|
|
On November 11 2013 01:00 Firebolt145 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2013 00:58 Animzor wrote:On November 11 2013 00:21 SKC wrote:On November 11 2013 00:17 renkin wrote:
I have a serious question.
You guys know, sometimes, you play a game that you remember for weeks ? A game were the stars were perfectly aligned. The only reason for you to push the find match button is to play another match like this one. I know I did.
I always wondered why, out of all the hours I've put in Dota, I only truly enjoyed maybe 5 or 10 games. That's a very low ratio, like 1 or 2 out of 10 and it's a shame.
My question is, why are those games so rare ?
I think we can safely rule out that the player pool isn't large enough... So is it a matchmaking problem ? You can have the same 10 people play another game and it end up being a one sided stomp. It happens on tournament finals, each teams stomps each other and then they have an epic game, followed by another stomp. People love to blame the matchmaking for everything, but it really is just how the game works. It's not though, the matchmaking often forces a win or a loss by matching players with massive experience disparities. If the game decides that it's time to lose, I will end up on a team with very little games played while the other team is the opposite. The game does not decide 'it's time to make this person win/lose'. Please stop spreading this.
But you know that is too hard.
First they would have to accept that people perform differently from game to game and from hero to hero.
Then they would have to accept that 9 people can over- or underperform at the same time in one game.
Then they hace to accept that the system might overrate people slightly after winning 10 games in a row.
|
I'm not talking about self-praise games.
I had the chance to enjoy some of those, kinda like Mithhaike, but those game don't stay in your mind after some time.
I'm thinking about those game where your opponents, your team, everyone is doing his job like it should be and it seems like everyone is in the Zone : they know the what, when and why. When there isn't 5vs5 but one team versus another, and the beauty of it was in the fact that no one communicated. Everything would be obvious, why talk about it ?
@SKC I can understand that in a tourney environment there is some luck factor but in a MMR matchmaking environment, where the clear goal is to make those happen the most possible, I tihnk this is just too strange it doesn't happen more.
@Firebolt145 : So maybe Valve did some psychophysiology here and randomly gave us 2 expectional games out of 10 to make us play more. If this is done purposely hate this. Blizzard also did it but at least they were open about it.
|
Lalalaland34507 Posts
On November 11 2013 01:19 renkin wrote:
I'm not talking about self-praise games.
I had the chance to enjoy some of those, kinda like Mithhaike, but those game don't stay in your mind after some time.
I'm thinking about those game where your opponents, your team, everyone is doing his job like it should be and it seems like everyone is in the Zone : they know the what, when and why. When there isn't 5vs5 but one team versus another, and the beauty of it was in the fact that no one communicated. Everything would be obvious, why talk about it ?
@SKC I can understand that in a tourney environment there is some luck factor but in a MMR matchmaking environment, where the clear goal is to make those happen the most possible, I tihnk this is just too strange it doesn't happen more.
@Firebolt145 : So maybe Valve did some psychophysiology here and randomly gave us 2 expectional games out of 10 to make us play more. If this is done purposely hate this. Blizzard also did it but at least they were open about it.
Exceptional games are directly a result of any form of fancy matchmaking. Perhaps they correlate a little but that's beside the point. Valve's matchmaking strives to make the most balanced games possible available from the pool of players queueing at any one point based on their hidden MMRs. It does not deliberately try to do anything beyond that.
|
Even if Valve scientifically explained the entire process behind the matchmaking system, there would still be a ton of disbelief and conspiracy theories around, so why are we even having this discussion? There's not much more to it than fancy probability and statistics, I don't understand why people are trying to denounce the neutrality of the system so hard.
|
On November 11 2013 01:23 Firebolt145 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2013 01:19 renkin wrote:
I'm not talking about self-praise games.
I had the chance to enjoy some of those, kinda like Mithhaike, but those game don't stay in your mind after some time.
