|
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 30 2013 02:31 thOr6136 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 30 2013 02:13 SKC wrote:Why will you win more by improving? Maybe it has a small immediate effect, but improvement happens slowly. You always end up around 50%, unless you are near the top. Just check the amount of people with high winrates at lower ranks. It's very rare, and often because of things like only picking a single hero or how you play with stacks. That doesn't mean noone wants to improve. On December 30 2013 02:13 Andre wrote:
Playing a certain hero well is a part of DotA.
You might not improve on a general level, but your play for a certain hero will improve...and that's what matters right.
Only if you expect to keep playing that single hero. As soon as you drop him you start losing and possibly make the game even more frustating for you. Read my post, what he means is improving more then your opponents. You will win more on the long run if you are better then opponents. No question about it.
It happens so slowly you hardly feel it. It's not like you keep moving up in ranks until a few months later you are at 5k+, that happens very rarely. It's very diferent from what happens when you pick a single hero, grind it out and start winning 75% of your games, for example. There's no immediate reward in games won. And it will only happen until your MMR is stable again. And it will be stable, you will reach a roadblock where you will be stuck again for some time. You may even overcome it, and in a couple of years it should be easy to see how you changed, but there's no meaningfull diference in games won. There are things that are far more meaningfull for your overall winrate.
|
On December 30 2013 02:35 SKC wrote:Show nested quote +On December 30 2013 02:31 thOr6136 wrote:On December 30 2013 02:13 SKC wrote:Why will you win more by improving? Maybe it has a small immediate effect, but improvement happens slowly. You always end up around 50%, unless you are near the top. Just check the amount of people with high winrates at lower ranks. It's very rare, and often because of things like only picking a single hero or how you play with stacks. That doesn't mean noone wants to improve. On December 30 2013 02:13 Andre wrote:
Playing a certain hero well is a part of DotA.
You might not improve on a general level, but your play for a certain hero will improve...and that's what matters right.
Only if you expect to keep playing that single hero. As soon as you drop him you start losing and possibly make the game even more frustating for you. Read my post, what he means is improving more then your opponents. You will win more on the long run if you are better then opponents. No question about it. It happens so slowly you hardly feel it. It's not like you keep moving up in ranks until a few months later you are at 5k+, that happens very rarely. It's very diferent from what happens when you pick a single hero, grind it out and start winning 75% of your games, for example. There's no immediate reward in games won.
It really depends on a person, on how he tries to win and improve. For one might be slow, for others faster. For someone it might take 5 months to see "new dimension", for other guy 2 years.
|
I think you guys misunderstood the term playing to win. It's fucking obvious playing to pad the stats won't lead you anywhere in the long run. By your logic playing to improve makes no sense, 'cause how do you measure improvement? By increase in stats.
I mentioned playing to win, because I often see people who delude themselves they care about improving, yet do absolute jackshit about it or screw around, just 'for the sake of it' or to 'experiment'. I understand everyone has their own vision of how to get better at the game, but no matter how long we discuss it, the game has a defined clear goal for everyone to achieve - destroy the ancient.
|
This topic is pretty good actually.
Can one be so good at a certain hero that he destroys everyone, yet is still bad at dota in general? Is this a bad thing?
Aren't most of the dota "gods" known for specific heroes? do we frown upon abuse of a single hero ~
|
On December 30 2013 02:39 thOr6136 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 30 2013 02:35 SKC wrote:On December 30 2013 02:31 thOr6136 wrote:On December 30 2013 02:13 SKC wrote:Why will you win more by improving? Maybe it has a small immediate effect, but improvement happens slowly. You always end up around 50%, unless you are near the top. Just check the amount of people with high winrates at lower ranks. It's very rare, and often because of things like only picking a single hero or how you play with stacks. That doesn't mean noone wants to improve. On December 30 2013 02:13 Andre wrote:
Playing a certain hero well is a part of DotA.
You might not improve on a general level, but your play for a certain hero will improve...and that's what matters right.
Only if you expect to keep playing that single hero. As soon as you drop him you start losing and possibly make the game even more frustating for you. Read my post, what he means is improving more then your opponents. You will win more on the long run if you are better then opponents. No question about it. It happens so slowly you hardly feel it. It's not like you keep moving up in ranks until a few months later you are at 5k+, that happens very rarely. It's very diferent from what happens when you pick a single hero, grind it out and start winning 75% of your games, for example. There's no immediate reward in games won. It really depends on a person, on how he tries to win and improve. For one might be slow, for others faster. For someone it might take 5 months to see "new dimension", for other guy 2 years.
And that person that reaches the top of the ladder in 5 months would have also improved a lot even if he didn't care that much about winning.
On December 30 2013 02:40 makmeatt wrote:
I think you guys misunderstood the term playing to win. It's fucking obvious playing to pad the stats won't lead you anywhere in the long run. By your logic playing to improve makes no sense, 'cause how do you measure improvement? By increase in stats.
I mentioned playing to win, because I often see people who delude themselves they care about improving, yet do absolute jackshit about it or screw around, just 'for the sake of it' or to 'experiment'. I understand everyone has their own vision of how to get better at the game, but no matter how long we discuss it, the game has a defined clear goal for everyone to achieve - destroy the ancient.
There's a diference in playing to win, as you put it, and playing to win more, which would be playing with the goal of winning more games.
