|
On March 21 2015 10:15 makmeatt wrote:Show nested quote +On March 21 2015 09:59 Belisarius wrote:
Yeah I feel like the one unfortunate effect of this is that it puts a ton of pressure on the top dude.
If he doesn't crush it just gives everyone yet another reason to flame him. Even if he does okay and the rest of the team feeds or whatever, it's still omg why didn't you carry us. And vice versa for omg you guys so bad.
I still think it's a good change but it does make teamwork a bit too focused on one dude, especially if the difference isn't all that large. There's a mute button and also, as somebody noticed, nobody seems to care all that much. Like yeah, games are harder, boo hoo. If people had their own brains, games would be hard in 2013 already, but instead, they had to have bright red markers pointing them towards their goals in a team-based game. Flamers are everywhere, stoners are everywhere, people who just don't try really hard are everywhere, you just got to accept this and move on.
The sole purpose of this change is to influence team dynamics. I'm pointing out a negative aspect of the way it influences team dynamics. I'm not sure what your point is.
|
Too early to say if this is good or bad in the long run. Obviously short term there are some bad, but those do not accurately represent every game being played, and thus should not be used as anything other than a bullet point.
|
Lalalaland34507 Posts
I'm okay with this, the only thing I wish was different is that you cannot see the opposing team's highest mmr player.
|
Initially this has massively improved the quality of my games. Or maybe I'm just getting lucky, who knows.
|
one guy said he wanted to play carry. after realizing that he had 800 mmr less than i did he actually told me to pick a carry and supported me
i think the change in general is a step in the right direction. but i would also prefer that you cant see the mmr of the opposing team
|
|
|
On March 21 2015 19:14 Firebolt145 wrote:
I'm okay with this, the only thing I wish was different is that you cannot see the opposing team's highest mmr player.
^ this. From my experience, everybody ganks the fuck out of the highest mmr player. Not fun.
|
Just outcarried a 3.7k Spectre as AM. I'm 3.2k, feels good.
|
I too like the change, but would prefer not seeing opponents highest MMR as well.
|
This is so useful when playing ranked party without a full stack.
|
this change hasn't really affected my games (3.8kish) but I am on the low end i suppose. actually after playing plenty the last few days, there hasn't been a single mention of the MMR average of each team, or mention of the highest MMR player per team.
|
On March 22 2015 17:08 pajoondies wrote:
this change hasn't really affected my games (3.8kish) but I am on the low end i suppose. actually after playing plenty the last few days, there hasn't been a single mention of the MMR average of each team, or mention of the highest MMR player per team.
Much the same for me at ~3.6k, nobody says anything about it and I don't think the highest MMR gets ganked more or anything either.
|
for now it's just an impression, but i feel like i'm more listened when i'm the highest mmr of the team...
given that i usually play support, i'm used to call missings, rorsh plays etc, and i have the sensation that my tips are taken more frequently from the team if i'm the top mmr... this is nice 
|
United States12269 Posts
I think one potential downside is that the highest MMR feels an obligation to go mid regardless of the variance between his MMR and the team average. If you're within a few hundred MMR it's not going to make a difference which player goes mid (unless the highest-rated player feels uncomfortable playing solo mid), let alone when that rating gap is less than 50. It's not going to make that player's word carry any more weight either. I feel like it would be best if Valve also published on the Dota blog their expected win probabilities for various rating differences, like a gap of 100 means 55/45 or a gap of 350 means 75/25 or a gap of 2000 means 95/5. That way, players may be less inclined to capitulate to the highest-rated player as drones and could instead read it as "oh, if you lost a game and I won a game we'd be the same rating, so we probably have a similar skill level and game understanding."
|
On March 23 2015 01:08 Excalibur_Z wrote:
I think one potential downside is that the highest MMR feels an obligation to go mid regardless of the variance between his MMR and the team average. If you're within a few hundred MMR it's not going to make a difference which player goes mid (unless the highest-rated player feels uncomfortable playing solo mid), let alone when that rating gap is less than 50. It's not going to make that player's word carry any more weight either. I feel like it would be best if Valve also published on the Dota blog their expected win probabilities for various rating differences, like a gap of 100 means 55/45 or a gap of 350 means 75/25 or a gap of 2000 means 95/5. That way, players may be less inclined to capitulate to the highest-rated player as drones and could instead read it as "oh, if you lost a game and I won a game we'd be the same rating, so we probably have a similar skill level and game understanding."
The difference between 400-500 MMR at lower levels doesn't seem like alot (below 4kish threshold).
The difference between a 5.5k player and a 5k player is absolutely astronomical. Same with a 5k and a 4.5k player. The higher up you go, the harder it is to win games, as such the value of MMR difference is actually pretty huge. A 500 point difference is where you see significant differences in level of play, and that differential between the highest player and the average party MMR starts to occur quite often past the 4.5k level (since there's simpy not alot of 5k players on all the time).
