|
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 24 2013 05:35 Darkren wrote:Show nested quote +On December 24 2013 05:28 TRAP[yoo] wrote:On December 24 2013 05:17 Darkren wrote:On December 24 2013 03:59 Ayaz2810 wrote:On December 24 2013 00:46 TRAP[yoo] wrote:
why would you choose to play ranked if you just dick around and ruin the game for everybody?
edit: is there any reason why iam always the guy with the highest rank in my team? I had a guy in ranked MM go 0-9 on Ursa and say "it's just a game. Who cares if we win?". Why the fuck would you even play a game if you're not going to attempt to win it? How does that make any sense at all? You play it to have fun whether to win or loose That makes a lot of sense to me why would you need to play ranked to have fun? thats what i dont get. edit: i was hoping that it would be a lil bit more competetive now but i dont get that vibe at all. it feels like everybody is playing it and people just do the stuff they would normally do. Your turning the question around, Hes playing ranked but wants to still have fun even if he looses or wins
just think about it...if you dont care about win or lose it basically means that you dont care what your rank is because you only play to have fun. why in the name of god would you have any interest in playing ranked games? all you do is annoy people who want to have a semi competetive atmosphere
edit: yes im probably reading too much into this. but it just boogles my mind and its really frustrating 
|
Czech Republic18921 Posts
People just say they weren't trying after they fail. I wouldn't read too much into that, it happens all the time...
|
On December 24 2013 05:41 TRAP[yoo] wrote:Show nested quote +On December 24 2013 05:35 Darkren wrote:On December 24 2013 05:28 TRAP[yoo] wrote:On December 24 2013 05:17 Darkren wrote:On December 24 2013 03:59 Ayaz2810 wrote:On December 24 2013 00:46 TRAP[yoo] wrote:
why would you choose to play ranked if you just dick around and ruin the game for everybody?
edit: is there any reason why iam always the guy with the highest rank in my team? I had a guy in ranked MM go 0-9 on Ursa and say "it's just a game. Who cares if we win?". Why the fuck would you even play a game if you're not going to attempt to win it? How does that make any sense at all? You play it to have fun whether to win or loose That makes a lot of sense to me why would you need to play ranked to have fun? thats what i dont get. edit: i was hoping that it would be a lil bit more competetive now but i dont get that vibe at all. it feels like everybody is playing it and people just do the stuff they would normally do. Your turning the question around, Hes playing ranked but wants to still have fun even if he looses or wins just think about it...if you dont care about win or lose it basically means that you dont care what your rank is because you only play to have fun. why in the name of god would you have any interest in playing ranked games? all you do is annoy people who want to have a semi competetive atmosphere edit: yes im probably reading too much into this. but it just boogles my mind and its really frustrating
Well you can play to win, and want to play in a "semi competitive" environnement having an attitude such as "I will punch a wall if I loose". Yeah he lost, yeah he will loose ranks, but hey, no need to flip tables it was still just a singular game. That's how I view it.
|
United States12240 Posts
On December 24 2013 04:48 crms wrote:Show nested quote +On December 24 2013 04:24 LeLoup wrote:
Why would you gain more just because you have less points? If anything it makes perfect sense that you'd all remain constant since it is rating you guys together as a stack. As long as nobody performs way over or under expectations you should all get about the same. After all it isn't like the lower players are closing the skill gap in any statistical way while you're playing together. It doesn't make perfect sense and it would be unique to valve's system. HoN and well, any other mmr system wins/loses points relative to your mmr and your opponents mmr. If valve is indeed grouping you together and saying everyone is X mmr for this game, it's not accurately assessing mmr gains (or losses) for anyone except maybe the mid ranked player. Valve using this method would make it take an extraordinarily long time to dig yourself out of hole out when compared traditional mmr systems. I'm not super eloquent at speaking about mmr systems but I know having everyone gain/lose the same is incredibly broken compared to traditional systems. I look forward to hear from a more seasoned expert like Excalibur.
It is weird, if that's what's happening. In SC2 and WoW Arena, it works how you would expect it to work on an individual basis. SC2 treats arranged teams like a single unit, so that doesn't really apply here (or does it?). And for WoW Arena, the team rating is treated like a single unit. But what happens for Random Team SC2 or Personal Ratings in WoW?
