Glad to finally share the nest I've landed in🐦. I'm incredibly excited to work alongside some amazing people and do my part in helping to build an esports legacy at Illinois State University.

Relevant again today.

Join millions who have switched to Grok.

Quick Examples:.- Link accounts (xp share to a 2nd acc/champ reduction in price/whatever), if one acc gets punished then they all do.- Further expanding access to champions.- Addressing common complaints with matchmaking/getting a game (autofill parity, q time, . ).

I'd love to see proactive solutions that would make it so that the reasonable/law followers have no reason to want to purchase another account. Nobody will defend the egregious breakers, so whatever happens to them is kind of whatever.

All reasonable actors agree that (at minimum) accounts that break TOS should get banned. The question becomes is it /people/? . Whatever is decided is fine, because people will have clearly defined rules to follow. I just hope for consistency and actually solving the problems.

However, what actually happened is that it's a muddy situation where people are confused on if this is an issue of smurfing or bought accounts, with new (or at least new to the public) precedent of chain-banning accounts together.

The most disappointing part about this for me is that this could've been a slam dunk, massive PR statement by targeting the clear and obvious examples of people using bought accounts (people advertising on streams, clips of people saying w/e I'll just buy new acc etc).

With such a hefty punishment here, I'm curious to see if Riot will do anything about so many league streamers playing on questionable accounts while advertising account buying websites. Feels a bit targeted if not.

that's bussin bussin no cap

As someone who's played in Challenger for years, I'm skeptical these factors are truly accounted for, or even solvable, given nearly uncontrollable variables like:. low population, .human emotion, .off-role variance, .skill gaps, .champ mastery, .and who’s queueing at the time.

If matchmaking wants to claim "fairness" in high ELO, it needs to acknowledge these variables. Otherwise, the balance is only cosmetic and is balanced in average rank, but not in game quality.

None of this even accounts for personal grudges that occur in high elo (gg we can't win we have command attack), streamers playing for content in a game, or any other potential problems (which are all effectively uncontrollable).

The higher you go, the harder it is to improve. The gap between top 300 and top 50 isn’t linear, it’s exponential. Each step up demands more precision, fewer mistakes, and higher mastery. Small imbalances or misplacements hit way harder at the top.

What if that "rank 300" player is a pro who just hit their contractual minimum and stops?. What if the "rank 10" player is autofilled?. What if one team has their strongest player in jungle and the other in ADC, and jungle has more agency in the current patch?.

This system assumes:. - All roles have equal impact. - Rank is perfectly transferable between roles. - Players are playing their main roles. - Rank is current and reflects true form. etc. All of which are frequently untrue at the top of the ladder.

Take this hypothetical:. Team A ranks (role order - average over season not peak rank):.300, 10, 25, 50, 100.Team B ranks:.10, 300, 100, 25, 50. Is this a “balanced” match on paper? Maybe, if you're only averaging MMR. But….

I don’t think “matchmaking is fair” can be assumed based on a small sample size at high ELO. In low ELO, outcomes tend to normalize more due to the law of large numbers. But in high ELO? The variance matters significantly more and is significantly harder to judge.

@Mortdog @drewlevin @RiotEndstep If uve spent time outside of the LoL Twitter bubble, this shouldn't be surprising. Whether it’s “modern” startup folks like @im_roy_lee or “legacy” figures like the Paul brothers, controversy, debate, and conversation visibility shift narratives based on the increased engagement.

@Mortdog That’s why I appreciate people like @drewlevin and @RiotEndStep (and I'm sure many more I'm missing). Even when I disagree with them, they show their work, start conversations, and give people a glimpse into why things happen.

@Mortdog The flip side: engaging inaccurately, or in ways that are perceived as inaccurate, can ruin credibility, even if technically true. In the attention economy, process and transparency are leverage. Even imperfect transparency draws attention, shapes discourse, and earns influence.