|
United States12270 Posts
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.
Exactly, I mean that's what the definition of a rating is. The gap between two values translates into a static expected win percentage regardless of where on the spectrum that gap is. We can argue until we're blue in the face what that means across 2k, 3k, 5k, 7k because yes, the burden of knowledge, reactions, execution, decision making, and multitasking all rank differently in importance and degree of demand depending on where you're looking. Again, we're not talking about the minutiae, we're talking about what a rating difference means, and that's what it means.
And yes eieio that's me :>
|
|
|
I've seen some evidence that MMR is non-linear but I think that's more about selection than anything. If you eliminate the variances based on calibration and hero exploitation, a true 500 MMR difference 1v1 mid is usually going to result in a stomp. I'm in deep trench and I lollerskate at most of the mids I go against because I'm in a 4-500 dip right now.
As you go higher the tendency for people to be closer to their "real MMR" is, I think, a little stronger.
|
United States12270 Posts
On March 23 2015 08:36 FHDH wrote:
I've seen some evidence that MMR is non-linear but I think that's more about selection than anything. If you eliminate the variances based on calibration and hero exploitation, a true 500 MMR difference 1v1 mid is usually going to result in a stomp. I'm in deep trench and I lollerskate at most of the mids I go against because I'm in a 4-500 dip right now.
There are a lot of variables in any matchup but rating represents the sum of all those variables. In that regard it's the least biased measurement possible.
As you go higher the tendency for people to be closer to their "real MMR" is, I think, a little stronger.
Of course, if only for the fact that it's that much more difficult to reach higher ratings. To reach 6k you need to be what, in the top 0.1%? 0.05%? And there are only a handful of 7ks out there. That means your win rate has to be proven against really high level players (5-6k+), and blind luck is only going to take you so far.
|
Wheoever said a 5k+ player would always beat a 4k+ player mid 80% of the irregardless of matchup is 100% bullshit. I have seen RTZ get raped countless times mid in unfavorable matchups mid by 4-5k players, and my personal experience tells me that if you know what your mid hero can do or what not, even if you dont win the mid matchup hard, you at least wont feed the lane, and can get moderately good okay cs 40-50@10 mins, if the matchup isnt completely fucking shit.
|
On March 23 2015 19:18 Kaj wrote:
Wheoever said a 5k+ player would always beat a 4k+ player mid 80% of the irregardless of matchup is 100% bullshit. I have seen RTZ get raped countless times mid in unfavorable matchups mid by 4-5k players, and my personal experience tells me that if you know what your mid hero can do or what not, even if you dont win the mid matchup hard, you at least wont feed the lane, and can get moderately good okay cs 40-50@10 mins, if the matchup isnt completely fucking shit.
In an even 1v1 mid match-up where the hero match-up is 4:6 or even 3:7 the 5k player is coming out on top because of their ability to minimize damage and still maintain map presence. It's only in really bad match-ups like 2:8 or 1-9 match-ups that a lower level player has a significant advantage, and even then usually the lower level player doesn't flex their advantage enough to justify the hero pick.
And no one ever said irregardless of match-ups, I did say that unless the lower level player counter picks and has a heavily favored match-up for them that would negate some of the skill advantage, but most counter picks are simply lane counter picks, and tend to give up one thing for something else (for example Razor shits on most mids, but is practically useless now outside of lane due to the Mek mana cost nerf).
|
On March 23 2015 19:18 Kaj wrote:
Wheoever said a 5k+ player would always beat a 4k+ player mid 80% of the irregardless of matchup is 100% bullshit. I have seen RTZ get raped countless times mid in unfavorable matchups mid by 4-5k players, and my personal experience tells me that if you know what your mid hero can do or what not, even if you dont win the mid matchup hard, you at least wont feed the lane, and can get moderately good okay cs 40-50@10 mins, if the matchup isnt completely fucking shit.
Getting decent CS and not feeding in an unfavourable matchup is winning the lane in my book, specially a matchup where you're suppsoed to be bullied out of the lane. Kinda the same as an offlaner who barely grabs any CS but gets full xp against a trilane, the offlaner won the lane.
|
On March 23 2015 20:07 nojok wrote:Show nested quote +On March 23 2015 19:18 Kaj wrote:
Wheoever said a 5k+ player would always beat a 4k+ player mid 80% of the irregardless of matchup is 100% bullshit. I have seen RTZ get raped countless times mid in unfavorable matchups mid by 4-5k players, and my personal experience tells me that if you know what your mid hero can do or what not, even if you dont win the mid matchup hard, you at least wont feed the lane, and can get moderately good okay cs 40-50@10 mins, if the matchup isnt completely fucking shit. Getting decent CS and not feeding in an unfavourable matchup is winning the lane in my book, specially a matchup where you're suppsoed to be bullied out of the lane. Kinda the same as an offlaner who barely grabs any CS but gets full xp against a trilane, the offlaner won the lane.