In SC2 Random Team games, let's say the MMRs of each of the players on both teams are 1400, 1500, and 1600. The average rating is 1500. After the game finishes, each player earns (or loses) rating based on whatever their MMR is compared with the average rating of the opposing team. The 1400 would earn, say, 20 rating (1400 vs. 1500), the 1500 would earn 16 (1500 vs. 1500). The 1600 would earn 12 (1600 vs 1500).
Same with WoW, just replace "individual MMR" with "personal rating" and "average MMR" with "team rating".
I would expect the same to be true of Valve's system. You have individually queuing players playing against a squad of 5 opponents, whether stacked or not, so it should apply a rating change individually as well. The only time I would expect it not to do this is when your team is treated as an individual unit (that would be TMM). Maybe what they decided to do instead is average your team's MMR first and use that to compare to the average opposing team's MMR for rating calculation. That would explain why the rating change is uniform for all team members (or maybe it only does this for 5-stacks?).
|
United States12240 Posts
On December 24 2013 05:41 TRAP[yoo] wrote:Show nested quote +On December 24 2013 05:35 Darkren wrote:On December 24 2013 05:28 TRAP[yoo] wrote:On December 24 2013 05:17 Darkren wrote:On December 24 2013 03:59 Ayaz2810 wrote:On December 24 2013 00:46 TRAP[yoo] wrote:
why would you choose to play ranked if you just dick around and ruin the game for everybody?
edit: is there any reason why iam always the guy with the highest rank in my team? I had a guy in ranked MM go 0-9 on Ursa and say "it's just a game. Who cares if we win?". Why the fuck would you even play a game if you're not going to attempt to win it? How does that make any sense at all? You play it to have fun whether to win or loose That makes a lot of sense to me why would you need to play ranked to have fun? thats what i dont get. edit: i was hoping that it would be a lil bit more competetive now but i dont get that vibe at all. it feels like everybody is playing it and people just do the stuff they would normally do. Your turning the question around, Hes playing ranked but wants to still have fun even if he looses or wins just think about it...if you dont care about win or lose it basically means that you dont care what your rank is because you only play to have fun. why in the name of god would you have any interest in playing ranked games? all you do is annoy people who want to have a semi competetive atmosphere edit: yes im probably reading too much into this. but it just boogles my mind and its really frustrating
I think a timeline is important here. If you're losing, and especially if you're being blamed for the loss (for example, going 0-9 on Ursa), then it makes perfect sense that that player would say "it's just a game guys" mainly because it's not worth getting super angry about it. If the game started at 0:00 and that's when he said "it's just a game" with nothing else said, that would be unusual to me.
|
On December 24 2013 06:00 Excalibur_Z wrote:Show nested quote +On December 24 2013 04:48 crms wrote:On December 24 2013 04:24 LeLoup wrote:
Why would you gain more just because you have less points? If anything it makes perfect sense that you'd all remain constant since it is rating you guys together as a stack. As long as nobody performs way over or under expectations you should all get about the same. After all it isn't like the lower players are closing the skill gap in any statistical way while you're playing together. It doesn't make perfect sense and it would be unique to valve's system. HoN and well, any other mmr system wins/loses points relative to your mmr and your opponents mmr. If valve is indeed grouping you together and saying everyone is X mmr for this game, it's not accurately assessing mmr gains (or losses) for anyone except maybe the mid ranked player. Valve using this method would make it take an extraordinarily long time to dig yourself out of hole out when compared traditional mmr systems. I'm not super eloquent at speaking about mmr systems but I know having everyone gain/lose the same is incredibly broken compared to traditional systems. I look forward to hear from a more seasoned expert like Excalibur. It is weird, if that's what's happening. In SC2 and WoW Arena, it works how you would expect it to work on an individual basis. SC2 treats arranged teams like a single unit, so that doesn't really apply here (or does it?). And for WoW Arena, the team rating is treated like a single unit. But what happens for Random Team SC2 or Personal Ratings in WoW? In SC2 Random Team games, let's say the MMRs of each of the players on both teams are 1400, 1500, and 1600. The average rating is 1500. After the game finishes, each player earns (or loses) rating based on whatever their MMR is compared with the average rating of the opposing team. The 1400 would earn, say, 20 rating (1400 vs. 1500), the 1500 would earn 16 (1500 vs. 1500). The 1600 would earn 12 (1600 vs 1500). Same with WoW, just replace "individual MMR" with "personal rating" and "average MMR" with "team rating". I would expect the same to be true of Valve's system. You have individually queuing players playing against a squad of 5 opponents, whether stacked or not, so it should apply a rating change individually as well. The only time I would expect it not to do this is when your team is treated as an individual unit (that would be TMM). Maybe what they decided to do instead is average your team's MMR first and use that to compare to the average opposing team's MMR for rating calculation. That would explain why the rating change is uniform for all team members (or maybe it only does this for 5-stacks?).
