|
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 27 2013 03:15 MidgetExplosion wrote:
My personal problem with MMR is that it doesn't suit my particular play style. I hate playing high-risk, high-reward heroes. I like to play hero's that I can always help my team out consistently and not heavily impact anything in my game whether it be for good or for bad. I'm not a play-maker, and I don't like to lead or make plays or play aggressive by myself, and I don't like to "pub stomp" with a shadow blade and stupid shit like that... I find that stuff retarded, I want to try-hard and play like a professional team. I'm always in position to help, map is always warded/de-warded, item choices are always to help my team/give the other team headaches, etc. The problem is that I don't like to fail or be the reason why my team loses, and so then it follows that I also cannot be the reason they win either. So even though I am a very good technical player, I will never be anywhere near the top of MMR because of the way I like to play the game. I always like to play smart, low-risk DOTA. The way MMR is designed it will never be able to accurately place me due to this fact. I believe it assumes the kind of DOTA I play is wrong DOTA, so since I play like that I must be bad... But that just simply isn't true.
I don't see how you came to the conclusion that you'll never rise in MMR because you play a more supporting role on a team....
|
United States12280 Posts
On December 27 2013 03:15 MidgetExplosion wrote:
My personal problem with MMR is that it doesn't suit my particular play style. I hate playing high-risk, high-reward heroes. I like to play hero's that I can always help my team out consistently and not heavily impact anything in my game whether it be for good or for bad. I'm not a play-maker, and I don't like to lead or make plays or play aggressive by myself, and I don't like to "pub stomp" with a shadow blade and stupid shit like that... I find that stuff retarded, I want to try-hard and play like a professional team. I'm always in position to help, map is always warded/de-warded, item choices are always to help my team/give the other team headaches, etc. The problem is that I don't like to fail or be the reason why my team loses, and so then it follows that I also cannot be the reason they win either. So even though I am a very good player, I will never be anywhere near the top of MMR because of the way I like to play the game. I always like to play smart, low-risk DOTA. The way MMR is designed it will never be able to accurately place me due to this fact. I believe it assumes that kind of DOTA is wrong DOTA, so since I play like that I must be bad... But that just simply isn't true. I'm a helper, and I do it quite well. High or Low MMR means nothing to my play style.
The thing is, even as a hard support, you can still be a play-maker in a pub game. In fact, supports are often the ones responsible for judging when a carry is able to farm safely and deciding when and where to orchestrate ganks around the map. You're the one buying Smoke and keeping your team safe and the other team scared. In many pub games it's not uncommon for the carry to have very little impact because the game is already decided at the roam-and-gank phase. "Guys I got a 12-minute battlefury!" "Great, doesn't matter though, we've already taken out 4 of their towers and we control their woods." If you're limiting yourself as support to just stacking and pulling and warding, you're holding yourself back from what you could truly be contributing to the team.
|
On December 27 2013 03:30 Excalibur_Z wrote:Show nested quote +On December 27 2013 03:15 MidgetExplosion wrote:
My personal problem with MMR is that it doesn't suit my particular play style. I hate playing high-risk, high-reward heroes. I like to play hero's that I can always help my team out consistently and not heavily impact anything in my game whether it be for good or for bad. I'm not a play-maker, and I don't like to lead or make plays or play aggressive by myself, and I don't like to "pub stomp" with a shadow blade and stupid shit like that... I find that stuff retarded, I want to try-hard and play like a professional team. I'm always in position to help, map is always warded/de-warded, item choices are always to help my team/give the other team headaches, etc. The problem is that I don't like to fail or be the reason why my team loses, and so then it follows that I also cannot be the reason they win either. So even though I am a very good player, I will never be anywhere near the top of MMR because of the way I like to play the game. I always like to play smart, low-risk DOTA. The way MMR is designed it will never be able to accurately place me due to this fact. I believe it assumes that kind of DOTA is wrong DOTA, so since I play like that I must be bad... But that just simply isn't true. I'm a helper, and I do it quite well. High or Low MMR means nothing to my play style. The thing is, even as a hard support, you can still be a play-maker in a pub game. In fact, supports are often the ones responsible for judging when a carry is able to farm safely and deciding when and where to orchestrate ganks around the map. You're the one buying Smoke and keeping your team safe and the other team scared. In many pub games it's not uncommon for the carry to have very little impact because the game is already decided at the roam-and-gank phase. "Guys I got a 12-minute battlefury!" "Great, doesn't matter though, we've already taken out 4 of their towers and we control their woods." If you're limiting yourself as support to just stacking and pulling and warding, you're holding yourself back from what you could truly be contributing to the team.
That's just my point, I'm not a play-maker. I don't like to play risky and so I just let my team do what they're gonna do, and then I back them up and make whatever they're going to do easier for them to do it. So if what they decide to do is awful, I back awful up. If what they decide to do is amazing, I back amazing up. It's just the way I play, I let them decide and I go with it. It always works REALLY well when I'm with a 5-man with a captain and we're playing CM. I shine like mad in those games because I'm always in position to help.