It would be like if a 4k player picked TA against a 5k/6k players Invoker. Invoker clearly is at a disadvantage in lane, even with Exort Spirit Forge helping him out, but if he gets like a 7-8 minute Midas out of the lane and never dies, then Invoker won the lane really, even if TA has total control of the lane and is free farming. A better TA player would just completely shut out Invoker. You can insert any match-up here and the same deal.
In fact, Pudge is the #1 example of player skill overcoming lane deficits. Pudge has terrible match-ups mid, alot of them being like 3-7, 2-8, or 1-9 type of match-ups (where in even skill, he would lose those lanes at those odds out of 10 games). When you equate player skill into the picture though, it becomes quite apparent that Pudge can win alot of lanes that he isn't suppose to because of mistakes made by lower level players. Pretty much every ranged hero should beat Pudge mid quite badly, but if they get hooked into a tower or way out of position, they lose the lane instantly. Storm for example should pretty much lolcrush Pudge, but if he misplays and gets hooked before 6 into a tower, it's gonna be a real rough time for him.
TL;DR this is exactly why the mid player should be your best player, who in most cases is going to be your highest rated player. Yes this puts a burden on high MMR players to be the mid player, but it's a consequence of playing ranked and a more 'tryhard' mode (when in reality it's just playing smart). It's like going into ranked and expecting no one to pick FOTM heroes like Troll or Axe. That would just be silly.
|
On March 23 2015 19:18 Kaj wrote:
Wheoever said a 5k+ player would always beat a 4k+ player mid 80% of the irregardless of matchup is 100% bullshit. I have seen RTZ get raped countless times mid in unfavorable matchups mid by 4-5k players, and my personal experience tells me that if you know what your mid hero can do or what not, even if you dont win the mid matchup hard, you at least wont feed the lane, and can get moderately good okay cs 40-50@10 mins, if the matchup isnt completely fucking shit.
People like you are the reason they put this change
|
On March 23 2015 19:18 Kaj wrote:
Wheoever said a 5k+ player would always beat a 4k+ player mid 80% of the irregardless of matchup is 100% bullshit. I have seen RTZ get raped countless times mid in unfavorable matchups mid by 4-5k players, and my personal experience tells me that if you know what your mid hero can do or what not, even if you dont win the mid matchup hard, you at least wont feed the lane, and can get moderately good okay cs 40-50@10 mins, if the matchup isnt completely fucking shit.
If you give them both shadow fiend, no bottle and just make them match CS for CS, the 5K player will win the vast majority of the time. 1000 MMR is a huge amount and that player is just better at Dota in general. Sure some streamers may lose vs lower level players, but that could be for any number of reasons including fucking around.
Give the highest MMR player whatever role they want. Then help them out because they are likely to do the most with the help you give them. You don't need to help that much to get them going. Some day it will be you and you will get to choose. Unless your 2K, then its like 25 MMR and doesn't mean shit.
|
TL;DR this is exactly why the mid player should be your best player, who in most cases is going to be your highest rated player. Yes this puts a burden on high MMR players to be the mid player, but it's a consequence of playing ranked and a more 'tryhard' mode (when in reality it's just playing smart). It's like going into ranked and expecting no one to pick FOTM heroes like Troll or Axe. That would just be silly.
This is complete bullshit, There is no reason to assume that the highest mmr in the team actually plays mid often, or at all.
There are plenty of 5.5K+ players that play support every game, so going mid while you don't ever practise it will lose you the lane, even in favorable matchups.
If there is a 500+ MMR difference between average and highest, the highest mmr should play the role he WANTS to play, or the role he plays the most. That's how you get the most game impact out of your higher MMR player.
|
In my experience, players who play support exclusively are at least 500mmr bellow their skill. That means, when matched with someone 500 above he is on par and have 50% chance of winning.
