|
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 09:49 SKC wrote:
[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.
TMM is for TEAM of players to play ranked, i would personally say also for STACKS of any size to play ranked, matchmaking que should be for SOLO people to play a more serious mode, so filtering out casuals that do not care for improvement but only want to have fun, with whatever they want to do
with the way you are saying it now, solo queing people don't deserve a ranked mode
|
The thing is, there's simply no way to resolve 4-stacks unless you allow queuing stacks with solos, and even trying to match 2-stacks with ONLY 3-stacks would result in absurdly long queue times.
It's either the way it is now, or you disallow partial stacks in ranked entirely. There's not a good middle ground because of how hard (or in the case of 4-stacks, impossible) it is to fill partial stacks without using solos.
|
Im perfectly fine with ranked being either 5 stack or solo, one or the other. Seems best to me. But yes, that basically just means that I think there should be a real TMM ladder. 
|
Its really not that big of a deal. I play solo all the time against and with stacks. It does not seem to have any reasonable effect on the game.
|
On December 27 2013 10:02 TechSc2 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 27 2013 09:49 SKC wrote:
[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. TMM is for TEAM of players to play ranked, i would personally say also for STACKS of any size to play ranked, matchmaking que should be for SOLO people to play a more serious mode, so filtering out casuals that do not care for improvement but only want to have fun, with whatever they want to do with the way you are saying it now, solo queing people don't deserve a ranked mode
Yes, if you want a taste of "serious" playstyle you have to play as a team. Or find and inhouse or something that plays CM and is designed for a more competitive enviroment. A solo queue would hardly change the playstyle of the current ranked players. You may not be placed into stacks, but you will still have the same mentality that exists in the current system, and it's games are far from "competitive". They are still AP pubs, because that's what people want to play.
|
On December 27 2013 10:36 SKC wrote:Show nested quote +On December 27 2013 10:02 TechSc2 wrote:On December 27 2013 09:49 SKC wrote:
[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. TMM is for TEAM of players to play ranked, i would personally say also for STACKS of any size to play ranked, matchmaking que should be for SOLO people to play a more serious mode, so filtering out casuals that do not care for improvement but only want to have fun, with whatever they want to do with the way you are saying it now, solo queing people don't deserve a ranked mode Yes, if you want a taste of "serious" playstyle you have to play as a team. Or find and inhouse or something that plays CM and is designed for a more competitive enviroment. A solo queue would hardly change the playstyle of the current ranked players. You may not be placed into stacks, but you will still have the same mentality that exists in the current system, and it's games are far from "competitive". They are still AP pubs, because that's what people want to play.
solo que makes balancing teams easier, since you don't have to account for stacks that contain 2K players and 4K players in the same stack.
so far ranked has been a complete stomp, and sometimes i'm at the winning side, and sometimes i'm at the losing side, there hasn't been a single " close" game in over 100 ranked games for me. that should be reason enough to say that the system simply is failing like it is right now.
Also the rankings are updated according to win or loss, not personal performance. with the amount of stats available in this game, i would bet that with enough invested time/work, you can build a very scary and solid ranking/MMR that reflects personal skill, not if your team decides to completely destroy your game for you andf you get punished for it.
And don't get me wrong, i do 5 stack TMM's, but that's a whole different ballgame all together, i would also like i just play when my teammates are not around, it's not like we can all be on when 1 of the players want to play.
|
On December 27 2013 10:35 Plansix wrote:
Its really not that big of a deal. I play solo all the time against and with stacks. It does not seem to have any reasonable effect on the game.
|
On December 27 2013 10:56 TechSc2 wrote:
solo que makes balancing teams easier, since you don't have to account for stacks that contain 2K players and 4K players in the same stack.
so far ranked has been a complete stomp, and sometimes i'm at the winning side, and sometimes i'm at the losing side, there hasn't been a single " close" game in over 100 ranked games for me. that should be reason enough to say that the system simply is failing like it is right now.
Also the rankings are updated according to win or loss, not personal performance. with the amount of stats available in this game, i would bet that with enough invested time/work, you can build a very scary and solid ranking/MMR that reflects personal skill, not if your team decides to completely destroy your game for you andf you get punished for it.
