. You basically have always the same or more gold until min 15, than you wouldve gotten with the old items. After the upgrades you basically got 800g gifted for free (upgrades dont cost gold anymore) in comparison to old items, and yes then you lose out on some gold because you cant use the passive anymore. But in 95% of the games, the game is pretty much decided at that point and realistically, when were you ever able to properly use the old relic shield in late game? TLDR: I think the changes are good, give more options, you get in most cases more gold early, and everything else doesn't rly matter, since games are not that long right now.

In boards, just like on any feedback platform, ppl tend to write only when they feel treated badly or when they experienced something bad. If you would look only at board topic titles you would think riot bans way too many ppl. There are so many who write about how their punishment was unjustified, then you take a closer look or ask them for their chatlogs, and turns out, it often was just whining. That's why i said, if you think, your experience justifies the believe that there are too many inters, why not tell us about it. Point us to match histories, evaluate the occurance rate. Yes, it might still not be statistically significant, but at least it is effort. Right now, your post is just you blowing off some steam. For me personally, i encounter inters maybe at an rate from 1 in 150 games. Yea, sure you encounter ppl who hard lose their lane more often. Or ppl who troll when the game is basically over, but while i would classify that as "negative attitude", i would not classify it under "intentionally feeding". So personally, i think the encounter rate is pretty low and that the actual problem is that ppl need to accept the fact, that one can lose lane, instead of flaming and shittalking, while not focusing on playing the game. Plus, theres not rly any idea in my mind, how to possibly make it easier to detect. The latest tweek of automatic int detection was a big fail, in that it flagged people who were just majorly outclassed and hard lost their lane. Nobody would want that back ... So right now, were kinda stuck in that it happens, and there will be manual review of reports with actual game footage review to determine a case, so yeah, thats kinda costly, so it tends to happen slowly...

1) You're comparing 2 things that have little to do with eachother, both in their effects and how they are currently handled. 2) Without really showing if and how big the alleged problem really is (it's hard to come by to official statistics, personal statistics can help (how many you reported, how many still played on, how many inters you encounter), but are ofc always biased, not only by test size but also in what you consider inting.) 3) Without making a proposal to solve alleged problem All in all, a nice little rage post, but what does it really help?

1) i was speaking about the CONCEPT. Yes, pinks could reveal it, but its clear that this rather big change would lead to other changes also. OR it could be a different item, like old oracles, which did cost you 400 (?) gold and wouldve be bought continously. (Compare this to one time 800g Executioners purchase) 2) Vaynes ult in particular gives bonus AD, bonus movements speed, less cd on the q AND invis, you wont counter the entire ulti with a pink ward, but you would at least reveal her IN A CERTAIN AREA, so you could actual fight her. Right now you pretty much just have to run, which you cant, because she actually has higher movement speed, what counterplay is that?

1st) a pink ward doesnt reveal shit (only camouflaged units, not invis), a sweeper lense shows you the silhouette. 2nd) sweeper works in a CLOSED RANGE, around a SUPPORT probably, with DELAY. 3rd) and even when you magically hit a NONTARGETED spell, these have often MINIMAL SNARES, often not even a stun and 4th) you STILL CANT CLICK an invis unit, even when stunned under sweeper

Invisibility is just a toxic concept as a whole. There is no counterplay left in the game, since pinks and trinkets cant reveal invisible units anymore, and the sillhoute hardly is of any help ... sweeper can help against stuff like Rengar, when they actually get revealed after the next action, but against vayne or akali, who can just literally go invis -> attack -> invis -> attack with very litte to no timeframe to actually target them, you're just fked if you dont have a malphite in your team, and even then he has to hit the prediction of the movement of the silhouette... It was better way back, when you know you had to buy a pink or an oracles to counter it, yes, the mechanic was countered by an item, but so does QSS with many abilities and Morellos/Executioner with heals ...

Simple, because normals are not a competitive environment. The matches are not made the same way, the approaches of players differ quite heavily from ranked and the overall experience is quite different.