And it does make a very big difference. A 4.5k player going mid against a 5k player mid is going to lose 9 out of 10 times unless they just straight counter picked the 5k player, and even then they might not do enough to shut down the 5k player mid, which results in a lost lane (i.e. QoP should absolutely destroy Storm because of her ability to zone him out so hard early on, but if she doesn't do it properly, she gives Storm too much farm/exp and he goes ganks the map as a result of that).
|
United States12269 Posts
A difference of 400-500 rating means the same at all skill levels. Let's say a difference of 500 equals an 80/20 win probability. That means a 2500 should beat a 2000 80% of the time, a 3500 should beat a 3000 80% of the time, a 5500 should beat a 5000 80% of the time. What that translates to in the game itself probably depends on the bracket. Maybe it's fundamental game knowledge at the low end and arcane game knowledge at the high end. Maybe it's passable reactions at the low end and extremely tight reactions at the high end. Obviously at the 5k-6k-7k area it's the best of the best so even tiny differences are massive.
|
On March 23 2015 03:03 Excalibur_Z wrote:
A difference of 400-500 rating means the same at all skill levels. Let's say a difference of 500 equals an 80/20 win probability. That means a 2500 should beat a 2000 80% of the time, a 3500 should beat a 3000 80% of the time, a 5500 should beat a 5000 80% of the time. What that translates to in the game itself probably depends on the bracket. Maybe it's fundamental game knowledge at the low end and arcane game knowledge at the high end. Maybe it's passable reactions at the low end and extremely tight reactions at the high end. Obviously at the 5k-6k-7k area it's the best of the best so even tiny differences are massive.
The difference between a 4500 and a 5k player is absolutely phenomenal though, and you can clearly see the difference. A difference between a 2500 player and a 3k player isn't so apparent (even though it is there). Like I said, once you get past a certain threshold, the difference in rating becomes very apparent. It's similar to how the difference between a GM top 100 player versus a top end Masters player who is just outside of the GM threshold is very apparent in SC2, or how there are significant differences between top end DotA 2 / LoL teams and lower end teams. The skill difference seems marginal at first, but they are magnitudes apart in the actual game. You can't just break down everything into numbers, even though I do agree that below a certain threshold, it doesn't really matter too much.
I mean, anyone that plays at the 5k+ bracket knows that a 5k player beats a 4.5k or lower player quite easily 1v1 mid, even in match-ups that they shouldn't win (i.e. Storm vs QoP, Melees vs Storm, etc.) Alot of that just comes down to the refined individual mechanics and knowledge that the 5k player has over a 4.5k or lower player.
|
On March 23 2015 01:08 Excalibur_Z wrote:
I think one potential downside is that the highest MMR feels an obligation to go mid regardless of the variance between his MMR and the team average. If you're within a few hundred MMR it's not going to make a difference which player goes mid (unless the highest-rated player feels uncomfortable playing solo mid), let alone when that rating gap is less than 50. It's not going to make that player's word carry any more weight either. I feel like it would be best if Valve also published on the Dota blog their expected win probabilities for various rating differences, like a gap of 100 means 55/45 or a gap of 350 means 75/25 or a gap of 2000 means 95/5. That way, players may be less inclined to capitulate to the highest-rated player as drones and could instead read it as "oh, if you lost a game and I won a game we'd be the same rating, so we probably have a similar skill level and game understanding."
I like this idea in theory but it seems fairly idealistic in practice: I'm not sure that you can reasonably expect the majority of players to read that blog or to understand its implications if they read it. That being said I guess there's a good chance that the information would eventually make it to the majority of players because they'd hear it from their friends/others in game.
Sidenote: you're the one who did a ton of work in SC2 working out the details of matchmaking right?
|
Honestly a 2500 player is going to lose to a 3000 player just as consistently. Likewise 1500 vs 2000, likewise 4000 vs 4500.
There is no mechanic that makes it "harder to win" high level games relative to your skill. MMR is broadly linear.
|
On March 23 2015 06:23 Belisarius wrote:
Honestly a 2500 player is going to lose to a 3000 player just as consistently. Likewise 1500 vs 2000, likewise 4000 vs 4500.
There is no mechanic that makes it "harder to win" high level games relative to your skill. MMR is broadly linear.
The better a player is the more likely he will be able to identify mistakes and punish said mistakes. As such, as the higher the player skill level goes, the more and more one sided matches become even though the rating differential stays the same. A low level QoP for example may win out against a low level Storm mid, but not enough to the point where the Storm is completely starved from the lane and is forced to jungle (meaning he still gets reasonable exp/gold from the lane). This means the Storm still hits ok timings to gank and roam. Meanwhile when you're talking about two of the higher level players, the QoP should just crap on the Storm so bad that he can't even get into the lane. It's two total different worlds of play once you begin to break into certain brackets of play. A 3000 QoP might beat a 2500 Storm or have advantages over him, but a 5k QoP is going to basically make a 4.5k Storm absolutely worthless (despite the fact that the 4.5k Storm should have pretty good fundamentals).
I'm speaking strictly of 1v1 match-ups in mid, not anything else.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