|
On December 27 2013 03:40 MidgetExplosion wrote:Show nested quote +On December 27 2013 03:30 Excalibur_Z wrote:On December 27 2013 03:15 MidgetExplosion wrote:
My personal problem with MMR is that it doesn't suit my particular play style. I hate playing high-risk, high-reward heroes. I like to play hero's that I can always help my team out consistently and not heavily impact anything in my game whether it be for good or for bad. I'm not a play-maker, and I don't like to lead or make plays or play aggressive by myself, and I don't like to "pub stomp" with a shadow blade and stupid shit like that... I find that stuff retarded, I want to try-hard and play like a professional team. I'm always in position to help, map is always warded/de-warded, item choices are always to help my team/give the other team headaches, etc. The problem is that I don't like to fail or be the reason why my team loses, and so then it follows that I also cannot be the reason they win either. So even though I am a very good player, I will never be anywhere near the top of MMR because of the way I like to play the game. I always like to play smart, low-risk DOTA. The way MMR is designed it will never be able to accurately place me due to this fact. I believe it assumes that kind of DOTA is wrong DOTA, so since I play like that I must be bad... But that just simply isn't true. I'm a helper, and I do it quite well. High or Low MMR means nothing to my play style. The thing is, even as a hard support, you can still be a play-maker in a pub game. In fact, supports are often the ones responsible for judging when a carry is able to farm safely and deciding when and where to orchestrate ganks around the map. You're the one buying Smoke and keeping your team safe and the other team scared. In many pub games it's not uncommon for the carry to have very little impact because the game is already decided at the roam-and-gank phase. "Guys I got a 12-minute battlefury!" "Great, doesn't matter though, we've already taken out 4 of their towers and we control their woods." If you're limiting yourself as support to just stacking and pulling and warding, you're holding yourself back from what you could truly be contributing to the team. That's just my point, I'm not a play-maker. I don't like to play risky and so I just let my team do what they're gonna do, and then I back them up and make whatever they're going to do easier for them to do it. So if what they decide to do is awful, I back awful up. If what they decide to do is amazing, I back amazing up. It's just the way I play, I let them decide and I go with it. It always works REALLY well when I'm with a 5-man with a captain and we're playing CM. I shine like mad in those games because I'm always in position to help.
There's nothing wrong with not being a shot caller, but you should try and find opportunities where you can. Being completely defensive is okay up to a point, but eventually you'll limit yourself by not trying to take advantage of situations.
|
On December 27 2013 03:30 Excalibur_Z wrote:Show nested quote +On December 27 2013 03:15 MidgetExplosion wrote:
My personal problem with MMR is that it doesn't suit my particular play style. I hate playing high-risk, high-reward heroes. I like to play hero's that I can always help my team out consistently and not heavily impact anything in my game whether it be for good or for bad. I'm not a play-maker, and I don't like to lead or make plays or play aggressive by myself, and I don't like to "pub stomp" with a shadow blade and stupid shit like that... I find that stuff retarded, I want to try-hard and play like a professional team. I'm always in position to help, map is always warded/de-warded, item choices are always to help my team/give the other team headaches, etc. The problem is that I don't like to fail or be the reason why my team loses, and so then it follows that I also cannot be the reason they win either. So even though I am a very good player, I will never be anywhere near the top of MMR because of the way I like to play the game. I always like to play smart, low-risk DOTA. The way MMR is designed it will never be able to accurately place me due to this fact. I believe it assumes that kind of DOTA is wrong DOTA, so since I play like that I must be bad... But that just simply isn't true. I'm a helper, and I do it quite well. High or Low MMR means nothing to my play style. The thing is, even as a hard support, you can still be a play-maker in a pub game. In fact, supports are often the ones responsible for judging when a carry is able to farm safely and deciding when and where to orchestrate ganks around the map. You're the one buying Smoke and keeping your team safe and the other team scared. In many pub games it's not uncommon for the carry to have very little impact because the game is already decided at the roam-and-gank phase. "Guys I got a 12-minute battlefury!" "Great, doesn't matter though, we've already taken out 4 of their towers and we control their woods." If you're limiting yourself as support to just stacking and pulling and warding, you're holding yourself back from what you could truly be contributing to the team.
Yea, buy smoke when you already have to buy 2 sets of wards, chick, crow and then boots. GL leaving the lane for 30 seconds to smoke without the carry killing himself.
|
First game i get a dumbass timber maxing whirling as offlaner , gets it at lvl 1 and feeds like hell and 2nd game we are actually making a comeback then boom CM leaves the game... no chance to get even close to 50% winratio haha. Guess im stuck in "elo hell" huh? :D
|
On December 27 2013 03:40 MidgetExplosion wrote:Show nested quote +On December 27 2013 03:30 Excalibur_Z wrote:On December 27 2013 03:15 MidgetExplosion wrote:
My personal problem with MMR is that it doesn't suit my particular play style. I hate playing high-risk, high-reward heroes. I like to play hero's that I can always help my team out consistently and not heavily impact anything in my game whether it be for good or for bad. I'm not a play-maker, and I don't like to lead or make plays or play aggressive by myself, and I don't like to "pub stomp" with a shadow blade and stupid shit like that... I find that stuff retarded, I want to try-hard and play like a professional team. I'm always in position to help, map is always warded/de-warded, item choices are always to help my team/give the other team headaches, etc. The problem is that I don't like to fail or be the reason why my team loses, and so then it follows that I also cannot be the reason they win either. So even though I am a very good player, I will never be anywhere near the top of MMR because of the way I like to play the game. I always like to play smart, low-risk DOTA. The way MMR is designed it will never be able to accurately place me due to this fact. I believe it assumes that kind of DOTA is wrong DOTA, so since I play like that I must be bad... But that just simply isn't true. I'm a helper, and I do it quite well. High or Low MMR means nothing to my play style. The thing is, even as a hard support, you can still be a play-maker in a pub game. In fact, supports are often the ones responsible for judging when a carry is able to farm safely and deciding when and where to orchestrate ganks around the map. You're the one buying Smoke and keeping your team safe and the other team scared. In many pub games it's not uncommon for the carry to have very little impact because the game is already decided at the roam-and-gank phase. "Guys I got a 12-minute battlefury!" "Great, doesn't matter though, we've already taken out 4 of their towers and we control their woods." If you're limiting yourself as support to just stacking and pulling and warding, you're holding yourself back from what you could truly be contributing to the team. That's just my point, I'm not a play-maker. I don't like to play risky and so I just let my team do what they're gonna do, and then I back them up and make whatever they're going to do easier for them to do it. So if what they decide to do is awful, I back awful up. If what they decide to do is amazing, I back amazing up. It's just the way I play, I let them decide and I go with it. It always works REALLY well when I'm with a 5-man with a captain and we're playing CM. I shine like mad in those games because I'm always in position to help.