I'm thinking about those game where your opponents, your team, everyone is doing his job like it should be and it seems like everyone is in the Zone : they know the what, when and why. When there isn't 5vs5 but one team versus another, and the beauty of it was in the fact that no one communicated. Everything would be obvious, why talk about it ?
@SKC I can understand that in a tourney environment there is some luck factor but in a MMR matchmaking environment, where the clear goal is to make those happen the most possible, I tihnk this is just too strange it doesn't happen more.
@Firebolt145 : So maybe Valve did some psychophysiology here and randomly gave us 2 expectional games out of 10 to make us play more. If this is done purposely hate this. Blizzard also did it but at least they were open about it. Exceptional games are directly a result of any form of fancy matchmaking. Perhaps they correlate a little but that's beside the point. Valve's matchmaking strives to make the most balanced games possible available from the pool of players queueing at any one point based on their hidden MMRs. It does not deliberately try to do anything beyond that.
So the question becomes how do they define one's MMR.
Do we know something about this ? There must be enough public data to get a faithfull indication of a player skill.
On November 11 2013 01:30 makmeatt wrote:
Even if Valve scientifically explained the entire process behind the matchmaking system, there would still be a ton of disbelief and conspiracy theories around, so why are we even having this discussion? There's not much more to it than fancy probability and statistics, I don't understand why people are trying to denounce the neutrality of the system so hard.
Would you play a game that you know is already decided for you ?
|
On November 11 2013 01:19 renkin wrote:
I'm not talking about self-praise games.
I had the chance to enjoy some of those, kinda like Mithhaike, but those game don't stay in your mind after some time.
I'm thinking about those game where your opponents, your team, everyone is doing his job like it should be and it seems like everyone is in the Zone : they know the what, when and why. When there isn't 5vs5 but one team versus another, and the beauty of it was in the fact that no one communicated. Everything would be obvious, why talk about it ?
@SKC I can understand that in a tourney environment there is some luck factor but in a MMR matchmaking environment, where the clear goal is to make those happen the most possible, I tihnk this is just too strange it doesn't happen more.
@Firebolt145 : So maybe Valve did some psychophysiology here and randomly gave us 2 expectional games out of 10 to make us play more. If this is done purposely hate this. Blizzard also did it but at least they were open about it.
A tournament game should be far more stable than a matchmaking game. I'm not talking about diferent opponets, say Alliance vs Navi compared to Alliance vs EG, I'm talking about a single series of equal opponents. Just look at TI3 finals, several stomps for either side.
In matchmaking, specially in an AP game, you have a lot more randomness. You are not playing with the same 10 people every time, they are not always playing as a team with a defined strategy, they are not always playing heroes they are comfortable in, etc.
Saying this was done on purpose is absurd. It would be an unintentional flaw, if it existed.
|
You can see it from a philosophical pov, if you didn't have some bad/shitty/average games, you wouldn't have those memorable games. Your good games stand out among your bad games so technically the more bad games you had the better you enjoy/remember/appreciate the real good games.
So funnily enough, the more QQ you made the more you will enjoy/appreciate the real good games.
|
You have to remember that there are so many variables in random solo pub matchmaking that don't exist in pro games. If I random Earthshaker my team is probably going to lose, but if I pick Lich or Jakiro or Shadow Shaman we are probably going to win. If I pick Skywrath we are probably going to lose.
However, if I always win with Lich and this guy on the other team always wins with nature's prophet, then what happens? What if I get Lich and my friend gets Meepo. Or I pick Jakiro and my friend picks Jugg. There's so many random elements that you can't possibly expect the majority of games to be even/epic/close games. Pro teams play the same roles pretty much all the time, the same small pool of heroes, and they have all been playing for years, possibly together for years. Yet their games are volatile as hell, with a close win followed by two stomp losses followed by a stomp win.
Elements such as runes, crit chances, CK stuns, entangles, etc can influence games as well.
|
On November 11 2013 01:36 renkin wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2013 01:23 Firebolt145 wrote:On November 11 2013 01:19 renkin wrote:
I'm not talking about self-praise games.
