|
Please keep the QQ to a minimum if you do not like this update. We are happy to hear your reasoning for not liking a ranked system, but no "OMG VOLVO WHY" posts. |
On December 08 2013 04:34 SKC wrote:Show nested quote +On December 08 2013 04:32 Prplppleatr wrote:On December 07 2013 20:49 Bumblebee wrote:On December 07 2013 20:46 Teton wrote:On December 07 2013 19:14 BurningSera wrote:On December 07 2013 18:25 TheEmulator wrote:On December 07 2013 18:15 Laurens wrote:On December 07 2013 17:28 TheEmulator wrote:
The most important thing (that is if ranked mmr is based off your normal mmr) is that a good player can't go play ranked on a new account and own the low ranks. Once he gets to 150 games he will be at a really high normal mmr, and will place higher initially when he enters ranked, instead of at the lower end.
edit: unless you purposefully lose 150 games in order to enter ranked at a low mmr. But then you're an idiot if you do that. Are you sure ranked MMR will be based on normal MMR? The article doesn't hint that it will. I think it will just be the 10 placement games and everyone starts with a clean slate. I'm not sure at all, that's why I said "that is if ranked mmr is based off your normal mmr". I think it will be that way, or at least in my mind it makes the most sense. But I have no idea  I am getting this impression that everyone will have a clean start with ranked game because technically all the games we played are not ranked. Matches played in normal matchmaking do not impact your ranked matchmaking MMR, and vice versa.
When you first start using ranked matchmaking, you will enter a calibration phase of 10 games. During this time, your ranked MMR will not be visible. And that makes sense too, because what's the point if we used current mmr (which is a mess) as a baseline for ranked game's mmr :S I am just so damn happy that we will get solo mmr, too many people just purposely stack with tryhards and brag about them mmr. And i hope they will include some sort of hero score too so people who can only play very few heroes will be noted too. Current MMR is fine, do you realise they will be using the same system for ranked? I, for once, think the base mmr in ranked (for your first game)should be your normal mmr I disagree with this because people will have a different approach to ranked games and normal games. Whatever you've done in an unranked setting should not reflect your ranked setting. Agreed. Sometimes i try to win, sometimes i don't...i try to have fun all the time and play accordingly This has nothing to do with what he said though. The first game in ranked should 100% use your old MMR. It makes adjusting into your correct ranked MMR far easier. There's no reason make everyone start from scracth when you have something that is at least moderatelly acurate, even if both ranks will not end up being the same after a few games.
? Did you read?
I, for once, think the base mmr in ranked (for your first game)should be your normal mmr
I disagree with this because people will have a different approach to ranked games and normal games. Whatever you've done in an unranked setting should not reflect your ranked setting.
Agreed. Sometimes i try to win, sometimes i don't.
I take a different approach when I am looking to win (ie. when it's ranked)
You agree with the first guy, i agree with the 2nd...it's ok to have different opinions
PS. there will be high uncertainty in the first few games (as they state) so whether they use your current unranked MMR or a completely new one, it will change drastically to start off and will eventually even out to where you should be.
|
On December 08 2013 04:29 SKC wrote:Show nested quote +On December 08 2013 04:23 Pokebunny wrote:On December 07 2013 20:48 Bumblebee wrote:On December 07 2013 20:45 Unleashing wrote:On December 07 2013 20:32 Bumblebee wrote:
Also, it incentivises killstealing, taking the farm when you're not supposed to and stuff... It's just not good. :-( How does it do that? o_o Read the first post I made. It rates people's individual performance via an algorithm and that means you can go down in MMR even if you won a game. When it's ranked, people want to get higher MMR obviously. Since the determining factor is an algorithm to determine your performance, it definitely has something to do with KDA, XPM and GPM. :-) But I think that wins/losses will be by far the biggest determinant. So if you lose games because you were greedy, you'll overall probably go down. I'm not sure to what extent this is true, but that's the way I read it. "Win/loss is the primary criteria used to update MMR, but individual performance also plays a role, especially when our uncertainty about your MMR is high." So basically, if you're constantly winning games and going 20-0, you'll go up faster, because clearly the system isn't quite sure how good you are. If you perform "normally", wins/losses will mostly be representative of your MMR. Key words are "specially when our uncertainty about your MMR is high". It's a very efficient way to bump smurfs quickly to a higher MMR. For a regular player it really shouldn't be that relevant.
