|
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 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.
Unless you are at the very top, this won't be an issue though. There are enough people at your rating to not have to make you play with people lower rating than you to make up for your big rating.
Or if you are queueing with a friend who is much higher/much lower than yourself. And then it's kind of your own fault..
|
On December 27 2013 06:04 DrPandaPhD wrote:Show nested quote +On December 27 2013 05:36 juracule wrote: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. Unless you are at the very top, this won't be an issue though. There are enough people at your rating to not have to make you play with people lower rating than you to make up for your big rating. Or if you are queueing with a friend who is much higher/much lower than yourself. And then it's kind of your own fault..
http://www.playdota.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8967364&postcount=229
Inb4 ewww playdota. Dunno if linking isn't allowed on this site. Feel I have to at least quote a source.
What the post boils down to that if you're at 4100 MMR, you already have a 63% chance of being better than 5 other players in a particular match - which means you will run into this phenomenon. The math is explained in the post linked above.
User was temp banned for this post.
|
On December 27 2013 07:31 juracule wrote:Show nested quote +On December 27 2013 06:04 DrPandaPhD wrote:On December 27 2013 05:36 juracule wrote: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. Unless you are at the very top, this won't be an issue though. There are enough people at your rating to not have to make you play with people lower rating than you to make up for your big rating. Or if you are queueing with a friend who is much higher/much lower than yourself. And then it's kind of your own fault.. http://www.playdota.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8967364&postcount=229Inb4 ewww playdota. Dunno if linking isn't allowed on this site. Feel I have to at least quote a source. What the post boils down to that if you're at 4100 MMR, you already have a 63% chance of being better than 5 other players in a particular match - which means you will run into this phenomenon. The math is explained in the post linked above.
The match making system takes that into account. Its why people at higher MMRs have longer ques. And if your team has a player with slightly lower skill, the enemy team will as well.
|
On December 27 2013 07:31 juracule wrote:Show nested quote +On December 27 2013 06:04 DrPandaPhD wrote:On December 27 2013 05:36 juracule wrote: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. Unless you are at the very top, this won't be an issue though. There are enough people at your rating to not have to make you play with people lower rating than you to make up for your big rating. Or if you are queueing with a friend who is much higher/much lower than yourself. And then it's kind of your own fault.. http://www.playdota.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8967364&postcount=229Inb4 ewww playdota. Dunno if linking isn't allowed on this site. Feel I have to at least quote a source. What the post boils down to that if you're at 4100 MMR, you already have a 63% chance of being better than 5 other players in a particular match - which means you will run into this phenomenon. The math is explained in the post linked above.
Be sure to read the OP of that thread first before you read this post. Makes it ten times funnier.
|
On December 27 2013 04:28 LeLoup wrote:Show nested quote +On December 27 2013 03:40 MidgetExplosion wrote: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.
Nah I don't expect my MMR to be high exactly because of what you just said. But that doesn't mean I can't technically play the game just as good as a lot of high skilled players. It just means I can't ever and will never pub-stomp because I don't like to do those things. I don't feel like it's bad if I don't want to play risky and I just want to help, I just feel like that's how I like to play the game. If that play style makes me a bad player then I guess I deserve my terrible MMR, that's fine. Would just be nice if it would rate how well I execute rather than how many games I've won and lost. To me that sort of MMR leans more towards making pub-stomp style players flourish. Takes the players who just forget all about their team and try to win/lose games all by themselves and if they can manage to get good at doing that then it rewards them for it... Obviously not everyone who's high ranked takes this mentality, but I would argue that it rewards players who do more then it does players who don't. To me that's just not the right way to play the game. But I guess maybe that is the right way to play and I'm just noob. Definite possibility I suppose.
|
On December 27 2013 07:39 Plansix wrote:
The match making system takes that into account. Its why people at higher MMRs have longer ques. And if your team has a player with slightly lower skill, the enemy team will as well.
I enjoy your signature, it fits nicely.