I would assume that from his post he is queuing as a 5 stack as I don't think he would get put with the same randoms for enough games in a row to make a claim like that.
|
United States12240 Posts
On December 24 2013 06:03 LeLoup wrote:Show nested quote +On December 24 2013 06:00 Excalibur_Z wrote:On December 24 2013 04:48 crms wrote:On December 24 2013 04:24 LeLoup wrote:
Why would you gain more just because you have less points? If anything it makes perfect sense that you'd all remain constant since it is rating you guys together as a stack. As long as nobody performs way over or under expectations you should all get about the same. After all it isn't like the lower players are closing the skill gap in any statistical way while you're playing together. It doesn't make perfect sense and it would be unique to valve's system. HoN and well, any other mmr system wins/loses points relative to your mmr and your opponents mmr. If valve is indeed grouping you together and saying everyone is X mmr for this game, it's not accurately assessing mmr gains (or losses) for anyone except maybe the mid ranked player. Valve using this method would make it take an extraordinarily long time to dig yourself out of hole out when compared traditional mmr systems. I'm not super eloquent at speaking about mmr systems but I know having everyone gain/lose the same is incredibly broken compared to traditional systems. I look forward to hear from a more seasoned expert like Excalibur. It is weird, if that's what's happening. In SC2 and WoW Arena, it works how you would expect it to work on an individual basis. SC2 treats arranged teams like a single unit, so that doesn't really apply here (or does it?). And for WoW Arena, the team rating is treated like a single unit. But what happens for Random Team SC2 or Personal Ratings in WoW? In SC2 Random Team games, let's say the MMRs of each of the players on both teams are 1400, 1500, and 1600. The average rating is 1500. After the game finishes, each player earns (or loses) rating based on whatever their MMR is compared with the average rating of the opposing team. The 1400 would earn, say, 20 rating (1400 vs. 1500), the 1500 would earn 16 (1500 vs. 1500). The 1600 would earn 12 (1600 vs 1500). Same with WoW, just replace "individual MMR" with "personal rating" and "average MMR" with "team rating". I would expect the same to be true of Valve's system. You have individually queuing players playing against a squad of 5 opponents, whether stacked or not, so it should apply a rating change individually as well. The only time I would expect it not to do this is when your team is treated as an individual unit (that would be TMM). Maybe what they decided to do instead is average your team's MMR first and use that to compare to the average opposing team's MMR for rating calculation. That would explain why the rating change is uniform for all team members (or maybe it only does this for 5-stacks?). I would assume that from his post he is queuing as a 5 stack as I don't think he would get put with the same randoms for enough games in a row to make a claim like that.
I understood that he's queuing as a 5-stack, the question is why does it handle rating changes (I'm guessing this is what's happening) differently from sub-5-stacking or soloing? It's not like TMM where you are bound into playing with the same 4 people every time.
|
On December 24 2013 05:28 TRAP[yoo] wrote:Show nested quote +On December 24 2013 05:17 Darkren wrote:On December 24 2013 03:59 Ayaz2810 wrote:On December 24 2013 00:46 TRAP[yoo] wrote:
why would you choose to play ranked if you just dick around and ruin the game for everybody?
edit: is there any reason why iam always the guy with the highest rank in my team? I had a guy in ranked MM go 0-9 on Ursa and say "it's just a game. Who cares if we win?". Why the fuck would you even play a game if you're not going to attempt to win it? How does that make any sense at all? You play it to have fun whether to win or loose That makes a lot of sense to me why would you need to play ranked to have fun? thats what i dont get. edit: i was hoping that it would be a lil bit more competetive now but i dont get that vibe at all. it feels like everybody is playing it and people just do the stuff they would normally do.