Which, as I understand it, is exactly how it is now.
KDA and GPM stats are used for smurf-busting in your first few games and is very good for that.
|
On December 08 2013 04:39 Prplppleatr wrote:Show nested quote +On December 08 2013 04:34 SKC wrote:On December 08 2013 04:32 Prplppleatr wrote:On December 07 2013 20:49 Bumblebee wrote:On December 07 2013 20:46 Teton wrote:On December 07 2013 19:14 BurningSera wrote:On December 07 2013 18:25 TheEmulator wrote:On December 07 2013 18:15 Laurens wrote:On December 07 2013 17:28 TheEmulator wrote:
The most important thing (that is if ranked mmr is based off your normal mmr) is that a good player can't go play ranked on a new account and own the low ranks. Once he gets to 150 games he will be at a really high normal mmr, and will place higher initially when he enters ranked, instead of at the lower end.
edit: unless you purposefully lose 150 games in order to enter ranked at a low mmr. But then you're an idiot if you do that. Are you sure ranked MMR will be based on normal MMR? The article doesn't hint that it will. I think it will just be the 10 placement games and everyone starts with a clean slate. I'm not sure at all, that's why I said "that is if ranked mmr is based off your normal mmr". I think it will be that way, or at least in my mind it makes the most sense. But I have no idea I am getting this impression that everyone will have a clean start with ranked game because technically all the games we played are not ranked. Matches played in normal matchmaking do not impact your ranked matchmaking MMR, and vice versa.
When you first start using ranked matchmaking, you will enter a calibration phase of 10 games. During this time, your ranked MMR will not be visible. And that makes sense too, because what's the point if we used current mmr (which is a mess) as a baseline for ranked game's mmr :S I am just so damn happy that we will get solo mmr, too many people just purposely stack with tryhards and brag about them mmr. And i hope they will include some sort of hero score too so people who can only play very few heroes will be noted too. Current MMR is fine, do you realise they will be using the same system for ranked? I, for once, think the base mmr in ranked (for your first game)should be your normal mmr I disagree with this because people will have a different approach to ranked games and normal games. Whatever you've done in an unranked setting should not reflect your ranked setting. Agreed. Sometimes i try to win, sometimes i don't...i try to have fun all the time and play accordingly This has nothing to do with what he said though. The first game in ranked should 100% use your old MMR. It makes adjusting into your correct ranked MMR far easier. There's no reason make everyone start from scracth when you have something that is at least moderatelly acurate, even if both ranks will not end up being the same after a few games. ? Did you read? Show nested quote +I, for once, think the base mmr in ranked (for your first game)should be your normal mmr Show nested quote +I disagree with this because people will have a different approach to ranked games and normal games. Whatever you've done in an unranked setting should not reflect your ranked setting. I take a different approach when I am looking to win (ie. when it's ranked) You agree with the first guy, i agree with the 2nd...it's ok to have different opinions PS. there will be high uncertainty in the first few games (as they state) so whether they use your current unranked MMR or a completely new one, it will change drastically to start off and will eventually even out to where you should be.
You agree with the second, and he disagrees with the first one. The first post said it should use your base MMR for the first ranked game. The second guy said you should not, god knows why. The answer he gave is irrelevant, since your Ranked and Non Ranker MMR will still be diferent. He gave no reasons why you should start from scratch insted of using an at least moderatelly acurate MMR for your first game. Neither did you. I assumed he didn't notice the "first game" part, but you have no such excuse, specially after accusing other people of not reading.