On December 27 2013 06:04 DrPandaPhD wrote:
Unless you are at the very top, this won't be an issue though. There are enough people at your rating to not have to make you play with people lower rating than you to make up for your big rating.
Or if you are queueing with a friend who is much higher/much lower than yourself. And then it's kind of your own fault..
I thought you were supposed to stop arguing?
The only problems people have with the ranking system (which, by the way, was always in place, you just couldn't see it) are of personal nature I believe. I ain't gonna call anyone delusional, but don't act so high and mighty just because some random dude posted images of graphs and some equations. Sure, it looks neat and all, but a) you don't know, and probably won't know for a long time, for sure how the system works and b) it's practically impossible to draw even vaguely balanced teams 100% of the time before a match even starts. Sometimes it's easy, sometimes it's hard - it may seem unfair when you are losing in a competitive team game, but if you actually want to get good at it (which the whole ranking thing was supposed to aid you in, mainly by providing a mean of 'measuring' improvement), then the whole thing shouldn't matter to you. Otherwise, maybe ranked games aren't for you.
I know I'm blunting my fingers, like many (if not all) of us here, but damn, guys. It's just fucking numbers, no good player will care about them as much as you do - they have more important things to worry about.
|
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....
Dae, I would agree with this statement if this is what actually was happening. I don't know if anybody else played a decent volume of games within the few days where MMR was publicly viewable on your profiles, but I played over 20 matches between those first few days it was released and I was constantly finding 1 or 2 4.5k+ on the other team while I got matched with 2-3 people rated 2.2k.
The fact is that the variances in matches from what I witnessed is over 1000 MMR in difference between players in the same game. Possibly nearing 2k in difference between the lowest and highest.
I dunno where you guys got this "its only 100" difference, but almost every match I had when I could see ratings proved that I was seeing 1000 below and 1000 above in the same games. 2k and 4.5k should not be meeting in matches. If it was just 100, I would have to retract my problem with the numerical system and focus on how it is gauged. Instead we're seeing a huge variety of MMRs being stuck together. I don't know if they remedied this or not, but 2k+ in difference is just too much for me to call "fair matching".
|
I would bet on those being stacks, and you'd have to check match histories to prove otherwise. Remember that Ranked still matches solos with stacks for whatever reason.
|
On December 27 2013 09:06 sCCrooked 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.... Dae, I would agree with this statement if this is what actually was happening. I don't know if anybody else played a decent volume of games within the few days where MMR was publicly viewable on your profiles, but I played over 20 matches between those first few days it was released and I was constantly finding 1 or 2 4.5k+ on the other team while I got matched with 2-3 people rated 2.2k. The fact is that the variances in matches from what I witnessed is over 1000 MMR in difference between players in the same game. Possibly nearing 2k in difference between the lowest and highest.I dunno where you guys got this "its only 100" difference, but almost every match I had when I could see ratings proved that I was seeing 1000 below and 1000 above in the same games. 2k and 4.5k should not be meeting in matches. If it was just 100, I would have to retract my problem with the numerical system and focus on how it is gauged. Instead we're seeing a huge variety of MMRs being stuck together. I don't know if they remedied this or not, but 2k+ in difference is just too much for me to call "fair matching".
Without stacks? Because a if there is an unbalanced stack on a team, it's pretty much meaningless.
|
On December 27 2013 09:17 SKC wrote:Show nested quote +On December 27 2013 09:06 sCCrooked wrote: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.... Dae, I would agree with this statement if this is what actually was happening. I don't know if anybody else played a decent volume of games within the few days where MMR was publicly viewable on your profiles, but I played over 20 matches between those first few days it was released and I was constantly finding 1 or 2 4.5k+ on the other team while I got matched with 2-3 people rated 2.2k. The fact is that the variances in matches from what I witnessed is over 1000 MMR in difference between players in the same game. Possibly nearing 2k in difference between the lowest and highest.I dunno where you guys got this "its only 100" difference, but almost every match I had when I could see ratings proved that I was seeing 1000 below and 1000 above in the same games. 2k and 4.5k should not be meeting in matches. If it was just 100, I would have to retract my problem with the numerical system and focus on how it is gauged. Instead we're seeing a huge variety of MMRs being stuck together. I don't know if they remedied this or not, but 2k+ in difference is just too much for me to call "fair matching". Without stacks? Because a if there is an unbalanced stack on a team, it's pretty much meaningless.
