On October 29 2024 00:17 WGT-Baal wrote: I just started but the game is super fun! I m utterly garbage at it and yet wanna play more. People are also pretty nice though it must be because i m not in ranked yet.
For a alpha/pre alpha build it s really good
Honestly people are just generally nice most of the time, even in ranked. It's definitely gone downhill a bit as it gained popularity (I started playing when it had like 2000 concurrent users, everyone was like universally nice then), but my bad experiences with people have been pretty minimal across all modes. Definitely way less than e.g. DotA or League.
That's for NA servers though, can't speak for the rest
Yes NA is in general nicer, I did have some douchebag on NA, but they are rare.
On the other hand, EU is like too many diff language , so is SEA, generally no one speak and do team work as needed, and soon as you lose a fight ...... everyone somehow learned to speak the same language, that is blyat fuck, or Chinese "CAO NI MA" or something LOL
Ottr got a point here, the ranked system is actually so bad, the worst one ever tbh.
I feel the same way it's very easy to abuse to get high rank... super easy to rank up at same time dead broken because the design is so bad.
TLDR, it looks too much at your personal stats rather than the win/lose of the game. Initial rank is determined by your normal game MMR
The ranked system is definitely not "the worst one ever" lol, if you think this then you have definitely not played enough other games' ranked systems. I think it does have some problems (and this video talking about how little effect placements have vs your initial unranked games is definitely one of those, imo), but there's a number of things that this video calls out that just aren't really backed up by anything?
For instance, he talks about how "games with abandons are still counted against you." His evidence for this is that these games still show up in the ranked report. This isn't really evidence that these were counted against you (or by how much), you could just as easily assume that these games didn't affect your rank change very much and that the end of week report screen is pretty disconnected from the system actually calculating rank changes (and as a programmer who has worked on such systems, this would pretty much be my assumption). We can't really know unless either Valve makes a statement either way, or people run more direct experiments for these sorts of things (and I can't imagine how you would easily do such a thing).
He also talks about ingame performance (e.g. KDA, souls/minute, etc.) affecting rank change. This is something people bring up a ton (in ranked systems outside of Deadlock as well), and I don't see much evidence for this being part of the system in Deadlock (outside of maybe initial hidden MMR calculation). People keep saying a developer said this stuff matters, and yet I have never seen a link or screenshot of them saying this, despite looking for a while. In general, a lot of the literature and experience out there for ranked systems indicates that instituting these kinds of metrics is not incredibly helpful for predicting wins/losses outside of doing initial placement. Even for initial placement, simplistic systems don't work particularly well, and are easily gamed once players know the metrics it is looking for (which makes me all the more doubtful that anyone from Valve ever said something like "more souls and kills will get you ranked higher").
My personal experience is that I was definitely under-ranked the first week, probably because of playing with a group of newer players a month or so before ranked was released. Since then, I've had a roughly 70% winrate each week over about 14-15 games, and received a 3 rank promotion every week. This feels roughly in line with what I would expect from a Glicko-based system that is based only on win/loss and has a 7 day rating calculation period. That is, it feels in line with the Occam's Razor explanation for how the ranked system works.
That said, I think I would prefer a system that doesn't have the 7 day period (although this would likely make abandons/hackers/etc. have a worse effect), and would prefer having some kind of hero draft in ranked. The rest of the complaints though, I mean, it's mostly just unfounded stuff that doesn't seem particularly plausible to me. Let's not even get into the part where he talks about "forced 50/50", any time someone brings that up you can rest assured they're deep in "not knowing what they're talking about" territory.
Ottr got a point here, the ranked system is actually so bad, the worst one ever tbh.
I feel the same way it's very easy to abuse to get high rank... super easy to rank up at same time dead broken because the design is so bad.
TLDR, it looks too much at your personal stats rather than the win/lose of the game. Initial rank is determined by your normal game MMR
The ranked system is definitely not "the worst one ever" lol, if you think this then you have definitely not played enough other games' ranked systems. I think it does have some problems (and this video talking about how little effect placements have vs your initial unranked games is definitely one of those, imo), but there's a number of things that this video calls out that just aren't really backed up by anything?
For instance, he talks about how "games with abandons are still counted against you." His evidence for this is that these games still show up in the ranked report. This isn't really evidence that these were counted against you (or by how much), you could just as easily assume that these games didn't affect your rank change very much and that the end of week report screen is pretty disconnected from the system actually calculating rank changes (and as a programmer who has worked on such systems, this would pretty much be my assumption). We can't really know unless either Valve makes a statement either way, or people run more direct experiments for these sorts of things (and I can't imagine how you would easily do such a thing).
