|
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 06:55 superstartran wrote:Show nested quote +On December 08 2013 06:53 SKC wrote: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).
Which is basically what he said. It depends on how the performance of the population changes, and that's information you don't have. So you may rise in ranks without necessairly becoming a better player, if for example the game is flooded with new players for whathever reason, or drop in ranks because the newbies left for whathever reason. If you care about self improvement, not how you compare to others, it's worse than a static metric.
You are talking about a diferent thing. It's comparing your rate of improvement versus the rate of improvement of other people as opposed to simply how fast you improve. It's not what most people think when talking about self improvement.
Just look at how easy it was for a HoN/Dota pro to switch to LoL and reach the highest of ranks before. It's not the case anymore, because the overall level of play increased.
|
I dont like it... I dont think it is going to bring anything good.
|
FINALLY! jeeeeeeeeezus. This was needed a long long time ago. My whole social circle stopped playing dota2 a while ago solely because of the lack of ranking system. You can complain about people being dbags and wanting to have a happy happy rainbow fun land where everyone says GG LOL XXOO but this is what motivates a good chuck of people. A ranking system. The excitement and despair of going up and down the ladder with friends.
I'm excited about it. I hope it comes soon.
|
MMR only accounts for the broad strokes, for the numbers, those things aren't skill. Skill influences them heavily, but ultimately skill is something which fundamentally cannot be measured. I'm sure Valve's MMR will be pretty accurate, but it will never be completely accurate. Keeping track of your growth and skill by yourself without arbitrary numbers makes you a better player in the end, IMO.
I think the only thing this will do is force people to either play with the tryhards who use that arbitrary number to judge everything or with the casuals. I really liked it before where both of these types of players were only matched with their "skill" (MMR), now it's just going to be divided.
|
Your ranked MMR is visible only to you and your friends
Gosh but what if my friends see my low mmr and don't talk to me anymore?
pls keep all mmr hidden
|
On December 08 2013 06:57 SilverStar wrote:Show nested quote +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.
I think you should explain that a bit.
I personally think it'd be a good idea, or maybe something like a spot into the TI3 qualifier or something to that effect. That would really kick some life into the team match making. Which I feel, is where Valve should look to next, in order to improve the competitive experience in dota 2 for teams who aren't competing in tournaments currently.
|
On December 08 2013 06:59 SKC wrote:Show nested quote +On December 08 2013 06:55 superstartran wrote:On December 08 2013 06:53 SKC wrote: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). Which is basically what he said. It depends on how the performance of the population changes, and that's information you don't have. So you may rise in ranks without necessairly becoming a better player, if for example the game is flooded with new players for whathever reason, or drop in ranks because the newbies left for whathever reason. If you care about self improvement, not how you compare to others, it's worse than a static metric. You are talking about a diferent thing. It's comparing your rate of improvement versus the rate of improvement of other people as opposed to simply how fast you improve. It's not what most people think when talking about self improvement. Just look at how easy it was for a HoN/Dota pro to switch to LoL and reach the highest of ranks before. It's not the case anymore, because the overall level of play increased.
Skill Measurement in a video game is a measurement of your mechanical skills and your game knowledge. If you aren't keeping up with everyone else around you in terms of your game knowledge, then your relative skill metric is going to go down. Skill is a relative and fluid concept, as such you have to be constantly improving to see progression. Yes, there is the situation where you are improving but you don't see any changes to your skill metric, but that's an extremely rare case and only happens in very small sets of situations.
Hence, the skill metric is still a good way to measure your progress as a player. If you are serious about improving, and you do not see any improvement, it means you are likely doing something wrong.
On December 08 2013 07:11 OutlaW- wrote:
MMR only accounts for the broad strokes, for the numbers, those things aren't skill. Skill influences them heavily, but ultimately skill is something which fundamentally cannot be measured. I'm sure Valve's MMR will be pretty accurate, but it will never be completely accurate. Keeping track of your growth and skill by yourself without arbitrary numbers makes you a better player in the end, IMO.
I think the only thing this will do is force people to either play with the tryhards who use that arbitrary number to judge everything or with the casuals. I really liked it before where both of these types of players were only matched with their "skill" (MMR), now it's just going to be divided.
There is nothing wrong with dividing the community up where one set of players will play more serious and the others will play for more shits and giggles. Fundamentally there is nothing wrong with either side, so why force the two to conflict with each other by forcing them to play in the same pool? League of Legends is very successful in having a ranked/unranked mode (and no, Yango and what others say about ranked being toxic is completely untrue). Statistically, ranked is an extremely small subset of players. I think in S3 it was a little over 900,000 players played ranked, compared to the millions upon millions that play unranked.
|
Sounds great in theory. Too bad matchmaking already work pretty poorly and a trillion of games you got paired with inferior players/disbalanced teams.
If they manage to balance that, it will be sick.
|
Finallllly, maybe I'll actually start spamming games again. It'll probably be filled with the usual trolls and elitists every now and then, but that's dota! wheeee
|
On December 08 2013 04:20 Pokebunny wrote:Show nested quote +On December 08 2013 01:00 Baarn wrote:On December 07 2013 12:24 Heyoka wrote:On December 07 2013 12:17 LeLoup wrote: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. That... actually sounds pretty awful. How about a team ladder that is just more than average MMRs first? Can you explain what sounds awful about this? How does turning TI into something more than an invite-only event make it worse? Because you'll get stomped once you face the pro teams and that's just not entertaining to watch. Why wouldn't pro teams play TMM ladder if it had that as a prize? Basically every team that isn't invited to the qualifier will play.