This is called being bad. How can you claim you should be rising in rank if you're constantly relying on being carried in games? You're practically admitting that you have no impact on the game which is a terrible mentality to have while playing. Especially in a support role where you can control the flow of the game right from minute one.
Just because you prefer a style of play doesn't make you good and doesn't mean you should be rewarded for it.
|
On December 27 2013 03:02 Excalibur_Z wrote:Show nested quote +On December 27 2013 02:47 juracule wrote:On December 27 2013 01:58 Excalibur_Z wrote:On December 27 2013 01:25 juracule wrote:
The biggest problem imo at the moment is, actually, the fact they enforce a 50% winrate. Normally you would want to find people who are all of equal skill rating and as a result get perfectly even teams so the chance of either team winning becomes 50%. Obviously this is not possible. So there are two things you can do; you can enforce the 50% winrate but by doing this you will handicap the best player in a particular game; he will get matched with people who have a lower average winrate/rating than that of the enemy team. Or you can make the teams randomized within a certain poule which might make games less uneven, but at least they are fair for everyone, instead of punishing the good players and coddling to the worst players.
Currently the better you get the harder you are gonna get dragged down (talking about solo queuing). Everybody knows this is not true and it's been discussed to death in this thread already. Elaborate on that what is not true? Valve has said themselves they enforce a 50% winrate for either team. Everything what on wrote on that topic is just logical reasoning going from there. EDIT: You're confusing personal winrate with the winrate of a team. From valve's blog post: "The teams are balanced. (Each team has a 50% chance to win.)" "Enforce" or "force" is the key functional word. "Forcing a 50% win rate" means that you won your last game, now you're going to lose your next game so you stay at 50%. People rationalize this by thinking they are grouped with teammates with much lower MMRs in order to influence the outcome of the game. In fact, you said this yourself. That is not the case. If you read through their matchmaking post, it's extremely clear. They target as small a skill variance as possible. The one time you may have a wider variance is when player stacks are involved. I have friends who are better than me and friends that are worse, and sometimes to no small degree. Pretty much the only time you're going to have players with a significant MMR difference in the same game is if they queued up as a group that way. That doesn't mean the outcome is predetermined though, because statistically the averages for both teams will make a competitive match. Also, in case you haven't noticed, you have no control over this anymore (the option to queue only against other solo-queuers was removed). Take a look at the example game that Valve provided so you can get an idea.
No, it means that both teams have a 50% chance to win, which is impossible to see in a result as that would be a draw. Again you're confusing personal winrate with the winrate of a team. The only way to get equal winrates for both sides of the teams is that you're matching the best player in a game with players who's average is lower than the average of the opponents, NO MATTER HOW SMALL THE DIFFERENCE IN MMR. The removal of solo queue just fucked matchmaking up even more.
The difference in MMR is mainly dependent on how long you're searching (and stacks, obviously).
But ok, since you don't believe me, lets look at the game provided by valve, seeing as that's what you wanted.
Average MMR of the teammates of the guy with (adjusted) MMR of 3062: 2610
Average MMR of the opponents of the guy with MMR of 3062: 2703
In other words, the guy with a MMR of 3062 has to carry his team that 100 MMR difference harder.
Balance, valve cries. Unfair to that player, I cry. The scrubs get carried through games, the good player is dragged down having to do that.
Both teams have a 50% chance to win is literally what valve has said.
|
On December 27 2013 04:38 juracule wrote:Show nested quote +On December 27 2013 03:02 Excalibur_Z wrote:On December 27 2013 02:47 juracule wrote:On December 27 2013 01:58 Excalibur_Z wrote:On December 27 2013 01:25 juracule wrote:
The biggest problem imo at the moment is, actually, the fact they enforce a 50% winrate. Normally you would want to find people who are all of equal skill rating and as a result get perfectly even teams so the chance of either team winning becomes 50%. Obviously this is not possible. So there are two things you can do; you can enforce the 50% winrate but by doing this you will handicap the best player in a particular game; he will get matched with people who have a lower average winrate/rating than that of the enemy team. Or you can make the teams randomized within a certain poule which might make games less uneven, but at least they are fair for everyone, instead of punishing the good players and coddling to the worst players.