|
On December 08 2013 04:41 NotYango wrote:Show nested quote +On December 08 2013 04:29 SKC wrote:On December 08 2013 04:23 Pokebunny wrote:On December 07 2013 20:48 Bumblebee wrote:On December 07 2013 20:45 Unleashing wrote:On December 07 2013 20:32 Bumblebee wrote:
Also, it incentivises killstealing, taking the farm when you're not supposed to and stuff... It's just not good. :-( How does it do that? o_o Read the first post I made. It rates people's individual performance via an algorithm and that means you can go down in MMR even if you won a game. When it's ranked, people want to get higher MMR obviously. Since the determining factor is an algorithm to determine your performance, it definitely has something to do with KDA, XPM and GPM. :-) But I think that wins/losses will be by far the biggest determinant. So if you lose games because you were greedy, you'll overall probably go down. I'm not sure to what extent this is true, but that's the way I read it. "Win/loss is the primary criteria used to update MMR, but individual performance also plays a role, especially when our uncertainty about your MMR is high." So basically, if you're constantly winning games and going 20-0, you'll go up faster, because clearly the system isn't quite sure how good you are. If you perform "normally", wins/losses will mostly be representative of your MMR. Key words are "specially when our uncertainty about your MMR is high". It's a very efficient way to bump smurfs quickly to a higher MMR. For a regular player it really shouldn't be that relevant. Which, as I understand it, is exactly how it is now. KDA and GPM stats are used for smurf-busting in your first few games and is very good for that.
Failed hard at editin own post.
Well, yes. People are acting as if they announced changes to the matchmaking system, when they are merely explaining how it works. The only change is the addition of ranked, from what I gathered from the blog.
|
In my opinion the only thing that this changes is adding a new queue and making your MMR visible. People who need an arbitrary number to track improvement will not find what they are looking for, because a number is never a true way to measure your skill, that's something everyone should do on their own. Too many factors go into whether you win, whether you have a lot of gold, whether you buy many wards, whether you do many pings. I just don't like all this arbitrariness. I think many people are being way too short-sighted.
+ Show Spoiler +Also Elo is not an acronym.
|
On December 08 2013 04:49 SKC wrote:Show nested quote +On December 08 2013 04:39 Prplppleatr wrote:On December 08 2013 04:34 SKC wrote:On December 08 2013 04:32 Prplppleatr wrote:On December 07 2013 20:49 Bumblebee wrote:On December 07 2013 20:46 Teton wrote:On December 07 2013 19:14 BurningSera wrote:On December 07 2013 18:25 TheEmulator wrote:On December 07 2013 18:15 Laurens wrote:On December 07 2013 17:28 TheEmulator wrote:
The most important thing (that is if ranked mmr is based off your normal mmr) is that a good player can't go play ranked on a new account and own the low ranks. Once he gets to 150 games he will be at a really high normal mmr, and will place higher initially when he enters ranked, instead of at the lower end.
edit: unless you purposefully lose 150 games in order to enter ranked at a low mmr. But then you're an idiot if you do that. Are you sure ranked MMR will be based on normal MMR? The article doesn't hint that it will. I think it will just be the 10 placement games and everyone starts with a clean slate. I'm not sure at all, that's why I said "that is if ranked mmr is based off your normal mmr". I think it will be that way, or at least in my mind it makes the most sense. But I have no idea I am getting this impression that everyone will have a clean start with ranked game because technically all the games we played are not ranked. Matches played in normal matchmaking do not impact your ranked matchmaking MMR, and vice versa.
When you first start using ranked matchmaking, you will enter a calibration phase of 10 games. During this time, your ranked MMR will not be visible. And that makes sense too, because what's the point if we used current mmr (which is a mess) as a baseline for ranked game's mmr :S I am just so damn happy that we will get solo mmr, too many people just purposely stack with tryhards and brag about them mmr. And i hope they will include some sort of hero score too so people who can only play very few heroes will be noted too. Current MMR is fine, do you realise they will be using the same system for ranked? I, for once, think the base mmr in ranked (for your first game)should be your normal mmr I disagree with this because people will have a different approach to ranked games and normal games. Whatever you've done in an unranked setting should not reflect your ranked setting. Agreed. Sometimes i try to win, sometimes i don't...i try to have fun all the time and play accordingly This has nothing to do with what he said though. The first game in ranked should 100% use your old MMR. It makes adjusting into your correct ranked MMR far easier. There's no reason make everyone start from scracth when you have something that is at least moderatelly acurate, even if both ranks will not end up being the same after a few games. ? Did you read? I, for once, think the base mmr in ranked (for your first game)should be your normal mmr I disagree with this because people will have a different approach to ranked games and normal games. Whatever you've done in an unranked setting should not reflect your ranked setting. Agreed. Sometimes i try to win, sometimes i don't. I take a different approach when I am looking to win (ie. when it's ranked) You agree with the first guy, i agree with the 2nd...it's ok to have different opinions PS. there will be high uncertainty in the first few games (as they state) so whether they use your current unranked MMR or a completely new one, it will change drastically to start off and will eventually even out to where you should be. You agree with the second, and he disagrees with the first one. The first post said it should use your base MMR for the first ranked game. The second guy said you should not, god knows why. The answer he gave is irrelevant, since your Ranked and Non Ranker MMR will still be diferent. He gave no reasons why you should start from scratch insted of using an at least moderatelly acurate MMR for your first game. Neither did you. I assumed he didn't notice the "first game" part, but you have no such excuse, specially after accusing other people of not reading.