I don't understand how its meaningless. You are still a team of 2-3 affecting how the teams will be figured. Even if they were stacks (I'm pretty sure there were singles too), there's over a 2,000 point difference in players. There's no way any reasonable person would consider that "balanced".
|
On December 27 2013 09:17 SKC wrote:Show nested quote +On December 27 2013 09:06 sCCrooked wrote: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.... Dae, I would agree with this statement if this is what actually was happening. I don't know if anybody else played a decent volume of games within the few days where MMR was publicly viewable on your profiles, but I played over 20 matches between those first few days it was released and I was constantly finding 1 or 2 4.5k+ on the other team while I got matched with 2-3 people rated 2.2k. The fact is that the variances in matches from what I witnessed is over 1000 MMR in difference between players in the same game. Possibly nearing 2k in difference between the lowest and highest.I dunno where you guys got this "its only 100" difference, but almost every match I had when I could see ratings proved that I was seeing 1000 below and 1000 above in the same games. 2k and 4.5k should not be meeting in matches. If it was just 100, I would have to retract my problem with the numerical system and focus on how it is gauged. Instead we're seeing a huge variety of MMRs being stuck together. I don't know if they remedied this or not, but 2k+ in difference is just too much for me to call "fair matching". Without stacks? Because a if there is an unbalanced stack on a team, it's pretty much meaningless.
what if there were stacks? does that make the problem less of a problem?
i witnessed this today as well, i got paired up with two people which were doing their first game of dota EVER. the difference between the highest playing ranking in game and the lowest even if i don't count the two new ones was 1.8K rating. mechanically speaking we got outplayed so hard that noone on our team had a chance to " carry" the game regardless of what hero.
i dunno, but waiting times are generally really low, i don't think i've waited more then 3 minutes last 3 weeks, so in my opinion i can wait 2 more minutes to get a more balanced team who are not more then lets say...500 ranking apart?
also ranking has two other problems, people who abuse the english que while not speaking english drag down teammates, and when someone DC' s, the 4 player team gets a loss ( because face it, 4v5 is not a favourable matchup for the 4 )
|
On December 27 2013 09:25 sCCrooked wrote:Show nested quote +On December 27 2013 09:17 SKC wrote:On December 27 2013 09:06 sCCrooked wrote: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.... Dae, I would agree with this statement if this is what actually was happening. I don't know if anybody else played a decent volume of games within the few days where MMR was publicly viewable on your profiles, but I played over 20 matches between those first few days it was released and I was constantly finding 1 or 2 4.5k+ on the other team while I got matched with 2-3 people rated 2.2k. The fact is that the variances in matches from what I witnessed is over 1000 MMR in difference between players in the same game. Possibly nearing 2k in difference between the lowest and highest.I dunno where you guys got this "its only 100" difference, but almost every match I had when I could see ratings proved that I was seeing 1000 below and 1000 above in the same games. 2k and 4.5k should not be meeting in matches. If it was just 100, I would have to retract my problem with the numerical system and focus on how it is gauged. Instead we're seeing a huge variety of MMRs being stuck together. I don't know if they remedied this or not, but 2k+ in difference is just too much for me to call "fair matching". Without stacks? Because a if there is an unbalanced stack on a team, it's pretty much meaningless. I don't understand how its meaningless. You are still a team of 2-3 affecting how the teams will be figured. Even if they were stacks (I'm pretty sure there were singles too), there's over a 2,000 point difference in players. There's no way any reasonable person would consider that "balanced".