Currently the better you get the harder you are gonna get dragged down (talking about solo queuing). Everybody knows this is not true and it's been discussed to death in this thread already. Elaborate on that what is not true? Valve has said themselves they enforce a 50% winrate for either team. Everything what on wrote on that topic is just logical reasoning going from there. EDIT: You're confusing personal winrate with the winrate of a team. From valve's blog post: "The teams are balanced. (Each team has a 50% chance to win.)" "Enforce" or "force" is the key functional word. "Forcing a 50% win rate" means that you won your last game, now you're going to lose your next game so you stay at 50%. People rationalize this by thinking they are grouped with teammates with much lower MMRs in order to influence the outcome of the game. In fact, you said this yourself. That is not the case. If you read through their matchmaking post, it's extremely clear. They target as small a skill variance as possible. The one time you may have a wider variance is when player stacks are involved. I have friends who are better than me and friends that are worse, and sometimes to no small degree. Pretty much the only time you're going to have players with a significant MMR difference in the same game is if they queued up as a group that way. That doesn't mean the outcome is predetermined though, because statistically the averages for both teams will make a competitive match. Also, in case you haven't noticed, you have no control over this anymore (the option to queue only against other solo-queuers was removed). Take a look at the example game that Valve provided so you can get an idea. No, it means that both teams have a 50% chance to win, which is impossible to see in a result as that would be a draw. Again you're confusing personal winrate with the winrate of a team. The only way to get equal winrates for both sides of the teams is that you're matching the best player in a game with players who's average is lower than the average of the opponents, NO MATTER HOW SMALL THE DIFFERENCE IN MMR. The removal of solo queue just fucked matchmaking up even more. The difference in MMR is mainly dependent on how long you're searching (and stacks, obviously). But ok, since you don't believe me, lets look at the game provided by valve, seeing as that's what you wanted. Average MMR of the teammates of the guy with (adjusted) MMR of 3062: 2610 Average MMR of the opponents of the guy with MMR of 3062: 2703 In other words, the guy with a MMR of 3062 has to carry his team that 100 MMR difference harder. Balance, valve cries. Unfair to that player, I cry. The scrubs get carried through games, the good player is dragged down having to do that. Both teams have a 50% chance to win is literally what valve has said.
What do you want? That each team has 5 players with exactly the same MMR?
Do you want to sit in queue for 50 minutes+ for each game to try and achieve this perfection of mathmaking?
What your asking for isn't feasible.
Also, the difference 100 MMR makes in skill is pretty much negliable anyways, since it is within the normal deviance of someones rating (Your rating flucuates up and down a decent amount without any change in skill by you).
Your really saying that someone with 3100 mmr is a "good player" while 3000 is a "scrub"?
Thats 3 games difference in MMR....
|
On December 27 2013 04:38 juracule wrote:Show nested quote +On December 27 2013 03:02 Excalibur_Z wrote:On December 27 2013 02:47 juracule wrote:On December 27 2013 01:58 Excalibur_Z wrote:On December 27 2013 01:25 juracule wrote:
The biggest problem imo at the moment is, actually, the fact they enforce a 50% winrate. Normally you would want to find people who are all of equal skill rating and as a result get perfectly even teams so the chance of either team winning becomes 50%. Obviously this is not possible. So there are two things you can do; you can enforce the 50% winrate but by doing this you will handicap the best player in a particular game; he will get matched with people who have a lower average winrate/rating than that of the enemy team. Or you can make the teams randomized within a certain poule which might make games less uneven, but at least they are fair for everyone, instead of punishing the good players and coddling to the worst players.
Currently the better you get the harder you are gonna get dragged down (talking about solo queuing). Everybody knows this is not true and it's been discussed to death in this thread already. Elaborate on that what is not true? Valve has said themselves they enforce a 50% winrate for either team. Everything what on wrote on that topic is just logical reasoning going from there. EDIT: You're confusing personal winrate with the winrate of a team. From valve's blog post: "The teams are balanced. (Each team has a 50% chance to win.)" "Enforce" or "force" is the key functional word. "Forcing a 50% win rate" means that you won your last game, now you're going to lose your next game so you stay at 50%. People rationalize this by thinking they are grouped with teammates with much lower MMRs in order to influence the outcome of the game. In fact, you said this yourself. That is not the case. If you read through their matchmaking post, it's extremely clear. They target as small a skill variance as possible. The one time you may have a wider variance is when player stacks are involved. I have friends who are better than me and friends that are worse, and sometimes to no small degree. Pretty much the only time you're going to have players with a significant MMR difference in the same game is if they queued up as a group that way. That doesn't mean the outcome is predetermined though, because statistically the averages for both teams will make a competitive match. Also, in case you haven't noticed, you have no control over this anymore (the option to queue only against other solo-queuers was removed). Take a look at the example game that Valve provided so you can get an idea. No, it means that both teams have a 50% chance to win, which is impossible to see in a result as that would be a draw. Again you're confusing personal winrate with the winrate of a team. The only way to get equal winrates for both sides of the teams is that you're matching the best player in a game with players who's average is lower than the average of the opponents, NO MATTER HOW SMALL THE DIFFERENCE IN MMR. The removal of solo queue just fucked matchmaking up even more. The difference in MMR is mainly dependent on how long you're searching (and stacks, obviously). But ok, since you don't believe me, lets look at the game provided by valve, seeing as that's what you wanted. Average MMR of the teammates of the guy with (adjusted) MMR of 3062: 2610 Average MMR of the opponents of the guy with MMR of 3062: 2703 In other words, the guy with a MMR of 3062 has to carry his team that 100 MMR difference harder. Balance, valve cries. Unfair to that player, I cry. The scrubs get carried through games, the good player is dragged down having to do that. Both teams have a 50% chance to win is literally what valve has said.
I agree with Dae, 100 MMR isnt that big of a difference. I am sure valve are aware of that problem which you are force to "carry" your team but honestly, 100 MMR isn that big of a difference. If the difference were 500 MMR, then you can argue that. For the fastest que time and most even game, a 100 MMR difference is pretty fine imo.
|
valve enforced my winrate to 76% by giving my the worst teammates possible
|
People need to realize stomps happens in games which are supposed to be even. An amazing example is Na'Vi vs iG in Winner Bracket Semi-final at TI2.