I had the chance to enjoy some of those, kinda like Mithhaike, but those game don't stay in your mind after some time.
I'm thinking about those game where your opponents, your team, everyone is doing his job like it should be and it seems like everyone is in the Zone : they know the what, when and why. When there isn't 5vs5 but one team versus another, and the beauty of it was in the fact that no one communicated. Everything would be obvious, why talk about it ?
@SKC I can understand that in a tourney environment there is some luck factor but in a MMR matchmaking environment, where the clear goal is to make those happen the most possible, I tihnk this is just too strange it doesn't happen more.
@Firebolt145 : So maybe Valve did some psychophysiology here and randomly gave us 2 expectional games out of 10 to make us play more. If this is done purposely hate this. Blizzard also did it but at least they were open about it. Exceptional games are directly a result of any form of fancy matchmaking. Perhaps they correlate a little but that's beside the point. Valve's matchmaking strives to make the most balanced games possible available from the pool of players queueing at any one point based on their hidden MMRs. It does not deliberately try to do anything beyond that. So the question becomes how do they define one's MMR. Do we know something about this ? There must be enough public data to get a faithfull indication of a player skill. Show nested quote +On November 11 2013 01:30 makmeatt wrote:
Even if Valve scientifically explained the entire process behind the matchmaking system, there would still be a ton of disbelief and conspiracy theories around, so why are we even having this discussion? There's not much more to it than fancy probability and statistics, I don't understand why people are trying to denounce the neutrality of the system so hard. Would you play a game that you know is already decided for you ?
This is the reason why so many people are annoyed with the matchmaking. It is obvious that many games are already decided, unless you are Dendi. I just wish we could get rid of these meaningless games that are unwinnable or on the flipside, unlosable. Or have the ability to play games with completely random team mates and opponents with no regard to MMR.
|
On November 11 2013 01:00 Firebolt145 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2013 00:58 Animzor wrote:On November 11 2013 00:21 SKC wrote:On November 11 2013 00:17 renkin wrote:
I have a serious question.
You guys know, sometimes, you play a game that you remember for weeks ? A game were the stars were perfectly aligned. The only reason for you to push the find match button is to play another match like this one. I know I did.
I always wondered why, out of all the hours I've put in Dota, I only truly enjoyed maybe 5 or 10 games. That's a very low ratio, like 1 or 2 out of 10 and it's a shame.
My question is, why are those games so rare ?
I think we can safely rule out that the player pool isn't large enough... So is it a matchmaking problem ? You can have the same 10 people play another game and it end up being a one sided stomp. It happens on tournament finals, each teams stomps each other and then they have an epic game, followed by another stomp. People love to blame the matchmaking for everything, but it really is just how the game works. It's not though, the matchmaking often forces a win or a loss by matching players with massive experience disparities. If the game decides that it's time to lose, I will end up on a team with very little games played while the other team is the opposite. The game does not decide 'it's time to make this person win/lose'. Please stop spreading this.
I think you're the one spreading lies.
|
On November 11 2013 01:36 renkin wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2013 01:23 Firebolt145 wrote:On November 11 2013 01:19 renkin wrote:
I'm not talking about self-praise games.
I had the chance to enjoy some of those, kinda like Mithhaike, but those game don't stay in your mind after some time.
I'm thinking about those game where your opponents, your team, everyone is doing his job like it should be and it seems like everyone is in the Zone : they know the what, when and why. When there isn't 5vs5 but one team versus another, and the beauty of it was in the fact that no one communicated. Everything would be obvious, why talk about it ?
@SKC I can understand that in a tourney environment there is some luck factor but in a MMR matchmaking environment, where the clear goal is to make those happen the most possible, I tihnk this is just too strange it doesn't happen more.