And don't get me wrong, i do 5 stack TMM's, but that's a whole different ballgame all together, i would also like i just play when my teammates are not around, it's not like we can all be on when 1 of the players want to play.
This.
It's disappointing to see that I gain or lose ~26 MMR based solely on win/loss, not even accounting for whether I go 12-0 or 0-12. They can and should try to determine the stats that matter for individual players and weigh them.
|
United States12256 Posts
On December 27 2013 13:49 Rybka wrote:Show nested quote +On December 27 2013 10:56 TechSc2 wrote:
solo que makes balancing teams easier, since you don't have to account for stacks that contain 2K players and 4K players in the same stack.
so far ranked has been a complete stomp, and sometimes i'm at the winning side, and sometimes i'm at the losing side, there hasn't been a single " close" game in over 100 ranked games for me. that should be reason enough to say that the system simply is failing like it is right now.
Also the rankings are updated according to win or loss, not personal performance. with the amount of stats available in this game, i would bet that with enough invested time/work, you can build a very scary and solid ranking/MMR that reflects personal skill, not if your team decides to completely destroy your game for you andf you get punished for it.
And don't get me wrong, i do 5 stack TMM's, but that's a whole different ballgame all together, i would also like i just play when my teammates are not around, it's not like we can all be on when 1 of the players want to play. This. It's disappointing to see that I gain or lose ~26 MMR based solely on win/loss, not even accounting for whether I go 12-0 or 0-12. They can and should try to determine the stats that matter for individual players and weigh them.
Then all anyone would play are gankers.
|
On December 27 2013 14:19 Excalibur_Z wrote:Show nested quote +On December 27 2013 13:49 Rybka wrote:On December 27 2013 10:56 TechSc2 wrote:
solo que makes balancing teams easier, since you don't have to account for stacks that contain 2K players and 4K players in the same stack.
so far ranked has been a complete stomp, and sometimes i'm at the winning side, and sometimes i'm at the losing side, there hasn't been a single " close" game in over 100 ranked games for me. that should be reason enough to say that the system simply is failing like it is right now.
Also the rankings are updated according to win or loss, not personal performance. with the amount of stats available in this game, i would bet that with enough invested time/work, you can build a very scary and solid ranking/MMR that reflects personal skill, not if your team decides to completely destroy your game for you andf you get punished for it.
And don't get me wrong, i do 5 stack TMM's, but that's a whole different ballgame all together, i would also like i just play when my teammates are not around, it's not like we can all be on when 1 of the players want to play. This. It's disappointing to see that I gain or lose ~26 MMR based solely on win/loss, not even accounting for whether I go 12-0 or 0-12. They can and should try to determine the stats that matter for individual players and weigh them. Then all anyone would play are gankers.
everybody would just play furion, farm, and only use ult to KS
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
|
On December 27 2013 14:19 Excalibur_Z wrote:Show nested quote +On December 27 2013 13:49 Rybka wrote:On December 27 2013 10:56 TechSc2 wrote:
solo que makes balancing teams easier, since you don't have to account for stacks that contain 2K players and 4K players in the same stack.
so far ranked has been a complete stomp, and sometimes i'm at the winning side, and sometimes i'm at the losing side, there hasn't been a single " close" game in over 100 ranked games for me. that should be reason enough to say that the system simply is failing like it is right now.
Also the rankings are updated according to win or loss, not personal performance. with the amount of stats available in this game, i would bet that with enough invested time/work, you can build a very scary and solid ranking/MMR that reflects personal skill, not if your team decides to completely destroy your game for you andf you get punished for it.
And don't get me wrong, i do 5 stack TMM's, but that's a whole different ballgame all together, i would also like i just play when my teammates are not around, it's not like we can all be on when 1 of the players want to play. This. It's disappointing to see that I gain or lose ~26 MMR based solely on win/loss, not even accounting for whether I go 12-0 or 0-12. They can and should try to determine the stats that matter for individual players and weigh them. Then all anyone would play are gankers.