Na'vi got absolutely demolished game 1. Didn't get a single kill and lost at 16min. And then they won the other 2 games. Just because you got stomped doesn't mean the skill-level was hugely different. It just what happens in Dota sometimes. Small mistakes can snowball really fast. And the next game vs the same opponents it's maybe them who makes the small mistakes that snowballs really hard.
So stomps =! Unfair teams a lot of the times.
|
Czech Republic18921 Posts
Fata has 6146 solo rating. Highest recorded, yet? source
|
On December 27 2013 04:38 juracule wrote:
...
The difference in MMR is mainly dependent on how long you're searching (and stacks, obviously).
But ok, since you don't believe me, lets look at the game provided by valve, seeing as that's what you wanted.
Average MMR of the teammates of the guy with (adjusted) MMR of 3062: 2610
Average MMR of the opponents of the guy with MMR of 3062: 2703
In other words, the guy with a MMR of 3062 has to carry his team that 100 MMR difference harder.
Balance, valve cries. Unfair to that player, I cry. The scrubs get carried through games, the good player is dragged down having to do that.
Both teams have a 50% chance to win is literally what valve has said.
I don't your analysis is accurate, you are comparing the average of 3062's team against the average of the entire opposing team. I think this would be an invalid comparison at best, it would be more enlightening to do the same analysis for the other team (with 3003 as the best guy) and compare the results:
Average (adjusted) MMR of 3062's teammates: 2610
Average (adjusted) MMR of 3003's teammates: 2628
Average (adusted) MMR of 3062's team: 2700
Average (adjusted) MMR of 3003's team: 2703
The MMR difference between the teammates of the respective "best" player on each team is 18. Doing your analysis of how much carrying needs to be done by each best player we would have 3062 needing to carry a 93 MMR difference and 3003 carrying a 72 difference. So 3062 would need to carry 23 more MMR worth (whatever that means) in the game relative to how much 3003 would have to carry to pick up the slack from his scrub teammates. A difference is there but with 100 MMR not being that much of a difference, how much is 23?
|
On December 27 2013 04:38 juracule wrote:Show nested quote +On December 27 2013 03:02 Excalibur_Z wrote:On December 27 2013 02:47 juracule wrote:On December 27 2013 01:58 Excalibur_Z wrote:On December 27 2013 01:25 juracule wrote:
The biggest problem imo at the moment is, actually, the fact they enforce a 50% winrate. Normally you would want to find people who are all of equal skill rating and as a result get perfectly even teams so the chance of either team winning becomes 50%. Obviously this is not possible. So there are two things you can do; you can enforce the 50% winrate but by doing this you will handicap the best player in a particular game; he will get matched with people who have a lower average winrate/rating than that of the enemy team. Or you can make the teams randomized within a certain poule which might make games less uneven, but at least they are fair for everyone, instead of punishing the good players and coddling to the worst players.
Currently the better you get the harder you are gonna get dragged down (talking about solo queuing). Everybody knows this is not true and it's been discussed to death in this thread already. Elaborate on that what is not true? Valve has said themselves they enforce a 50% winrate for either team. Everything what on wrote on that topic is just logical reasoning going from there. EDIT: You're confusing personal winrate with the winrate of a team. From valve's blog post: "The teams are balanced. (Each team has a 50% chance to win.)" "Enforce" or "force" is the key functional word. "Forcing a 50% win rate" means that you won your last game, now you're going to lose your next game so you stay at 50%. People rationalize this by thinking they are grouped with teammates with much lower MMRs in order to influence the outcome of the game. In fact, you said this yourself. That is not the case. If you read through their matchmaking post, it's extremely clear. They target as small a skill variance as possible. The one time you may have a wider variance is when player stacks are involved. I have friends who are better than me and friends that are worse, and sometimes to no small degree. Pretty much the only time you're going to have players with a significant MMR difference in the same game is if they queued up as a group that way. That doesn't mean the outcome is predetermined though, because statistically the averages for both teams will make a competitive match. Also, in case you haven't noticed, you have no control over this anymore (the option to queue only against other solo-queuers was removed). Take a look at the example game that Valve provided so you can get an idea. No, it means that both teams have a 50% chance to win, which is impossible to see in a result as that would be a draw.
So if I flip a fair coin it means that it lands on the edge so that it is neither heads nor tails every time? A 50% chance to win doesn't result in a draw in a game where a draw isn't possible.
But ok, since you don't believe me, lets look at the game provided by valve, seeing as that's what you wanted.
Average MMR of the teammates of the guy with (adjusted) MMR of 3062: 2610
Average MMR of the opponents of the guy with MMR of 3062: 2703
In other words, the guy with a MMR of 3062 has to carry his team that 100 MMR difference harder.
Balance, valve cries. Unfair to that player, I cry. The scrubs get carried through games, the good player is dragged down having to do that.