He also talks about ingame performance (e.g. KDA, souls/minute, etc.) affecting rank change. This is something people bring up a ton (in ranked systems outside of Deadlock as well), and I don't see much evidence for this being part of the system in Deadlock (outside of maybe initial hidden MMR calculation). People keep saying a developer said this stuff matters, and yet I have never seen a link or screenshot of them saying this, despite looking for a while. In general, a lot of the literature and experience out there for ranked systems indicates that instituting these kinds of metrics is not incredibly helpful for predicting wins/losses outside of doing initial placement. Even for initial placement, simplistic systems don't work particularly well, and are easily gamed once players know the metrics it is looking for (which makes me all the more doubtful that anyone from Valve ever said something like "more souls and kills will get you ranked higher").
My personal experience is that I was definitely under-ranked the first week, probably because of playing with a group of newer players a month or so before ranked was released. Since then, I've had a roughly 70% winrate each week over about 14-15 games, and received a 3 rank promotion every week. This feels roughly in line with what I would expect from a Glicko-based system that is based only on win/loss and has a 7 day rating calculation period. That is, it feels in line with the Occam's Razor explanation for how the ranked system works.
That said, I think I would prefer a system that doesn't have the 7 day period (although this would likely make abandons/hackers/etc. have a worse effect), and would prefer having some kind of hero draft in ranked. The rest of the complaints though, I mean, it's mostly just unfounded stuff that doesn't seem particularly plausible to me. Let's not even get into the part where he talks about "forced 50/50", any time someone brings that up you can rest assured they're deep in "not knowing what they're talking about" territory.
It's fair most people don't have the most intuitive feeling of this, because I was toying with a lot of support build and I checked the valve MMR on tracklock.gg, so I know he is right on the kill stats affecting your rank, cause that MMR calculation is super obvious if you did what I did with the support builds at any given point, if you tracked your match MMR it has no relation to you win or lose at all. I won a lot of game doing weird stuff but it doesn't reflect in MMR change.
Ottr got a point here, the ranked system is actually so bad, the worst one ever tbh.
I feel the same way it's very easy to abuse to get high rank... super easy to rank up at same time dead broken because the design is so bad.
TLDR, it looks too much at your personal stats rather than the win/lose of the game. Initial rank is determined by your normal game MMR
The ranked system is definitely not "the worst one ever" lol, if you think this then you have definitely not played enough other games' ranked systems. I think it does have some problems (and this video talking about how little effect placements have vs your initial unranked games is definitely one of those, imo), but there's a number of things that this video calls out that just aren't really backed up by anything?
For instance, he talks about how "games with abandons are still counted against you." His evidence for this is that these games still show up in the ranked report. This isn't really evidence that these were counted against you (or by how much), you could just as easily assume that these games didn't affect your rank change very much and that the end of week report screen is pretty disconnected from the system actually calculating rank changes (and as a programmer who has worked on such systems, this would pretty much be my assumption). We can't really know unless either Valve makes a statement either way, or people run more direct experiments for these sorts of things (and I can't imagine how you would easily do such a thing).
He also talks about ingame performance (e.g. KDA, souls/minute, etc.) affecting rank change. This is something people bring up a ton (in ranked systems outside of Deadlock as well), and I don't see much evidence for this being part of the system in Deadlock (outside of maybe initial hidden MMR calculation). People keep saying a developer said this stuff matters, and yet I have never seen a link or screenshot of them saying this, despite looking for a while. In general, a lot of the literature and experience out there for ranked systems indicates that instituting these kinds of metrics is not incredibly helpful for predicting wins/losses outside of doing initial placement. Even for initial placement, simplistic systems don't work particularly well, and are easily gamed once players know the metrics it is looking for (which makes me all the more doubtful that anyone from Valve ever said something like "more souls and kills will get you ranked higher").
My personal experience is that I was definitely under-ranked the first week, probably because of playing with a group of newer players a month or so before ranked was released. Since then, I've had a roughly 70% winrate each week over about 14-15 games, and received a 3 rank promotion every week. This feels roughly in line with what I would expect from a Glicko-based system that is based only on win/loss and has a 7 day rating calculation period. That is, it feels in line with the Occam's Razor explanation for how the ranked system works.