You are missing the point.
You can have a bad game, and still win because your teammates pulled your weight. Your MMR will increase. That is disappointing.
You can also have a great game, and still lose because one or more teammates had a bad game. Your MMR will decrease. That is disappointing.
The volume of games and stats are there. Valve can do better. Ranking for team games can't be measured in the same way as 1v1 games (chess, tennis, starcraft, etc.).
No team sport ranks individual players based on win loss.
|
On December 27 2013 15:13 Rybka wrote:Show nested quote +On December 27 2013 14:19 Excalibur_Z wrote:On December 27 2013 13:49 Rybka wrote:On December 27 2013 10:56 TechSc2 wrote:
solo que makes balancing teams easier, since you don't have to account for stacks that contain 2K players and 4K players in the same stack.
so far ranked has been a complete stomp, and sometimes i'm at the winning side, and sometimes i'm at the losing side, there hasn't been a single " close" game in over 100 ranked games for me. that should be reason enough to say that the system simply is failing like it is right now.
Also the rankings are updated according to win or loss, not personal performance. with the amount of stats available in this game, i would bet that with enough invested time/work, you can build a very scary and solid ranking/MMR that reflects personal skill, not if your team decides to completely destroy your game for you andf you get punished for it.
And don't get me wrong, i do 5 stack TMM's, but that's a whole different ballgame all together, i would also like i just play when my teammates are not around, it's not like we can all be on when 1 of the players want to play. This. It's disappointing to see that I gain or lose ~26 MMR based solely on win/loss, not even accounting for whether I go 12-0 or 0-12. They can and should try to determine the stats that matter for individual players and weigh them. Then all anyone would play are gankers. You are missing the point. You can have a bad game, and still win because your teammates pulled your weight. Your MMR will increase. That is disappointing. You can also have a great game, and still lose because one or more teammates had a bad game. Your MMR will decrease. That is disappointing. The volume of games and stats are there. Valve can do better. Ranking for team games can't be measured in the same way as 1v1 games (chess, tennis, starcraft, etc.). No team sport ranks individual players based on win loss.
Agreed. Win/Loss should absolutely not be the majority judge for MMR. Winning or Losing a game of DOTA simply does not show how good at the game a player is. It matters too much what the other players on your team are doing for a win/loss to matter for any individual player. To base individual player skill on win/loss in a game that depends so heavily on teammates just doesn't seem to make any logical sense...
With that said, when thinking about alternatives, everything else I can think of (Stats, KDA, etc.) have even less to do with player skill than win/loss does... So I would assume since there's just no good way of ranking a game like this, Valve just thought they'd take the best approach they could think of which definitely is win/loss even though it's still not good.
Basically I'm trying to say their MMR doesn't really make much sense, but it does make more sense then anything else. Of course people with high MMR will think it works great, and people with low MMR will think it's completely flawed. And there definitely will be people ranked high that don't deserve it and people ranked low that don't deserve it. We really just have to deal with it, since it's still the best option overall. Sucks, but that's just the way it is.
|
Indeed you can rate individuals in team sports through other methods however it is done by comparing to players of similar positions. In american football you do not compare a defensive back to an running back based on points scored. Likewise in dota KD or KDA ratios cannot be compared as there are many different possible positions that can be played. Nor can you compare it via hero performance as many hero's have widely different play styles.
|
If you play consistently at a level above your MMR no amount of noob teammates/feeders/whatever will keep you down. Basing it on anything other than win/loss will eventually just lead to abuse. In the end it's still the same shit, since you'll inevitably have games where you feed and and still win. Do you wanna lose points for that?
|
On December 27 2013 02:47 juracule wrote:Show nested quote +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.)"
the fact that Valve make sure that each team has a 50% chance to win directly confirm that they are not forcing 50% win rate on individuals.
