Section I

THE PROBLEM NOBODY HAS SOLVED

You have been playing ranked with your botlane partner for years. You know you play better together than alone. You feel it in every coordinated engage, in every ward placed before you even ask. But when you open OP.GG, U.GG or Mobalytics, what you see are two individual profiles in parallel. His stats. Your stats. No stats about the two of you as a unit.

That is the problem Sinergia was born to solve.

What current tools do (and don't do)

When you search for "duo analysis" in any existing tool, what you find is one of these three things:

Side-by-side multisearch — two profiles next to each other. There is no data that truly belongs to the duo. It is like measuring an orchestra's performance by showing two musicians separately.

Synergy tier lists — global rankings of which champions work well together based on millions of games from any duo in the world. Useful as a general reference, useless for understanding your specific pair with your specific history.

Editorial guides — coaching content written about popular combinations. Valuable, but not personalized and not based on your real data.

The documented gap
In no case does a metric exist that answers the most basic question in duo analysis: how much better or worse do you play together than apart? Until now.
Section II

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK AND INSPIRATION

The conceptual mistake of current tools is treating the individual player as the fundamental unit of analysis. For a premade duo, the correct unit is the pair.

This distinction has important consequences. A pair can have a mediocre individual winrate and an exceptional joint winrate. A player can have a high solo KDA and zero impact when playing with their partner. Real synergy is not measured in each player's stats, but in how those stats change when they are together.

Three methodological traditions
Adjusted Plus-Minus (basketball)

Developed by Wayne Winston and Jeff Sagarin in the 1990s, APM measures the net impact of a player on the score while on the court, controlling for the quality of teammates and rivals. We adapt this concept to measure the net impact of the partner's presence on each player's performance.

Gaming Performance Index (Mobalytics)

The GPI proved that it is possible to aggregate heterogeneous individual performance metrics into a single score that non-technical players can understand. The DPI extends this approach to the pair dimension.

Team sports performance models

Sarah Rudd's work on possession models in football and shot quality analyses in hockey establish the principle that the performance of a tactical unit cannot be inferred directly from the individual statistics of its components.

Formal definition
We define pair impact as the difference between expected performance based on individual statistics and actual performance observed in shared games. A positive DPI indicates the pair produces better-than-expected results. A negative DPI indicates the opposite.
Section III

THE DPI v1.0 METHODOLOGY

The Duo Performance Index is a composite score from 0 to 100 that quantifies the performance of a League of Legends player pair as a tactical unit, based exclusively on the real game history of that specific pair.

A DPI of 50 indicates the pair performs exactly as expected. Above 50, synergy is positive. Below 50, it is negative.

The four dimensions
DimensionWeightWhat it measures
Vision coordination20%How the support's vision score and ADC's CW placement improve when playing together vs solo. A real duo coordinates on map control.
Cross kill participation30%Percentage of ADC kills with support assist and vice versa. The kill correlation between both players in the same game.
Joint economic advantage30%CS differential and gold differential of the botlane at minute 10 and 15 in duo games vs solo games.
Pair consistency20%Winrate variance by champion combo. Difference between the first N and last N games (trend). A solid duo performs with multiple combinations.
The aggregation algorithm
// DPI formula v1.0 DPI = 50 + Σ(dimension_i × weight_i × confidence_factor) // Confidence factor based on games analyzed confidence_factor = 0.4 // <10 games (low reliability) confidence_factor = 0.7 // 10-29 games (medium reliability) confidence_factor = 1.0 // 30+ games (high reliability) // Each dimension normalized to [-1, +1] // Output mapped to [0, 100] via sigmoid function
Interpretation table
DPIInterpretationRecommended action
85-100Exceptional synergyKeep current combo and pool
70-84Solid synergyOptimize weak combos, keep the strong ones
55-69Positive synergyIdentify the weakest dimension and work on it
45-54Expected performanceEvaluate whether the duo adds value or is neutral
30-44Mild negative synergyReview coordination and combo selection
0-29Significant negative synergyAnalyze systemic tilt or style incompatibility
Section IV

THE COACH SUGGEST SYSTEM

A score without a recommended action is an academic data point. Sinergia's Coach Suggest is the system that translates the DPI into a specific combo recommendation for the next session, with explicit reasoning and two actionable tips.