Sure it'd be nice to have a separate qualifier for those teams to build more hype for the ti4 and add some more storylines. I'm just saying from an amateur perspective it would be a hard road. Hell even for pro teams. I don't want to beat anybody up that has aspirations to play on that level. It's a lot different game than sc2. Egos clash and teams drop players. Look at ti3 with invited pro teams that had stable rosters up until right before the event and they had drama? Dota is a hard game. 
|
On December 08 2013 07:15 n0ise wrote:Gosh but what if my friends see my low mmr and don't talk to me anymore? pls keep all mmr hidden
some friends you have
|
I like this but it ll never be better than IXDL because in valve games there arent any consequences for the leavers and the people that do shit on purpose, thats very important and the forums and reports keep the quality high in IXDL.
|
On December 08 2013 09:22 Baarn wrote:Show nested quote +On December 08 2013 04:20 Pokebunny wrote:On December 08 2013 01:00 Baarn wrote:On December 07 2013 12:24 Heyoka wrote:On December 07 2013 12:17 LeLoup wrote: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. That... actually sounds pretty awful. How about a team ladder that is just more than average MMRs first? Can you explain what sounds awful about this? How does turning TI into something more than an invite-only event make it worse? Because you'll get stomped once you face the pro teams and that's just not entertaining to watch. Why wouldn't pro teams play TMM ladder if it had that as a prize? Basically every team that isn't invited to the qualifier will play. Sure it'd be nice to have a separate qualifier for those teams to build more hype for the ti4 and add some more storylines. I'm just saying from an amateur perspective it would be a hard road. Hell even for pro teams. I don't want to beat anybody up that has aspirations to play on that level. It's a lot different game than sc2. Egos clash and teams drop players. Look at ti3 with invited pro teams that had stable rosters up until right before the event and they had drama? Dota is a hard game.
The experience to play against strong teams in a ti4 qualifier (and if you win it against top teams of the world) would be great for a new and upcoming team, and would give them exposure for potential sponsors.
|
On December 08 2013 09:26 phantomlancer23 wrote:
I like this but it ll never be better than IXDL because in valve games there arent any consequences for the leavers and the people that do shit on purpose, thats very important and the forums and reports keep the quality high in IXDL.
uh what do you mean by no consequences? if you leave games you get put in LPQ and as the blog post states if you are in LPQ you can't play ranked
|
On December 08 2013 09:26 phantomlancer23 wrote:
I like this but it ll never be better than IXDL because in valve games there arent any consequences for the leavers and the people that do shit on purpose, thats very important and the forums and reports keep the quality high in IXDL.
This is like the exact opposite of everything I've ever seen about IXDL. I've heard that it's worse than pubs a good portion of the time. I can't confirm this as I'm not in it, but I've seen plenty of posts mentioning conditions in IXDL.
|
On December 08 2013 09:22 Baarn wrote:Show nested quote +On December 08 2013 04:20 Pokebunny wrote:On December 08 2013 01:00 Baarn wrote:On December 07 2013 12:24 Heyoka wrote:On December 07 2013 12:17 LeLoup wrote: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. That... actually sounds pretty awful. How about a team ladder that is just more than average MMRs first? Can you explain what sounds awful about this? How does turning TI into something more than an invite-only event make it worse? Because you'll get stomped once you face the pro teams and that's just not entertaining to watch. Why wouldn't pro teams play TMM ladder if it had that as a prize? Basically every team that isn't invited to the qualifier will play. Sure it'd be nice to have a separate qualifier for those teams to build more hype for the ti4 and add some more storylines. I'm just saying from an amateur perspective it would be a hard road. Hell even for pro teams. I don't want to beat anybody up that has aspirations to play on that level. It's a lot different game than sc2. Egos clash and teams drop players. Look at ti3 with invited pro teams that had stable rosters up until right before the event and they had drama? Dota is a hard game.
who cares if its a hard road wtf
|
Harsh Truth:
If you are actually any good, you simply do not fear any scale being added because you will undoubtedly be near the top. Any who dislike the idea must fear it in some manner (generally the exposure of their shortcomings) which defeats the whole purpose of competition. If you don't want to play a competitive game, don't play MOBAs or RTSs or FPSs at the very least. Otherwise, accept the obvious and completely logical fact that the company creating and one who is supported by the competitive scene is going to develop their game with ranking and "being the best" in mind.
|
I got excited about it but I play AP cause I don't like how long cd takes to get started and it is too serious sometimes. My fear is that AP games will become extra tryhard. I'm not saying ppl shouldn't try to win, but I don't wanna play vs "TI" picks all the time or get yelled at for randoming. Hopefully it won't happen
|
On December 08 2013 11:30 iokke wrote:
I got excited about it but I play AP cause I don't like how long cd takes to get started and it is too serious sometimes. My fear is that AP games will become extra tryhard. I'm not saying ppl shouldn't try to win, but I don't wanna play vs "TI" picks all the time or get yelled at for randoming. Hopefully it won't happen
You still can queue for normal games though, noone forces you to play rank.
|
I know but I do want to play ranked, that was the point... I just hope that it won't be so stale/boring that I have to go back to normal
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