@Firebolt145 : So maybe Valve did some psychophysiology here and randomly gave us 2 expectional games out of 10 to make us play more. If this is done purposely hate this. Blizzard also did it but at least they were open about it. Exceptional games are directly a result of any form of fancy matchmaking. Perhaps they correlate a little but that's beside the point. Valve's matchmaking strives to make the most balanced games possible available from the pool of players queueing at any one point based on their hidden MMRs. It does not deliberately try to do anything beyond that. So the question becomes how do they define one's MMR. Do we know something about this ? There must be enough public data to get a faithfull indication of a player skill. [..]
I ask which skill?
There is gank sense for ganking opportunities, lasthitting, proper engagement in teamfights, skillshots and itemuse, adapting to the best possible itembuild and inventory management, movement outside of enemy vision range and juking, planning your routes around the map efficiently, split second decision making including sudden use of skill points and probably some other areas I forgot.
Which of these skills should be the base of mmr? Because most of those look very volatile, very good one time and very bad the next time.
|
On November 11 2013 01:46 Animzor wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2013 01:36 renkin wrote:On November 11 2013 01:23 Firebolt145 wrote:On November 11 2013 01:19 renkin wrote:
I'm not talking about self-praise games.
I had the chance to enjoy some of those, kinda like Mithhaike, but those game don't stay in your mind after some time.
I'm thinking about those game where your opponents, your team, everyone is doing his job like it should be and it seems like everyone is in the Zone : they know the what, when and why. When there isn't 5vs5 but one team versus another, and the beauty of it was in the fact that no one communicated. Everything would be obvious, why talk about it ?
@SKC I can understand that in a tourney environment there is some luck factor but in a MMR matchmaking environment, where the clear goal is to make those happen the most possible, I tihnk this is just too strange it doesn't happen more.
@Firebolt145 : So maybe Valve did some psychophysiology here and randomly gave us 2 expectional games out of 10 to make us play more. If this is done purposely hate this. Blizzard also did it but at least they were open about it. Exceptional games are directly a result of any form of fancy matchmaking. Perhaps they correlate a little but that's beside the point. Valve's matchmaking strives to make the most balanced games possible available from the pool of players queueing at any one point based on their hidden MMRs. It does not deliberately try to do anything beyond that. So the question becomes how do they define one's MMR. Do we know something about this ? There must be enough public data to get a faithfull indication of a player skill. On November 11 2013 01:30 makmeatt wrote:
Even if Valve scientifically explained the entire process behind the matchmaking system, there would still be a ton of disbelief and conspiracy theories around, so why are we even having this discussion? There's not much more to it than fancy probability and statistics, I don't understand why people are trying to denounce the neutrality of the system so hard. Would you play a game that you know is already decided for you ? This is the reason why so many people are annoyed with the matchmaking. It is obvious that many games are already decided, unless you are Dendi. I just wish we could get rid of these meaningless games that are unwinnable or on the flipside, unlosable. Or have the ability to play games with completely random team mates and opponents with no regard to MMR.
Games with random opponents would be already decided far more often. Sometimes the matchmaking doesn't work well and matches teams that are not exactly of equal skill, for whatever reason (even though this happens far less often than some people think). A random matchmaking would do the same far, far more often. It's like playing in Garena, a good player will win most games, and a good stack will win virtually every game. So almost 100% of their games were decided before the match begun. There really is no reason why it would be better.
|
United Kingdom24425 Posts
On November 11 2013 01:47 Animzor wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2013 01:00 Firebolt145 wrote:On November 11 2013 00:58 Animzor wrote:On November 11 2013 00:21 SKC wrote:On November 11 2013 00:17 renkin wrote:
I have a serious question.
You guys know, sometimes, you play a game that you remember for weeks ? A game were the stars were perfectly aligned. The only reason for you to push the find match button is to play another match like this one. I know I did.
I always wondered why, out of all the hours I've put in Dota, I only truly enjoyed maybe 5 or 10 games. That's a very low ratio, like 1 or 2 out of 10 and it's a shame.
My question is, why are those games so rare ?