The point of the conversation has to do with starting mmr, so there was no point in mentioning it.
The reason he gave for starting from scratch is because people play differently when they know it is ranked. I agreed.
I did not add more because I am not trying to argue with you. It is ok to have different opinions. I am not trying to change your mind, I simply added that I agree with him because I take different approaches when i know it is ranked or not. In the long run, it really doesn't matter which way they do it.
|
On December 08 2013 05:10 Prplppleatr wrote:Show nested quote +On December 08 2013 04:49 SKC wrote:On December 08 2013 04:39 Prplppleatr wrote:On December 08 2013 04:34 SKC wrote:On December 08 2013 04:32 Prplppleatr wrote:On December 07 2013 20:49 Bumblebee wrote:On December 07 2013 20:46 Teton wrote:On December 07 2013 19:14 BurningSera wrote:On December 07 2013 18:25 TheEmulator wrote:On December 07 2013 18:15 Laurens wrote:
[quote]
Are you sure ranked MMR will be based on normal MMR? The article doesn't hint that it will. I think it will just be the 10 placement games and everyone starts with a clean slate. I'm not sure at all, that's why I said "that is if ranked mmr is based off your normal mmr". I think it will be that way, or at least in my mind it makes the most sense. But I have no idea I am getting this impression that everyone will have a clean start with ranked game because technically all the games we played are not ranked. Matches played in normal matchmaking do not impact your ranked matchmaking MMR, and vice versa.
When you first start using ranked matchmaking, you will enter a calibration phase of 10 games. During this time, your ranked MMR will not be visible. And that makes sense too, because what's the point if we used current mmr (which is a mess) as a baseline for ranked game's mmr :S I am just so damn happy that we will get solo mmr, too many people just purposely stack with tryhards and brag about them mmr. And i hope they will include some sort of hero score too so people who can only play very few heroes will be noted too. Current MMR is fine, do you realise they will be using the same system for ranked? I, for once, think the base mmr in ranked (for your first game)should be your normal mmr I disagree with this because people will have a different approach to ranked games and normal games. Whatever you've done in an unranked setting should not reflect your ranked setting. Agreed. Sometimes i try to win, sometimes i don't...i try to have fun all the time and play accordingly This has nothing to do with what he said though. The first game in ranked should 100% use your old MMR. It makes adjusting into your correct ranked MMR far easier. There's no reason make everyone start from scracth when you have something that is at least moderatelly acurate, even if both ranks will not end up being the same after a few games. ? Did you read? I, for once, think the base mmr in ranked (for your first game)should be your normal mmr I disagree with this because people will have a different approach to ranked games and normal games. Whatever you've done in an unranked setting should not reflect your ranked setting. Agreed. Sometimes i try to win, sometimes i don't. I take a different approach when I am looking to win (ie. when it's ranked) You agree with the first guy, i agree with the 2nd...it's ok to have different opinions PS. there will be high uncertainty in the first few games (as they state) so whether they use your current unranked MMR or a completely new one, it will change drastically to start off and will eventually even out to where you should be. You agree with the second, and he disagrees with the first one. The first post said it should use your base MMR for the first ranked game. The second guy said you should not, god knows why. The answer he gave is irrelevant, since your Ranked and Non Ranker MMR will still be diferent. He gave no reasons why you should start from scratch insted of using an at least moderatelly acurate MMR for your first game. Neither did you. I assumed he didn't notice the "first game" part, but you have no such excuse, specially after accusing other people of not reading. The point of the conversation has to do with starting mmr, so there was no point in mentioning it. The reason he gave for starting from scratch is because people play differently when they know it is ranked. I agreed. I did not add more because I am not trying to argue with you. It is ok to have different opinions. I am not trying to change your mind, I simply added that I agree with him because I take different approaches when i know it is ranked or not. In the long run, it really doesn't matter which way they do it.