People who "play to win" win around 50% of their games. People who don't care about winning and just want to have fun win around 50% of their games. Some people that tryhard have lower than 50% WR, some people that do random shit have higher than 50% WR. Winrate is just meaningless.
|
If all you want is to increase your rating then just pick fotm/imba heroes. I personally would get very bored playing the same hero over and over unless I like the hero and want to get good at it.
The initial rating might not be accurate but If you play a lot, your rating will stabilize.
Edit: Winrate is not as meaningless as you would think. Decent players will still have a higher winrate than most even if they random and/or troll around.
|
On December 30 2013 02:24 SKC wrote:Show nested quote +On December 30 2013 02:23 MidgetExplosion wrote:On December 30 2013 01:44 Kupon3ss wrote:
Caring about winning is fundamentally unrelated to caring about improving. Learning to understand the game and improving is usually quite different than winning more. Just look at the people in this thread complaining about "tryhard pickers and bad teammates" in trying to win more instead of looking at themselves. It's funny how you say "Learning to understand the game and improving is usually quite different than winning more" and then try and argue that MMR is meaningful...? You do realize you just basically said that improving has nothing to do with winning, yet MMR is based on win/loss. So you're saying that one can improve and gain a better understanding of the game without actually winning more games and therefore not gain MMR. I definitely agree with this because it is absolutely true, though I was under the impression that you thought otherwise and now you say this? It almost looks like you assume your opponents always have the same MMR. MMR isn't only based on win/loss, it's also based on your team's rank vs the opponents. Add how your opponents MMR also change when you improve and suddenly everything makes sense.
I see what you're saying and it is a good point that I did not think about. Though, even still my point also stands (just not to a degree in which I initially intended.)
What you're saying is that in the grand scheme of things since people you play with/against will never have the same MMR that if I'm actually better than my MMR shows in these games then I will be able to contribute to bringing down the average MMR of all players over a long period of time, thereby making my own MMR, while still unchanged, be higher than it would have been if the average was higher. That makes perfect sense and is absolutely true since if you lose against a team higher MMR than yours then you lose much less MMR then you would if you lost to people of the same MMR. But, you still lose MMR if you lose... That is a fact, there will never be a game where you lose the match and gain MMR. That will not ever happen. So, since I can't physically see my own MMR being directly effected since it hasn't changed I therefore can't directly see improvement, even though I'm improving, because I'm not winning more.
|
On December 30 2013 02:44 MidgetExplosion wrote:Show nested quote +On December 30 2013 02:24 SKC wrote:On December 30 2013 02:23 MidgetExplosion wrote:On December 30 2013 01:44 Kupon3ss wrote:
Caring about winning is fundamentally unrelated to caring about improving. Learning to understand the game and improving is usually quite different than winning more. Just look at the people in this thread complaining about "tryhard pickers and bad teammates" in trying to win more instead of looking at themselves. It's funny how you say "Learning to understand the game and improving is usually quite different than winning more" and then try and argue that MMR is meaningful...? You do realize you just basically said that improving has nothing to do with winning, yet MMR is based on win/loss. So you're saying that one can improve and gain a better understanding of the game without actually winning more games and therefore not gain MMR. I definitely agree with this because it is absolutely true, though I was under the impression that you thought otherwise and now you say this? It almost looks like you assume your opponents always have the same MMR. MMR isn't only based on win/loss, it's also based on your team's rank vs the opponents. Add how your opponents MMR also change when you improve and suddenly everything makes sense. I see what you're saying and it is a good point that I did not think about. Though, even still my point also stands (just not to a degree in which I initially intended.) What you're saying is that in the grand scheme of things since people you play with/against will never have the same MMR that if I'm actually better than my MMR shows in these games then I will be able to contribute to bringing down the average MMR of all players over a long period of time, thereby making my own MMR, while still unchanged, be higher than it would have been if the average was higher. That makes perfect sense and is absolutely true since if you lose against a team higher MMR than yours then you lose much less MMR then you would if you lost to people of the same MMR. But, you still lose MMR if you lose... That is a fact, there will never be a game where you lose the match and gain MMR. That will not ever happen. So, since I can't physically see my own MMR being directly effected since it hasn't changed I therefore can't directly see improvement, even though I'm improving, because I'm not winning more.
There are games where you lose matches and win MMR, or win matches and lose MMR, but that's besides the point. You don't have to actually win MMR when losing, what matters is that, depending on who is favored, you may win more points in a win or lose more points in a loss. That's how you can, in theory, even move up in ranks with a lower than 50% WR, if you have a lot of winning unfavored matches.
|
On December 30 2013 02:41 SKC wrote:Show nested quote +On December 30 2013 02:39 thOr6136 wrote:On December 30 2013 02:35 SKC wrote:On December 30 2013 02:31 thOr6136 wrote:On December 30 2013 02:13 SKC wrote:Why will you win more by improving? Maybe it has a small immediate effect, but improvement happens slowly. You always end up around 50%, unless you are near the top. Just check the amount of people with high winrates at lower ranks. It's very rare, and often because of things like only picking a single hero or how you play with stacks. That doesn't mean noone wants to improve. On December 30 2013 02:13 Andre wrote:
Playing a certain hero well is a part of DotA.
You might not improve on a general level, but your play for a certain hero will improve...and that's what matters right.
