Forums / Community / Matchmaking Feedback & Discussion

Using Lower Ranked Players to Rank Up Faster

OP benjiFatStax

I think I have a semi-reasonable understanding of how you rank up, which is basically based on your actual versus expected performance in a match. If you have a strong team and beat a weak team, you won't increase much, since that's expected, but a loss in that situation would drop you quite a bit. So--something I've noticed as a seemingly effective way to level up quickly is to link up with someone who's a lower rank than you (let's say you're diamond and this player is platinum) but tends to play pretty well--enough to not sink a team. Then, each win increases your rank quite a bit (since on paper, that platinum should lower your odds of winning), while losses don't hurt you much (again on paper, you should have lost anyway).

In my recent experience, this seems to minimize risk while maximizing reward. Just curious, am I just having confirmation bias that this is working well, or is this a legit strategy?
You must be new to ranked gaming. Yes that works, it's been around as long as rankings have been in team games, and it's very much frowned upon. Some games even stop you from teaming up with players too far off from your own rank to combat this. Others will hit you with a ban for attempting to game the system.

The only real issue is that the algorithm should evenly match the teams, so even if you have a low ranked player, the average rank should be the same across both teams in a competitive setting.
DoubleSama wrote:
Yes that works
Well, hey, you could've stopped there!
It happens, but hardly works! The vanhammer comes down on boosters in less than 24 hours!
TraadeMerK wrote:
It happens, but hardly works! The vanhammer comes down on boosters in less than 24 hours!
What OP is describing isn't boosting, assuming his platinum teammates are legit platinums.
DoubleSama wrote:
You must be new to ranked gaming. Yes that works, it's been around as long as rankings have been in team games, and it's very much frowned upon. Some games even stop you from teaming up with players too far off from your own rank to combat this. Others will hit you with a ban for attempting to game the system.

The only real issue is that the algorithm should evenly match the teams, so even if you have a low ranked player, the average rank should be the same across both teams in a competitive setting.
It doesn't really matter if the skill across the teams is even, as this boost the highskill player even if you lose. Being more skilled than your teammate makes it easier to kill the players that match your teammate. Then you perform better and trigger the system to increase your rank.

A perfect system would compare you vs the nemesis the game matched you with individually, but I guess that would lead to more unsatisfaction among players as it is less visual.
DoubleSama wrote:
You must be new to ranked gaming. Yes that works, it's been around as long as rankings have been in team games, and it's very much frowned upon. Some games even stop you from teaming up with players too far off from your own rank to combat this. Others will hit you with a ban for attempting to game the system.

The only real issue is that the algorithm should evenly match the teams, so even if you have a low ranked player, the average rank should be the same across both teams in a competitive setting.
It doesn't really matter if the skill across the teams is even, as this boost the highskill player even if you lose. Being more skilled than your teammate makes it easier to kill the players that match your teammate. Then you perform better and trigger the system to increase your rank.

A perfect system would compare you vs the nemesis the game matched you with individually, but I guess that would lead to more unsatisfaction among players as it is less visual.
The problem with your theory is that your rank doesn't go up and down based on individual performance, it's team based. You go up when you win and down when you lose. So even if you do well against the opposing team, if your lower ranked teammate does horrible and you lose then you still lose CSR. That's why balancing across teams works.
DoubleSama wrote:
The problem with your theory is that your rank doesn't go up and down based on individual performance, it's team based. You go up when you win and down when you lose. So even if you do well against the opposing team, if your lower ranked teammate does horrible and you lose then you still lose CSR. That's why balancing across teams works.
I teamed up with a guy platinum 5 while I was diamond 1. We started of winning and after a couple of games I was diamond 3 when he reached platinum 6. Then we lost 2 games and he went back to platinum 5 and my rank didn't move from about 50% diamond 3. Then we won the next game making me diamond 4 and him back up to platinum 6.
Playing all games together I progressed 3 ranks and him 1 rank. So as he struggled while I was doing ok, I ranked up more.