Yes, their ranks are diferent. Do you think they will be more diferent than your Ranked MMR and the starting MMR everyone gets? If yes, why do you think it's better to use a system that gives your an even bigger diference than the fairly small diference you get from using the old MMR? I'm just having a hard time understanding this line of thought. It's not like you have a MMR that isn't diferent, or that it will prevent ranked from diverging. So it's a choice between a small diference and a big diference, and you are defending a big diference.
|
On December 08 2013 04:39 SKC wrote:Show nested quote +On December 08 2013 04:38 Taters_ wrote:
Before you pass/reject the update, you should read the whole article from dota2 blog as the first post is only a part of the article. It seems like a good step (atleast) towards a balanced skill based mmr. I'm pretty sure it's not a step towards that, since he is talking about things that already exist. The only change is the addition of ranked.
Not the normal, rather the new MMR. Though my point was not to judge solely based on Heyoka's quote as it's just a part of the article and ppl should read it whole before predicting doom or salvation.
|
On December 08 2013 05:13 SKC wrote:Show nested quote +On December 08 2013 05:10 Prplppleatr wrote:On December 08 2013 04:49 SKC wrote:On December 08 2013 04:39 Prplppleatr wrote:On December 08 2013 04:34 SKC wrote:On December 08 2013 04:32 Prplppleatr wrote:On December 07 2013 20:49 Bumblebee wrote:On December 07 2013 20:46 Teton wrote:On December 07 2013 19:14 BurningSera wrote:On December 07 2013 18:25 TheEmulator wrote:[quote] I'm not sure at all, that's why I said "that is if ranked mmr is based off your normal mmr". I think it will be that way, or at least in my mind it makes the most sense. But I have no idea I am getting this impression that everyone will have a clean start with ranked game because technically all the games we played are not ranked. Matches played in normal matchmaking do not impact your ranked matchmaking MMR, and vice versa.
When you first start using ranked matchmaking, you will enter a calibration phase of 10 games. During this time, your ranked MMR will not be visible. And that makes sense too, because what's the point if we used current mmr (which is a mess) as a baseline for ranked game's mmr :S I am just so damn happy that we will get solo mmr, too many people just purposely stack with tryhards and brag about them mmr. And i hope they will include some sort of hero score too so people who can only play very few heroes will be noted too. Current MMR is fine, do you realise they will be using the same system for ranked? I, for once, think the base mmr in ranked (for your first game)should be your normal mmr I disagree with this because people will have a different approach to ranked games and normal games. Whatever you've done in an unranked setting should not reflect your ranked setting. Agreed. Sometimes i try to win, sometimes i don't...i try to have fun all the time and play accordingly This has nothing to do with what he said though. The first game in ranked should 100% use your old MMR. It makes adjusting into your correct ranked MMR far easier. There's no reason make everyone start from scracth when you have something that is at least moderatelly acurate, even if both ranks will not end up being the same after a few games. ? Did you read? I, for once, think the base mmr in ranked (for your first game)should be your normal mmr I disagree with this because people will have a different approach to ranked games and normal games. Whatever you've done in an unranked setting should not reflect your ranked setting. Agreed. Sometimes i try to win, sometimes i don't. I take a different approach when I am looking to win (ie. when it's ranked) You agree with the first guy, i agree with the 2nd...it's ok to have different opinions PS. there will be high uncertainty in the first few games (as they state) so whether they use your current unranked MMR or a completely new one, it will change drastically to start off and will eventually even out to where you should be. You agree with the second, and he disagrees with the first one. The first post said it should use your base MMR for the first ranked game. The second guy said you should not, god knows why. The answer he gave is irrelevant, since your Ranked and Non Ranker MMR will still be diferent. He gave no reasons why you should start from scratch insted of using an at least moderatelly acurate MMR for your first game. Neither did you. I assumed he didn't notice the "first game" part, but you have no such excuse, specially after accusing other people of not reading. The point of the conversation has to do with starting mmr, so there was no point in mentioning it. The reason he gave for starting from scratch is because people play differently when they know it is ranked. I agreed. I did not add more because I am not trying to argue with you. It is ok to have different opinions. I am not trying to change your mind, I simply added that I agree with him because I take different approaches when i know it is ranked or not. In the long run, it really doesn't matter which way they do it. Yes, their ranks are diferent. Do you think they will be more diferent than your Ranked MMR and the starting MMR everyone gets? If yes, why do you think it's better to use a system that gives your an even bigger diference than the fairly small diference you get from using the old MMR? I'm just having a hard time understanding this line of thought. It's not like you have a MMR that isn't diferent, or that it will prevent ranked from diverging. So it's a choice between a small diference and a big diference, and you are defending a big diference.