I think we can safely rule out that the player pool isn't large enough... So is it a matchmaking problem ? You can have the same 10 people play another game and it end up being a one sided stomp. It happens on tournament finals, each teams stomps each other and then they have an epic game, followed by another stomp. People love to blame the matchmaking for everything, but it really is just how the game works. It's not though, the matchmaking often forces a win or a loss by matching players with massive experience disparities. If the game decides that it's time to lose, I will end up on a team with very little games played while the other team is the opposite. The game does not decide 'it's time to make this person win/lose'. Please stop spreading this. I think you're the one spreading lies. Matchmaking isn't fucking magic. And it isn't such an idiotic formula to where you would have to force people to lose. It's understandable that people think that this is the case, but fortunately, the system wasn't designed by those people, because those people are stupid.
People often whine about 'well they made me lose this one'. Well why didn't they 'make you win' all the other ones?
Go to a Lan cafe, play in a tournament. You advance in the tournament, you get matched against opponents much better than you, you lose. Is that system designed to make you lose? No, it's called progression. And the Dota player base isn't big enough and the skill curve isn't smooth enough to the point where you can have an extremely natural progression. So, the matchmaker forms mixed teams, and that's why you end up in situations when you feel like they are 'making you lose because your team mate just played his 10th game'. It's confirmation bias, because you never complained about that when that guy was on your opponents team.
|
Lalalaland34507 Posts
On November 11 2013 01:47 Animzor wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2013 01:00 Firebolt145 wrote:On November 11 2013 00:58 Animzor wrote:On November 11 2013 00:21 SKC wrote:On November 11 2013 00:17 renkin wrote:
I have a serious question.
You guys know, sometimes, you play a game that you remember for weeks ? A game were the stars were perfectly aligned. The only reason for you to push the find match button is to play another match like this one. I know I did.
I always wondered why, out of all the hours I've put in Dota, I only truly enjoyed maybe 5 or 10 games. That's a very low ratio, like 1 or 2 out of 10 and it's a shame.
My question is, why are those games so rare ?
I think we can safely rule out that the player pool isn't large enough... So is it a matchmaking problem ? You can have the same 10 people play another game and it end up being a one sided stomp. It happens on tournament finals, each teams stomps each other and then they have an epic game, followed by another stomp. People love to blame the matchmaking for everything, but it really is just how the game works. It's not though, the matchmaking often forces a win or a loss by matching players with massive experience disparities. If the game decides that it's time to lose, I will end up on a team with very little games played while the other team is the opposite. The game does not decide 'it's time to make this person win/lose'. Please stop spreading this. I think you're the one spreading lies.
... OK.
|
The bigger problem of MM is when you stack with your mates, if you had some skill level gap between you guys you will get harder oppos after every win, which sucks, at times. I miss the good old bnet/garena full of noobs that allow us to mess around with friends etc. True that we can do that now but it requires so much more effort and trying hard. Sigh, I used to be a happy noob stomper in pub, now I'm a moody tryhard in pub and many of the games are so depressing.
(tired as fuck after work -> want to relax play some dota -> exhausted from trying hard -> pissed off if team failed-> repeat)
|
Czech Republic18921 Posts
People really believe some games are already decided by the matchmaking? How the fuck do you people even keep playing Dota if you think that's how it works???
|
|
|
why do people think that player skill is the sole determinate of who wins a game of all pick.
Anyone who says any variation of "valve made me lose" is just looking for excuses.
|
On November 11 2013 02:09 PassiveAce wrote:
why do people think that player skill is the sole determinate of who wins a game of all pick.
Anyone who says any variation of "valve made me lose" is just looking for excuses.
Honestly that or they're nowhere near as good as they think they are. A combination of both always has the best qq though.
|
On November 11 2013 02:09 PassiveAce wrote:
why do people think that player skill is the sole determinate of who wins a game of all pick.
Anyone who says any variation of "valve made me lose" is just looking for excuses.
People think they understand the game more than they do so they draw incorrect conclusions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/TJqvwjV.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/3DAdlNb.jpg)