If I had two teams; one of them is five players who have 2k rating. The other team is four players with 1k rating and the other player has 6k rating. Both teams have an average MMR of 2k, but would you really expect the result to be a 50/50 chance? MMR systems aren't linear and simply averaging the MMRs and matching them together doesn't result in even games which is why they're adjusted. To call this unfair shows a lack of understanding of how the system works.
|
On December 27 2013 04:45 dae wrote:Show nested quote +On December 27 2013 04:38 juracule wrote:On December 27 2013 03:02 Excalibur_Z wrote:On December 27 2013 02:47 juracule wrote:On December 27 2013 01:58 Excalibur_Z wrote:On December 27 2013 01:25 juracule wrote:
The biggest problem imo at the moment is, actually, the fact they enforce a 50% winrate. Normally you would want to find people who are all of equal skill rating and as a result get perfectly even teams so the chance of either team winning becomes 50%. Obviously this is not possible. So there are two things you can do; you can enforce the 50% winrate but by doing this you will handicap the best player in a particular game; he will get matched with people who have a lower average winrate/rating than that of the enemy team. Or you can make the teams randomized within a certain poule which might make games less uneven, but at least they are fair for everyone, instead of punishing the good players and coddling to the worst players.
Currently the better you get the harder you are gonna get dragged down (talking about solo queuing). Everybody knows this is not true and it's been discussed to death in this thread already. Elaborate on that what is not true? Valve has said themselves they enforce a 50% winrate for either team. Everything what on wrote on that topic is just logical reasoning going from there. EDIT: You're confusing personal winrate with the winrate of a team. From valve's blog post: "The teams are balanced. (Each team has a 50% chance to win.)" "Enforce" or "force" is the key functional word. "Forcing a 50% win rate" means that you won your last game, now you're going to lose your next game so you stay at 50%. People rationalize this by thinking they are grouped with teammates with much lower MMRs in order to influence the outcome of the game. In fact, you said this yourself. That is not the case. If you read through their matchmaking post, it's extremely clear. They target as small a skill variance as possible. The one time you may have a wider variance is when player stacks are involved. I have friends who are better than me and friends that are worse, and sometimes to no small degree. Pretty much the only time you're going to have players with a significant MMR difference in the same game is if they queued up as a group that way. That doesn't mean the outcome is predetermined though, because statistically the averages for both teams will make a competitive match. Also, in case you haven't noticed, you have no control over this anymore (the option to queue only against other solo-queuers was removed). Take a look at the example game that Valve provided so you can get an idea. No, it means that both teams have a 50% chance to win, which is impossible to see in a result as that would be a draw. Again you're confusing personal winrate with the winrate of a team. The only way to get equal winrates for both sides of the teams is that you're matching the best player in a game with players who's average is lower than the average of the opponents, NO MATTER HOW SMALL THE DIFFERENCE IN MMR. The removal of solo queue just fucked matchmaking up even more. The difference in MMR is mainly dependent on how long you're searching (and stacks, obviously). But ok, since you don't believe me, lets look at the game provided by valve, seeing as that's what you wanted. Average MMR of the teammates of the guy with (adjusted) MMR of 3062: 2610 Average MMR of the opponents of the guy with MMR of 3062: 2703 In other words, the guy with a MMR of 3062 has to carry his team that 100 MMR difference harder. Balance, valve cries. Unfair to that player, I cry. The scrubs get carried through games, the good player is dragged down having to do that. Both teams have a 50% chance to win is literally what valve has said. What do you want? That each team has 5 players with exactly the same MMR? Do you want to sit in queue for 50 minutes+ for each game to try and achieve this perfection of mathmaking? What your asking for isn't feasible. Also, the difference 100 MMR makes in skill is pretty much negliable anyways, since it is within the normal deviance of someones rating (Your rating flucuates up and down a decent amount without any change in skill by you). Your really saying that someone with 3100 mmr is a "good player" while 3000 is a "scrub"? Thats 3 games difference in MMR....
The point of what I said is that one player gets the short end of the stick. He simply has to carry people that are worse than him and his opponents.
What I want is fair games. Stop trying to enforce a 50% winrate in terms of matches and randomize teams instead so that games are fair for everyone. Sure, they might be more uneven, but at least they're fair for everyone involved. Right now they're punishing good players, because the better you get the more troublesome this problem becomes.
|
On December 27 2013 05:28 juracule wrote:Show nested quote +On December 27 2013 04:45 dae wrote:On December 27 2013 04:38 juracule wrote:On December 27 2013 03:02 Excalibur_Z wrote:On December 27 2013 02:47 juracule wrote:On December 27 2013 01:58 Excalibur_Z wrote:On December 27 2013 01:25 juracule wrote:
The biggest problem imo at the moment is, actually, the fact they enforce a 50% winrate. Normally you would want to find people who are all of equal skill rating and as a result get perfectly even teams so the chance of either team winning becomes 50%. Obviously this is not possible. So there are two things you can do; you can enforce the 50% winrate but by doing this you will handicap the best player in a particular game; he will get matched with people who have a lower average winrate/rating than that of the enemy team. Or you can make the teams randomized within a certain poule which might make games less uneven, but at least they are fair for everyone, instead of punishing the good players and coddling to the worst players.