Ok, to clarify I will restate two things. Either way, there will be high uncertainty in the first few games (as they state) so whether they use your current unranked MMR or a completely new one, it will change drastically to start off and will eventually even out to where you should be. In the long run, it really doesn't matter which way they do it.
"When you first start using ranked matchmaking, you will enter a calibration phase of 10 games. During this time, your ranked MMR will not be visible."
Again, I am not trying to argue with you. I personally don't think it matters which way they do it, but I prefer having a new one because it will be solely based on ranked play. Either way, we will end up where we should.
|
On December 08 2013 05:05 OutlaW- wrote:In my opinion the only thing that this changes is adding a new queue and making your MMR visible. People who need an arbitrary number to track improvement will not find what they are looking for, because a number is never a true way to measure your skill, that's something everyone should do on their own. Too many factors go into whether you win, whether you have a lot of gold, whether you buy many wards, whether you do many pings. I just don't like all this arbitrariness. I think many people are being way too short-sighted. + Show Spoiler +Also Elo is not an acronym.
Yeah and objective tests and grades are just simply bullshit and not an accurate estimate of a student's general knowledge of a particular content. Lmao.
I love how people come up with bullshit arguments to try and argue against fundamental statistics. If you have enough of a sample size, that particular number is a pretty good indicator of your individual skill. League of Legends has a pretty solid system. Everyone in Diamond 1 may not be a professional, but they are leagues better than everyone that is in Platinum, Gold, Silver, Bronze, etc.
People keep trying to say ELO/MMR/etc. aren't accurate measures of skill. Yes, they may not pinpoint exactly what the player is good at (for example, a player may whore mid teamfight heroes alot, so that is what he specializes in), but the skill rating will give you a rough estimate of the player's understanding of the game, along with a baseline level of mechanics. This is as long as the player plays a large enough number of games, and doesn't abuse the system in some form or fashion (which most people don't, because who really picks QoP/Invoker/etc. 1000000000000000000 games in a row)
|
Relative skill metrics fail to measure your skill progression if the people around you are also improving. Makes 'em good for matchmaking but rather poor for self-assessment.
|
On December 08 2013 05:37 superstartran wrote:Show nested quote +On December 08 2013 05:05 OutlaW- wrote:In my opinion the only thing that this changes is adding a new queue and making your MMR visible. People who need an arbitrary number to track improvement will not find what they are looking for, because a number is never a true way to measure your skill, that's something everyone should do on their own. Too many factors go into whether you win, whether you have a lot of gold, whether you buy many wards, whether you do many pings. I just don't like all this arbitrariness. I think many people are being way too short-sighted. + Show Spoiler +Also Elo is not an acronym. Yeah and objective tests and grades are just simply bullshit and not an accurate estimate of a student's general knowledge of a particular content. Lmao. I love how people come up with bullshit arguments to try and argue against fundamental statistics. If you have enough of a sample size, that particular number is a pretty good indicator of your individual skill. League of Legends has a pretty solid system. Everyone in Diamond 1 may not be a professional, but they are leagues better than everyone that is in Platinum, Gold, Silver, Bronze, etc. People keep trying to say ELO/MMR/etc. aren't accurate measures of skill. Yes, they may not pinpoint exactly what the player is good at (for example, a player may whore mid teamfight heroes alot, so that is what he specializes in), but the skill rating will give you a rough estimate of the player's understanding of the game, along with a baseline level of mechanics. This is as long as the player plays a large enough number of games, and doesn't abuse the system in some form or fashion (which most people don't, because who really picks QoP/Invoker/etc. 1000000000000000000 games in a row)
It's like sc2, some people used to say "i'm gold but really i can beat diamonds" but in practice the diamond player would win 90% of the time ( i used to play in an amateur league were matchups like this would happen)
|
I just hope the 10 first games can accurately put us in the proper level cause I've being trolling far too much in the past year and I just can't stand erasme having a bigger rank, it will be horrible.
