lol, apparently Neace is back on the scene just to get his Asol jungle on the ME server get roasted by Midbeast lmao. Nothing against neace personally but this was pretty funny lol.

It's gotten to the point where Riot blatantly knows they can get away with selling the community $500 slop when we used to have skins for $25 like pulsefire Ezreal or elementalist lux as a big deal.

I will never support this ever. But the fact that riot not only continues to get away with it, but that they don't even care about the quality of the Skins anymore and allow these skins not to be the most amazing skins you could even buy, but to even have the audacity to say that these skins will come back later?

Not only do they try to capitalize on your fear of missing out to exploit you psychologically, but they also renege on their own promises. Do not support this bullshit. Spend your $500 on things that matter and on companies that you actually support. I promise you you'll feel better donating that $500 to a charity of your choosing than buying a stupid skin. But you do you. At the end of the day, it's your money. You choose how you want to spend it.

Hey guys, I wanted to propose an actual solution for the visual rank vs. hidden MMR disparity and those agonizing negative LP gains we all deal with.

I keep reflecting on many of the important conversations and recent discoveries we had here, specifically my questions for Drew Levin regarding EOMM. I don’t plan on doing any more deep dives into the "loser's queue" debate for a while. Drew answered my targeted questions definitively, and I honestly don't think it makes and real sense that he would lie. Lying about something so definitively like that carries massive legal and career risks that just aren't worth it for any sane person. At this point, the only way to definitively prove a rigged system exists is through court subpoenaed data or a massive mathematical audit by an independent team of data scientists, computer scientists, and legal experts.

So, if we assume EOMM isn't intentionally being used to manipulate us using behavioral data, we're still left with a massive problem: negative LP gains and the overall feel of the ranked climb. When you win a game and get +22 LP, but lose a game and get -28 LP, it feels awful. This happens because the system's underlying matchmaking (the hidden MMR) gets rigid and "stuck" over hundreds of games. It creates weird emergent phenomena where your account history basically anchors you down and makes the climb feel terrible until you win or lose so much that the MMR corrects itself.

If you didn't know, Dota 2 actually solved this problem years ago, and I don't see why League can't just implement the exact same thing.

Dota 2 has a system called "Optional MMR Recalibration." Once every single year, any and every player can go into their account settings and press a button to manually trigger a recalibration. It essentially resets the system's "Rank Confidence" in your account to zero. It hides your rank and makes your next set of calibration matches swing your hidden MMR wildly, basically giving you a soft "hard reset."

If you're genuinely playing better than your stuck rank, you can quickly break out of the negative LP trap and start your climb from scratch without your ancient account history dragging you down.

I think Riot should just give us a button like this. We should have the autonomy to hit a reset switch once a season to fix our negative LP gains. It's a relatively simple fix that doesn't require overhauling the entire algorithm, and it addresses the exact emergent phenomena making our climbs feel miserable.

I’d love to hear what you guys think about pushing for this kind of feature.

not even joking, i was the one who asked August this question on his stream last week lmao. I was surprised that this was the question that went popular. Neat.

Drew Levin commented on the recent post breaking down "win equity" and EOMM.

This is a huge moment for our subreddit. One of the biggest reasons r/leagueunfiltered exists is to create a space where players and developers can actually engage in real, direct, and transparent discussions without getting silenced or hidden.

I encourage everyone in the community to jump into the thread, read his perspective, and upvote his comment so it stays visible at the top of the post for everyone to see.

To move past general PR framing and get real technical clarity for the community, I replied with three direct Yes or No questions:

1. Are you currently bound by a Non-Disclosure Agreement (NDA) or internal policy that explicitly restricts you from discussing or disclosing whether non-MMR engagement, behavioral, or retention metrics are utilized in live matchmaking?
2. Does Riot Games currently utilize—in any capacity, variation, or evolution—the systems or algorithms described in US Patent 11065547B2 (Behavioral Profiling Matchmaking) within live League of Legends queues?
3. Does the matchmaking system factor in any non-skill variables—such as session duration, recent play patterns, report history, honor history, or churn probability—to optimize for player engagement or retention rather than strictly balancing lobbies via MMR and role parity?