Four-tier logic

The system operates on four priority levels, ensuring there is always a reasoned output regardless of the amount of data available:

Tier 1 — Confirmed synergy
Each player's best individual picks (calculated by LP/game index from their solo history) have confirmed synergy in the current patch meta database. This is the strongest recommendation: it combines the individual performance peak with high-elo validation.
Tier 2 — Best duo history
If there is no confirmed meta synergy, the combo with the best average estimated LP in shared history is used. A combo that averages +12 LP in shared games is a stronger signal than any global tier list.
Tier 3 — Cross individual without meta confirmation
Each player's best individual picks are recommended even if there is no confirmed synergy in the DB. If both perform consistently better with those champions, synergy may exist even if not globally documented.
Tier 4 — Fallback
If data is insufficient for any other tier, the duo's most-played combo is recommended with a note that more games are needed to refine the recommendation. There is always an output.
Section V

THE PERFORMANCE PICKS INDEX

Sinergia's Performance Picks are not based on champion winrate — they are based on a real profitability per game index calculated over each player's full season history.

Index formula
// Performance Index = total estimated LP / games played LP_total = (wins × +20) + (losses × -18) perf_index = LP_total / total_games // Real example: // Leona: 81 games, 43W 38L → LP_total = 860 - 684 = 176 // perf_index = 176 / 81 = +2.17 LP/game

The index is anchored to the player's current LP for greater precision: LP history is reconstructed backwards from the real current LP, reducing accumulation error. With 80+ games of history, the result is comparable to the accumulated LP shown by OP.GG.

Why LP/game and not WR
A champion with 60% WR in 5 games can have a worse index than one with 55% WR in 40 games. The index penalizes small samples and rewards consistency. 10 games with +100 LP (index +10) are more valuable than 5 games with 4-1 (index +14 but without statistical reliability).
Section VI

LIMITATIONS AND FUTURE WORK

Intellectual honesty requires explicitly acknowledging the limitations of the current methodology.

Known limitations in v1.0

Sample size. With fewer than 20 shared games, the DPI has high variance. Trend analysis requires at least 10 games in each half of the history to be significant.

Estimated LP vs real LP. The Riot API does not return historical LP per game. Backwards reconstruction from current LP is a functional estimate but not real data. Error accumulates in older games.

The DPI does not capture communication. Two players who coordinate by voice will have a different DPI than two who play in silence, but the system cannot distinguish the cause. The DPI measures effects, not processes.

No patch weighting. When Riot releases a significant patch that changes a champion's or synergy's value, pre-patch games become unrepresentative. We currently do not apply temporal weighting by patch.

Technical roadmap

DPI v1.1 — Temporal weighting (recent games weigh more), patch adjustment for champion metrics, improved position filtering.

DPI v2.0 — Integration of map positioning data (Riot timeline endpoint), objectives coordination model, support roam timing analysis relative to ADC wave state.

DPI v3.0 — Machine learning model trained on Sinergia's corpus of analyzed duos. As data from thousands of real pairs accumulates, weights will be learned automatically instead of being fixed.

Section VII

MANIFESTO: WHAT WE BELIEVE

1
We believe every duo is unique. Global tier lists are useful, but the best Leona for you is not the one with the highest winrate in Platinum EUW. It is the Leona that your specific ADC converts into victories in your specific games.
2
We believe improvement is measured in trends, not snapshots. Today's DPI is a data point. A DPI compared to last month's is a story. Analysis has real value when it is longitudinal.
3
We believe analysis must become action. We do not do analysis so players feel evaluated. We do it so they know exactly what to change in the next game.
4
We believe data belongs to those who generate it. Sinergia's analyses belong to the players who request them. We do not sell data to third parties. We do not use your history without explicit consent.
5
We believe duo analysis should be accessible in every language. The Spanish-speaking LoL market has spent years consuming tools in English for lack of alternatives. Sinergia was born bilingual and will remain so as a priority, not as an afterthought.
6
We believe this is just the beginning. DPI v1.0 is a functional approximation of the problem, not its definitive solution. The methodology will evolve, and each version will be publicly published and documented.