That said, I think I would prefer a system that doesn't have the 7 day period (although this would likely make abandons/hackers/etc. have a worse effect), and would prefer having some kind of hero draft in ranked. The rest of the complaints though, I mean, it's mostly just unfounded stuff that doesn't seem particularly plausible to me. Let's not even get into the part where he talks about "forced 50/50", any time someone brings that up you can rest assured they're deep in "not knowing what they're talking about" territory.
It's fair most people don't have the most intuitive feeling of this, because I was toying with a lot of support build and I checked the valve MMR on tracklock.gg, so I know he is right on the kill stats affecting your rank, cause that MMR calculation is super obvious if you did what I did with the support builds at any given point, if you tracked your match MMR it has no relation to you win or lose at all. I won a lot of game doing weird stuff but it doesn't reflect in MMR change.
Tracklock does not calculate MMR, it gives you the number that Valve assigns the lobby which is assumed to be the *average hidden MMR* (but again Valve has also never stated this to be the case, and even though this is likely related to skill, we do not know the exact algorithm for calculating it from a group of players). That is, it accounts for *every single person in the lobby*. Tracklock then averages this number across all of your games to arrive at your personal number. Therefore, it is not an accurate representation of your skill. It is likely to be in the general ballpark over a large number of games, but looking at a single game (or even a few), it is much more influenced by the variance of how the matchmaker works, so you should not use it to determine the sorts of things you are trying to determine here. Given that Valve was having trouble generating matches quickly enough in the initial ranked release and had to consolidate the matchmaking times to achieve that, it is likely that the variance in skill level between matches can be fairly high (i.e. getting 3 matches that appear "lower skilled" in a row is not at all an indication that your MMR has decreased, it may just be that's all the available players in the pool at that moment).
There is no publicly available individual data about MMR (as calculated by Valve) outside of the rank assigned to you week-to-week. Therefore, he is not "right on kill stats affecting your rank", there is no evidence of this.
The game player count continue to shrink, obviously it's still in development, kind of like stormgate is but I think it will take major changes to not only return to 100k concurrents but grow. The game "okay" atm. It was fun to play when it first came out but I don't see much reason to return.
Ottr got a point here, the ranked system is actually so bad, the worst one ever tbh.
I feel the same way it's very easy to abuse to get high rank... super easy to rank up at same time dead broken because the design is so bad.
TLDR, it looks too much at your personal stats rather than the win/lose of the game. Initial rank is determined by your normal game MMR
The ranked system is definitely not "the worst one ever" lol, if you think this then you have definitely not played enough other games' ranked systems. I think it does have some problems (and this video talking about how little effect placements have vs your initial unranked games is definitely one of those, imo), but there's a number of things that this video calls out that just aren't really backed up by anything?
For instance, he talks about how "games with abandons are still counted against you." His evidence for this is that these games still show up in the ranked report. This isn't really evidence that these were counted against you (or by how much), you could just as easily assume that these games didn't affect your rank change very much and that the end of week report screen is pretty disconnected from the system actually calculating rank changes (and as a programmer who has worked on such systems, this would pretty much be my assumption). We can't really know unless either Valve makes a statement either way, or people run more direct experiments for these sorts of things (and I can't imagine how you would easily do such a thing).
He also talks about ingame performance (e.g. KDA, souls/minute, etc.) affecting rank change. This is something people bring up a ton (in ranked systems outside of Deadlock as well), and I don't see much evidence for this being part of the system in Deadlock (outside of maybe initial hidden MMR calculation). People keep saying a developer said this stuff matters, and yet I have never seen a link or screenshot of them saying this, despite looking for a while. In general, a lot of the literature and experience out there for ranked systems indicates that instituting these kinds of metrics is not incredibly helpful for predicting wins/losses outside of doing initial placement. Even for initial placement, simplistic systems don't work particularly well, and are easily gamed once players know the metrics it is looking for (which makes me all the more doubtful that anyone from Valve ever said something like "more souls and kills will get you ranked higher").
My personal experience is that I was definitely under-ranked the first week, probably because of playing with a group of newer players a month or so before ranked was released. Since then, I've had a roughly 70% winrate each week over about 14-15 games, and received a 3 rank promotion every week. This feels roughly in line with what I would expect from a Glicko-based system that is based only on win/loss and has a 7 day rating calculation period. That is, it feels in line with the Occam's Razor explanation for how the ranked system works.
That said, I think I would prefer a system that doesn't have the 7 day period (although this would likely make abandons/hackers/etc. have a worse effect), and would prefer having some kind of hero draft in ranked. The rest of the complaints though, I mean, it's mostly just unfounded stuff that doesn't seem particularly plausible to me. Let's not even get into the part where he talks about "forced 50/50", any time someone brings that up you can rest assured they're deep in "not knowing what they're talking about" territory.