After the cancel of the plans for positional ranked, i think it is reasonable to make a smurf acc to practice other roles. Or if you want to play other playstyles of your main role. Or if you want a practice account, which one could not scout (for clash or tournament play) What is not okay: - Trying to eloboost someone - Deliberatly losing to stay in a low elo to either: a) stomp future games, b) boost winrate on an otp-champ, c) reaching a low enough elo to be able to boost someone What is okay: - Just trying to get a seperate ranking or practice account and - playing as best as one could and therefore trying his hardest to climb as fast as possible What one can do to make this better for everyone: - give players the ability to make proxy accs invisibly linked to the main and making placements easier for these accs - enable a faster climb (but therefore also a faster decline ...) What is also possible, but very unpleseant: - restrict accs to some sort of unique id/thing, like a phone number (even though one can have multiple numbers) or social security - why is this bad: because it doesn't rly address the (imo) valid needs for smurf accs and it forces ppl to decline and climb in their mains every time they wanna experiment.

It should be brought back, there are multiple advantages: 1. you have a true 5v5 experience 2. no restrictions on rank differences, you can play with your friends and get a team rating, even thought you might differ in soloqrating 3. switching players without altering the ranking of the team, making replacements and player rotations more seemlessly 4. a real teamrating, which can not be achieved by soloing (flex ratings dont rly represent a 5v5 skill rn) IMO there should be 3 queues: Solo (without duo), Flex (1,2,3,5, possibly 4, even though theres a point in not including 4) and Team (5v5 only). The only question is, is the playerbase broad enough to support all 3?

Just dont get personal. And if you want to ff, put it to a vote, but dont try to force push it. That are basically my limits, and it's working out fine ...

Onhit Neeko is played top on ladder and in competitive play. We did see a comeback of traditional crit adcs, also in ladder and in competitve play.

https://leagueoflegends.fandom.com/wiki/Surrendering You can still remake, even when the enemy got first blood, if the following is true: 1) A player was not connected before the first blood and 2) remains unconnected and 3) the other remake conditions apply.

League without poros is possible, but meaningless. {{summoner:31}} {{summoner:31}} {{summoner:31}} {{summoner:31}} {{summoner:31}} {{summoner:31}} {{summoner:31}} {{summoner:31}} {{summoner:31}}

The issue were arguing here is, whether or not splashing is a good idea for positional ranks. And the whole point of splitting the MMR's for different positions is to split the MMR's for different positions. Whether you agree with the idea of positional ranks as a whole or dont agree with it, is a different issue. But if you agree to split, then theres no logic behind introducing splashing. Either you split or you dont, any "middleground" takes the worst of both. And in competitve play there are basically 0 players who flex in positions. Specialisation is a thing in league. Position and to some extent champion is a factor in how well you play. Choice of champion is like choice of opening in chess, it's a game decision, but since matchmaking tries to match a position for you, that should be taking into account when making teams IMO.

Splashing MMR/LP to other roles, when you didnt play said roles affects matchmaking (on those roles, you didnt play). So it has all to do with matchmaking, because it literally revolves around MMR only.

You forget that there is literally 100% splashing right now, and ppl still troll. Splashing is not something that solves the issue. The issue is not people getting more or less elo after an off-role game. The issue is ppl getting off-role games, when all they want to get is a main-position-game. They dodge maybe the first, but in the second they do the mexican standoff thing, and when nobody dodges, try to shorten game length by tolling. The goal for them is not to lose less LP, the goal is to get as fast as possible into the next game with their main position. And the fix for that is simple, add an option for people to queue exclusively for 1 position. And if that is not possible bcs of queue times, then dont fk over matchmaking, but instead think about dodging penalties and the ban system against intentional trolling. Plus, the fact, that people can now enjoy their off-role games, because they are not a senseless slaugther, makes them less likely to troll. So many things, but overall, splashing is a MM-alteration to combat a non-MM-issue and therefore is pretty much nonsense IMO.