Only if you expect to keep playing that single hero. As soon as you drop him you start losing and possibly make the game even more frustating for you. Read my post, what he means is improving more then your opponents. You will win more on the long run if you are better then opponents. No question about it. It happens so slowly you hardly feel it. It's not like you keep moving up in ranks until a few months later you are at 5k+, that happens very rarely. It's very diferent from what happens when you pick a single hero, grind it out and start winning 75% of your games, for example. There's no immediate reward in games won. It really depends on a person, on how he tries to win and improve. For one might be slow, for others faster. For someone it might take 5 months to see "new dimension", for other guy 2 years. And that person that reaches the top of the ladder in 5 months would have also improved a lot even if he didn't care that much about winning. Show nested quote +On December 30 2013 02:40 makmeatt wrote:
I think you guys misunderstood the term playing to win. It's fucking obvious playing to pad the stats won't lead you anywhere in the long run. By your logic playing to improve makes no sense, 'cause how do you measure improvement? By increase in stats.
I mentioned playing to win, because I often see people who delude themselves they care about improving, yet do absolute jackshit about it or screw around, just 'for the sake of it' or to 'experiment'. I understand everyone has their own vision of how to get better at the game, but no matter how long we discuss it, the game has a defined clear goal for everyone to achieve - destroy the ancient. There's a diference in playing to win, as you put it, and playing to win more, which would be playing with the goal of winning more games. People who "play to win" win around 50% of their games. People who don't care about winning and just want to have fun win around 50% of their games. Some people that tryhard have lower than 50% WR, some people that do random shit have higher than 50% WR. Winrate is just meaningless.
Agreed, winrate is absolutely meaningless.
|
The more I read into it, the more I think there's no logical conclusion to this thread and everyone just needs to define their goals with the game and stop whining about things that are unrelated to the said goals. Like, for so many people there's no reason to 'improve' even if they claim they play to do so, so we're just arguing for the sake of it.
|
On December 30 2013 02:41 SKC wrote:Show nested quote +On December 30 2013 02:39 thOr6136 wrote:On December 30 2013 02:35 SKC wrote:On December 30 2013 02:31 thOr6136 wrote:On December 30 2013 02:13 SKC wrote:Why will you win more by improving? Maybe it has a small immediate effect, but improvement happens slowly. You always end up around 50%, unless you are near the top. Just check the amount of people with high winrates at lower ranks. It's very rare, and often because of things like only picking a single hero or how you play with stacks. That doesn't mean noone wants to improve. On December 30 2013 02:13 Andre wrote:
Playing a certain hero well is a part of DotA.
You might not improve on a general level, but your play for a certain hero will improve...and that's what matters right.
Only if you expect to keep playing that single hero. As soon as you drop him you start losing and possibly make the game even more frustating for you. Read my post, what he means is improving more then your opponents. You will win more on the long run if you are better then opponents. No question about it. It happens so slowly you hardly feel it. It's not like you keep moving up in ranks until a few months later you are at 5k+, that happens very rarely. It's very diferent from what happens when you pick a single hero, grind it out and start winning 75% of your games, for example. There's no immediate reward in games won. It really depends on a person, on how he tries to win and improve. For one might be slow, for others faster. For someone it might take 5 months to see "new dimension", for other guy 2 years. And that person that reaches the top of the ladder in 5 months would have also improved a lot even if he didn't care that much about winning. Show nested quote +On December 30 2013 02:40 makmeatt wrote:
I think you guys misunderstood the term playing to win. It's fucking obvious playing to pad the stats won't lead you anywhere in the long run. By your logic playing to improve makes no sense, 'cause how do you measure improvement? By increase in stats.
I mentioned playing to win, because I often see people who delude themselves they care about improving, yet do absolute jackshit about it or screw around, just 'for the sake of it' or to 'experiment'. I understand everyone has their own vision of how to get better at the game, but no matter how long we discuss it, the game has a defined clear goal for everyone to achieve - destroy the ancient. There's a diference in playing to win, as you put it, and playing to win more, which would be playing with the goal of winning more games. People who "play to win" win around 50% of their games. People who don't care about winning and just want to have fun win around 50% of their games. Some people that tryhard have lower than 50% WR, some people that do random shit have higher than 50% WR. Winrate is just meaningless.
Let me quote Sirlin on this matter
"If you are able to win more (that is, more consistently defeat highly skilled players), then you are improving. If not, then not."
So winrate does matter to some extent.
|
On December 30 2013 02:53 makmeatt wrote:
The more I read into it, the more I think there's no logical conclusion to this thread and everyone just needs to define their goals with the game and stop whining about things that are unrelated to the said goals. Like, for so many people there's no reason to 'improve' even if they claim they play to do so, so we're just arguing for the sake of it.
