|
Please be advised:
We will be closing this General thread in 24 hours. It will remain searchable.
After that we will require new threads to discuss topics.
Questions should go in the stickied Q&A thread, screenshots and PotG will go in the PotG sticky, QQ/Rage/Complaints should go in the QQ/Rage thread. If you want to talk about maps or strategies open a new thread.
Any comments or concerns will be logged please forward them to ZeromuS. This new forum is still fluid so we will try this out. General TL rules will still apply to new threads. |
On October 30 2015 05:35 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On October 30 2015 05:24 jcarlsoniv wrote:On October 30 2015 04:52 Plansix wrote:On October 30 2015 04:40 jcarlsoniv wrote:On October 30 2015 04:34 Plansix wrote:On October 30 2015 04:29 jcarlsoniv wrote:On October 30 2015 04:25 Hider wrote:Citing ladder anxiety as part of an argument against MMR is meaningless because it would be more or less the same in a ladder system. Well depends if you can drop down a rank to another during a season. Would that make ladder anxiety more or less of a negative factor for a ladder system vs a visible MMR system? I would say visible MMR if you lose MMR every match. Especially in a team game where you are not in full control of all aspects of the match. At least in ladder rankings, there is this buffer before you get knocked down to the previous rank. Let's use the LoL ladder system as a basis (since it's the one I'm most familiar with). When you lose, you lose League Points. How is this any different than losing MMR? The biggest difference is that if you fall to the bottom of your ladder division from continually losing, you won't fall out of that division until your hidden MMR falls low enough to tear you out of it. So in reality, the ladder system is just masking your failure by hiding a more accurate metric assessment. Because the person values what league they are in, not points within that league. Getting to the next league is aspirational and the points are just how they get there. The system shows progressive over long periods of time and forgoes reporting on the bumps along the way. The real question is what does the player gain by dropping out of a league right after they lose a match at 0 points? They just lost a game, so they know they played poorly. Dropping them down to a lower league likely to make them want to play more? Is it easy for them to get back into the league with a single win? The problem with the discussion is people want to see "progress' assume that any number rising denotes progress and wave any pitfalls of simple based on a single number. The league system is similar, but provides more obtainable goals for the player and tries to prevent some of the harsher parts of a league system from discouraging them. But people see that as "inaccurate", which accuracy from game to game was never the goal. On October 30 2015 04:41 Requizen wrote:On October 30 2015 04:34 Plansix wrote:On October 30 2015 04:29 jcarlsoniv wrote:On October 30 2015 04:25 Hider wrote:Citing ladder anxiety as part of an argument against MMR is meaningless because it would be more or less the same in a ladder system. Well depends if you can drop down a rank to another during a season. Would that make ladder anxiety more or less of a negative factor for a ladder system vs a visible MMR system? I would say visible MMR if you lose MMR every match. Especially in a team game where you are not in full control of all aspects of the match. At least in ladder rankings, there is this buffer before you get knocked down to the previous rank. Yeah, but with MMR you gain it back immediately as well. There's no promotion system like there is in League, where one or two bad games can keep you from going Silver -> Gold or whatever. I don't really understand your complaining here. Any system will have bad matches or ups/downs. Youre correct, I am of the opinion a league system has more positives than naked MMR. The only other things I'd add is that if the goal is to minimize the bad feeling of losing, then designating imaginary leagues to "buckets" of 100 MMR would achieve the same thing, imo. I do understand your argument, I just don't necessarily agree with it. But which system is chosen doesn't matter all that much to me - I'm capable of knowing when I improve and when I don't. Which is sort of my point. Personally, I know I have improved at playing dota in the last year, even if my MMR doesn’t reflect it. But my improvement came from playing anything but ranked matches. Most of my learning is done with players that are far better than I am, even if they are not actively teaching me. I sort of see naked MMR as a trap, since to improve you need to play in a system(solo match making)that is likely the least efficient way to get better at the game.
I think part of my confusion is how a ladder system or MMR system would be more or less effective than the other at measuring "true skill". Both of them are strictly measuring your ability to win in solo queue. Full stop.
So I'm thinking that the miscommunication is that you seem to think a ladder system is a better indicator for one's skill in the game (correct me if I'm misunderstanding). If you feel that you have improved as a player while your MMR doesn't reflect that, that's fine. But a ladder system wouldn't reflect that either - both of them are measurements of whether or not you were capable of winning games, not whether or not you improved as a player.
