Ranked matchmaking coming to Dota 2 - Page 16

On December 08 2013 20:48 Enders116 wrote:
I don't mean to offend anyone by asking this question, but do you guys think that this will make skill discrepancies more transparent and do you guys think this will make newer, stronger players more noticeable, and thus help grow the DoTA scene a bit more?

On December 08 2013 21:06 govie wrote:


Is there a correlation between scenegrowth and skillbalanced matchmaking? Does making new stronger and weaker players more noticable make a scene grow more? Will making skilldiscrepancies more transparant help fuel scenegrowth? dont think so.

I think Dota2 has alot more viewers+scene then sc2 atm and didnt ever have skillbalanced matchmaking + transparancy as sc2 does. I dont even like the bronze to masters transparancy. It gives me a feeling of one individual being less worthy then another, it reminds me of badtimes in humanity. Even on TL-forums someone that was in goldleague, may post a guide and we all know which reactions will be posted. U dont know shit, below masters is a bad guide etcetcetc.

In a way, keeping the skilllevel private (also for the user) is a good way to ensure that people play for fun. Its a win/win/win. 1. U get skillbalanced matchmaking 2. u dont know the level or ur skill and can only guess, resulting in a less toxic community 3. and less toxic gamingenviroment, as in sc2 i only wanted to win to advance, if i lost i got toxic of the game or even teammates. As teammates influence your mmr indirectly/directly. So maybe MMR or MMR+transparancy results in a more toxic gamingcommunity?

On December 08 2013 21:30 Jetaap wrote:

I'm sorry but the world works in such a way that people have different level of expertise on any given subject, and the opinions of people with the highest expertise will be more respected and listened to. I don't see how it could possibly be seen as a bad thing.
Also you're throwing the word toxic around way too much: "i got toxic of the game or even teamates" what does that even mean.

On December 08 2013 13:28 Pokebunny wrote:

Obviously, but even for the amateur teams who didn't win - if the ladder was super competitive, even top 10 teams might get noticed, etc. The amateur scene is dota right now is pretty challenging and competitive and there is very little recognition.

On December 08 2013 21:06 govie wrote:


Is there a correlation between scenegrowth and skillbalanced matchmaking? Does making new stronger and weaker players more noticable make a scene grow more? Will making skilldiscrepancies more transparant help fuel scenegrowth? dont think so.

I think Dota2 has alot more viewers+scene then sc2 atm and didnt ever have skillbalanced matchmaking + transparancy as sc2 does. I dont even like the bronze to masters transparancy. It gives me a feeling of one individual being less worthy then another, it reminds me of badtimes in humanity. Even on TL-forums someone that was in goldleague, may post a guide and we all know which reactions will be posted. U dont know shit, below masters is a bad guide etcetcetc.

In a way, keeping the skilllevel private (also for the user) is a good way to ensure that people play for fun. Its a win/win/win. 1. U get skillbalanced matchmaking 2. u dont know the level or ur skill and can only guess, resulting in a less toxic community 3. and less toxic gamingenviroment, as in sc2 i only wanted to win to advance, if i lost i got toxic of the game or even teammates. As teammates influence your mmr indirectly/directly. So maybe MMR or MMR+transparancy results in a more toxic gamingcommunity?

On December 08 2013 21:43 govie wrote:


What i ment is that in sc2, alot of people wanted to advance in leagues or maybe win/loss ratios. In dota2 if i want to advance my play, i guess i need to win teamgames. To win games i need good teammates which i have no control over. i.e if i have a 10 - 0 riki on my allpick team at 15 minutes, i will have a good kda myself, pretty sure of that.

I think it could be possible that transparancy in skill for the individual (also your own skillnumber MMR), could, maybe even will, fuel a more toxic gamingenviroment.

As it is alot easier to blame others, we all know that. In an individual game like sc2, a skilltransparancy works well because u measure yourself and only yourself. U alone have influence on ur skillnumber MMR. In dota2, teammates also influence my skillnumber MMR. Ofc. an individual MMR can add something to a scene or teamgame, but I also expect alot more badmanner in games after the introduction of MMR-transparancy. Hopefully it wont be alot more.

On December 09 2013 01:51 superstartran wrote:




Stop with the bullshit please. The reason why people say gold users shouldn't be posting guides is because if you aren't at a high level, you really have no business talking 'strategy.' Your basic mechanics aren't even solid yet. There is no such thing as a below Masters Level player with solid fundamentals. Pure bullshit.





Bullshit statement #2. With a large enough sample size (which does take quite a few games, but is feasible), your teammates have 0 influence on your ability to win games. Why? Because eventually you will have enough good teammates to cancel out the bad ones, and as such you are the sole determining factor whether or not your skill factor goes up or not.

I don't mean to antagonize, but these bullshit statements only come from people who simply refuse to admit that the skill measurement is going to knock them back down to reality.

On December 09 2013 02:09 govie wrote:


Not really, Mr. bullshit

I dont give a fuck about rankings, but i do care about a nice game with out morons and retards ruining it. I think the gamingatmossphere ingame will be less forgiving and less fun if the MMR is visible and it becomes a goal for certain people.

Go bullshit this plz.

On December 09 2013 02:22 aintz wrote:
if i posted like you superstartran id get banned for 1 month lol.

On December 09 2013 02:26 superstartran wrote:



There's nothing wrong with the way I'm posting. I'm merely pointing out that you are wrong. Sure, I may come of as slightly elitist and bit of a douchebag, but the fact of the matter is you are wrong. And I don't mean wrong by opinion, I mean you are wrong based on facts.


1) Gold level players have no right to post a guide because any strategy they come up with is going to be fundamentally flawed, and will be crushed by any player with solid basic fundamentals and strong mechanics. This is a fact. It may seem elitist, but that's how the real world works too. Experts (masters players and up) will be given more power because they are experts in their field, and the amateur player (gold level player) will be ignored for the most part until he can prove that his theory actually works (which usually means he's really not a gold level player and really a masters league +)

2) Teammates do not matter in a large enough sample size. This is just basic statistics 101. As long as your sample size is large enough, you will eliminate most factors as long as the control is based on something reasonable (which it is, it is mostly based on W/L percentage, win more, your skill factor goes up, lose alot, your skill factor goes down).


You can argue till your face is blue, it will not change the fact that you are factually wrong. Neither of those are opinions, those are facts.

On December 09 2013 02:32 aintz wrote:
do you even read whos posting before you quote and say they are wrong? lol.

On December 09 2013 02:34 Alur wrote:

Some might say he's factually wrong :D

On December 09 2013 02:36 superstartran wrote:



Indeed. Point still stands. I sometimes lose my mind when people say shit like


"TEAMMATES ARE GOING TO DRAG MY SKILL RATING DOWN"

On December 09 2013 02:34 Alur wrote:

Some might say he's factually wrong :D