EPTNth vs 3DMAX same time as Liquid vs Mouz
No EU/NA matches before or after those 2.
Nice scheduling guys.
General Discussion - Page 2116
| Forum Index > Dota 2 General |
IRC chatter should remain in IRC - http://webchat.quakenet.org/?channels=tl.dota2 Posts that relate to topics with their own thread, such as in News, Tournaments or Strategy should go in those threads. | ||
|
teapoted
United Kingdom24425 Posts
Nth vs 3DMAX same time as Liquid vs Mouz No EU/NA matches before or after those 2. Nice scheduling guys. | ||
|
Blitzkrieg0
United States13132 Posts
| ||
|
teapoted
United Kingdom24425 Posts
| ||
|
Qbek
Poland12923 Posts
| ||
|
Blitzkrieg0
United States13132 Posts
Of course, I normally just have both streams up so it's ^_^ | ||
|
teapoted
United Kingdom24425 Posts
On February 08 2013 01:15 Blitzkrieg0 wrote: Competition can exist without being counter-productive.I'd argue that competition is actually good for the viewer. If organizations have agreements to not broadcast at the same time then they have no reason to improve. If I need to choose between D2L and The Defense then both of them need to try their hardest to get me to watch. Of course, I normally just have both streams up so it's ^_^ If all the matches are at the same time then all organisations will lose viewers and all the teams will get less exposure. I don't think they should have an agreement to not broadcast at the same time. But they should at least try to stagger the games a bit. D2L moving 30 minutes back and TD moving 30 minutes forward, that's really all it would take and it wouldn't really be a problem. | ||
|
Comeh
United States18919 Posts
On February 08 2013 01:20 teapoted wrote: Competition can exist without being counter-productive. If all the matches are at the same time then all organisations will lose viewers and all the teams will get less exposure. I don't think they should have an agreement to not broadcast at the same time. But they should at least try to stagger the games a bit. I think there is probably a huge challenge in scheduling teams to play at certain times - conflicts in schedules is a big deal D: | ||
|
Blitzkrieg0
United States13132 Posts
On February 08 2013 01:20 teapoted wrote: Competition can exist without being counter-productive. If all the matches are at the same time then all organisations will lose viewers and all the teams will get less exposure. I don't think they should have an agreement to not broadcast at the same time. But they should at least try to stagger the games a bit. They might lose more viewers by not playing in that timeslot. A television company might not want to compete with big name shows at the 8pm timeslot, but if they're still going to get more viewers than if they dodged it and played their show at 1am it doesn't seem as bad. Considering how many tournaments are ongoing right now you'd be hard pressed to fit them all without overlap, especially if you want to broadcast at a decent Euro and US time so that you get viewers from both regions. | ||
|
teapoted
United Kingdom24425 Posts
If they talked to each-other they could say "We will try to book our first match at 5pm, and second at 8" and the other can say 6 and 9. It won't always work, but at the moment there seems to be no communication and it's bad, for everyone, viewers, teams, tournaments. | ||
|
-Celestial-
United Kingdom3867 Posts
On February 08 2013 00:54 DrPandaPhD wrote: Why are you so obessed with winrate in pubs? Got to have a 100% winrate in pubs #swag Also if you are really thinking about quitting the game because you are losing you should probably do it. You are going to lose ~50% of the times, dont have to be mad. Losing isn't maddening. And losing a close game can be fun. On the other hand... Losing because your carry doesn't know how to farm or what items to build is maddening. Losing because one of your lanes insists on repeatedly tower diving the opponents and feeding the enemy carry is maddening. Losing because the enemy picked five carries and you're the only one on your team who realises you need to try to pressure them and attack early is maddening. Having your teammates repeatedly refuse to engage and instead get picked off one by one is maddening. Having people who can't last hit or who don't even know how or why to last hit is maddening. Having teammates who refuse to buy detection or even use detection that you've bought and GIVEN them is maddening. I, like