It's sad actually. But they mustn't have let the community fk over the idea. The idea is good, just splashing and shit was a horrible addition and the season start as a whole was a mess. Make a coldhearted position ranking without splashing and fix the season start problems, and it would be effective. The stats were on their side (more wins off-role, fairer games with off-role-players, more primary-position matches), it's just that ppl had such a shitty season start, that they needed to complain about stuff. And no, the community doesn't always knows whats best for them. This is not a decision that can be made democratically, ppl who actually understand how matchmaking works, should decide about the system, and that system should use IMO all the information avaiable. And when you can distinguish the skill of a player wrt position, then you should adjust matchmaking in that way.

> Positional rank should no longer effect your mmr. However positional rank will effect your LP. LP are a representation of MMR, if something affects MMR it affects LP, there's no way around that. You cant hide anything behind promotion helpers or demotion protectors. These methods alread try to closen the gap between LP and MMR, that could arise bcs of the current mapping. Your proposal only widens the gap and does not close it.

Demand and Supply, my friend. I certainly will never buy as expensive stuff as this. But if someone else wants to throw his money at Riot, so Riot might be able to get better servers, do more community events, develop better interfaces or do other stuff, why not? The only thing that pisses me off, if they release skins that have so much eye candy, strange animations or strange opaque colors, that it becomes hard to see, where the skillshots will land or what other action is going on ("who doesnt immediately can guess the projectory of a double helix, lets use that for a skillshot"; "why not make this color indistinguishable from the ground, just setups the oneshot"; "why not emit 10k sparks when this hits, will certainly not overlay some important teamfight action!" ), thats a bit of a bummer.

Stop using the strawman fallacy: By *my* own logic you *CAN* be promoted beyond one division, with a WR<80%. If you're interested how matchmaking works, then look up the elo system, it was used first in competitive chess and from there the concept carried over to basically any Matchmaking system. Details for League can vary , and mapping to ranks is a difficult aspect (see problems in the dev blogs), but overall, there's nothing new or scandalous about MM in league. Just to try to give an answer: you win games, you win MMR, you lose games, you lose MMR. BUT: you win (lose) games against lower MMR enemies, you gain less (lose more) MMR, reverse for higher MMR enemies (high/low wrt your current MMR). So %wins are not the only thing that counts, MMR in which you win/lose counts, and therefore order. One can win incredible many matches in Bronze and have a 90% winrate there, doesnt matter when you win 50% in Silver, you will be stuck in Silver. But on the other hand, someone with 55% in Bronze, but also 55% in Silver, Gold, Plat,... will eventually climb out of Silver, Gold, Plat. The hardstuck dude in Silver might have higher Win-Ratio overall (because of the games in Bronze), but it doesn't mean he deserves a higher rating. Overall Winrate is just not a good indicator, where your MMR lies. Winrate over the X-last games can be an indicator for if you're climbing/declining, but underlies varience wrt the choice of X. Plus, it just takes many games for MM to rank you correctly, due to variance. Many ppl then go on and eventually reach their technical/skill/other-limit and stop to climb, clocking in at a 50% WR, which with enough games will dominate the overall WR. This then requires to solve their technical/skill/other-problem and increase their limit, so they can climb further, this might or might not be possible. TLDR: You can climb with anything >50%, keeping it above that threshold is the problem, at some point you will clock in that 50%, and that will be your place on ladder. Because that is what it means to be evenly matched (it is just as likely that i win vs that you win). And MMR tries to achieve evenly matched games.