I made it clear in my reply that dodging these specific questions, pivoting back to debunking "Loser's Queue," or dismissing these mechanical questions will indicate to the community that non-MMR engagement variables are active or that NDA obligations prevent direct answers.

Link to Drew Levin's comment

A Clear Standard for This Discussion

If we want devs to continue coming into our space and addressing hard questions directly, we have to show that we can hold high-level, tough discussions without turning into a toxic mob.

• Argue the points, not the person. Disagree with the technical points, challenge the framing, and ask tough questions—but keep it focused on the arguments and the data.
• Zero tolerance for disrespect: Personal attacks, targeted harassment, or insults directed at Drew (or anyone else) will be removed immediately, and offending accounts will be banned.

Let's show that this community can push for real accountability and transparency while remaining a space worth engaging with. Go check out the conversation and share your thoughts thoughtfully in the thread.

A Quick Note Before We Begin: The intention of this post is to serve as a comprehensive expose, bringing together all of the research, legal realities, and developer slip-ups myself and other members of the community have all found relevant up until this point. Fair warning: There is no TL;DR. Unfortunately, the legal and technical reality of this subject is simply too complex to condense into a single paragraph. Actually understanding how this system works requires time, context, and a willingness to read the full explanation.

I know that the second I start talking about patents, algorithms, and matchmaking, I run the risk of sounding like a conspiracy theory wingnut. It’s incredibly frustrating because doing the actual research and trying to explain the legal and technical reality of this situation to people usually devolves into a "naysayers vs. believers" shouting match.

But I’m tired of the community getting gaslit by PR-friendly dev interviews.

During the recent interview with Drew Levin, Phroxzon, and Pobelter, Drew let something slip about how lobbies are actually balanced. It completely validates what we’ve been saying about Engagement Optimized Matchmaking (EOMM), and it exposes why Riot constantly uses "Loser’s Queue" as a deliberate red herring to avoid talking about their actual matchmaking patents.

I’m breaking down exactly what he said, what the legal reality of Riot’s Terms of Service is, and why they will never openly admit to this until they are forced to in a courtroom.

Required Reading & Table of Contents

Before people try to pick this apart, here is the documentation and foundational research we are working from. Think of this as required reading. If you have any questions, they will most certainly be answered by the posts below. These are posts that discuss the foundational knowledge required to understand what this post is talking about.

• The Blueprint: Riot’s Behavioral Profiling Matchmaking Patent
• The Science: The UCLA Paper on Engagement Optimized Matchmaking
• Community Deep Dives:
  • I dug deeper into Riot's matchmaking patent and it's even worse than I thought
  • The Real Reason Why This Season Feels Particularly Bad: Riot is Desperate and Fucking with Us
  • The Three Rules to Protest the Matchmaking System and Force Fair Games
  • u/ja_care's post:"League's Matchmaking System Truly Debunked and Explained"

Part 1: The "Win Equity" Slip-Up

In the recent interview with Pobelter (start around 31:40 and pay attention to what he's actually saying underneath all the PR talk), Drew Levin sounds like he’s originally talking about the highest ELO players—literally rank 1 players. But he subtly transitions into explaining how the system determines what percentage of a game you are responsible for carrying.

Here is the exact quote:

>"Part of how we try to balance out your contribution to your team's collective skill is by giving you... Not the next best four players in that lobby because we think that you are going to have some amount of carry potential..."

He then immediately follows up with:

>"Somebody has to be the best person on every team and, from a win expectation perspective, the best player on the team needs to contribute more than 1/5th of the win equity..."

What this actually means: If you perform well, the system expects you to carry. To make the teams "balanced," it actively saddles you with players the game expects to carry less than you. The system calculates your "win equity" and actively handicaps your lobby to force a balanced outcome.

