|
|
On July 19 2013 23:07 Talron wrote:Show nested quote +On July 19 2013 22:45 Plansix wrote:On July 19 2013 22:38 hfglgg wrote:
Those advanced statistics should be seperated by heroes though. No need for "I got 560 gpm, I am carry you 559 scum". Well would probably sufficient if the stats were not public. I would sperate it per role. Also, I think it should be viewable of the player only, not the public. Self review it cool, but I don't want people snooping my account to make sure I am able to carry or play mid. People do enough of that right now. I think another nice thing to add would be a filter. Like you you select your matches of june [or exact date -> date], filter your let's say or even all your individual stats gpm for that month and be able to compare it to for example may. Even filter that per hero, would be freaking awesome. There's so much valve could do.
I would love to be able to display them on my profile if I was proud of them too. If we had a "ward coverage" stat of some form and I was the best of the best at warding, I would want that out there. Or a heroes saved(that one would be more complex to program).
But stats and filters are good and provide way better information than "I am part of Ivory League 32 in East EU".
|
|
|
On July 19 2013 23:12 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On July 19 2013 23:07 Talron wrote:On July 19 2013 22:45 Plansix wrote:On July 19 2013 22:38 hfglgg wrote:
Those advanced statistics should be seperated by heroes though. No need for "I got 560 gpm, I am carry you 559 scum". Well would probably sufficient if the stats were not public. I would sperate it per role. Also, I think it should be viewable of the player only, not the public. Self review it cool, but I don't want people snooping my account to make sure I am able to carry or play mid. People do enough of that right now. I think another nice thing to add would be a filter. Like you you select your matches of june [or exact date -> date], filter your let's say or even all your individual stats gpm for that month and be able to compare it to for example may. Even filter that per hero, would be freaking awesome. There's so much valve could do. I would love to be able to display them on my profile if I was proud of them too. If we had a "ward coverage" stat of some form and I was the best of the best at warding, I would want that out there. Or a heroes saved(that one would be more complex to program). But stats and filters are good and provide way better information than "I am part of Ivory League 32 in East EU".
Something like we have right now for our displayed hero with items, just that you can 3 favorite stats / the one's you're most proud of and maybe even attached to that specific hero used in your profile.
DAYUM! The 2 of us should apply at volvo :x
|
so after going 18-4 i'm finally in high skill bracket, nobody speaks english but the games are better
|
damn the new chest courier effect looks amazing.... too bad they are sickening expensive 
|
On July 20 2013 00:50 NB wrote:damn the new chest courier effect looks amazing.... too bad they are sickening expensive
my buddy got one from a chest last night.
Lucky bastard
|
On July 20 2013 00:50 NB wrote:damn the new chest courier effect looks amazing.... too bad they are sickening expensive
Pics?
I can't find anything about it right now.
|
it is like this badass fiery thing with a cool earthcracking effect
|
Bearded Elder29905 Posts
Lava Effect good effect. Badger/Tegu are ~ 25 keys
|
On July 19 2013 23:00 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On July 19 2013 22:51 Excludos wrote:On July 19 2013 22:45 hfglgg wrote:On July 19 2013 22:40 Excludos wrote:
I just wish they'd add a feature that could indicate some kind of progression or placement. No, the 3 "brackets" are not enough. Haven't you read fletchers post? If there is a ranking system that adequately ranks player by skill, most players won't have progression. At one point you'll be most likely among them. And a ranking system with inflationary rankings don't say anything. So... No he didn't. He said that ELO is a terrible way of showing progression as in most cases, the numbers wont actually increase. He also said: -We know that there really is value in knowing how the match was formed, and even in knowing which players were the best, and also who was partied up with whom. It helps to analyze your own skill and try to understand how to get better. We are actively working to try to figure out what data we CAN provide to players (perhaps after the match) to help them do this analysis, without causing too many of the undesirable effects I mentioned.- I really think sc2 hit the nail fairly well on the whole progression showing. Even if you ignored the numbers, you'd always know that you where in high-mid-low of A league, and you could see progression by watching you rise through the leagues. But when we get into the debate about Dota 2, it is a team game. You can play well and still not win a match. Someone who is in the 5 position has a lesser impact that the person in the 2 or 1 position. Due to this, you could do very well in a game and still lose it. There is no way of tracking performance in a team game on some ladder without tracking the whole team. The LoL ladder is a terrible place and toxic at hell at lower levels due to people only being concerned with being in the role that has the most influence on the game. And what happens when a player stops progressing(the thing we never talk about)? What happens when your ladder rank stops going up and you just stay in the same place, while other’s rise. Ladders seem like a great idea for those who want to be part of them. But they should be separate from the game itself, like ICCUP or other systems that track progress. The game should be the focus of Dota. Winning that one game and then playing the next one. Not that you beat a team/players that are the same rank as you.