Because then you are saying people should be banned from queueing with their friends if one of them is significantly better than the other. It has nothing to do with the matchmaking algorythim. It's more akin to region locking or removing the ability to play ranked as stacks.
It's meaningless to the current discussion where the guy accepts the fact stacks change things but still believes the system matches good players with bad players even when they queue separately. A game with stacks is pretty much meaningless as an argument for that.
|
On December 27 2013 09:29 SKC wrote:Show nested quote +On December 27 2013 09:25 sCCrooked wrote:On December 27 2013 09:17 SKC wrote:On December 27 2013 09:06 sCCrooked wrote: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.... Dae, I would agree with this statement if this is what actually was happening. I don't know if anybody else played a decent volume of games within the few days where MMR was publicly viewable on your profiles, but I played over 20 matches between those first few days it was released and I was constantly finding 1 or 2 4.5k+ on the other team while I got matched with 2-3 people rated 2.2k. The fact is that the variances in matches from what I witnessed is over 1000 MMR in difference between players in the same game. Possibly nearing 2k in difference between the lowest and highest.I dunno where you guys got this "its only 100" difference, but almost every match I had when I could see ratings proved that I was seeing 1000 below and 1000 above in the same games. 2k and 4.5k should not be meeting in matches. If it was just 100, I would have to retract my problem with the numerical system and focus on how it is gauged. Instead we're seeing a huge variety of MMRs being stuck together. I don't know if they remedied this or not, but 2k+ in difference is just too much for me to call "fair matching". Without stacks? Because a if there is an unbalanced stack on a team, it's pretty much meaningless. I don't understand how its meaningless. You are still a team of 2-3 affecting how the teams will be figured. Even if they were stacks (I'm pretty sure there were singles too), there's over a 2,000 point difference in players. There's no way any reasonable person would consider that "balanced". Because then you are saying people should be banned from queueing with their friends if one of them is significantly better than the other. It has nothing to do with the matchmaking algorythim. It's more akin to region locking or removing the ability to play ranked as stacks. It's meaningless to the current discussion where the guy accepts the fact stacks change things but still believes the system matches good players with bad players even when they queue separately. A game with stacks is pretty much meaningless as an argument for that.
yet the option to disable stacks when you que was always available, but not anymore, how hard is it to implement solo que again
|
On December 27 2013 09:29 SKC wrote:Show nested quote +On December 27 2013 09:25 sCCrooked wrote:On December 27 2013 09:17 SKC wrote:On December 27 2013 09:06 sCCrooked wrote: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.... Dae, I would agree with this statement if this is what actually was happening. I don't know if anybody else played a decent volume of games within the few days where MMR was publicly viewable on your profiles, but I played over 20 matches between those first few days it was released and I was constantly finding 1 or 2 4.5k+ on the other team while I got matched with 2-3 people rated 2.2k. The fact is that the variances in matches from what I witnessed is over 1000 MMR in difference between players in the same game. Possibly nearing 2k in difference between the lowest and highest.I dunno where you guys got this "its only 100" difference, but almost every match I had when I could see ratings proved that I was seeing 1000 below and 1000 above in the same games. 2k and 4.5k should not be meeting in matches. If it was just 100, I would have to retract my problem with the numerical system and focus on how it is gauged. Instead we're seeing a huge variety of MMRs being stuck together. I don't know if they remedied this or not, but 2k+ in difference is just too much for me to call "fair matching". Without stacks? Because a if there is an unbalanced stack on a team, it's pretty much meaningless. I don't understand how its meaningless. You are still a team of 2-3 affecting how the teams will be figured. Even if they were stacks (I'm pretty sure there were singles too), there's over a 2,000 point difference in players. There's no way any reasonable person would consider that "balanced". Because then you are saying people should be banned from queueing with their friends if one of them is significantly better than the other. It has nothing to do with the matchmaking algorythim. It's more akin to region locking or removing the ability to play ranked as stacks. It's meaningless to the current discussion where the guy accepts the fact stacks change things but still believes the system matches good players with bad players even when they queue separately. A game with stacks is pretty much meaningless as an argument for that.
