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.
The fallacy that the MMR system is out to get you and matches you with people worse than you is incredible.
and don't get excited about people knowing how to play at higher levels. They don't.
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.
The fallacy that the MMR system is out to get you and matches you with people worse than you is incredible.
and don't get excited about people knowing how to play at higher levels. They don't.
Take it from me - I have over 1500 games and I'm still a terrible support. Granted, I never play support, but I'm still bad at it.
(my solution - just keep buying wards and counter wards and place them everywhere randomly, and hope teammates dont realize I have no idea what I'm doing).
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.
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.
Constantly blaming your teammates tend to mean you are worse than you think you are :/ Dont have to be so mad, it's a game to played for fun. Yes you will lose because you / your team throws. But you will also win because the enemy throws the game. Relax a bit more, try odd itembuilds. You maybe enjoy the game more then.
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.
Hey just a point there is a way to kind of tell, check recent games filter by your name+very high. Aim to have every game there! Then once yoou have that try and stream snipe pros. If you can't then chances are you have a low MMR. at least that is what i would do if there were pro's in Aus
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.
The fallacy that the MMR system is out to get you and matches you with people worse than you is incredible.
and don't get excited about people knowing how to play at higher levels. They don't.
(my solution - just keep buying wards and counter wards and place them everywhere randomly, and hope teammates dont realize I have no idea what I'm doing).
lol dont do that! Supporting is actually not hard at all, just put yourself in the shoes of your carry/mid player and think what can you do for them. That vision for anti-hook/help your pudge to hook, that detection for NA/Riki/BH, that rune control etc. The hardest part is actually running around the map without items and levels but to function and without dying but thats another story.
And i totally feel you guys. I was playing hardlane+roaming+supporting+carrying few weeks ago but now my new 'solution' is actually 'fck team i go mid and win this game', I still buy cour/ward/dust but only for my own use. The biggest problem with MM is that you dont know if you should play the big impact hero in the game so being selfish and go mid/carry all day can actually net you more wins.
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.
The fallacy that the MMR system is out to get you and matches you with people worse than you is incredible.
and don't get excited about people knowing how to play at higher levels. They don't.
(my solution - just keep buying wards and counter wards and place them everywhere randomly, and hope teammates dont realize I have no idea what I'm doing).
lol dont do that! Supporting is actually not hard at all, just put yourself in the shoes of your carry/mid player and think what can you do for them. That vision for anti-hook/help your pudge to hook, that detection for NA/Riki/BH, that rune control etc. The hardest part is actually running around the map without items and levels but to function and without dying but thats another story.
And i totally feel you guys. I was playing hardlane+roaming+supporting+carrying few weeks ago but now my new 'solution' is actually 'fck team i go mid and win this game', I still buy cour/ward/dust but only for my own use. The biggest problem with MM is that you dont know if you should play the big impact hero in the game so being selfish and go mid/carry all day can actually net you more wins.
I dunno i just pick an aggressive support and go hunting. or a team fight support. Leshrac/sand king/cm/lion/AA and just go kill people until the other team loses. in general i don't even buy wards past the opening set until my team proves to me that they can use them.
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.
The fallacy that the MMR system is out to get you and matches you with people worse than you is incredible.
and don't get excited about people knowing how to play at higher levels. They don't.
(my solution - just keep buying wards and counter wards and place them everywhere randomly, and hope teammates dont realize I have no idea what I'm doing).
lol dont do that! Supporting is actually not hard at all, just put yourself in the shoes of your carry/mid player and think what can you do for them. That vision for anti-hook/help your pudge to hook, that detection for NA/Riki/BH, that rune control etc. The hardest part is actually running around the map without items and levels but to function and without dying but thats another story.
And i totally feel you guys. I was playing hardlane+roaming+supporting+carrying few weeks ago but now my new 'solution' is actually 'fck team i go mid and win this game', I still buy cour/ward/dust but only for my own use. The biggest problem with MM is that you dont know if you should play the big impact hero in the game so being selfish and go mid/carry all day can actually net you more wins.