That's basically it, like 90% of the discussions on this or any other forum. You can't expect a logical conclusion to any thread, that's just not how it works. In the end, people can, and should, do whathever they feel is right, just don't act like your way is superior for whathever unfounded reason.
|
On December 30 2013 02:48 SKC wrote:Show nested quote +On December 30 2013 02:44 MidgetExplosion wrote:On December 30 2013 02:24 SKC wrote:On December 30 2013 02:23 MidgetExplosion wrote:On December 30 2013 01:44 Kupon3ss wrote:
Caring about winning is fundamentally unrelated to caring about improving. Learning to understand the game and improving is usually quite different than winning more. Just look at the people in this thread complaining about "tryhard pickers and bad teammates" in trying to win more instead of looking at themselves. It's funny how you say "Learning to understand the game and improving is usually quite different than winning more" and then try and argue that MMR is meaningful...? You do realize you just basically said that improving has nothing to do with winning, yet MMR is based on win/loss. So you're saying that one can improve and gain a better understanding of the game without actually winning more games and therefore not gain MMR. I definitely agree with this because it is absolutely true, though I was under the impression that you thought otherwise and now you say this? It almost looks like you assume your opponents always have the same MMR. MMR isn't only based on win/loss, it's also based on your team's rank vs the opponents. Add how your opponents MMR also change when you improve and suddenly everything makes sense. I see what you're saying and it is a good point that I did not think about. Though, even still my point also stands (just not to a degree in which I initially intended.) What you're saying is that in the grand scheme of things since people you play with/against will never have the same MMR that if I'm actually better than my MMR shows in these games then I will be able to contribute to bringing down the average MMR of all players over a long period of time, thereby making my own MMR, while still unchanged, be higher than it would have been if the average was higher. That makes perfect sense and is absolutely true since if you lose against a team higher MMR than yours then you lose much less MMR then you would if you lost to people of the same MMR. But, you still lose MMR if you lose... That is a fact, there will never be a game where you lose the match and gain MMR. That will not ever happen. So, since I can't physically see my own MMR being directly effected since it hasn't changed I therefore can't directly see improvement, even though I'm improving, because I'm not winning more. There are games where you lose matches and win MMR, or win matches and lose MMR, but that's besides the point. You don't have to actually win MMR when losing, what matters is that, depending on who is favored, you may win more points in a win or lose more points in a loss. That's how you can, in theory, even move up in ranks with a lower than 50% WR, if you have a lot of winning unfavored matches.
I see. I had no idea that you could actually gain MMR when losing a game. If that is true then I stand corrected.
And I also see your point in that if I'm always playing unfavorable matches then staying at even 49% winrate could definitely move me up in MMR since I would be losing much less MMR for losing then I would be gaining MMR for winning. It would just happen very, veeeeeeeery slowly... So in theory I guess you could do that, it would just take you WAAAAAY longer to do then someone with a 55% winrate, let's say. Which is still lame, though not as terrible as I thought it was.
|
On December 30 2013 02:57 MidgetExplosion wrote:Show nested quote +On December 30 2013 02:48 SKC wrote:On December 30 2013 02:44 MidgetExplosion wrote:On December 30 2013 02:24 SKC wrote:On December 30 2013 02:23 MidgetExplosion wrote:On December 30 2013 01:44 Kupon3ss wrote:
Caring about winning is fundamentally unrelated to caring about improving. Learning to understand the game and improving is usually quite different than winning more. Just look at the people in this thread complaining about "tryhard pickers and bad teammates" in trying to win more instead of looking at themselves. It's funny how you say "Learning to understand the game and improving is usually quite different than winning more" and then try and argue that MMR is meaningful...? You do realize you just basically said that improving has nothing to do with winning, yet MMR is based on win/loss. So you're saying that one can improve and gain a better understanding of the game without actually winning more games and therefore not gain MMR. I definitely agree with this because it is absolutely true, though I was under the impression that you thought otherwise and now you say this? It almost looks like you assume your opponents always have the same MMR. MMR isn't only based on win/loss, it's also based on your team's rank vs the opponents. Add how your opponents MMR also change when you improve and suddenly everything makes sense. I see what you're saying and it is a good point that I did not think about. Though, even still my point also stands (just not to a degree in which I initially intended.) What you're saying is that in the grand scheme of things since people you play with/against will never have the same MMR that if I'm actually better than my MMR shows in these games then I will be able to contribute to bringing down the average MMR of all players over a long period of time, thereby making my own MMR, while still unchanged, be higher than it would have been if the average was higher. That makes perfect sense and is absolutely true since if you lose against a team higher MMR than yours then you lose much less MMR then you would if you lost to people of the same MMR. But, you still lose MMR if you lose... That is a fact, there will never be a game where you lose the match and gain MMR. That will not ever happen. So, since I can't physically see my own MMR being directly effected since it hasn't changed I therefore can't directly see improvement, even though I'm improving, because I'm not winning more. There are games where you lose matches and win MMR, or win matches and lose MMR, but that's besides the point. You don't have to actually win MMR when losing, what matters is that, depending on who is favored, you may win more points in a win or lose more points in a loss. That's how you can, in theory, even move up in ranks with a lower than 50% WR, if you have a lot of winning unfavored matches. I see. I had no idea that you could actually gain MMR when losing a game. If that is true then I stand corrected.
you can't. that's only during your placements
|
On December 30 2013 02:55 thOr6136 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 30 2013 02:41 SKC wrote:On December 30 2013 02:39 thOr6136 wrote:On December 30 2013 02:35 SKC wrote:On December 30 2013 02:31 thOr6136 wrote:On December 30 2013 02:13 SKC wrote:Why will you win more by improving? Maybe it has a small immediate effect, but improvement happens slowly. You always end up around 50%, unless you are near the top. Just check the amount of people with high winrates at lower ranks. It's very rare, and often because of things like only picking a single hero or how you play with stacks. That doesn't mean noone wants to improve. On December 30 2013 02:13 Andre wrote:
Playing a certain hero well is a part of DotA.
You might not improve on a general level, but your play for a certain hero will improve...and that's what matters right.