You wouldn't like it at all on higher ratings then. There is like no difference between ranked and nonranked. It's just pubs
|
On December 24 2013 06:34 DrPandaPhD wrote:Show nested quote +On December 24 2013 05:28 TRAP[yoo] wrote:On December 24 2013 05:17 Darkren wrote:On December 24 2013 03:59 Ayaz2810 wrote:On December 24 2013 00:46 TRAP[yoo] wrote:
why would you choose to play ranked if you just dick around and ruin the game for everybody?
edit: is there any reason why iam always the guy with the highest rank in my team? I had a guy in ranked MM go 0-9 on Ursa and say "it's just a game. Who cares if we win?". Why the fuck would you even play a game if you're not going to attempt to win it? How does that make any sense at all? You play it to have fun whether to win or loose That makes a lot of sense to me why would you need to play ranked to have fun? thats what i dont get. edit: i was hoping that it would be a lil bit more competetive now but i dont get that vibe at all. it feels like everybody is playing it and people just do the stuff they would normally do. You wouldn't like it at all on higher ratings then. There is like no difference between ranked and nonranked. It's just pubs
whats a higher rating for you? 4k? or higher?
edit: hm yea started at around 4,8 solo and 5k party
|
28096 Posts
On December 24 2013 06:47 TRAP[yoo] wrote:Show nested quote +On December 24 2013 06:34 DrPandaPhD wrote:On December 24 2013 05:28 TRAP[yoo] wrote:On December 24 2013 05:17 Darkren wrote:On December 24 2013 03:59 Ayaz2810 wrote:On December 24 2013 00:46 TRAP[yoo] wrote:
why would you choose to play ranked if you just dick around and ruin the game for everybody?
edit: is there any reason why iam always the guy with the highest rank in my team? I had a guy in ranked MM go 0-9 on Ursa and say "it's just a game. Who cares if we win?". Why the fuck would you even play a game if you're not going to attempt to win it? How does that make any sense at all? You play it to have fun whether to win or loose That makes a lot of sense to me why would you need to play ranked to have fun? thats what i dont get. edit: i was hoping that it would be a lil bit more competetive now but i dont get that vibe at all. it feels like everybody is playing it and people just do the stuff they would normally do. You wouldn't like it at all on higher ratings then. There is like no difference between ranked and nonranked. It's just pubs whats a higher rating for you? 4k? or higher?
he's 5.3k solo and just under 5.5 party.
|
I love the theme is this thread that high MMR is this magical land filled with candy and good players that work like a professional team. And the people who are in high MMR who keep telling them, "nope, it's jus like your game, some is them are fucked up."
|
On December 24 2013 06:54 Plansix wrote:
I love the theme is this thread that high MMR is this magical land filled with candy and good players that work like a professional team. And the people who are in high MMR who keep telling them, "nope, it's jus like your game, some is them are fucked up."
i dont expect some candyland dude. just a few decent players that dont skip meld when playing ta 
|
Just ranting a little, Just finished a solo game where my team was a 4man stack vs a 5man stack, I'm 4,7k rated my team had two of them with 5k party rating, unranked solo and two with 3.8k solo and 4k party, so 4,7k 5k party 5k party 3.8k and 4k, vs a 5man stack with 2x 5,3k solo and rest 4,4-4,8k solo and some of them 5k party and others liek 4.8k. How is this fair, we got completely stomped and the fact that u meet a 5man stack where ur 4manstack dont communicate with me(the solo player) at all..
and so far in ranked all my games have been a total stomp, losing or winning doesnt matter.
|
On December 24 2013 06:56 dofz wrote:
Just ranting a little, Just finished a solo game where my team was a 4man stack vs a 5man stack, I'm 4,7k rated my team had two of them with 5k party rating, unranked solo and two with 3.8k solo and 4k party, so 4,7k 5k party 5k party 3.8k and 4k, vs a 5man stack with 2x 5,3k solo and rest 4,4-4,8k solo and some of them 5k party and others liek 4.8k. How is this fair, we got completely stomped and the fact that u meet a 5man stack where ur 4manstack dont communicate with me(the solo player) at all..
and so far in ranked all my games have been a total stomp, losing or winning doesnt matter.
most ppl to fail see that most games are stomps anyway
|
Are there any sites that relate the ranking numbers with percentile ratings?
|
Did people honestly think Ranked MMR would make things drastically different from what we had before? There will be stomps regardless of how good the matchmaking system is made. There are so many variables in a game of DotA, once the game starts (picks/bans) all of that pre-game balancing goes out the window.