I'm not saying that. What I'm saying is if they get 2 4,500+ people, why the hell don't we? How come 2 people ranked at 2,000 points or so are somehow equated in the system to a possible stack (I still maintain that a lot of these instances were singles, NOT stacks) that includes 2 4,500+ players? Do you not see how imbalanced this is?
|
On December 27 2013 09:35 TechSc2 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 27 2013 09:29 SKC wrote:On December 27 2013 09:25 sCCrooked wrote:On December 27 2013 09:17 SKC wrote:On December 27 2013 09:06 sCCrooked wrote: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:
[quote]
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.... Dae, I would agree with this statement if this is what actually was happening. I don't know if anybody else played a decent volume of games within the few days where MMR was publicly viewable on your profiles, but I played over 20 matches between those first few days it was released and I was constantly finding 1 or 2 4.5k+ on the other team while I got matched with 2-3 people rated 2.2k. The fact is that the variances in matches from what I witnessed is over 1000 MMR in difference between players in the same game. Possibly nearing 2k in difference between the lowest and highest.I dunno where you guys got this "its only 100" difference, but almost every match I had when I could see ratings proved that I was seeing 1000 below and 1000 above in the same games. 2k and 4.5k should not be meeting in matches. If it was just 100, I would have to retract my problem with the numerical system and focus on how it is gauged. Instead we're seeing a huge variety of MMRs being stuck together. I don't know if they remedied this or not, but 2k+ in difference is just too much for me to call "fair matching". Without stacks? Because a if there is an unbalanced stack on a team, it's pretty much meaningless. I don't understand how its meaningless. You are still a team of 2-3 affecting how the teams will be figured. Even if they were stacks (I'm pretty sure there were singles too), there's over a 2,000 point difference in players. There's no way any reasonable person would consider that "balanced". Because then you are saying people should be banned from queueing with their friends if one of them is significantly better than the other. It has nothing to do with the matchmaking algorythim. It's more akin to region locking or removing the ability to play ranked as stacks. It's meaningless to the current discussion where the guy accepts the fact stacks change things but still believes the system matches good players with bad players even when they queue separately. A game with stacks is pretty much meaningless as an argument for that. yet the option to disable stacks when you que was always available, but not anymore, how hard is it to implement solo que again
It's pretty easy. It seems obvious that it is a deliberate decision by Valve, to avoid splitting up queues even more, creating longer queues and more unbalanced games. Whether it's worth it or not can be argued, but I'm pretty sure you can't say it's a technical limitation since it was there up until the point they added another alternative queue.
|
On December 27 2013 09:25 sCCrooked wrote:Show nested quote +On December 27 2013 09:17 SKC wrote:On December 27 2013 09:06 sCCrooked wrote: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.... Dae, I would agree with this statement if this is what actually was happening. I don't know if anybody else played a decent volume of games within the few days where MMR was publicly viewable on your profiles, but I played over 20 matches between those first few days it was released and I was constantly finding 1 or 2 4.5k+ on the other team while I got matched with 2-3 people rated 2.2k. The fact is that the variances in matches from what I witnessed is over 1000 MMR in difference between players in the same game. Possibly nearing 2k in difference between the lowest and highest.I dunno where you guys got this "its only 100" difference, but almost every match I had when I could see ratings proved that I was seeing 1000 below and 1000 above in the same games. 2k and 4.5k should not be meeting in matches. If it was just 100, I would have to retract my problem with the numerical system and focus on how it is gauged. Instead we're seeing a huge variety of MMRs being stuck together. I don't know if they remedied this or not, but 2k+ in difference is just too much for me to call "fair matching". Without stacks? Because a if there is an unbalanced stack on a team, it's pretty much meaningless. I don't understand how its meaningless. You are still a team of 2-3 affecting how the teams will be figured. Even if they were stacks (I'm pretty sure there were singles too), there's over a 2,000 point difference in players. There's no way any reasonable person would consider that "balanced".