Only if you expect to keep playing that single hero. As soon as you drop him you start losing and possibly make the game even more frustating for you. Read my post, what he means is improving more then your opponents. You will win more on the long run if you are better then opponents. No question about it. It happens so slowly you hardly feel it. It's not like you keep moving up in ranks until a few months later you are at 5k+, that happens very rarely. It's very diferent from what happens when you pick a single hero, grind it out and start winning 75% of your games, for example. There's no immediate reward in games won. It really depends on a person, on how he tries to win and improve. For one might be slow, for others faster. For someone it might take 5 months to see "new dimension", for other guy 2 years. And that person that reaches the top of the ladder in 5 months would have also improved a lot even if he didn't care that much about winning. On December 30 2013 02:40 makmeatt wrote:
I think you guys misunderstood the term playing to win. It's fucking obvious playing to pad the stats won't lead you anywhere in the long run. By your logic playing to improve makes no sense, 'cause how do you measure improvement? By increase in stats.
I mentioned playing to win, because I often see people who delude themselves they care about improving, yet do absolute jackshit about it or screw around, just 'for the sake of it' or to 'experiment'. I understand everyone has their own vision of how to get better at the game, but no matter how long we discuss it, the game has a defined clear goal for everyone to achieve - destroy the ancient. There's a diference in playing to win, as you put it, and playing to win more, which would be playing with the goal of winning more games. People who "play to win" win around 50% of their games. People who don't care about winning and just want to have fun win around 50% of their games. Some people that tryhard have lower than 50% WR, some people that do random shit have higher than 50% WR. Winrate is just meaningless. Let me quote Sirlin on this matter "If you are able to win more (that is, more consistently defeat highly skilled players), then you are improving. If not, then not." So winrate does matter to some extent.
In real life it's dilluted by so many other factors it ends up being meaningless. If everyone solo queues and had the same mentality, win rate would be more valuable. But you cannot separate your useless data in your winrate from the ones that dictate whether you are moving up. You can't remove those games where you stacked with those terrible friends for example, or even look just at the current trend. That quote is talking about recent events only, something very often not reflected accuratelly in your winrate.
On December 30 2013 02:59 synapse wrote:Show nested quote +On December 30 2013 02:57 MidgetExplosion wrote:On December 30 2013 02:48 SKC wrote:On December 30 2013 02:44 MidgetExplosion wrote:On December 30 2013 02:24 SKC wrote:On December 30 2013 02:23 MidgetExplosion wrote:On December 30 2013 01:44 Kupon3ss wrote:
Caring about winning is fundamentally unrelated to caring about improving. Learning to understand the game and improving is usually quite different than winning more. Just look at the people in this thread complaining about "tryhard pickers and bad teammates" in trying to win more instead of looking at themselves. It's funny how you say "Learning to understand the game and improving is usually quite different than winning more" and then try and argue that MMR is meaningful...? You do realize you just basically said that improving has nothing to do with winning, yet MMR is based on win/loss. So you're saying that one can improve and gain a better understanding of the game without actually winning more games and therefore not gain MMR. I definitely agree with this because it is absolutely true, though I was under the impression that you thought otherwise and now you say this? It almost looks like you assume your opponents always have the same MMR. MMR isn't only based on win/loss, it's also based on your team's rank vs the opponents. Add how your opponents MMR also change when you improve and suddenly everything makes sense. I see what you're saying and it is a good point that I did not think about. Though, even still my point also stands (just not to a degree in which I initially intended.) What you're saying is that in the grand scheme of things since people you play with/against will never have the same MMR that if I'm actually better than my MMR shows in these games then I will be able to contribute to bringing down the average MMR of all players over a long period of time, thereby making my own MMR, while still unchanged, be higher than it would have been if the average was higher. That makes perfect sense and is absolutely true since if you lose against a team higher MMR than yours then you lose much less MMR then you would if you lost to people of the same MMR. But, you still lose MMR if you lose... That is a fact, there will never be a game where you lose the match and gain MMR. That will not ever happen. So, since I can't physically see my own MMR being directly effected since it hasn't changed I therefore can't directly see improvement, even though I'm improving, because I'm not winning more. There are games where you lose matches and win MMR, or win matches and lose MMR, but that's besides the point. You don't have to actually win MMR when losing, what matters is that, depending on who is favored, you may win more points in a win or lose more points in a loss. That's how you can, in theory, even move up in ranks with a lower than 50% WR, if you have a lot of winning unfavored matches. I see. I had no idea that you could actually gain MMR when losing a game. If that is true then I stand corrected. you can't. that's only during your placements
"You can't, except when you can". It's also possible that, for whathever reason, the your uncertainty rises so much the system has to reacess your skill and weird things may happen, even if very rarely. When Valve said it can happen, they definatelly didn't say it would only be possible in placement matches. Either way, as I said that's besides the point, what matters in the vast majority of the time is how many points you win in games won or lose in losses.
|
On December 30 2013 02:55 thOr6136 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 30 2013 02:41 SKC wrote:On December 30 2013 02:39 thOr6136 wrote:On December 30 2013 02:35 SKC wrote:On December 30 2013 02:31 thOr6136 wrote:On December 30 2013 02:13 SKC wrote:Why will you win more by improving? Maybe it has a small immediate effect, but improvement happens slowly. You always end up around 50%, unless you are near the top. Just check the amount of people with high winrates at lower ranks. It's very rare, and often because of things like only picking a single hero or how you play with stacks. That doesn't mean noone wants to improve. On December 30 2013 02:13 Andre wrote:
Playing a certain hero well is a part of DotA.