|
maybe you should challenge erasme to 1vs1 and get him banned from tl
dota2 ranked sux imo, even more rage to come now in games
|
On December 08 2013 05:37 superstartran wrote:Show nested quote +On December 08 2013 05:05 OutlaW- wrote:In my opinion the only thing that this changes is adding a new queue and making your MMR visible. People who need an arbitrary number to track improvement will not find what they are looking for, because a number is never a true way to measure your skill, that's something everyone should do on their own. Too many factors go into whether you win, whether you have a lot of gold, whether you buy many wards, whether you do many pings. I just don't like all this arbitrariness. I think many people are being way too short-sighted. + Show Spoiler + Yeah and objective tests and grades are just simply bullshit and not an accurate estimate of a student's general knowledge of a particular content. Lmao. I love how people come up with bullshit arguments to try and argue against fundamental statistics. If you have enough of a sample size, that particular number is a pretty good indicator of your individual skill. League of Legends has a pretty solid system. Everyone in Diamond 1 may not be a professional, but they are leagues better than everyone that is in Platinum, Gold, Silver, Bronze, etc. People keep trying to say ELO/MMR/etc. aren't accurate measures of skill. Yes, they may not pinpoint exactly what the player is good at (for example, a player may whore mid teamfight heroes alot, so that is what he specializes in), but the skill rating will give you a rough estimate of the player's understanding of the game, along with a baseline level of mechanics. This is as long as the player plays a large enough number of games, and doesn't abuse the system in some form or fashion (which most people don't, because who really picks QoP/Invoker/etc. 1000000000000000000 games in a row)
The guy you're responding to is wrong, but MMR is not an objective measurement like a test or grade is, simply because MMR is relative to other players whereas a test isn't. I could get twice as good at Dota, and my ranking wouldn't move an inch if everyone else did too. I do agree that MMR is really good at sorting out how good people are despite what whiners think (fuck ranked AP though). Expecting every player to be all-around skilled is ridiculous (and is a bit counter intuitive to them actually going pro, considering pros specialize too).
As for your last comment... I wanted to make a sarcastic comment that linked to Bulldog's wiki page but it seems to eat the tags when I try to post. But you get the idea.
|
On December 08 2013 06:08 Severedevil wrote:
Relative skill metrics fail to measure your skill progression if the people around you are also improving. Makes 'em good for matchmaking but rather poor for self-assessment.
This is false, I evaluate statistics and people for a living so I know what the fuck I am talking about.
Relative skill metrics measure skill progression fairly well, because of the fact that video games (unlike objective tests) are fluid and constantly changing unlike things like a particular content like History, Physics, Geography, etc. (I mean they change, but not as much as a video game's metagame does).
So let's say there is a huge metagame shift and you move down 100 points. Guess what? You aren't good anymore because you haven't adapted well to the new metagame and others have. So a relative skill metric is pretty good at self assessment because it's telling you that you haven't adapted to said new metagame shift and you really need to step up your game if you want to be at the same rating as you were before.
It's like the real world. Let's say that in a particular technical field there's a shift to move towards a different type of infrastructure (for example let's just say that you are all moving to Oracle). You're used to programming one way. Guess what? Your skills became obsolete because everyone is moving towards a different infrastructure that you aren't used to, and if you don't change, you're fucked.