It's fair most people don't have the most intuitive feeling of this, because I was toying with a lot of support build and I checked the valve MMR on tracklock.gg, so I know he is right on the kill stats affecting your rank, cause that MMR calculation is super obvious if you did what I did with the support builds at any given point, if you tracked your match MMR it has no relation to you win or lose at all. I won a lot of game doing weird stuff but it doesn't reflect in MMR change.
Tracklock does not calculate MMR, it gives you the number that Valve assigns the lobby which is assumed to be the *average hidden MMR* (but again Valve has also never stated this to be the case, and even though this is likely related to skill, we do not know the exact algorithm for calculating it from a group of players). That is, it accounts for *every single person in the lobby*. Tracklock then averages this number across all of your games to arrive at your personal number. Therefore, it is not an accurate representation of your skill. It is likely to be in the general ballpark over a large number of games, but looking at a single game (or even a few), it is much more influenced by the variance of how the matchmaker works, so you should not use it to determine the sorts of things you are trying to determine here. Given that Valve was having trouble generating matches quickly enough in the initial ranked release and had to consolidate the matchmaking times to achieve that, it is likely that the variance in skill level between matches can be fairly high (i.e. getting 3 matches that appear "lower skilled" in a row is not at all an indication that your MMR has decreased, it may just be that's all the available players in the pool at that moment).
There is no publicly available individual data about MMR (as calculated by Valve) outside of the rank assigned to you week-to-week. Therefore, he is not "right on kill stats affecting your rank", there is no evidence of this.
I played over 700 hours since September 13th, and it's very apparent to me how it is being calculated, cause there was about good 100~150 games I was toying with support build and playstyle how it is ranking you up and down is super obvious.
And when you are with group of player it boost you (lowest player) to the higher ranked player as average, your whole play / team result nothing else matter at that point it just boost you up. It's what I have observed what the system was doing.
On November 07 2024 09:58 CicadaSC wrote: The game player count continue to shrink, obviously it's still in development, kind of like stormgate is but I think it will take major changes to not only return to 100k concurrents but grow. The game "okay" atm. It was fun to play when it first came out but I don't see much reason to return.
There are quite a few in game issue aside from rank calculation and everything else.
The kills are not rewarding, economy system kind of don't work right now, it is trying to force comebacks.
And it's like quite often you will find 60 kills vs 30 kills, but the losing team has more ability points and stuff. And can swing a lot too.
It is for sure a work in progress, the base of the game is really good. It has a lot of things other games doesn't. It's fresh and new in many ways.
Stormgate has no cure, deadlock just needs tweak and version changes. Stormgate has no good base game and the performance of the game is trash. I don't think Stormgate is relevant to compare deadlock or describe its current game state, not even close.
As soon as the game is polished enough, Valve will host a few tournaments and it will take off.
As for the ranked discussion, I don't notice performance having an effect on rank, imo it's just based on win/loss like Dota is. If I lose a game where I was absolutely carrying my team and I'm top souls/kills/damage whatever, i'll still rank down. System doesn't care that I did well. A loss is a loss.
my friend goes like 3-14 in one week rank still go up his personal stats is good, he plays vindicta so is really hard to solo carry in a sense turn game around when needed.
My friend is a semi-pro Apex Legend player, he hasn't played this game enough to have high normal game MMR, but like he farms kids with vindicta and maxing damage and kills every game, but his teammates are usually "Retarted" if not just straight up have hate issue on EU .......cause .... different country and ........language barrier... .to political....... and other cultural issue.
we are both going up the ranks very steadly, but it's like it forces us to do quite a few things we don't quite like the way it is right now. And also the economy system is not exciting to say the least.
There you go , he went 9 win out of 24 games, so 9-15 and he ranked up.
His first week he won like 3~4 games and placed into oracle which was pretty much on par with his nekoscore/valveMMR normal game.
Okay, but what are the ranks of the people in the games he won vs the games he lost? How did they perform throughout the week? What rank changes did they receive? Win/loss on its own is simply not enough to determine whether you will rank up or down, and part of the point of using a longer rating period (7 days vs every game) would be to account for the system as a whole.
You (like many other people) are being incredibly superstitious about what is going on here in the absence of data, when all of this is much more easily explained by it being a Glicko-based system that uses wins and losses (i.e. exactly what Valve uses in both DotA and CS2).
EPT
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/iV7yIvg.png)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/5oFdeyf.png)