You might not improve on a general level, but your play for a certain hero will improve...and that's what matters right.
Only if you expect to keep playing that single hero. As soon as you drop him you start losing and possibly make the game even more frustating for you. Read my post, what he means is improving more then your opponents. You will win more on the long run if you are better then opponents. No question about it. It happens so slowly you hardly feel it. It's not like you keep moving up in ranks until a few months later you are at 5k+, that happens very rarely. It's very diferent from what happens when you pick a single hero, grind it out and start winning 75% of your games, for example. There's no immediate reward in games won. It really depends on a person, on how he tries to win and improve. For one might be slow, for others faster. For someone it might take 5 months to see "new dimension", for other guy 2 years. And that person that reaches the top of the ladder in 5 months would have also improved a lot even if he didn't care that much about winning. On December 30 2013 02:40 makmeatt wrote:
I think you guys misunderstood the term playing to win. It's fucking obvious playing to pad the stats won't lead you anywhere in the long run. By your logic playing to improve makes no sense, 'cause how do you measure improvement? By increase in stats.
I mentioned playing to win, because I often see people who delude themselves they care about improving, yet do absolute jackshit about it or screw around, just 'for the sake of it' or to 'experiment'. I understand everyone has their own vision of how to get better at the game, but no matter how long we discuss it, the game has a defined clear goal for everyone to achieve - destroy the ancient. There's a diference in playing to win, as you put it, and playing to win more, which would be playing with the goal of winning more games. People who "play to win" win around 50% of their games. People who don't care about winning and just want to have fun win around 50% of their games. Some people that tryhard have lower than 50% WR, some people that do random shit have higher than 50% WR. Winrate is just meaningless. Let me quote Sirlin on this matter "If you are able to win more (that is, more consistently defeat highly skilled players), then you are improving. If not, then not." So winrate does matter to some extent.
This is true 1v1. Definitely not true 5v5. Individually speaking, of course. For Team MMR, this is absolutely true.
|
On December 30 2013 02:55 thOr6136 wrote:
So winrate does matter to some extent.
DotA winrate is not a measure of success in a competitive game in Sirlin's sense. Like, you have access to the same resources as others and shit, but since the system makes you play against harder opponents if you win, if you win against them it will raise the bar, but still try to keep the teams even. So, if you are actually getting good, you will get higher ranks with the same winrate. Besides, the ladder is not the type of competition he describes (not a tourney you can win consitently), so keep that in mind.
|
On December 30 2013 03:02 SKC wrote:Show nested quote +On December 30 2013 02:55 thOr6136 wrote:On December 30 2013 02:41 SKC wrote:On December 30 2013 02:39 thOr6136 wrote:On December 30 2013 02:35 SKC wrote:On December 30 2013 02:31 thOr6136 wrote:On December 30 2013 02:13 SKC wrote:Why will you win more by improving? Maybe it has a small immediate effect, but improvement happens slowly. You always end up around 50%, unless you are near the top. Just check the amount of people with high winrates at lower ranks. It's very rare, and often because of things like only picking a single hero or how you play with stacks. That doesn't mean noone wants to improve. On December 30 2013 02:13 Andre wrote:
Playing a certain hero well is a part of DotA.
You might not improve on a general level, but your play for a certain hero will improve...and that's what matters right.
Only if you expect to keep playing that single hero. As soon as you drop him you start losing and possibly make the game even more frustating for you. Read my post, what he means is improving more then your opponents. You will win more on the long run if you are better then opponents. No question about it. It happens so slowly you hardly feel it. It's not like you keep moving up in ranks until a few months later you are at 5k+, that happens very rarely. It's very diferent from what happens when you pick a single hero, grind it out and start winning 75% of your games, for example. There's no immediate reward in games won. It really depends on a person, on how he tries to win and improve. For one might be slow, for others faster. For someone it might take 5 months to see "new dimension", for other guy 2 years. And that person that reaches the top of the ladder in 5 months would have also improved a lot even if he didn't care that much about winning. On December 30 2013 02:40 makmeatt wrote:
I think you guys misunderstood the term playing to win. It's fucking obvious playing to pad the stats won't lead you anywhere in the long run. By your logic playing to improve makes no sense, 'cause how do you measure improvement? By increase in stats.