This happens all the time based on individual performance. So because we won in the beginning and got tougher opponents that he couldn't handle the game balance by keeping an average between our skill. Making me rank up the games we win and close to static rank when we lose as the game thinks it wasn't my fault cause I more consistently place higher individually.
DoubleSama wrote:
DoubleSama wrote:
You must be new to ranked gaming. Yes that works, it's been around as long as rankings have been in team games, and it's very much frowned upon. Some games even stop you from teaming up with players too far off from your own rank to combat this. Others will hit you with a ban for attempting to game the system.

The only real issue is that the algorithm should evenly match the teams, so even if you have a low ranked player, the average rank should be the same across both teams in a competitive setting.
It doesn't really matter if the skill across the teams is even, as this boost the highskill player even if you lose. Being more skilled than your teammate makes it easier to kill the players that match your teammate. Then you perform better and trigger the system to increase your rank.

A perfect system would compare you vs the nemesis the game matched you with individually, but I guess that would lead to more unsatisfaction among players as it is less visual.
The problem with your theory is that your rank doesn't go up and down based on individual performance, it's team based. You go up when you win and down when you lose. So even if you do well against the opposing team, if your lower ranked teammate does horrible and you lose then you still lose CSR. That's why balancing across teams works.
The CSR follow MMR and MMR is based on performance, the best way to increase your rank is playng with platinum (if you check the champions you will notice many of them are playng with gold/platinum players)
DoubleSama wrote:
The problem with your theory is that your rank doesn't go up and down based on individual performance, it's team based. You go up when you win and down when you lose. So even if you do well against the opposing team, if your lower ranked teammate does horrible and you lose then you still lose CSR. That's why balancing across teams works.
I teamed up with a guy platinum 5 while I was diamond 1. We started of winning and after a couple of games I was diamond 3 when he reached platinum 6. Then we lost 2 games and he went back to platinum 5 and my rank didn't move from about 50% diamond 3. Then we won the next game making me diamond 4 and him back up to platinum 6.
Playing all games together I progressed 3 ranks and him 1 rank. So as he struggled while I was doing ok, I ranked up more.

This happens all the time based on individual performance. So because we won in the beginning and got tougher opponents that he couldn't handle the game balance by keeping an average between our skill. Making me rank up the games we win and close to static rank when we lose as the game thinks it wasn't my fault cause I more consistently place higher individually.
Do you have the logs of these games saved somewhere? Because based on how the ranking system in H5 is known to work, this shouldn't be possible.
DoubleSama wrote:
DoubleSama wrote:
The problem with your theory is that your rank doesn't go up and down based on individual performance, it's team based. You go up when you win and down when you lose. So even if you do well against the opposing team, if your lower ranked teammate does horrible and you lose then you still lose CSR. That's why balancing across teams works.
I teamed up with a guy platinum 5 while I was diamond 1. We started of winning and after a couple of games I was diamond 3 when he reached platinum 6. Then we lost 2 games and he went back to platinum 5 and my rank didn't move from about 50% diamond 3. Then we won the next game making me diamond 4 and him back up to platinum 6.
Playing all games together I progressed 3 ranks and him 1 rank. So as he struggled while I was doing ok, I ranked up more.

This happens all the time based on individual performance. So because we won in the beginning and got tougher opponents that he couldn't handle the game balance by keeping an average between our skill. Making me rank up the games we win and close to static rank when we lose as the game thinks it wasn't my fault cause I more consistently place higher individually.
Do you have the logs of these games saved somewhere? Because based on how the ranking system in H5 is known to work, this shouldn't be possible.
search gamertag Codark
Just team with someone and you quickly see ranking becomes uneven after a while.
This has been a thing for a really long time but im glad you realized.
Thank god
TraadeMerK wrote:
It happens, but hardly works! The vanhammer comes down on boosters in less than 24 hours!
Thank god