Currently the better you get the harder you are gonna get dragged down (talking about solo queuing). Everybody knows this is not true and it's been discussed to death in this thread already. Elaborate on that what is not true? Valve has said themselves they enforce a 50% winrate for either team. Everything what on wrote on that topic is just logical reasoning going from there. EDIT: You're confusing personal winrate with the winrate of a team. From valve's blog post: "The teams are balanced. (Each team has a 50% chance to win.)" "Enforce" or "force" is the key functional word. "Forcing a 50% win rate" means that you won your last game, now you're going to lose your next game so you stay at 50%. People rationalize this by thinking they are grouped with teammates with much lower MMRs in order to influence the outcome of the game. In fact, you said this yourself. That is not the case. If you read through their matchmaking post, it's extremely clear. They target as small a skill variance as possible. The one time you may have a wider variance is when player stacks are involved. I have friends who are better than me and friends that are worse, and sometimes to no small degree. Pretty much the only time you're going to have players with a significant MMR difference in the same game is if they queued up as a group that way. That doesn't mean the outcome is predetermined though, because statistically the averages for both teams will make a competitive match. Also, in case you haven't noticed, you have no control over this anymore (the option to queue only against other solo-queuers was removed). Take a look at the example game that Valve provided so you can get an idea. No, it means that both teams have a 50% chance to win, which is impossible to see in a result as that would be a draw. Again you're confusing personal winrate with the winrate of a team. The only way to get equal winrates for both sides of the teams is that you're matching the best player in a game with players who's average is lower than the average of the opponents, NO MATTER HOW SMALL THE DIFFERENCE IN MMR. The removal of solo queue just fucked matchmaking up even more. The difference in MMR is mainly dependent on how long you're searching (and stacks, obviously). But ok, since you don't believe me, lets look at the game provided by valve, seeing as that's what you wanted. Average MMR of the teammates of the guy with (adjusted) MMR of 3062: 2610 Average MMR of the opponents of the guy with MMR of 3062: 2703 In other words, the guy with a MMR of 3062 has to carry his team that 100 MMR difference harder. Balance, valve cries. Unfair to that player, I cry. The scrubs get carried through games, the good player is dragged down having to do that. Both teams have a 50% chance to win is literally what valve has said. What do you want? That each team has 5 players with exactly the same MMR? Do you want to sit in queue for 50 minutes+ for each game to try and achieve this perfection of mathmaking? What your asking for isn't feasible. Also, the difference 100 MMR makes in skill is pretty much negliable anyways, since it is within the normal deviance of someones rating (Your rating flucuates up and down a decent amount without any change in skill by you). Your really saying that someone with 3100 mmr is a "good player" while 3000 is a "scrub"? Thats 3 games difference in MMR.... The point of what I said is that one player gets the short end of the stick. He simply has to carry people that are worse than him and his opponents. What I want is fair games. Stop trying to enforce a 50% winrate in terms of matches and randomize teams instead so that games are fair for everyone. Sure, they might be more uneven, but at least they're fair for everyone involved. Right now they're punishing good players, because the better you get the more troublesome this problem becomes.
You should only end up as that guy if you stack with friends significantly worse than you. Then yes; it is indeed your duty to carry your friends.
|
On December 27 2013 05:08 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 27 2013 04:38 juracule wrote:On December 27 2013 03:02 Excalibur_Z wrote:On December 27 2013 02:47 juracule wrote:On December 27 2013 01:58 Excalibur_Z wrote:On December 27 2013 01:25 juracule wrote:
The biggest problem imo at the moment is, actually, the fact they enforce a 50% winrate. Normally you would want to find people who are all of equal skill rating and as a result get perfectly even teams so the chance of either team winning becomes 50%. Obviously this is not possible. So there are two things you can do; you can enforce the 50% winrate but by doing this you will handicap the best player in a particular game; he will get matched with people who have a lower average winrate/rating than that of the enemy team. Or you can make the teams randomized within a certain poule which might make games less uneven, but at least they are fair for everyone, instead of punishing the good players and coddling to the worst players.
Currently the better you get the harder you are gonna get dragged down (talking about solo queuing). Everybody knows this is not true and it's been discussed to death in this thread already. Elaborate on that what is not true? Valve has said themselves they enforce a 50% winrate for either team. Everything what on wrote on that topic is just logical reasoning going from there. EDIT: You're confusing personal winrate with the winrate of a team. From valve's blog post: "The teams are balanced. (Each team has a 50% chance to win.)" "Enforce" or "force" is the key functional word. "Forcing a 50% win rate" means that you won your last game, now you're going to lose your next game so you stay at 50%. People rationalize this by thinking they are grouped with teammates with much lower MMRs in order to influence the outcome of the game. In fact, you said this yourself. That is not the case. If you read through their matchmaking post, it's extremely clear. They target as small a skill variance as possible. The one time you may have a wider variance is when player stacks are involved. I have friends who are better than me and friends that are worse, and sometimes to no small degree. Pretty much the only time you're going to have players with a significant MMR difference in the same game is if they queued up as a group that way. That doesn't mean the outcome is predetermined though, because statistically the averages for both teams will make a competitive match. Also, in case you haven't noticed, you have no control over this anymore (the option to queue only against other solo-queuers was removed). Take a look at the example game that Valve provided so you can get an idea. No, it means that both teams have a 50% chance to win, which is impossible to see in a result as that would be a draw. So if I flip a fair coin it means that it lands on the edge so that it is neither heads nor tails every time? A 50% chance to win doesn't result in a draw in a game where a draw isn't possible. Show nested quote +But ok, since you don't believe me, lets look at the game provided by valve, seeing as that's what you wanted.
Average MMR of the teammates of the guy with (adjusted) MMR of 3062: 2610
Average MMR of the opponents of the guy with MMR of 3062: 2703
In other words, the guy with a MMR of 3062 has to carry his team that 100 MMR difference harder.
Balance, valve cries. Unfair to that player, I cry. The scrubs get carried through games, the good player is dragged down having to do that. If I had two teams; one of them is five players who have 2k rating. The other team is four players with 1k rating and the other player has 6k rating. Both teams have an average MMR of 2k, but would you really expect the result to be a 50/50 chance? MMR systems aren't linear and simply averaging the MMRs and matching them together doesn't result in even games which is why they're adjusted. To call this unfair shows a lack of understanding of how the system works.