Haha, I know about those stuff as well - just my KoTL play isn't the best - he seems a bit different from some of the other supports I'm a bit more competent with (Rubick, Leshrac).
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.
The fallacy that the MMR system is out to get you and matches you with people worse than you is incredible.
and don't get excited about people knowing how to play at higher levels. They don't.
(my solution - just keep buying wards and counter wards and place them everywhere randomly, and hope teammates dont realize I have no idea what I'm doing).
lol dont do that! Supporting is actually not hard at all, just put yourself in the shoes of your carry/mid player and think what can you do for them. That vision for anti-hook/help your pudge to hook, that detection for NA/Riki/BH, that rune control etc. The hardest part is actually running around the map without items and levels but to function and without dying but thats another story.
And i totally feel you guys. I was playing hardlane+roaming+supporting+carrying few weeks ago but now my new 'solution' is actually 'fck team i go mid and win this game', I still buy cour/ward/dust but only for my own use. The biggest problem with MM is that you dont know if you should play the big impact hero in the game so being selfish and go mid/carry all day can actually net you more wins.
I dunno i just pick an aggressive support and go hunting. or a team fight support. Leshrac/sand king/cm/lion/AA and just go kill people until the other team loses. in general i don't even buy wards past the opening set until my team proves to me that they can use them.
I have this defective gene that forces me to trust my team no matter who are these people. Most of my mates have said to me that i am an idiot at some stage and i agree with them >_<
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.
Man, I've played dota for years and years and yeah, that'll happen a lot from time to time.
If you want to avoid that frustration and focus on improving yourself what you need to do is only say positive things to your teammates (you can think whatever you want, but dont vocalize "omg this guys so noob").
Focus on playing the absolute best game that you can personally. Do whatever you can to have the least deaths, the most last hits, and control the game and help your teammates. The hardest part of that is continuing to focus on doing your best, while your teammates may be making it harder, but you have to deal with it.
When you get put on a team with players who aren't playing very well, it then becomes your job to carry them and play in a way that makes them better.
Whether you like it or not you are dependent on your team no matter how bad they are, so even if it's hard all you can do is improve your own play and attempt you set your teammates up with opportunities to improve themselves(sometimes they won't and you'll lose anyway, but you already know that part).
On February 08 2013 02:04 Lightspeaker wrote: 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.
Wouldn't an above 50% winrate in the long run just indicate that you're improving (playing better than what the relatively static system expects from you) rather than being good/better than people with lower win rates? Your example seems to just indicate that the mmr system has mislabelled your skill level. Note: I'm talking about skill levels not at the very bottom or top of the ladder.
There will always be someone who is the weakest on the team at any level. The fact that you're acknowledging that this is sometimes you, makes you seem logical and well reasoned. But I would just like to point out that all these people you're playing with have a similar impact (by mmr) on the game; if a player's thinking proficiency is poor, then their mechanics probably enough to make up for it (or from other sources like leadership, ability to inspire team mates etc.), therefore leading you to get matched together. It's like non-top tier na sc2 players playing on korea server thinking it'll make them better. Sure they might have better mechanics on KR but there's some other weaknesses that makes them play at the same mmr level as you (play on kr for diff style, yes--but not for "better players").
On February 08 2013 02:04 Lightspeaker wrote: 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.
Wouldn't an above 50% winrate in the long run just indicate that you're improving (playing better than what the relatively static system expects from you) rather than being good/better than people with lower win rates? Your example seems to just indicate that the mmr system has mislabelled your skill level. Note: I'm talking about skill levels not at the very bottom or top of the ladder.