Playing mid is definitely the best way to go up the mmr chain
|
|
|
United States47024 Posts
On March 23 2015 07:53 Excalibur_Z wrote:
Exactly, I mean that's what the definition of a rating is. The gap between two values translates into a static expected win percentage regardless of where on the spectrum that gap is. We can argue until we're blue in the face what that means across 2k, 3k, 5k, 7k because yes, the burden of knowledge, reactions, execution, decision making, and multitasking all rank differently in importance and degree of demand depending on where you're looking. Again, we're not talking about the minutiae, we're talking about what a rating difference means, and that's what it means.
While this is true, this represents a static expectation chance to win the *game*. That encompasses all factors over the course of the game, not just laning.
At low MMRs, the general lack of skill across the board means there's much higher variance in terms of the actual ability at any one aspect of the game. When we're talking 1500 vs 2000 MMR, the 2000 MMR player is a significantly better player, but because both players are so lacking on the whole, it is not a given that the 2000 MMR player is a better laner.
At higher levels, there's some general convergence in player ability in most aspects of the game. A player that gets to 4500/5000 MMR is much less likely to be so lopsidedly excellent at one aspect of the game and lopsidedly deficient at everything else that he lanes as well as a player 500 MMR better than him but is poor enough at everything else to compensate (or vice versa). As such, even though having a 2000 vs 1500 MMR player *on your team* represents the same chance to win the game as a 5000 vs 4500 MMR player *on your team*, it does not mean that it represents the same probable outcomes when the two players go against each other mid lane.
|
United States12270 Posts
On March 24 2015 01:16 TheYango wrote:Show nested quote +On March 23 2015 07:53 Excalibur_Z wrote:
Exactly, I mean that's what the definition of a rating is. The gap between two values translates into a static expected win percentage regardless of where on the spectrum that gap is. We can argue until we're blue in the face what that means across 2k, 3k, 5k, 7k because yes, the burden of knowledge, reactions, execution, decision making, and multitasking all rank differently in importance and degree of demand depending on where you're looking. Again, we're not talking about the minutiae, we're talking about what a rating difference means, and that's what it means. While this is true, this represents a static expectation chance to win the *game*. That encompasses all factors over the course of the game, not just laning. At low MMRs, the general lack of skill across the board means there's much higher variance in terms of the actual ability at any one aspect of the game. When we're talking 1500 vs 2000 MMR, the 2000 MMR player is a significantly better player, but because both players are so lacking on the whole, it is not a given that the 2000 MMR player is a better laner. At higher levels, there's some general convergence in player ability in most aspects of the game. A player that gets to 4500/5000 MMR is much less likely to be so lopsidedly excellent at one aspect of the game and lopsidedly deficient at everything else that he lanes as well as a player 500 MMR better than him but is poor enough at everything else to compensate (or vice versa). As such, even though having a 2000 vs 1500 MMR player *on your team* represents the same chance to win the game as a 5000 vs 4500 MMR player *on your team*, it does not mean that it represents the same probable outcomes when the two players go against each other mid lane.
That's exactly right Yango, and that's important to keep in mind. The public perception though is that you want your highest MMR player mid because mid is the highest-impact position in pub games (and often players exert pressure on the highest-MMR player to that effect). It stands to reason under that logic that pubs want the most skilled player in the highest-impact role because they'll be able to leverage that rating advantage most effectively. I'm just saying that those differences are often minor enough that they don't make an actual difference, not only in the mid matchup itself but because there are other elements to the game beyond laning as you've said. Players will certainly get more out of playing what they feel most comfortable playing rather than capitulating to the pressure of being the highest-rated and having their role pre-assigned.
|
On March 23 2015 23:12 TechSc2 wrote:Show nested quote +
TL;DR this is exactly why the mid player should be your best player, who in most cases is going to be your highest rated player. Yes this puts a burden on high MMR players to be the mid player, but it's a consequence of playing ranked and a more 'tryhard' mode (when in reality it's just playing smart). It's like going into ranked and expecting no one to pick FOTM heroes like Troll or Axe. That would just be silly.
This is complete bullshit, There is no reason to assume that the highest mmr in the team actually plays mid often, or at all. There are plenty of 5.5K+ players that play support every game, so going mid while you don't ever practise it will lose you the lane, even in favorable matchups. If there is a 500+ MMR difference between average and highest, the highest mmr should play the role he WANTS to play, or the role he plays the most. That's how you get the most game impact out of your higher MMR player.
Those people are extremely rare, and in most cases those that play 5.5k level of support are perfectly capable of playing 5k level mid.
|
Over the last few days what I've noticed a lot is if opponent teams have a high MMR player but a team average around or below my own, I just ignore the high mmr player and feed off the shitty, poor, out of position supports. I've been winning a lot using this strategy.
|
It really depends on what role you play and how much OP heroes you spam to climb up the ladder.