As for Gorsameth's (and probably your) more salient point - I acknowledge that the general population's perception of "skill" is better cushioned in a ladder system. I don't align with that notion myself, but I also don't care enough to truly favor one system over the other.
|
On October 30 2015 05:35 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On October 30 2015 05:24 jcarlsoniv wrote:On October 30 2015 04:52 Plansix wrote:On October 30 2015 04:40 jcarlsoniv wrote:On October 30 2015 04:34 Plansix wrote:On October 30 2015 04:29 jcarlsoniv wrote:On October 30 2015 04:25 Hider wrote:Citing ladder anxiety as part of an argument against MMR is meaningless because it would be more or less the same in a ladder system. Well depends if you can drop down a rank to another during a season. Would that make ladder anxiety more or less of a negative factor for a ladder system vs a visible MMR system? I would say visible MMR if you lose MMR every match. Especially in a team game where you are not in full control of all aspects of the match. At least in ladder rankings, there is this buffer before you get knocked down to the previous rank. Let's use the LoL ladder system as a basis (since it's the one I'm most familiar with). When you lose, you lose League Points. How is this any different than losing MMR? The biggest difference is that if you fall to the bottom of your ladder division from continually losing, you won't fall out of that division until your hidden MMR falls low enough to tear you out of it. So in reality, the ladder system is just masking your failure by hiding a more accurate metric assessment. Because the person values what league they are in, not points within that league. Getting to the next league is aspirational and the points are just how they get there. The system shows progressive over long periods of time and forgoes reporting on the bumps along the way. The real question is what does the player gain by dropping out of a league right after they lose a match at 0 points? They just lost a game, so they know they played poorly. Dropping them down to a lower league likely to make them want to play more? Is it easy for them to get back into the league with a single win? The problem with the discussion is people want to see "progress' assume that any number rising denotes progress and wave any pitfalls of simple based on a single number. The league system is similar, but provides more obtainable goals for the player and tries to prevent some of the harsher parts of a league system from discouraging them. But people see that as "inaccurate", which accuracy from game to game was never the goal. On October 30 2015 04:41 Requizen wrote:On October 30 2015 04:34 Plansix wrote:On October 30 2015 04:29 jcarlsoniv wrote:On October 30 2015 04:25 Hider wrote:Citing ladder anxiety as part of an argument against MMR is meaningless because it would be more or less the same in a ladder system. Well depends if you can drop down a rank to another during a season. Would that make ladder anxiety more or less of a negative factor for a ladder system vs a visible MMR system? I would say visible MMR if you lose MMR every match. Especially in a team game where you are not in full control of all aspects of the match. At least in ladder rankings, there is this buffer before you get knocked down to the previous rank. Yeah, but with MMR you gain it back immediately as well. There's no promotion system like there is in League, where one or two bad games can keep you from going Silver -> Gold or whatever. I don't really understand your complaining here. Any system will have bad matches or ups/downs. Youre correct, I am of the opinion a league system has more positives than naked MMR. The only other things I'd add is that if the goal is to minimize the bad feeling of losing, then designating imaginary leagues to "buckets" of 100 MMR would achieve the same thing, imo. I do understand your argument, I just don't necessarily agree with it. But which system is chosen doesn't matter all that much to me - I'm capable of knowing when I improve and when I don't. Which is sort of my point. Personally, I know I have improved at playing dota in the last year, even if my MMR doesn’t reflect it. But my improvement came from playing anything but ranked matches. Most of my learning is done with players that are far better than I am, even if they are not actively teaching me. I sort of see naked MMR as a trap, since to improve you need to play in a system(solo match making)that is likely the least efficient way to get better at the game. Requizen: you seem to be debating some fictitious version of me.
You seem to be missing the point. Your statement: Naked MMR is a trap because it's it's the least efficient way to track progress. You cite that Leagues is a better solution:
On October 30 2015 04:52 Plansix wrote:
Because the person values what league they are in, not points within that league. Getting to the next league is aspirational and the points are just how they get there. The system shows progressive over long periods of time and forgoes reporting on the bumps along the way.
But, as jcarlsoniv and I have both stated, a League system is exactly the same as a flat MMR system, just with badges associated with it. It's no better at tracking progress in any way.
|
I don't see the problem with a visible MMR. You "know" you have improved in skill, so you shouldn't be having any probllems playing ranked games would you?