Because you take basic concepts of matchmaking and try to frame them in a way that fits your agenda. Even though literally everything is speaking against it. That MM tries to get you to 50% WR doesn't mean it tries to "mess with you" or that it tries to give you worse teammates. It actually just tries to find fair matches and your "true" place on the ladder. MM might present you with harder opponents in the process. If you cant win against harder opponents, then it reduces your MMR and matches you with easier ones. And when you are in the 50% WR area, you need to improve your skill to further climb. Pros and Streamers are constantly proving that it is possible to climb the ladder (on season reset and on new created smurf accs). There were and might very well be some problems with matchmaking, but it actually only matters for the top 1% (masters+ elo, see the latest dev blogs about this). But what you are doing is just taking some quotes and strawmanning the hell out of them, that's disingenious. Sure you're entitled to your opinion, as much as im entitled to point out that it is shitty.

Since you didnt specify tiers, i take it that it was something like Iron 2 <-> Bronze 3 or something? Does this seem unusual to you? There is no Bronze5 anymore and new accs start in Iron, even if they have Bronze MMR or higher after placements. But it is hard to judge the real team MMR's, but either way, the system tries to match similar team MMR's and pretty much all of your games seem just fine. Mastery points are basically eye candy, and if they even matter in bronze is disputable... But most of all it is 1 single game. You need to understand, that your performance over many games matters. How consistently can you win over many games. The many games part is to diminish the effect of some random elements, like matched teammates. Imagine, your true elo is somewhere around Gold. Then in Bronze your expected winrate should be >50%. It is not necessarily 100%, it is just >50%. So let's say its 60%, which is fairly high. Then it means you're expected to lose 4 out of 10 games, even though you are the better player. You might get camped, you might get worse teammates, other RNG elements. The problem kicks in, when you "go on tilt". In that state, you alter your own ability to play and maybe perform worse aka only on bronze lvl or worse, ruining the climb. So instead of fussing over certain RNG elements, you should focus on how to achieve a win, even though there are some obstacles in your way. Making it as easy as possible to carry you, when you fk up, or trying to look for windows to come back is also a part, too.

No, it doesn't. The whole post comes from a missunderstanding on how the system works. Playing successfull strategies is already incentivised. But successfull doesn't mean what you think it means. The elo system rewards playstyles that maximize the probability to win. It doesn't maximize some arbitrary stat formula, all that matters is, if you win or not. Yes a strategy might not net you the win always, but it might do so very often. I already won with 1/13/1 toplaners or worse. Did it suck to have to stall the game against a fed enemy top? Yes. Did our top maybe still play it right, by splitpushing and taking objectives? Yes. Did he still tried to maximize the chance to win for our team after he fked up? Yes. I also sometimes have bad games, then try to stall, and still have impact later, you just cant put it down on some stats. Sometimes the right strategy after a fk up is to try to get the opponents attention and sometimes it very well be to completly diminish and try to afk farm up again. In one case you often get worse and worse stats and in the other you might very well do nothing dmg wise for a long time, to later pop off, hopefully. No, the solution is not to stat-maximize, the solution is to look at how consistently, you did work towards a win. And the best estimator for this is if you can win or not, seen over many games. Even with the RNG-elements, that you might win, just bcs your team was good, or might lose, just bcs your team was bad.

You talking about Twitch in the 44 min game? He finished 0/1/0 and had 4cs, looks like he got invaded at his 2nd buff and ragequit afterwards. Remake is not supposed to work in cases like that. Sucks, you lost to RNG. Happens, when you play a teamgame, especially when you queue up solo.

Your team has an MMR, the enemy team has an MMR, calculated on the MMR of the players. Now you can calculate the probability of a team winning or losing. If you win, you gain MMR, the exact number depends on how great the team differences were and how much your MMR contributed to the teams MMR. Vice versa for a loss. It is just not true, that everybody will get the same MMR, it just often happens to be the case (atleast approximately), because the system tries to match teams and players with close MMR-values. And yes, if you didnt play well in a game but your team nets you a win, and you didnt play worse enough for the team to lose, then yes, you did win, so you gain MMR. In many games there's an RNG based element, which can net you undeserved wins or vice-versa lose you games. That's what the first part of the video tried to make clear (granted, in chess there's no such RNG, but you can still have a bad day). You can still lose a game against worse players, but you are expected to win more over many games.