Personally in my 20+ ranked matches (just hit 4k), I've had a pretty good all around experience regardless of the game outcome which has been the best part of it. Even in some crushing losses, the flaming has been pretty minimal.
|
On December 24 2013 07:26 Najda wrote:
Are there any sites that relate the ranking numbers with percentile ratings?
Nope, but this has just launched: http://www.d2ladder.com/#
It's still gathering data, so it will be a while before it's complete. And it obviously can't list private profiles.
|
AFTER REPORT. Plansix and LaLoup in particular please read.
OK so after having a whine yesterday I went back to RMM and did the following:
1. Randomed heroes for 4 games
2. Picked heroes for the 3 games
Results of 1. Random Games:
3 losses 1win
Win 1. Randomed bloodseeker. Went mid - got 13-3-11. Rest of team was awesome. Pretty much > 3-4 KDA across entire team. ABSOLUTE SHUTOUT. I thought .. here we go...
Loss 1. I have been a little more detailed about this game because it sets the tone (pretty much) for the next 3 games. All equally bad allies.
I was top (yes, not solo mid, they wouldn't let me solo mid) invoker with 13-7-7 stats I believe (game ended in ~30 min). As always please be mindful that most of the kills came at the tail end of the game where I could no longer carry these retards.
Stats of team:
ursa lvl18 4-13-13
furion lv16 2-14-13
OM lv17 4 -9-11
Pudge lvl 16 6-17-11
Now... how does that happen? I was highest GPM and XPM on team.. and I was not even solo, I had to share lanes with retarded OM.... The other team? Not a single person below lv20. Their average XPM was 600 and GPM around 480. That's just such a shutout.
Loss 2. Earthshaker. 2-6-13. Lowest deaths on team. Highest assists. Complete shutout.
Loss 3. Bloodseeker 10-7-8. Highest kills, second highest assists.
I thought... BUGGER THIS.. I'm going to start waiting until boths teams pick and then counter pick. Section 2. the picking stage:
Win 1. Alchemist 10-0-12.
Win2. OD 13-4-9. I actually got a friend add request after this game LOL. Just to give you an appreciation about how much I carried the the luna on the team was 3-10-12.
Win3. Alchemist 17-2-13. Had a useless 8-9-9 slardar in this game, but I carried him pretty well.
So, what to take from this small sample size? Basically, if I am able to carry, whilst staying out of harms way in the early game, win. If I go support or semi-carry, lose.
What's also disheartening is that 70-80% of these games (win or lose) were stomps....
Apologies if I come across arrogant in some of this writing. Long post and couldn't be bothered articulating.
EDIT: OH I think it's also important to mention that I get either +26 (+/- 1 point) or -26 (+/-1 point) when I win or lose (respectivelly).
How can someone who is SOLO, playing good relative to the rest of the team, or playing outstanding relative to the rest of the team get the SAME POINT score regardless. At the end of the day I was +26 for all my efforts in 7 games... LOL.. P.S. I work a 9-5 job so can only play 6-7 games a day...
|
6-7 games a day is a lot for a 9-5 job, i can only do 1-2 a day when i work.
What to take from your small sample size is that its exactly the same as regular mm. The same thing would happen if you played unranked. You get the same points whether you win or lose because the two teams are viewed as roughly equal in skill, thats how the rating system works.
|
On December 24 2013 08:27 Doomblaze wrote:
6-7 games a day is a lot for a 9-5 job, i can only do 1-2 a day when i work.
What to take from your small sample size is that its exactly the same as regular mm. The same thing would happen if you played unranked. You get the same points whether you win or lose because the two teams are viewed as roughly equal in skill, thats how the rating system works.
Playing 30 min stomps allows me to play for 4-5 hrs a day and then cry myself to sleep.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