Because if the stack involves two players that are 2k rating apart, there's no way for them to be in a game with a smaller rating spread than that because they themselves are creating that 2k spread.
|
On December 27 2013 09:42 sCCrooked wrote:Show nested quote +On December 27 2013 09:29 SKC wrote:On December 27 2013 09:25 sCCrooked wrote:On December 27 2013 09:17 SKC wrote:On December 27 2013 09:06 sCCrooked wrote: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:
[quote]
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.... Dae, I would agree with this statement if this is what actually was happening. I don't know if anybody else played a decent volume of games within the few days where MMR was publicly viewable on your profiles, but I played over 20 matches between those first few days it was released and I was constantly finding 1 or 2 4.5k+ on the other team while I got matched with 2-3 people rated 2.2k. The fact is that the variances in matches from what I witnessed is over 1000 MMR in difference between players in the same game. Possibly nearing 2k in difference between the lowest and highest.I dunno where you guys got this "its only 100" difference, but almost every match I had when I could see ratings proved that I was seeing 1000 below and 1000 above in the same games. 2k and 4.5k should not be meeting in matches. If it was just 100, I would have to retract my problem with the numerical system and focus on how it is gauged. Instead we're seeing a huge variety of MMRs being stuck together. I don't know if they remedied this or not, but 2k+ in difference is just too much for me to call "fair matching". Without stacks? Because a if there is an unbalanced stack on a team, it's pretty much meaningless. I don't understand how its meaningless. You are still a team of 2-3 affecting how the teams will be figured. Even if they were stacks (I'm pretty sure there were singles too), there's over a 2,000 point difference in players. There's no way any reasonable person would consider that "balanced". Because then you are saying people should be banned from queueing with their friends if one of them is significantly better than the other. It has nothing to do with the matchmaking algorythim. It's more akin to region locking or removing the ability to play ranked as stacks. It's meaningless to the current discussion where the guy accepts the fact stacks change things but still believes the system matches good players with bad players even when they queue separately. A game with stacks is pretty much meaningless as an argument for that. I'm not saying that. What I'm saying is if they get 2 4,500+ people, why the hell don't we? How come 2 people ranked at 2,000 points or so are somehow equated in the system to a possible stack (I still maintain that a lot of these instances were singles, NOT stacks) that includes 2 4,500+ players? Do you not see how imbalanced this is?
It is something taken into account. Valve said it's one of the parameters they look for in the matchmaking algorhitm:
The discrepancy in skill between the most and least skilled player in the match is minimized. This is related to team balance, but not the same thing.
The discrepancy between experience (measured by the number of games played) between the least experienced player and the most experienced player is minimized. More on this below.
The highest skill Radiant player should be close to the same skill as the highest skill Dire player.
It obviously doesn't happen every game, they are just things the matchmaking tries to do, but your example is clearly taken into account by the third listed point.
|
On December 27 2013 09:43 NotYango wrote:Show nested quote +On December 27 2013 09:25 sCCrooked wrote:On December 27 2013 09:17 SKC wrote:On December 27 2013 09:06 sCCrooked wrote: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.... Dae, I would agree with this statement if this is what actually was happening. I don't know if anybody else played a decent volume of games within the few days where MMR was publicly viewable on your profiles, but I played over 20 matches between those first few days it was released and I was constantly finding 1 or 2 4.5k+ on the other team while I got matched with 2-3 people rated 2.2k. The fact is that the variances in matches from what I witnessed is over 1000 MMR in difference between players in the same game. Possibly nearing 2k in difference between the lowest and highest.I dunno where you guys got this "its only 100" difference, but almost every match I had when I could see ratings proved that I was seeing 1000 below and 1000 above in the same games. 2k and 4.5k should not be meeting in matches. If it was just 100, I would have to retract my problem with the numerical system and focus on how it is gauged. Instead we're seeing a huge variety of MMRs being stuck together. I don't know if they remedied this or not, but 2k+ in difference is just too much for me to call "fair matching". Without stacks? Because a if there is an unbalanced stack on a team, it's pretty much meaningless. I don't understand how its meaningless. You are still a team of 2-3 affecting how the teams will be figured. Even if they were stacks (I'm pretty sure there were singles too), there's over a 2,000 point difference in players. There's no way any reasonable person would consider that "balanced". Because if the stack involves two players that are 2k rating apart, there's no way for them to be in a game with a smaller rating spread than that because they themselves are creating that 2k spread.
