iCCup Kicks Off Dota 2 Server - Page 5

On July 16 2013 18:34 Steveling wrote:
Why would I grind through 100's of games with noobs when volvo mm puts me in vh bracket after like 20 games of stomping.
How is iccup system any better than mm?

On July 16 2013 19:30 G3CKO wrote:
Seems pointless to NA people because we get 150+ ping on Easter Europe servers. At least this should reduce the number of Russians on NA servers though. Also if it's the same admins as the BW people, I'm not going there; since I don't want to get my city banned.

On July 17 2013 04:09 SnowfaLL wrote:


but thats not the case; my last 5 games of "very high" bracket included 3 abandons, and people who literally a moved into towers. Go read the first 30 threads on the dota dev forums; the matchmaking system is SO broken its a joke; people with 900+ games getting paired with people with 20 games.

The way MM currently works; it wants you to be 50% at every time. So what it does is if it sees someone winning a lot, it matches them with the lowest players in an effort for "High skilled players can teach newbies" - but it really ends up being one person who may be great, playing with 4 newbies vs 5 decently-solid players.. And if you play dota at all, you know your only as strong as your weakest link.

The way HoN ladder works (and im assuming LoL, since they have a very successful ladder) is it tries to balance out the team; if there are only 10 people searching and 2 are super low ranked compared to the other 8, it splits them up, rather than just putting them on the same team with the highest level player. That is the difference between a good matchmaking and whatever Valve calls this monstrosity.

On July 17 2013 08:10 Steveling wrote:



That's not the case at all.
I must get like 1 bad player every 5 games or so.

It's just that people pick carries or don't support with a support or troll or grief or some other shit but very few of the players that may cause you to lose a game, for the previous reasons, don't belong to your skill bracket.

On July 17 2013 04:09 SnowfaLL wrote:


but thats not the case; my last 5 games of "very high" bracket included 3 abandons, and people who literally a moved into towers. Go read the first 30 threads on the dota dev forums; the matchmaking system is SO broken its a joke; people with 900+ games getting paired with people with 20 games.

The way MM currently works; it wants you to be 50% at every time. So what it does is if it sees someone winning a lot, it matches them with the lowest players in an effort for "High skilled players can teach newbies" - but it really ends up being one person who may be great, playing with 4 newbies vs 5 decently-solid players.. And if you play dota at all, you know your only as strong as your weakest link.

The way HoN ladder works (and im assuming LoL, since they have a very successful ladder) is it tries to balance out the team; if there are only 10 people searching and 2 are super low ranked compared to the other 8, it splits them up, rather than just putting them on the same team with the highest level player. That is the difference between a good matchmaking and whatever Valve calls this monstrosity.

On July 17 2013 12:41 TomatoBisque wrote:

None of the things you posted prove that MM is broken, it just shows that you don't understand how MM works, which is typical of people who complain about it. You mention anecdotal evidence but none of this evidence actually shows MM is broken under any scrutiny.

The way a proper MM works is: you win, you gain MMR; you don't, you lose MMR. That means that new players will always be roughly at the mean MMR level, which means that it's entirely possible that a player that has 900 games played with someone who is new, because the guy with 900 games played is about 450-450 and thus has not moved far from the starting MMR.

This means that number of games played or number of wins don't mean anything in a vacuum, despite what people like to believe. I would expect a guy who is 17-3 to have a much higher MMR than a guy who is 300-600.

The only reason he wouldn't is because the amount of MMR gained from winning outstrips what you lose by losing by a significant margin, which comes with its own problem: You don't have to be good to have high MMR, you just have to play a lot. I guarantee you that would get you far more imbalanced games than you have now.

Having near a 50% winrate is a GOOD thing for MMR, because if you are playing against people of your own skill level you should be winning about 50% of your games.

Furthermore, the idea that the matchmaking system puts 4 idiots together with you to enforce a 50% winrate is asinine. How do these idiots have around a 50% winrate if they're constantly put into unwinnable games like this? If Valve can determine who is actually good when their MMR is apparently just trying to enforce a 50% win rate, why don't they implement a better MMR? People who whine about MMR are just looking for an excuse for their losses.

The fact that you think LoL doesn't have the same stuff shows that you haven't spent an extended period of time in the community. They have their own term for what we call the trench: ELO Hell. It's where you get stuck at one area in the rankings because your teammates suck and you can't carry them. But the truth is you're just as bad as them, and good players made smurfs and/or intentionally crashed their ELO to low levels then worked their way back up to prove there's no such thing.

I don't know if HoN is any better, but I sincerely doubt it is.

PS: Appeal to popularity doesn't mean shit.

On July 17 2013 12:41 TomatoBisque wrote:

None of the things you posted prove that MM is broken, it just shows that you don't understand how MM works, which is typical of people who complain about it. You mention anecdotal evidence but none of this evidence actually shows MM is broken under any scrutiny.

The way a proper MM works is: you win, you gain MMR; you don't, you lose MMR. That means that new players will always be roughly at the mean MMR level, which means that it's entirely possible that a player that has 900 games played with someone who is new, because the guy with 900 games played is about 450-450 and thus has not moved far from the starting MMR.

This means that number of games played or number of wins don't mean anything in a vacuum, despite what people like to believe. I would expect a guy who is 17-3 to have a much higher MMR than a guy who is 300-600.

The only reason he wouldn't is because the amount of MMR gained from winning outstrips what you lose by losing by a significant margin, which comes with its own problem: You don't have to be good to have high MMR, you just have to play a lot. I guarantee you that would get you far more imbalanced games than you have now.

Having near a 50% winrate is a GOOD thing for MMR, because if you are playing against people of your own skill level you should be winning about 50% of your games.

Furthermore, the idea that the matchmaking system puts 4 idiots together with you to enforce a 50% winrate is asinine. How do these idiots have around a 50% winrate if they're constantly put into unwinnable games like this? If Valve can determine who is actually good when their MMR is apparently just trying to enforce a 50% win rate, why don't they implement a better MMR? People who whine about MMR are just looking for an excuse for their losses.

The fact that you think LoL doesn't have the same stuff shows that you haven't spent an extended period of time in the community. They have their own term for what we call the trench: ELO Hell. It's where you get stuck at one area in the rankings because your teammates suck and you can't carry them. But the truth is you're just as bad as them, and good players made smurfs and/or intentionally crashed their ELO to low levels then worked their way back up to prove there's no such thing.

I don't know if HoN is any better, but I sincerely doubt it is.

PS: Appeal to popularity doesn't mean shit.

On July 17 2013 19:49 Zocat wrote:
It's not like you know the MMR of people in Dota, so how do you know that it's not using "team balance"?
How do you know people with 1800 are matched with someone at 1500?

On July 24 2013 21:27 Alur wrote:
Considering the current matchmaking issues it seem appropriate to bump this thread, since iCCup is working just fine. It's a good alternative to matchmaking if you don't mind russians.

On July 24 2013 22:09 Esc4toN wrote:


I think that everyone that plays Dota just loves Russians

On July 25 2013 01:26 Gentso wrote:
Iccup might have been great for Brood War, but I didn't appreciate them in SC2. It seemed like they kept forcing their different maps and tournament styles down everyone's mouth in order to be relevant. Even in non-iccup related SC2 stuff, I'd see them promoting themselves shamelessly.

Nowadays I feel like these types of systems just segregate the community and isn't healthy for the game. Valve shutdown dotabuff pretty hard as soon as they made their power play. Don't see Iccup ever getting relevant.