everyone else who isn't playing in major tournaments, am a pretty bad player. But these are very basic things. Not complicated or clever. They require basic reasoning and logic and a tiny bit of game experience. When I started my grand total of experience with this genre was a bit of SC2's SotIS; so I chose the lowest starting option. But over the past few hundred games and a bit of reading I've learned these basic ideas. So why the hell do I see a 300-win TA come down bottom and begin autoattacking my creep lane (when I'm playing PL); then firing off insults when I ask him to at least last hit if he's going to stay there? Not to mention he actually seemed CONFUSED as to what last hitting was. I literally don't know how this is even physically possible, but it happens...repeatedly. Sometimes in multiple games in a row. This isn't even a skill thing, its a common sense thing. As for winrate...winrate is the only metric to measure whether or not I'm going to start getting to play with people who actually know not to autoattack the lane for the first fifteen minutes of the game. Eh...I don't even know why I'm writing this. This comment: Got to have a 100% winrate in pubs #swag Clearly indicates your view. Because clearly nobody should ever aspire to play with other people who have more than five braincells, right? | ||
Firebolt145
Lalalaland34505 Posts
I found that game hilarious actually. | ||
dfs
Russian Federation4050 Posts
On February 08 2013 01:40 Firebolt145 wrote: What about losing when you have megacreeps, the opponents have killed 0 of your raxes, and then your antimage farms 2 rapiers and gives them away? I found that game hilarious actually. I would blame porkie. | ||
|
MrCon
France29748 Posts
| ||
|
Firebolt145
Lalalaland34505 Posts
Actually this one wasn't with porkie. | ||
|
dfs
Russian Federation4050 Posts
On February 08 2013 01:45 Firebolt145 wrote: Actually this one wasn't with porkie. This changes nothing. | ||
|
-Celestial-
United Kingdom3867 Posts
On February 08 2013 01:40 Firebolt145 wrote: What about losing when you have megacreeps, the opponents have killed 0 of your raxes, and then your antimage farms 2 rapiers and gives them away? I found that game hilarious actually. I'd probably be laughing too hard to be honest. Losing because of something like that is pretty funny. General incompetence less so. To cannibalise a phrase I saw attributed to a pro-SC2 player in somebodies signature: for me the majority of DOTA 2 games are 15 minutes of playing then one side wins and theres a thirty minute death animation for the losing side. | ||
|
Comeh
United States18919 Posts
I think I died over 20 times as ogremagi. http://dotabuff.com/matches/29503359 | ||
|
DrPandaPhD
5188 Posts
Winrate has nothing to do with skill. If you believe that you are delusioned. SingSing has a very low winrate. Doesn't mean he is bad. You are supposed to have 50% winrate unless you are one of the very best. That's how matchmaking is supposed to work. If you are matched against equally good opponents then in the end you will get a 50% winrate. | ||
|
Nevuk
United States16280 Posts
| ||
|
-Celestial-
United Kingdom3867 Posts
On February 08 2013 01:49 DrPandaPhD wrote: @Lightspeaker Winrate has nothing to do with skill. If you believe that you are delusioned. SingSing has a very low winrate. Doesn't mean he is bad. You are supposed to have 50% winrate unless you are one of the very best. That's how matchmaking is supposed to work. If you are matched against equally good opponents then in the end you will get a 50% winrate. For one; I know winrate is not directly correlated with skill already. I'm not a goddamn idiot so cut the damn attitude. However there IS a generally relevant effect here on winrates which you yourself highlighted. You will get a 50% winrate matched with people that the system deems of a similar skill level to you. Therefore the implication being that if you're BEATING those people then you will have a modestly higher winrate. Its not a very good measure but in the absence of any other metric... *shrug* I'm a scientist IRL; I like numbers. Don't mind me. I'm just being slowly mentally destroyed by game after game of feeders, terrible support and awful carries. Its not even people playing bad...its literally people not understanding the game. When I'm the weakest on my team its because my execution is bad, not because I literally don't know how to play. | ||
| ||