As I already posted, I understand this is something people are tossing around but it doesn't resolve anything. If you are playing something ranked and you get some unbelievably good player from a partial stack, the other team should also get some player from a much higher MMR to balance it out at the least.
That being said, such an idea is ludicrous when you are attempting to stay balanced and fair. If you want to play with your friends, GREAT! Please do so and spread DOTA around! However realize that "ranked" mode should come with far greater restrictions, rules, guidelines, and punishments than the other casual modes. The people who want "ranked" are the same people who kinda wish they could get a taste of a serious play-style scene/group but aren't exactly trying to go pro or something. This more serious mode should be for the more serious players. Basic Logic.
@SKC I just hit post on this when your response showed up. I thought that this was the case too, yet here I am with many others stating that this clearly does not occur and is not the case. Even if this was their intention to balance teams with 1-2 really good out-of-place guys with giving the other team 1-2 guys equal to the other team's, its not what is happening.
|
|
|
On December 27 2013 09:47 sCCrooked wrote:Show nested quote +On December 27 2013 09:43 NotYango wrote:On December 27 2013 09:25 sCCrooked wrote:On December 27 2013 09:17 SKC wrote:On December 27 2013 09:06 sCCrooked wrote: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:
[quote]
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.... Dae, I would agree with this statement if this is what actually was happening. I don't know if anybody else played a decent volume of games within the few days where MMR was publicly viewable on your profiles, but I played over 20 matches between those first few days it was released and I was constantly finding 1 or 2 4.5k+ on the other team while I got matched with 2-3 people rated 2.2k. The fact is that the variances in matches from what I witnessed is over 1000 MMR in difference between players in the same game. Possibly nearing 2k in difference between the lowest and highest.I dunno where you guys got this "its only 100" difference, but almost every match I had when I could see ratings proved that I was seeing 1000 below and 1000 above in the same games. 2k and 4.5k should not be meeting in matches. If it was just 100, I would have to retract my problem with the numerical system and focus on how it is gauged. Instead we're seeing a huge variety of MMRs being stuck together. I don't know if they remedied this or not, but 2k+ in difference is just too much for me to call "fair matching". Without stacks? Because a if there is an unbalanced stack on a team, it's pretty much meaningless. I don't understand how its meaningless. You are still a team of 2-3 affecting how the teams will be figured. Even if they were stacks (I'm pretty sure there were singles too), there's over a 2,000 point difference in players. There's no way any reasonable person would consider that "balanced". Because if the stack involves two players that are 2k rating apart, there's no way for them to be in a game with a smaller rating spread than that because they themselves are creating that 2k spread. As I already posted, I understand this is something people are tossing around but it doesn't resolve anything. If you are playing something ranked and you get some unbelievably good player from a partial stack, the other team should also get some player from a much higher MMR to balance it out at the least. That being said, such an idea is ludicrous when you are attempting to stay balanced and fair. If you want to play with your friends, GREAT! Please do so and spread DOTA around! However realize that "ranked" mode should come with far greater restrictions, rules, guidelines, and punishments than the other casual modes. The people who want "ranked" are the same people who kinda wish they could get a taste of a serious play-style scene/group but aren't exactly trying to go pro or something. This more serious mode should be for the more serious players. Basic Logic.
That's what TMM should be for. But then Valve realized people don't actually want a serious mode, they want to play the same kind of game they do now. Just check the amount of people that play AP.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