If you are 500 mmr higher than the next guy and you mainly play 3/4/5 roles, chances are that you are way superior than the others. Even if you are rusty in 1v1 lane matchup, you are going to way outskill everyone in every other aspect of the game. Also any deficiency in 1v1 skill can be overcomed with the help of your supports (hopefully) like any other unfavorable matchups.
These are the type of players who can play any role because they have the game sense to do so. They know the ways to winning a game. The same may not be necessarily true for a guy who spams mid or OP heroes all the time. They might have very microscopic view on the game and can climb the ladder through snowballing only. Of course, this is not always true all the time.
|
On March 24 2015 06:00 superstartran wrote:Show nested quote +On March 23 2015 23:12 TechSc2 wrote:
TL;DR this is exactly why the mid player should be your best player, who in most cases is going to be your highest rated player. Yes this puts a burden on high MMR players to be the mid player, but it's a consequence of playing ranked and a more 'tryhard' mode (when in reality it's just playing smart). It's like going into ranked and expecting no one to pick FOTM heroes like Troll or Axe. That would just be silly.
This is complete bullshit, There is no reason to assume that the highest mmr in the team actually plays mid often, or at all. There are plenty of 5.5K+ players that play support every game, so going mid while you don't ever practise it will lose you the lane, even in favorable matchups. If there is a 500+ MMR difference between average and highest, the highest mmr should play the role he WANTS to play, or the role he plays the most. That's how you get the most game impact out of your higher MMR player. Those people are extremely rare, and in most cases those that play 5.5k level of support are perfectly capable of playing 5k level mid.
Sure, but if you have 5.5k rated guy playing as a 5k midl, your team is basically at a 500-MMR deficit because the system has balanced the teams assuming you had a 5.5k. Of course there's a ton of variance in people's roles, maybe some guy randomed, maybe whatever. But the top player going mid isn't going to be the blanket best strategy.
Also this whole thing about supports having a "real" rating 500 MMR higher than their listed just sounds like Dunning-Kruger to me.
|
On March 24 2015 08:29 Belisarius wrote:Show nested quote +On March 24 2015 06:00 superstartran wrote:On March 23 2015 23:12 TechSc2 wrote:
TL;DR this is exactly why the mid player should be your best player, who in most cases is going to be your highest rated player. Yes this puts a burden on high MMR players to be the mid player, but it's a consequence of playing ranked and a more 'tryhard' mode (when in reality it's just playing smart). It's like going into ranked and expecting no one to pick FOTM heroes like Troll or Axe. That would just be silly.
This is complete bullshit, There is no reason to assume that the highest mmr in the team actually plays mid often, or at all. There are plenty of 5.5K+ players that play support every game, so going mid while you don't ever practise it will lose you the lane, even in favorable matchups. If there is a 500+ MMR difference between average and highest, the highest mmr should play the role he WANTS to play, or the role he plays the most. That's how you get the most game impact out of your higher MMR player. Those people are extremely rare, and in most cases those that play 5.5k level of support are perfectly capable of playing 5k level mid. Sure, but if you have 5.5k rated guy playing as a 5k midl, your team is basically at a 500-MMR deficit because the system has balanced the teams assuming you had a 5.5k. Of course there's a ton of variance in people's roles, maybe some guy randomed, maybe whatever. But the top player going mid isn't going to be the blanket best strategy. Also this whole thing about supports having a "real" rating 500 MMR higher than their listed just sounds like Dunning-Kruger to me.
Top player going mid is almost a full proof strategy unless the other team devises a line-up that completely neutralizes the mid (possible, but highly unlikely in a public game). As I've stated before, the middle lane gives you the most exp, rune control, and good amount of gold flow in order for you to utilize and flex your advantage. Obviously in a disorganized public game system, you want your most experienced and best player to take over that role because if you give a lesser player that role (especially one that is significantly worse than your best player), he's going to not be able to flex those advantages as well, especially when faced in a heads up match-up against a player that may or may not be 500+ MMR higher than him.
It's not just about having your best player to take advantage of the tools that are given to them, it's also that you do not want to give up middle lane so easily to the opposing team in a 1v1 heads up match-up, as although mid lane is one of the hardest lanes to outright lose, it's also the easiest lane to feed from repeatedly if you get behind.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