I mentioned playing to win, because I often see people who delude themselves they care about improving, yet do absolute jackshit about it or screw around, just 'for the sake of it' or to 'experiment'. I understand everyone has their own vision of how to get better at the game, but no matter how long we discuss it, the game has a defined clear goal for everyone to achieve - destroy the ancient. There's a diference in playing to win, as you put it, and playing to win more, which would be playing with the goal of winning more games. People who "play to win" win around 50% of their games. People who don't care about winning and just want to have fun win around 50% of their games. Some people that tryhard have lower than 50% WR, some people that do random shit have higher than 50% WR. Winrate is just meaningless. Let me quote Sirlin on this matter "If you are able to win more (that is, more consistently defeat highly skilled players), then you are improving. If not, then not." So winrate does matter to some extent. In real life it's dilluted by so many other factors it ends up being meaningless. If everyone solo queues and had the same mentality, win rate would be more valuable. But you cannot separate your useless data in your winrate from the ones that dictate whether you are moving up. You can't remove those games where you stacked with those terrible friends for example, or even look just at the current trend. That quote is talking about recent events only, something very often not reflected accuratelly in your winrate. Show nested quote +On December 30 2013 02:59 synapse wrote:On December 30 2013 02:57 MidgetExplosion wrote:On December 30 2013 02:48 SKC wrote:On December 30 2013 02:44 MidgetExplosion wrote:On December 30 2013 02:24 SKC wrote:On December 30 2013 02:23 MidgetExplosion wrote:On December 30 2013 01:44 Kupon3ss wrote:
Caring about winning is fundamentally unrelated to caring about improving. Learning to understand the game and improving is usually quite different than winning more. Just look at the people in this thread complaining about "tryhard pickers and bad teammates" in trying to win more instead of looking at themselves. It's funny how you say "Learning to understand the game and improving is usually quite different than winning more" and then try and argue that MMR is meaningful...? You do realize you just basically said that improving has nothing to do with winning, yet MMR is based on win/loss. So you're saying that one can improve and gain a better understanding of the game without actually winning more games and therefore not gain MMR. I definitely agree with this because it is absolutely true, though I was under the impression that you thought otherwise and now you say this? It almost looks like you assume your opponents always have the same MMR. MMR isn't only based on win/loss, it's also based on your team's rank vs the opponents. Add how your opponents MMR also change when you improve and suddenly everything makes sense. I see what you're saying and it is a good point that I did not think about. Though, even still my point also stands (just not to a degree in which I initially intended.) What you're saying is that in the grand scheme of things since people you play with/against will never have the same MMR that if I'm actually better than my MMR shows in these games then I will be able to contribute to bringing down the average MMR of all players over a long period of time, thereby making my own MMR, while still unchanged, be higher than it would have been if the average was higher. That makes perfect sense and is absolutely true since if you lose against a team higher MMR than yours then you lose much less MMR then you would if you lost to people of the same MMR. But, you still lose MMR if you lose... That is a fact, there will never be a game where you lose the match and gain MMR. That will not ever happen. So, since I can't physically see my own MMR being directly effected since it hasn't changed I therefore can't directly see improvement, even though I'm improving, because I'm not winning more. There are games where you lose matches and win MMR, or win matches and lose MMR, but that's besides the point. You don't have to actually win MMR when losing, what matters is that, depending on who is favored, you may win more points in a win or lose more points in a loss. That's how you can, in theory, even move up in ranks with a lower than 50% WR, if you have a lot of winning unfavored matches. I see. I had no idea that you could actually gain MMR when losing a game. If that is true then I stand corrected. you can't. that's only during your placements "You can't, except when you can". It's also possible that, for whathever reason, the your uncertainty rises so much the system has to reacess your skill and weird things may happen, even if very rarely. When Valve said it can happen, they definatelly didn't say it would only be possible in placement matches. Either way, as I said that's besides the point, what matters in the vast majority of the time is how many points you win in games won or lose in losses.
Well, i agree wtih you on this part. But ranked should be correct measurement of one skill right? So one's winrate should matter right? It's not 100% correct, but it is up there.
On December 30 2013 03:06 makmeatt wrote:Show nested quote +On December 30 2013 02:55 thOr6136 wrote:
So winrate does matter to some extent.
DotA winrate is not a measure of success in a competitive game in Sirlin's sense. Like, you have access to the same resources as others and shit, but since the system makes you play against harder opponents if you win, if you win against them it will raise the bar, but still try to keep the teams even. So, if you are actually getting good, you will get higher ranks with the same winrate. Besides, the ladder is not the type of competition he describes (not a tourney you can win consitently), so keep that in mind.
Agreed. But when you reach the top, you could start winning more right? So having 70% does mean at least something.
But yeah as you say soloq is wrong topic to discuss this. That's where tournament wins matter.
|
Winrate and rating is very positively correlated, so saying winrate is meaningless is very questionable. Even decent players who troll around have well above average winrates ie sing, notail etc.
|
On December 30 2013 03:11 thOr6136 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 30 2013 03:02 SKC wrote:On December 30 2013 02:55 thOr6136 wrote:On December 30 2013 02:41 SKC wrote:On December 30 2013 02:39 thOr6136 wrote:On December 30 2013 02:35 SKC wrote:On December 30 2013 02:31 thOr6136 wrote:On December 30 2013 02:13 SKC wrote:Why will you win more by improving? Maybe it has a small immediate effect, but improvement happens slowly. You always end up around 50%, unless you are near the top. Just check the amount of people with high winrates at lower ranks. It's very rare, and often because of things like only picking a single hero or how you play with stacks. That doesn't mean noone wants to improve. On December 30 2013 02:13 Andre wrote:
Playing a certain hero well is a part of DotA.
You might not improve on a general level, but your play for a certain hero will improve...and that's what matters right.