I'm advocating AGAINST making matches even on the basis of MMR. Read what I said another 10 times and then come back to me. My entire point was that you get matched with worse teammates than opponents if you are the better player. I don't know how to make this even clearer to you than I have already done.
In fact, your suggestion shows what I mean very clearly. The guy with 6000 MMR is being dragged down by his teammates who have an average MMR of 1000 while his opponents have an average MMR of 2k.
If you flip a fair coin twice in a row will you get both heads and tails? Not necessarily, there is a chance of 50% that heads or tails will happen but that doesn't mean it will actually happen to be the case that you get both on consecutive tries. You cannot see a chance of something to happen by just looking at the result of two games which was what the other poster was implying. At least I think you're someone else than him, dont feel like going thru the hassle of checking on my phone.
|
On December 27 2013 05:36 juracule wrote:Show nested quote +On December 27 2013 05:08 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On December 27 2013 04:38 juracule wrote:On December 27 2013 03:02 Excalibur_Z wrote:On December 27 2013 02:47 juracule wrote:On December 27 2013 01:58 Excalibur_Z wrote:On December 27 2013 01:25 juracule wrote:
The biggest problem imo at the moment is, actually, the fact they enforce a 50% winrate. Normally you would want to find people who are all of equal skill rating and as a result get perfectly even teams so the chance of either team winning becomes 50%. Obviously this is not possible. So there are two things you can do; you can enforce the 50% winrate but by doing this you will handicap the best player in a particular game; he will get matched with people who have a lower average winrate/rating than that of the enemy team. Or you can make the teams randomized within a certain poule which might make games less uneven, but at least they are fair for everyone, instead of punishing the good players and coddling to the worst players.
Currently the better you get the harder you are gonna get dragged down (talking about solo queuing). Everybody knows this is not true and it's been discussed to death in this thread already. Elaborate on that what is not true? Valve has said themselves they enforce a 50% winrate for either team. Everything what on wrote on that topic is just logical reasoning going from there. EDIT: You're confusing personal winrate with the winrate of a team. From valve's blog post: "The teams are balanced. (Each team has a 50% chance to win.)" "Enforce" or "force" is the key functional word. "Forcing a 50% win rate" means that you won your last game, now you're going to lose your next game so you stay at 50%. People rationalize this by thinking they are grouped with teammates with much lower MMRs in order to influence the outcome of the game. In fact, you said this yourself. That is not the case. If you read through their matchmaking post, it's extremely clear. They target as small a skill variance as possible. The one time you may have a wider variance is when player stacks are involved. I have friends who are better than me and friends that are worse, and sometimes to no small degree. Pretty much the only time you're going to have players with a significant MMR difference in the same game is if they queued up as a group that way. That doesn't mean the outcome is predetermined though, because statistically the averages for both teams will make a competitive match. Also, in case you haven't noticed, you have no control over this anymore (the option to queue only against other solo-queuers was removed). Take a look at the example game that Valve provided so you can get an idea. No, it means that both teams have a 50% chance to win, which is impossible to see in a result as that would be a draw. So if I flip a fair coin it means that it lands on the edge so that it is neither heads nor tails every time? A 50% chance to win doesn't result in a draw in a game where a draw isn't possible. But ok, since you don't believe me, lets look at the game provided by valve, seeing as that's what you wanted.
Average MMR of the teammates of the guy with (adjusted) MMR of 3062: 2610
Average MMR of the opponents of the guy with MMR of 3062: 2703
In other words, the guy with a MMR of 3062 has to carry his team that 100 MMR difference harder.
Balance, valve cries. Unfair to that player, I cry. The scrubs get carried through games, the good player is dragged down having to do that. If I had two teams; one of them is five players who have 2k rating. The other team is four players with 1k rating and the other player has 6k rating. Both teams have an average MMR of 2k, but would you really expect the result to be a 50/50 chance? MMR systems aren't linear and simply averaging the MMRs and matching them together doesn't result in even games which is why they're adjusted. To call this unfair shows a lack of understanding of how the system works. I'm advocating AGAINST making matches even on the basis of MMR. Read what I said another 10 times and then come back to me. My entire point was that you get matched with worse teammates than opponents if you are the better player. I don't know how to make this even clearer to you than I have already done. In fact, your suggestion shows what I mean very clearly. The guy with 6000 MMR is being dragged down by his teammates who have an average MMR of 1000 while his opponents have an average MMR of 2k. If you flip a fair coin twice in a row will you get both heads and tails? Not necessarily, there is a chance of 50% that heads or tails will happen but that doesn't mean it will actually happen to be the case that you get both on consecutive tries. You cannot see a chance of something to happen by just looking at the result of two games which was what the other poster was implying. At least I think you're someone else than him, dont feel like going thru the hassle of checking on my phone.
I'm curious how you would make matches without MMR. You could always go play Bnet pubs I suppose.
You're making an assumption about that game and adjusting off that. We just assume that the coin is fair and make our adjustments off that. Over time the system will adjust the MMR and you will reach the level that you are supposed to based on all these guesses even if the coin isn't in fact fair for that game. This won't actually matter once enough games are played.
Knowing that the coin is fair doesn't actually matter. Most statistics are based around making an assumption and then determining if you'd expect that result to happen by random chance. There are going to be unfair coins in our sampling, but their results are not going to have long lasting impacts on the overall system.
|
Eh randomizing teams for everyone just sounds like dota1 style matchmaking, chaotically fair, but everyone that has played those games know how those games went
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