And the only way to measure progression is to see how you're doing versus other people. There is no 'standard' level of skill in video games. Everything is relative and fluid in video game metagame. So guess what? Your only measurement of progression is of course going to be how you're doing versus the general population. It is the most objective and most accurate measurement of general skill possible.
|
On December 08 2013 06:48 superstartran wrote:Show nested quote +On December 08 2013 06:08 Severedevil wrote:
Relative skill metrics fail to measure your skill progression if the people around you are also improving. Makes 'em good for matchmaking but rather poor for self-assessment. This is false, I evaluate statistics and people for a living so I know what the fuck I am talking about. Relative skill metrics measure skill progression fairly well, because of the fact that video games (unlike objective tests) are fluid and constantly changing unlike things like a particular content like History, Physics, Geography, etc. (I mean they change, but not as much as a video game's metagame does). So let's say there is a huge metagame shift and you move down 100 points. Guess what? You aren't good anymore because you haven't adapted well to the new metagame and others have. So a relative skill metric is pretty good at self assessment because it's telling you that you haven't adapted to said new metagame shift and you really need to step up your game if you want to be at the same rating as you were before. It's like the real world. Let's say that in a particular technical field there's a shift to move towards a different type of infrastructure (for example let's just say that you are all moving to Oracle). You're used to programming one way. Guess what? Your skills became obsolete because everyone is moving towards a different infrastructure that you aren't used to, and if you don't change, you're fucked.
It's can definatelly be true. Take for example a similarly ranked SC2 player right now and at launch. They wouldn't be playing at the same level. As the game evolves, players evolve and even the player pools limits itself to a bigger fraction of experienced players.
People in SC2 are dropping divisions without necessairly dropping in skill right now.
|
On December 08 2013 06:53 SKC wrote:Show nested quote +On December 08 2013 06:48 superstartran wrote:On December 08 2013 06:08 Severedevil wrote:
Relative skill metrics fail to measure your skill progression if the people around you are also improving. Makes 'em good for matchmaking but rather poor for self-assessment. This is false, I evaluate statistics and people for a living so I know what the fuck I am talking about. Relative skill metrics measure skill progression fairly well, because of the fact that video games (unlike objective tests) are fluid and constantly changing unlike things like a particular content like History, Physics, Geography, etc. (I mean they change, but not as much as a video game's metagame does). So let's say there is a huge metagame shift and you move down 100 points. Guess what? You aren't good anymore because you haven't adapted well to the new metagame and others have. So a relative skill metric is pretty good at self assessment because it's telling you that you haven't adapted to said new metagame shift and you really need to step up your game if you want to be at the same rating as you were before. It's like the real world. Let's say that in a particular technical field there's a shift to move towards a different type of infrastructure (for example let's just say that you are all moving to Oracle). You're used to programming one way. Guess what? Your skills became obsolete because everyone is moving towards a different infrastructure that you aren't used to, and if you don't change, you're fucked. It's can definatelly be true. Take for example a similarly ranked SC2 player right now and at launch. They wouldn't be playing at the same level. As the game evolves, players evolve and even the player pools limits itself to a bigger fraction of experienced players. People in SC2 are dropping divisions without necessairly dropping in skill right now.
Progression in a multiplayer game cannot be measured like progression in a content area of an academic subject. Progression in a multiplayer game can only be measured based on your performance versus the general population. If you're performing better against the vast majority of the population, then you are still progressing, especially if you keep climbing up that ladder. There's no feasible way to measure out progression like an objective test can (because the actual content that is being measured is relative and fluid like I said).
People are dropping in SC2 divisions because they either A) Aren't adapting to the new metagame shifts or B) Aren't as good as they think. Skill level is only relative to other players. You may have the same skillsets, but your overall skil has 'decreased' so to speak because you haven't kept up and improved.
|
Overall, I like these changes and have always felt like they were needed in the game for a long time. However, this brings up some questions for the unranked system:
1. Is your unranked Win total going to remain visible? If so, what's the point?
2. Is the topic of surrendering going to be revisited for unranked play now that competitive queuing is available?
3. Will the MMR range for games in unranked play going to be increased? Currently the biggest problem I have with Dota is that if I want to play with a new player, there is no game mode for us to play together outside of comp stomps. If we were to play unranked (as is today on live) matchmaking we'd get crushed every time. By broadening the MMR range for unranked play, it might encourage players to play with new players in non-AI matches.
Again, good change and eagerly awaiting the patch.
|
On December 07 2013 12:15 Heyoka wrote:
Now what we need is an actual team ladder where winners get invites to a TI4 qual.
Please no. Really stupid idea. Riot already proved that this does not work.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