Only if you expect to keep playing that single hero. As soon as you drop him you start losing and possibly make the game even more frustating for you. Read my post, what he means is improving more then your opponents. You will win more on the long run if you are better then opponents. No question about it. It happens so slowly you hardly feel it. It's not like you keep moving up in ranks until a few months later you are at 5k+, that happens very rarely. It's very diferent from what happens when you pick a single hero, grind it out and start winning 75% of your games, for example. There's no immediate reward in games won. It really depends on a person, on how he tries to win and improve. For one might be slow, for others faster. For someone it might take 5 months to see "new dimension", for other guy 2 years. And that person that reaches the top of the ladder in 5 months would have also improved a lot even if he didn't care that much about winning. On December 30 2013 02:40 makmeatt wrote:
I think you guys misunderstood the term playing to win. It's fucking obvious playing to pad the stats won't lead you anywhere in the long run. By your logic playing to improve makes no sense, 'cause how do you measure improvement? By increase in stats.
I mentioned playing to win, because I often see people who delude themselves they care about improving, yet do absolute jackshit about it or screw around, just 'for the sake of it' or to 'experiment'. I understand everyone has their own vision of how to get better at the game, but no matter how long we discuss it, the game has a defined clear goal for everyone to achieve - destroy the ancient. There's a diference in playing to win, as you put it, and playing to win more, which would be playing with the goal of winning more games. People who "play to win" win around 50% of their games. People who don't care about winning and just want to have fun win around 50% of their games. Some people that tryhard have lower than 50% WR, some people that do random shit have higher than 50% WR. Winrate is just meaningless. Let me quote Sirlin on this matter "If you are able to win more (that is, more consistently defeat highly skilled players), then you are improving. If not, then not." So winrate does matter to some extent. In real life it's dilluted by so many other factors it ends up being meaningless. If everyone solo queues and had the same mentality, win rate would be more valuable. But you cannot separate your useless data in your winrate from the ones that dictate whether you are moving up. You can't remove those games where you stacked with those terrible friends for example, or even look just at the current trend. That quote is talking about recent events only, something very often not reflected accuratelly in your winrate. On December 30 2013 02:59 synapse wrote:On December 30 2013 02:57 MidgetExplosion wrote:On December 30 2013 02:48 SKC wrote:On December 30 2013 02:44 MidgetExplosion wrote:On December 30 2013 02:24 SKC wrote:On December 30 2013 02:23 MidgetExplosion wrote:On December 30 2013 01:44 Kupon3ss wrote:
Caring about winning is fundamentally unrelated to caring about improving. Learning to understand the game and improving is usually quite different than winning more. Just look at the people in this thread complaining about "tryhard pickers and bad teammates" in trying to win more instead of looking at themselves. It's funny how you say "Learning to understand the game and improving is usually quite different than winning more" and then try and argue that MMR is meaningful...? You do realize you just basically said that improving has nothing to do with winning, yet MMR is based on win/loss. So you're saying that one can improve and gain a better understanding of the game without actually winning more games and therefore not gain MMR. I definitely agree with this because it is absolutely true, though I was under the impression that you thought otherwise and now you say this? It almost looks like you assume your opponents always have the same MMR. MMR isn't only based on win/loss, it's also based on your team's rank vs the opponents. Add how your opponents MMR also change when you improve and suddenly everything makes sense. I see what you're saying and it is a good point that I did not think about. Though, even still my point also stands (just not to a degree in which I initially intended.) What you're saying is that in the grand scheme of things since people you play with/against will never have the same MMR that if I'm actually better than my MMR shows in these games then I will be able to contribute to bringing down the average MMR of all players over a long period of time, thereby making my own MMR, while still unchanged, be higher than it would have been if the average was higher. That makes perfect sense and is absolutely true since if you lose against a team higher MMR than yours then you lose much less MMR then you would if you lost to people of the same MMR. But, you still lose MMR if you lose... That is a fact, there will never be a game where you lose the match and gain MMR. That will not ever happen. So, since I can't physically see my own MMR being directly effected since it hasn't changed I therefore can't directly see improvement, even though I'm improving, because I'm not winning more. There are games where you lose matches and win MMR, or win matches and lose MMR, but that's besides the point. You don't have to actually win MMR when losing, what matters is that, depending on who is favored, you may win more points in a win or lose more points in a loss. That's how you can, in theory, even move up in ranks with a lower than 50% WR, if you have a lot of winning unfavored matches. I see. I had no idea that you could actually gain MMR when losing a game. If that is true then I stand corrected. you can't. that's only during your placements "You can't, except when you can". It's also possible that, for whathever reason, the your uncertainty rises so much the system has to reacess your skill and weird things may happen, even if very rarely. When Valve said it can happen, they definatelly didn't say it would only be possible in placement matches. Either way, as I said that's besides the point, what matters in the vast majority of the time is how many points you win in games won or lose in losses. Well, i agree wtih you on this part. But ranked should be correct measurement of one skill right? So one's winrate should matter right? It's not 100% correct, but it is up there.
No? Ranked still has stacks, players still play it with vastly diferent mentalities and, more importantly, the context of that quote was not a game with matchmaking. If you are playing in a tournament, an arcade, bnet, etc, the amount of games you win is a good measuremente of skill. You cannot say the same when someone puts you against an equally skilled opponent every game.
On December 30 2013 03:13 swedewannabe wrote:
Winrate and rating is very positively correlated, so saying winrate is meaningless is very questionable. Even decent players who troll around have well above average winrates ie sing, notail etc.
Everyone knows winrate changes at the top of the ladder. Noone is talking about that. When there are not enough equally skilled players to match you with, everything changes. But for the vast majority of the playerbase, including people talking about improving, it's just not true. Almost everyone below a certain rank has an average win rate. Doesn't mean they are all equally skilled, obviously.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