There will always be someone who is the weakest on the team at any level. The fact that you're acknowledging that this is sometimes you, makes you seem logical and well reasoned. But I would just like to point out that all these people you're playing with have a similar impact (by mmr) on the game; if a player's thinking proficiency is poor, then their mechanics probably enough to make up for it (or from other sources like leadership, ability to inspire team mates etc.), therefore leading you to get matched together. It's like non-top tier na sc2 players playing on korea server thinking it'll make them better. Sure they might have better mechanics on KR but there's some other weaknesses that makes them play at the same mmr level as you (play on kr for diff style, yes--but not for "better players").
I think in the end you're still playing public games with random people and you aren't a team.
You might be the best 70% win rate pub stomper ever, but be totally incompetent when it comes to playing as a team.
I personally only like to refer to actual player skill in a competitive game, or be very specific about what area of skill you are talking about.
You could practice improving at last hitting or map awareness without it affecting your winrate at all. And again it is just a pub with random people so anything can happen regardless of skill level.
Every time I watch dendi go 1-13 and lose a pub game on his stream I get reminded that it happens to everyone.
On February 08 2013 02:04 Lightspeaker wrote: 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.
Wouldn't an above 50% winrate in the long run just indicate that you're improving (playing better than what the relatively static system expects from you) rather than being good/better than people with lower win rates? Your example seems to just indicate that the mmr system has mislabelled your skill level. Note: I'm talking about skill levels not at the very bottom or top of the ladder.
There will always be someone who is the weakest on the team at any level. The fact that you're acknowledging that this is sometimes you, makes you seem logical and well reasoned. But I would just like to point out that all these people you're playing with have a similar impact (by mmr) on the game; if a player's thinking proficiency is poor, then their mechanics probably enough to make up for it (or from other sources like leadership, ability to inspire team mates etc.), therefore leading you to get matched together. It's like non-top tier na sc2 players playing on korea server thinking it'll make them better. Sure they might have better mechanics on KR but there's some other weaknesses that makes them play at the same mmr level as you (play on kr for diff style, yes--but not for "better players").
I suppose the only question is whether or not the people you are queued with are in the same MMR bracket - it gets a little messy when there are stacks of players with different MMR's. Personally, I hate solo queuing, so I often will queue with friends that are considerably lower MMR than me. This will make kind of weird matchups, and if we aren't a 5 stack, the last person on our team can be better or worse than us (likely depending on who you matched against).
Do you guys really believe in the mmr system that much?
I've found that people who will just mass games without focusing on getting better end up being in the higher brackets no matter what. Just like in sc2 how even many masters players and some grandmasters were just mass bunker rushers or things like that.
To me mmr pretty much amounts to how many games do you want your teammates to have played on average. I usually always end up with a mix of about 50% normal players, 20% totally clueless players, 20% complete trolls, and 10% afkers.
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.
Just play -AR or -SD. That way it's not mentally destructive because it's very easy to explain why a player does poorly because they didn't have a good hero or a hero they're good with or, if it's one of those games where you AR Spectre/FV/AM/Meepo/Lycan versus a good composition, that you got RNG'd.
Plus the people are always nicer in SD/AR. Least played they might be too, but no one queues for that.
On February 08 2013 03:14 BeanerBurrito wrote: Do you guys really believe in the mmr system that much?
I've found that people that will just mass games without focusing on getting better end up being in the higher brackets no matter what. Just like in sc2 how even many masters players and some grandmasters were just mass bunker rushers or things like that.
To me mmr pretty much amounts to how many games do you want your teammates to have played on average. I usually always end up with a mix of about 50% normal players, 20% totally clueless players, 20% complete trolls, and 10% afkers.
MMR system is just win versus losses. If you bunker rush every game and win then you're going to be higher ranked. The idea that losing to a bunker rusher doesn't make you a bad player is just silly. If you were the superior player then you would be able to hold off a bunker rush.
The corollary to dota 2: If you're the kind of person who thinks you only lost the game because the other team had a drow picker then you're disillusioned and just finding excuses.