When you get punished with weaker teammates specifically because you are playing well, that functions identically to what players call "Loser's Queue." But the devs will never call it that, because they use the existence of Smurfs as an alibi.

Later in the video, Drew argues that if you are a Challenger player, you can win all your games, meaning skill can overcome the lower quality of your teammates. We already know this. EOMM doesn't physically prevent a highly skilled player from reaching their "true rank." It’s designed to stretch the climb out to increase engagement. A Challenger player simply has enough raw skill to break the algorithm's intended handicap.

Part 2: The "Loser’s Queue" Red Herring

Every time the EOMM debate comes up, it devolves into a "Loser's Queue vs. Winner's Queue" argument.

This is a deliberate red herring utilized by Riot. Their matchmaking patent does not describe a Winner's or Loser's Queue. What it actually describes is a predatory, Engagement Optimized Matchmaking (EOMM) system that rigs matchmaking to keep players behaviorally addicted. It categorizes players using a combination of the honor system, player reports, and other behavioral game metrics. (Since the old honor system is gone, this has likely evolved into purely tracking honor/report/play-session data).

The reason Riot loves it when people complain about "Loser's Queue" is because they can legally and truthfully deny that it exists. Because technically, it doesn't. It's a behavioral profiling system.

I want you to pay close attention to the careful wording Drew Levin uses later in the video when utilizing this exact red herring. He argues that even in a world where "Loser's Queue" existed, a highly skilled player (like a Challenger) can still carry those games and climb. He essentially uses the fact that skilled players can still climb as ultimate proof that the system isn't artificially holding people down.

But that is exactly what we’ve been saying about Engagement Optimized Matchmaking all along. EOMM doesn’t physically prevent you from reaching your "true rank"—it just artificially stretches the climb out as long as computationally possible to maximize your playtime and engagement. A Challenger player simply has enough raw mechanical skill to break through the algorithm's intended handicap faster than an average player. Using the "ability to climb" to debunk a rigged system completely ignores the fact that the system's goal is to prolong the grind, not create an inescapable prison.

If players actually confronted Riot employees about EOMM, behavioral profiling, and artificially extended climbs instead of "Loser's Queue," you would immediately see them refuse to talk about it, get highly defensive, or try to redirect the conversation back to Loser's Queue. It muddies the waters and lets them off the hook completely.

Part 3: The Legal Reality (TOS, NDAs, and Arbitration)

I try to explain this in comments, but people always argue that the "existence of a patent proves nothing." The legal reality of the gaming industry is far more complex and predatory than 99.9% of players understand.

When you hit 'Accept' on Riot’s TOS, you agree that you don't own your account and they can terminate it "for any reason or for no reason at all." More importantly, you agree to a forced arbitration clause. (You can opt out within 30 days via certified letter, but almost no one does, and they could just terminate your account in retaliation anyway).

Even if players tried to sue over manipulated matchmaking, Riot forces you into arbitration. It’s a "take it or leave it" situation. If you win in arbitration, Riot's TOS forces you to sign Non-Disclosure Agreements (NDAs). You cannot disclose how the settlement functioned. If you refuse, the judge denies your claim and tells you to fuck off. It is perfectly legal.

The Stop Killing Games movement recently tried to push back on these practices in the EU, but they are currently stalled in bureaucratic limbo because gaming conglomerates outspend and out-lobby anyone trying to fix the industry.

The Bottom Line

Riot employees sign strict NDAs. They cannot admit to these systems existing. Furthermore, there are currently massive, active lawsuits pending against Tencent, Riot Games, and other companies regarding exploitative practices.

Riot knows that if they publicly discuss a behavioral profiling system designed to addict players, and they eventually lose those pending lawsuits, they will be legally liable for making false statements.

I want to take a second to vent a personal frustration here. Whenever this topic comes up, the immediate, lazy counter-argument from naysayers is always: "Just because a patent exists doesn't mean a company is actually using it." While that statement is logically true in a vacuum, claiming they aren't using it is just as much of a guess and a theory as claiming they are.