|
Got lucky and got into the EU beta . Looking for some people to play . Shibby#2594
|
On October 30 2015 05:44 jcarlsoniv wrote:Show nested quote +On October 30 2015 05:35 Plansix wrote:On October 30 2015 05:24 jcarlsoniv wrote:On October 30 2015 04:52 Plansix wrote:On October 30 2015 04:40 jcarlsoniv wrote:On October 30 2015 04:34 Plansix wrote:On October 30 2015 04:29 jcarlsoniv wrote:On October 30 2015 04:25 Hider wrote:Citing ladder anxiety as part of an argument against MMR is meaningless because it would be more or less the same in a ladder system. Well depends if you can drop down a rank to another during a season. Would that make ladder anxiety more or less of a negative factor for a ladder system vs a visible MMR system? I would say visible MMR if you lose MMR every match. Especially in a team game where you are not in full control of all aspects of the match. At least in ladder rankings, there is this buffer before you get knocked down to the previous rank. Let's use the LoL ladder system as a basis (since it's the one I'm most familiar with). When you lose, you lose League Points. How is this any different than losing MMR? The biggest difference is that if you fall to the bottom of your ladder division from continually losing, you won't fall out of that division until your hidden MMR falls low enough to tear you out of it. So in reality, the ladder system is just masking your failure by hiding a more accurate metric assessment. Because the person values what league they are in, not points within that league. Getting to the next league is aspirational and the points are just how they get there. The system shows progressive over long periods of time and forgoes reporting on the bumps along the way. The real question is what does the player gain by dropping out of a league right after they lose a match at 0 points? They just lost a game, so they know they played poorly. Dropping them down to a lower league likely to make them want to play more? Is it easy for them to get back into the league with a single win? The problem with the discussion is people want to see "progress' assume that any number rising denotes progress and wave any pitfalls of simple based on a single number. The league system is similar, but provides more obtainable goals for the player and tries to prevent some of the harsher parts of a league system from discouraging them. But people see that as "inaccurate", which accuracy from game to game was never the goal. On October 30 2015 04:41 Requizen wrote:On October 30 2015 04:34 Plansix wrote:On October 30 2015 04:29 jcarlsoniv wrote:On October 30 2015 04:25 Hider wrote:Citing ladder anxiety as part of an argument against MMR is meaningless because it would be more or less the same in a ladder system. Well depends if you can drop down a rank to another during a season. Would that make ladder anxiety more or less of a negative factor for a ladder system vs a visible MMR system? I would say visible MMR if you lose MMR every match. Especially in a team game where you are not in full control of all aspects of the match. At least in ladder rankings, there is this buffer before you get knocked down to the previous rank. Yeah, but with MMR you gain it back immediately as well. There's no promotion system like there is in League, where one or two bad games can keep you from going Silver -> Gold or whatever. I don't really understand your complaining here. Any system will have bad matches or ups/downs. Youre correct, I am of the opinion a league system has more positives than naked MMR. The only other things I'd add is that if the goal is to minimize the bad feeling of losing, then designating imaginary leagues to "buckets" of 100 MMR would achieve the same thing, imo. I do understand your argument, I just don't necessarily agree with it. But which system is chosen doesn't matter all that much to me - I'm capable of knowing when I improve and when I don't. Which is sort of my point. Personally, I know I have improved at playing dota in the last year, even if my MMR doesn’t reflect it. But my improvement came from playing anything but ranked matches. Most of my learning is done with players that are far better than I am, even if they are not actively teaching me. I sort of see naked MMR as a trap, since to improve you need to play in a system(solo match making)that is likely the least efficient way to get better at the game. I think part of my confusion is how a ladder system or MMR system would be more or less effective than the other at measuring "true skill". Both of them are strictly measuring your ability to win in solo queue. Full stop. So I'm thinking that the miscommunication is that you seem to think a ladder system is a better indicator for one's skill in the game (correct me if I'm misunderstanding). If you feel that you have improved as a player while your MMR doesn't reflect that, that's fine. But a ladder system wouldn't reflect that either - both of them are measurements of whether or not you were capable of winning games, not whether or not you improved as a player. As for Gorsameth's (and probably your) more salient point - I acknowledge that the general population's perception of "skill" is better cushioned in a ladder system. I don't align with that notion myself, but I also don't care enough to truly favor one system over the other.
I was never arguing for the accuracy of either system, since they are all inaccurate. I was arguing for the perception of the player base and which system is better for the player base as a whole. One of my points was that MMR fluctuates, which I feel lead to the accuracy discussion. Gorsameth's has made my points more successfully.
I'm also half paying attention to my posts, since I'm working.
|
On October 30 2015 05:48 electrondude wrote:
Got lucky and got into the EU beta . Looking for some people to play . Shibby#2594
Unless there is a "strangle to death over the internet" command in the Battle.net launcher I can't do much with that tag.
|
|
|
On October 30 2015 07:21 Aylear wrote:http://www.twitch.tv/fazz and http://www.twitch.tv/2gd are teaming up using less played heroes right now. Fazz loves Zenyatta and is making him look badass, and 2gd spends most of the match on fire as Symmetra. They're both Quake pro players.
I dont know Fazz but when has 2gd last played professionally? Didn't he retire almost a decade ago?
|
Yeah, he's more of a "personality" these days. Still a good player using Symmetra, I'll take what I can get.
|
|
|
|
|
hahaha holy shit I used to play against ZP all the time back in Tribes years ago. Cool to see hes still around.
|
Ty!! Really helpful for watch OW stream. (Until i get the beta ofc)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I watched some Sacriel stream (I randomly met his Arma youtube videos a long time ago, they are extremely interesting) who played Tracer and damn that hero looks good and fun to play.
|
That's a nice idea for a character/cross game promotion.
|
|
|
Blizzard is quick to respond
![[image loading]](https://embed.gyazo.com/79819dc71c049874584184012db2dfec.png)
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