Over the course of hundreds of games if you improve it will show improvement. League of Legends old ELO system proved this. It doesn't matter about your teammates, if you are a supposedly 2k+ ELO player you will be 2k+. If you get stuck, you get stuck. That's when you really know you need to add more parts to your game or improve weak aspects of your game to continue climbing. What? Do you here people bitching that they can't improve because they level out at Masters in SC2? No. They just add more aspects to their game. Improvements are small, and so are the increases in points/ladder ranking, but it's still there.
And I'm not really sure why there is so much promotion of cuddle/hand holding on TL. It just makes me laugh actually. Eventually once someone comes out with a solid ladder everyone's going to abandon MM and it'll just be BW ICCUP all over again.
In fact, it's just silly that you mention 'team performance.' Anyone that makes a team performance argument is an idiot. Period. They don't understand statistics at all. An adjusted ELO system will work over the course of 100 games or so. It is in fact a decent measure of skill as long as you aren't abusing stacks.
|
United States47024 Posts
The other thing about Fletcher's statement about Elo not showing progression is that it assumes a static player pool--that if you are at a given skill level, your Elo remains static. However, if League's old system is to be used as an example, that assumption is not true. Constant influx of players at the bottom end of the skill range (which is what happens, as players joining the game/ranked system predominantly represent the bottom end of player skill) causes the average skill level to go down, which in turn inflates the Elo of players above them. You therefore get an artificial sense of progression that acts the same way as SC2's bonus pool did simply because new players are essentially feeding rating into the system by losing to players better than them.
This of course stops working once the player pool becomes static.
|
On July 20 2013 01:33 TheYango wrote:
The other thing about Fletcher's statement about Elo not showing progression is that it assumes a static player pool--that if you are at a given skill level, your Elo remains static. However, if League's old system is to be used as an example, that assumption is not true. Constant influx of players at the bottom end of the skill range (which is what happens, as players joining the game/ranked system predominantly represent the bottom end of player skill) causes the average skill level to go down, which in turn inflates the Elo of players above them. You therefore get an artificial sense of progression that acts the same way as SC2's bonus pool did simply because new players are essentially feeding rating into the system by losing to players better than them.
This of course stops working once the player pool becomes static.
So what you're really saying is...
Volvo ded gaem, disband pls.
|
On July 20 2013 01:26 superstartran wrote:Show nested quote +On July 19 2013 23:00 Plansix wrote:On July 19 2013 22:51 Excludos wrote:On July 19 2013 22:45 hfglgg wrote:On July 19 2013 22:40 Excludos wrote:
I just wish they'd add a feature that could indicate some kind of progression or placement. No, the 3 "brackets" are not enough. Haven't you read fletchers post? If there is a ranking system that adequately ranks player by skill, most players won't have progression. At one point you'll be most likely among them. And a ranking system with inflationary rankings don't say anything. So... No he didn't. He said that ELO is a terrible way of showing progression as in most cases, the numbers wont actually increase. He also said: -We know that there really is value in knowing how the match was formed, and even in knowing which players were the best, and also who was partied up with whom. It helps to analyze your own skill and try to understand how to get better. We are actively working to try to figure out what data we CAN provide to players (perhaps after the match) to help them do this analysis, without causing too many of the undesirable effects I mentioned.- I really think sc2 hit the nail fairly well on the whole progression showing. Even if you ignored the numbers, you'd always know that you where in high-mid-low of A league, and you could see progression by watching you rise through the leagues. But when we get into the debate about Dota 2, it is a team game. You can play well and still not win a match. Someone who is in the 5 position has a lesser impact that the person in the 2 or 1 position. Due to this, you could do very well in a game and still lose it. There is no way of tracking performance in a team game on some ladder without tracking the whole team. The LoL ladder is a terrible place and toxic at hell at lower levels due to people only being concerned with being in the role that has the most influence on the game. And what happens when a player stops progressing(the thing we never talk about)? What happens when your ladder rank stops going up and you just stay in the same place, while other’s rise. Ladders seem like a great idea for those who want to be part of them. But they should be separate from the game itself, like ICCUP or other systems that track progress. The game should be the focus of Dota. Winning that one game and then playing the next one. Not that you beat a team/players that are the same rank as you. Over the course of hundreds of games if you improve it will show improvement. League of Legends old ELO system proved this. It doesn't matter about your teammates, if you are a supposedly 2k+ ELO player you will be 2k+. If you get stuck, you get stuck. That's when you really know you need to add more parts to your game or improve weak aspects of your game to continue climbing. What? Do you here people bitching that they can't improve because they level out at Masters in SC2? No. They just add more aspects to their game. Improvements are small, and so are the increases in points/ladder ranking, but it's still there. And I'm not really sure why there is so much promotion of cuddle/hand holding on TL. It just makes me laugh actually. Eventually once someone comes out with a solid ladder everyone's going to abandon MM and it'll just be BW ICCUP all over again. In fact, it's just silly that you mention 'team performance.' Anyone that makes a team performance argument is an idiot. Period. They don't understand statistics at all. An adjusted ELO system will work over the course of 100 games or so. It is in fact a decent measure of skill as long as you aren't abusing stacks.