Otherwise they would make sure that the individual with >50% win rate is on a team with less than 50% chance to win
|
On December 27 2013 15:13 Rybka wrote:Show nested quote +On December 27 2013 14:19 Excalibur_Z wrote:On December 27 2013 13:49 Rybka wrote:On December 27 2013 10:56 TechSc2 wrote:
solo que makes balancing teams easier, since you don't have to account for stacks that contain 2K players and 4K players in the same stack.
so far ranked has been a complete stomp, and sometimes i'm at the winning side, and sometimes i'm at the losing side, there hasn't been a single " close" game in over 100 ranked games for me. that should be reason enough to say that the system simply is failing like it is right now.
Also the rankings are updated according to win or loss, not personal performance. with the amount of stats available in this game, i would bet that with enough invested time/work, you can build a very scary and solid ranking/MMR that reflects personal skill, not if your team decides to completely destroy your game for you andf you get punished for it.
And don't get me wrong, i do 5 stack TMM's, but that's a whole different ballgame all together, i would also like i just play when my teammates are not around, it's not like we can all be on when 1 of the players want to play. This. It's disappointing to see that I gain or lose ~26 MMR based solely on win/loss, not even accounting for whether I go 12-0 or 0-12. They can and should try to determine the stats that matter for individual players and weigh them. Then all anyone would play are gankers. You are missing the point. You can have a bad game, and still win because your teammates pulled your weight. Your MMR will increase. That is disappointing. You can also have a great game, and still lose because one or more teammates had a bad game. Your MMR will decrease. That is disappointing. The volume of games and stats are there. Valve can do better. Ranking for team games can't be measured in the same way as 1v1 games (chess, tennis, starcraft, etc.). No team sport ranks individual players based on win loss.
No, actually he has the point quite clear.
You can have a system that represents peoples' skill very well. It won't mean shit. Because as soon as the rating system is not aligned simply with winning and losing games, the goal is no longer to win and lose games. It's to pad your stats in such a way that you gain the most rating. Any system that uses any metrics other than pure win/loss introduces a route to abuse that system to gain points.
It's not that you cannot establish a system that grades your skill very accurately if you're playing normally. It's that once the rating system does not align with the actual goal of the game, "playing normally" doesn't happen anymore.
The team sports analogy is very poor because the nature of the game is such that the reward for winning outweighs the intangible reward of being ranked higher so trying to game the system in order to improve one's ranking at the expense of your team or your chances of winning doesn't make sense. In an online ladder where the only reward IS being ranked higher, there's nothing stopping people from gaming the system.
|
On December 27 2013 09:49 SKC wrote:Show nested quote +On December 27 2013 09:47 sCCrooked wrote: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:
[quote]
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.
I, and many others like myself, would absolutely love having "a more serious mode". But the current implementation of TMM is quite horrendous for several reasons.
|
On December 27 2013 13:49 Rybka wrote:Show nested quote +On December 27 2013 10:56 TechSc2 wrote:
solo que makes balancing teams easier, since you don't have to account for stacks that contain 2K players and 4K players in the same stack.
so far ranked has been a complete stomp, and sometimes i'm at the winning side, and sometimes i'm at the losing side, there hasn't been a single " close" game in over 100 ranked games for me. that should be reason enough to say that the system simply is failing like it is right now.
Also the rankings are updated according to win or loss, not personal performance. with the amount of stats available in this game, i would bet that with enough invested time/work, you can build a very scary and solid ranking/MMR that reflects personal skill, not if your team decides to completely destroy your game for you andf you get punished for it.
And don't get me wrong, i do 5 stack TMM's, but that's a whole different ballgame all together, i would also like i just play when my teammates are not around, it's not like we can all be on when 1 of the players want to play. This. It's disappointing to see that I gain or lose ~26 MMR based solely on win/loss, not even accounting for whether I go 12-0 or 0-12. They can and should try to determine the stats that matter for individual players and weigh them.
Game wouldnt be fun then, too many kill steals, and everyone would play for score
|
I see most people only think of KDA when talking about stats, and even then, KDA alone doesn't mean you need the last hit to perform "well", assist count as well.
But lets say people will play furion more, the fact that they are paying attention to the map to use ult or to TP in to kill someone......
wait....
can it be.....?
THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT A PRO PLAYER DOES WITH FURION TO HELP THE TEAM?!?!?!
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