The difference is that our theory relies on actual facts, logical deduction, and a massive amount of surrounding context. Multi-billion dollar companies don't just leave free money on the table. Riot has every financial incentive to utilize EOMM and very little reason not to. We've factored everything into the equation: the declining player base, the financial motives, the academic papers, the legal ecosystem, and the direct quotes from devs letting "win equity" slip.

It's incredibly frustrating that all this research gets hand-waved away by a single lazy assumption. I'm always willing to have a thoughtful debate and I don't mind people disagreeing with me, but there's a massive double standard with the burden of proof. We bring patents, behavioral data, and literal developer quotes to the table, and it gets countered with the blind assumption that a massive corporation just isn't using the highly profitable engagement tool they specifically patented and continue to financially maintain.

I don’t expect this post to be the definitive, undeniable proof that shuts down every naysayer. The annoying reality is that no matter what we deduce, and no matter how many times devs let things slip about "Win Equity," nobody can prove the exact algorithm 100% until Riot Games gets subpoenaed in court and is forced to release their algorithms through a legal discovery process.

Until that day comes, I'll keep looking at the patents they fund, the behavioral data they collect, and the actual words they say when they think we aren't listening closely enough.

Don't get me wrong, I'm glad that this subreddit is gaining in popularity. I knew what we were getting ourselves into when we created it. We're always taking Community feedback and paying attention to the conversations that happen in this subreddit. We're growing at an exponential rate at this point and I have high hopes for the future.

But man, people weren't joking when they said being a mod is tough. I love you guys as a community but the league Community is definitely toxic. I'm not saying this as a dig against you guys. I'm just laying down some context.

We see some great and awesome posts where people are having genuine conversations and those conversations genuinely make me happy and glad that we started the space.

Recently, because of topics like engagement optimized matchmaking and the recent Azzapp stuff (personally, I think he's a great player btw. Although he's a bit overconfident in my opinion, he kind of earned it because he's a good player and a positive voice in the community overall), we just got a lot of comments from people calling us unhinged or delusional or schizo.

On one hand, I consider that a badge of honor because we created the space so people can criticize us and criticize each other as long as they're attacking the argument and not the person.

But on the other hand, as the subreddit continues to grow, I'm just noticing a lot more vitriol in the comments sections. Just for context, I have to review mod queue every day. Subreddit's Automatic filters catch every single one of the comments that sound even remotely inflammatory and I usually have to approve them manually until I can figure out a way to configure Automod in a fair way that doesn't just automatically censor things that don't need to be censored. In the meantime, I've just been approving or removing comments and posts based on my own subjective feeling of what's fair and what's too much.

But as I've been going through mod queue lately, i've just been seeing this trend where people are coming into this community and talking shit about it but those same people are the ones that stay and make posts at the same time.

It's confusing because there are many people that call us unhinged and say that they don't like it here but then they stay anyway. And funnily enough, even the people who are toxic and say they hate this community usually start becoming more positive and chill over time. I mean yeah, some people leave, but a lot of you stay and make posts and we're happy about that. We want to make this a place for you guys to just have genuine discussions.

Then part of me can't help but Wonder why some of you guys stay here if many of you don't like it here? I know some of you appreciate the space but I also want to hear from those of you who don't. We take your feedback here seriously. We want to make this a community that people actually enjoy being a part of. So, if you don't mind, feel free to share your feedback in the comments. I'm asking this genuinely. And, out of respect for the spirit of this sub, feel free to be unfiltered about it.

Hey guys, another drew Levin moment. Feel free to go contribute if you want.

Oh boy this is going to be interesting.

This isn't actually a new video but I think it's relevant in the context of what we've all been discussing lately as far as engagement optimized matchmaking , the bot Lane Mage meta, the terrible state of top lane, and Azzapp's recent interview with Drew Levin and riot phroxzon (Matt Leung-Harrison).