On February 08 2013 03:14 BeanerBurrito wrote: Do you guys really believe in the mmr system that much?
I've found that people that will just mass games without focusing on getting better end up being in the higher brackets no matter what. Just like in sc2 how even many masters players and some grandmasters were just mass bunker rushers or things like that.
To me mmr pretty much amounts to how many games do you want your teammates to have played on average. I usually always end up with a mix of about 50% normal players, 20% totally clueless players, 20% complete trolls, and 10% afkers.
MMR system is just win versus losses. If you bunker rush every game and win then you're going to be higher ranked. The idea that losing to a bunker rusher doesn't make you a bad player is just silly. If you were the superior player then you would be able to hold off a bunker rush.
The corollary to dota 2: If you're the kind of person who thinks you only lost the game because the other team had a drow picker then you're disillusioned and just finding excuses.
I'm saying that the mmr system doesn't mean very much at all in regards to rating player skill because it is based on wins and losses like you said. Even if a player plays a perfect game and does everything right and has an incredibly high skill level, they can still lose and their mmr will say they are a worse player because of the loss.
That's why it doesn't mean much of anything to me, especially because its a rating of a player's skill based on their wins and losses in pub games. I care a lot more about how a player plays in the game than their mmr.
On February 08 2013 03:14 BeanerBurrito wrote: Do you guys really believe in the mmr system that much?
I've found that people that will just mass games without focusing on getting better end up being in the higher brackets no matter what. Just like in sc2 how even many masters players and some grandmasters were just mass bunker rushers or things like that.
To me mmr pretty much amounts to how many games do you want your teammates to have played on average. I usually always end up with a mix of about 50% normal players, 20% totally clueless players, 20% complete trolls, and 10% afkers.
MMR system is just win versus losses. If you bunker rush every game and win then you're going to be higher ranked. The idea that losing to a bunker rusher doesn't make you a bad player is just silly. If you were the superior player then you would be able to hold off a bunker rush.
The corollary to dota 2: If you're the kind of person who thinks you only lost the game because the other team had a drow picker then you're disillusioned and just finding excuses.
I'm saying that the mmr system doesn't mean very much at all in regards to rating player skill because it is based on wins and losses like you said. Even if a player plays a perfect game and does everything right and has an incredibly high skill level, they can still lose and their mmr will say they are a worse player because of the loss.
That's why it doesn't mean much of anything to me, especially because its a rating of your skill based on your wins and losses in pub games.
If a player plays perfectly and does everything right it doesn't mean that he "deserved to win". He's still just 1/5. Honestly the easiest way to not bleed rating is to not be horrible when you're the worst person on the team.
On February 08 2013 03:14 BeanerBurrito wrote: Do you guys really believe in the mmr system that much?
I've found that people that will just mass games without focusing on getting better end up being in the higher brackets no matter what. Just like in sc2 how even many masters players and some grandmasters were just mass bunker rushers or things like that.
To me mmr pretty much amounts to how many games do you want your teammates to have played on average. I usually always end up with a mix of about 50% normal players, 20% totally clueless players, 20% complete trolls, and 10% afkers.
MMR system is just win versus losses. If you bunker rush every game and win then you're going to be higher ranked. The idea that losing to a bunker rusher doesn't make you a bad player is just silly. If you were the superior player then you would be able to hold off a bunker rush.
The corollary to dota 2: If you're the kind of person who thinks you only lost the game because the other team had a drow picker then you're disillusioned and just finding excuses.
I'm saying that the mmr system doesn't mean very much at all in regards to rating player skill because it is based on wins and losses like you said. Even if a player plays a perfect game and does everything right and has an incredibly high skill level, they can still lose and their mmr will say they are a worse player because of the loss.
That's why it doesn't mean much of anything to me, especially because its a rating of your skill based on your wins and losses in pub games.
MMR systems aren't designed to work on the short term. Losing one game isn't suddenly going to destroy your MMR.
EPT