That world of the ICCUP sounds great, it will get the people who care about rank and ratings out of my games. Nothing pissed me off more than when I played LoL and someone would look up my rank, win rates with champs and positions on LoL-King and then tell me where I belong. That is not something that is worth my time when I get home after work and want to dive into a few games of Dota 2.
|
|
|
Someone else noticing something weird about tower aggro today? It keeps aggroing me even though there are no enemies heroes, enemy creeps, and allied creeps are already attacking it AND is closer. Even when the creep its attacking isn't dead, it suddenly switches to me for no apparent reason.
|
On July 20 2013 01:54 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On July 20 2013 01:26 superstartran wrote:On July 19 2013 23:00 Plansix wrote:On July 19 2013 22:51 Excludos wrote:On July 19 2013 22:45 hfglgg wrote:On July 19 2013 22:40 Excludos wrote:
I just wish they'd add a feature that could indicate some kind of progression or placement. No, the 3 "brackets" are not enough. Haven't you read fletchers post? If there is a ranking system that adequately ranks player by skill, most players won't have progression. At one point you'll be most likely among them. And a ranking system with inflationary rankings don't say anything. So... No he didn't. He said that ELO is a terrible way of showing progression as in most cases, the numbers wont actually increase. He also said: -We know that there really is value in knowing how the match was formed, and even in knowing which players were the best, and also who was partied up with whom. It helps to analyze your own skill and try to understand how to get better. We are actively working to try to figure out what data we CAN provide to players (perhaps after the match) to help them do this analysis, without causing too many of the undesirable effects I mentioned.- I really think sc2 hit the nail fairly well on the whole progression showing. Even if you ignored the numbers, you'd always know that you where in high-mid-low of A league, and you could see progression by watching you rise through the leagues. But when we get into the debate about Dota 2, it is a team game. You can play well and still not win a match. Someone who is in the 5 position has a lesser impact that the person in the 2 or 1 position. Due to this, you could do very well in a game and still lose it. There is no way of tracking performance in a team game on some ladder without tracking the whole team. The LoL ladder is a terrible place and toxic at hell at lower levels due to people only being concerned with being in the role that has the most influence on the game. And what happens when a player stops progressing(the thing we never talk about)? What happens when your ladder rank stops going up and you just stay in the same place, while other’s rise. Ladders seem like a great idea for those who want to be part of them. But they should be separate from the game itself, like ICCUP or other systems that track progress. The game should be the focus of Dota. Winning that one game and then playing the next one. Not that you beat a team/players that are the same rank as you. Over the course of hundreds of games if you improve it will show improvement. League of Legends old ELO system proved this. It doesn't matter about your teammates, if you are a supposedly 2k+ ELO player you will be 2k+. If you get stuck, you get stuck. That's when you really know you need to add more parts to your game or improve weak aspects of your game to continue climbing. What? Do you here people bitching that they can't improve because they level out at Masters in SC2? No. They just add more aspects to their game. Improvements are small, and so are the increases in points/ladder ranking, but it's still there. And I'm not really sure why there is so much promotion of cuddle/hand holding on TL. It just makes me laugh actually. Eventually once someone comes out with a solid ladder everyone's going to abandon MM and it'll just be BW ICCUP all over again. In fact, it's just silly that you mention 'team performance.' Anyone that makes a team performance argument is an idiot. Period. They don't understand statistics at all. An adjusted ELO system will work over the course of 100 games or so. It is in fact a decent measure of skill as long as you aren't abusing stacks. That world of the ICCUP sounds great, it will get the people who care about rank and ratings out of my games. Nothing pissed me off more than when I played LoL and someone would look up my rank, win rates with champs and positions on LoL-King and then tell me where I belong. That is not something that is worth my time when I get home after work and want to dive into a few games of Dota 2.
In other words. Make two ques. Ranked/Try Hard/Non Try hard. Problem solved. I'm sure you don't enjoy it when you get a pubstar that stomps you, nor do you enjoy it when a pubstar is on your team and is trying to tell you how you should play and what to do.
|
|
|
On July 20 2013 02:18 PassiveAce wrote:
omg not this again
Yeah, I know, the endless debate between people who want to be try hards and have the client tell them how great they are at Dota 2 and other who just want to play Dota 2.
|
On July 20 2013 02:18 PassiveAce wrote:
omg not this again
so guys
uh
how you feel about linkens on weaver?
(SHIT NO THIS IS JUST AS BAD FUCK FUCK)
|
On July 20 2013 02:24 Comeh wrote:so guys uh how you feel about linkens on weaver? (SHIT NO THIS IS JUST AS BAD FUCK FUCK)
Situationally good
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