Many of you know me for my and u/caeiradeus's deep dives on EOMM. as well as for establishing the r/LeagueUnfiltered subreddit for us all to discuss these things without worrying about censorship from the main Subs or riot games subtly influencing the content that the community is able to discuss publicly.

During said deep dives, many people like to bring up points like "riot can't even get their client right and you think they track all this data?" and the like as if it is incomprehensible to them that Riot does not have complex tools to be able to track Advanced behavioral player metrics.

I'm just sharing this video as a reminder that they absolutely do have the tools to collect way more advanced player data than people think they are capable of. Right August literally says that they have player metric data on how accurate players are at being able to predict the outcomes of Their Own games.

Do you guys not realize that if Riot has data on how accurate players are at predicting the outcomes of their own games, that they must also have data on the actual statistical outcome of games as well?

Cmon guys. It's not hard to piece this shit together. And I'm tired of people calling this a conspiracy theory. There's a lot at play here structurally, legally, psychologically, statistically, financially, and ethically.

If y'all want to have real discussions, have them. But I think the people who actually believe that EOMM exists muddy the waters by blindly labeling it "losers queue" or talking confidently about it when they do not understand how these underlying systems work because that hands riot games the perfect opportunity to dodge real accountability.

It is not a losers queue. It is an engagement optimized matchmaking system that behaviorally profiles players to artificially elongate your climb. You will always eventually end up at your true rank. It will just take longer. And no, that doesn't mean the existence of smurfs and challenger players climbing rapidly disproves that this system exists. An engagement optimized matchmaking algorithm that is sufficiently effective will always allow for skilled players to climb because refraining from placing them correctly massively increases the churn risk for every other player around them.

If you are genuinely more interested in how these systems work and why this is happening, please go read The Real Reason Why This Season Feels Particularly Bad: Riot is Desperate and Fucking with Us and The Three Rules to Protest the Matchmaking System and Force Fair Games.

And also go read u/ja_care's post titled "League's Matchmaking System Truly Debunked and Explained"

Just in case you guys missed it. Feel free to comment your opinions.

Hey guys,

I wanted to pop in and give everyone a quick heads up about some updates we're rolling out for our rules, removal reasons, and megathreads. I also want to lay out the logic behind these changes so we're all on the same page before we start actively redirecting posts.

We want our main feed to stay focused on solid discussions, original content, and deep dive analyses, while still giving everyone a dedicated space to vent when League inevitably tilts you.

I want to be 100% transparent about one thing right off the bat: this isn't censorship. I'm not interested in shutting down frustration or suppressing criticism. I just want to clean up the main feed so quick, repetitive rants don't drown out everything else.

Where Quick Vents Belong

Instead of making a standalone post for a rough game or a client bug, I'm asking everyone to start funneling those thoughts into our two dedicated megathreads:

• [Weekly] Sunday Salt Mine: This is strictly for immediate, moment-to-moment gameplay tilt. If you had an 0/10 teammate, got camped for twenty minutes, or just want to scream about a broken champion, drop it here. You're more than welcome to post screenshots in the comments too.

• [Monthly] Riot Accountability Ledger: This is the spot for systemic frustrations—things like EOMM/loser's queue complaints, client glitches, Vanguard issues, or copy-paste support replies. (Note: If you've put together a high-effort, data-backed post analyzing matchmaking or client performance, that's still fully welcome on the main feed!).

I know a lot of us aren't used to commenting in megathreads yet, and it can feel weird posting in them if they look quiet at first. But as we start consistently redirecting quick vent posts into these threads, they're going to turn into active, fun spaces where everyone can commiserate together.

What's Coming Next

I'm also working closely with the rest of the mod team on a larger rules refresh down the line. We're planning to add clearer guidelines around things like rank elitism, game-ruining behavior, and overall community culture so we have solid ground to stand on when keeping discourse constructive.

I really appreciate everyone who's helping us build this space. Drop any thoughts, questions, or feedback in the comments. We're always open to hearing what you guys think! And, as always, thanks for being a part of this community!