EPTHeroes Large General Thread - Page 286
| Forum Index > Heroes of the Storm |
Add yourself in the TL Player list if you want to play with TL people, and /join teamliquid channel ingame. Also check out the new Heroes Liquipedia. | ||
|
Hildegard
Germany306 Posts
| ||
|
Swisslink
2953 Posts
On January 26 2015 03:20 Hildegard wrote: So a top player gets 200 on 50-10 because the system thinks he is too good for his current rank. While a bronze player that gets only 70 on a win is at the place he deserves? That sounds somewhat reasonable but how is the system determining that? Only by results of the matches or other things (I remember reading that APM played a part in SC2 league assignments). That would make sense. But if you keep on winning, then you should get more points with that system. You don't, though. And It's purely by the results in SC2, so I'd assume it's the same here. | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On January 26 2015 03:20 Hildegard wrote: So a top player gets 200 on 50-10 because the system thinks he is too good for his current rank. While a bronze player that gets only 70 on a win is at the place he deserves? That sounds somewhat reasonable but how is the system determining that? Only by results of the matches or other things (I remember reading that APM played a part in SC2 league assignments). That's what I'm curious about. What is Blizzard actually measuring? They clearly are looking at something beyond straight winning percentage. | ||
|
Swisslink
2953 Posts
On January 26 2015 03:25 xDaunt wrote: That's what I'm curious about. What is Blizzard actually measuring? They clearly are looking at something beyond straight winning percentage. Doesn't really make sense, imo. What should they count? APM? nope. DMG done? Sucks to be a supporter. DMG+Healing done? Sucks to be a tank. EXP Contribution? Not the best idea neither. K/D-Rating? Abathur-Players would be unstoppable. There's nothing to determine the skill beside pure winning percentage. | ||
[Phantom]
Mexico2170 Posts
| ||
|
Swisslink
2953 Posts
On January 26 2015 03:41 [SXG]Phantom wrote: No, you can also determine skill by which players you beat. Like for example, a win against ESV Wildfire will be worth more than 3 wins agains't the handome murky team. Thats my guesss, sc2 works that way too, so maybe its not just about the win/lose ratio, but who you actuallly win and lose against. But in Solo Q it should be possible to get somewhat equal teams on both sides. + I think it's impossible to get more points in Heroes of the Storm if you reached the 100p/game minimum once. In SC2 it varies a lot every game. | ||
|
Blitzkrieg0
United States13132 Posts
On January 26 2015 03:25 xDaunt wrote: That's what I'm curious about. What is Blizzard actually measuring? They clearly are looking at something beyond straight winning percentage. Why wouldn't it just be some hidden MMR? Playing to level 30 should give them a pretty good idea of what your rating/sigma are going to be. The ranking system in game is just another progression system where your position is predetermined. | ||
|
Hildegard
Germany306 Posts
With a 55% win ratio and 100 per win reaching lvl20 from lvl40 as solo-queuer is time-consuming. Worst thing is around lvl40 you often have good setups and then someone decides to add Malfurion after having Brightwing/Tassadar or go for 3x specialist. Low MMR is hell like in any other game, time to find a premade. | ||
|
Swisslink
2953 Posts
On January 26 2015 04:13 Hildegard wrote: Yes, there seems to be a lock on the 100. The odd thing is that my points gain dropped despite my MMR increasing (according to hotslog). With a 55% win ratio and 100 per win reaching lvl20 from lvl40 as solo-queuer is time-consuming. Worst thing is around lvl40 you often have good setups and then someone decides to add Malfurion after having Brightwing/Tassadar or go for 3x specialist. Low MMR is hell like in any other game, time to find a premade. Yep. I don't know if my MMR increased according to hotslogs - but from 10 losses more than victories to 10 victories more than losses HAS to result in an increased MMR. But back then I got 200 points, now I get 100 :-P And the lock on the 100 is really stupid because of the points you mentioned: rank 40 matches seem to be purely random | ||
|
CJPD
0 Posts
I think the atck speed is better then a little bit of range in the multishot, any thoughts? | ||
|
Hildegard
Germany306 Posts
In the fights that matter I feel like I don't have the time to stand still a lot. With Multi Shot range I can poke in and retreat and maybe bait an enemy out of position. With autoattacks I need a target in range while staying safe, which means mostly the tank. So while Rancor is more damage on paper it's less damage when it matters, which is why so many players favor the multishot build in my opinion. On January 26 2015 04:46 CJPD wrote: What do you think of rancor (1.5 atck speed) in the standard multishot build for Valla? I think the atck speed is better then a little bit of range in the multishot, any thoughts? Hotslogs actually has a MMR history if you upload everything. You can see the changes: http://prntscr.com/5wzyhu | ||
|
FreeZEternal
Korea (South)3396 Posts
| ||
|
[Phantom]
Mexico2170 Posts
| ||
|
Hildegard
Germany306 Posts
| ||
|
[Phantom]
Mexico2170 Posts
Now the other thing...interesting. There must be something Blizzard is surely measuring to decide how many points to give (as i said i got 160 one match and 200 the next) but maybe that 100 points cap is..like in hearthstone? that there is a point where you gain 1 star by winning, 1 star by losing and isntead of here giving you bonus stars for a winning streak they give you a little more points when you winn? and with that i mean they give you 100 points and you lose like 80 but not 100? i don't know :/ | ||
|
CJPD
0 Posts
In the fights that matter I feel like I don't have the time to stand still a lot. With Multi Shot range I can poke in and retreat and maybe bait an enemy out of position. With autoattacks I need a target in range while staying safe, which means mostly the tank. So while Rancor is more damage on paper it's less damage when it matters, which is why so many players favor the multishot build in my opinion. On January 26 2015 04:46 CJPD wrote: What do you think of rancor (1.5 atck speed) in the standard multishot build for Valla? But with that only ability changed on the multishot build i can clean creeps, take mercs much faster and when i'm on teamfights if i stay behind the tanks im shooting 15%faster and doing more damage then the standard build. Don't forget that all the builds on valla lose stacks and 10 stacks for 15% more attack speed dosen't take that long to get and for me seems better then just the range on multishot. Maybe i'm wrong and the attack speed it's better only on paper, but seems better to me. Other change that i need to test is getting the double vault (tumble) instead of blood for blood on 16, it could be a good build if i get problems in escape a bad teamfight. | ||
|
TokO
Norway577 Posts
On January 26 2015 04:46 CJPD wrote: What do you think of rancor (1.5 atck speed) in the standard multishot build for Valla? I think the atck speed is better then a little bit of range in the multishot, any thoughts? I disagree pretty strongly on this. It's actually a significant amount of range, and has two purposes. One is that you can nuke the enemy team from a safer distance, and the second is that the wider end on the cone means that you can make an impact on a greater part of the enemy team. Range on multishot means that you can still have an impact, even if the enemy team is capable of turning on you and focusing you, or nuking you at a range. There's a lot of scenario's where taking advantage of the base range of multishot means that you have to be too close. Only having Hungering Arrow and AA's to make an impact at a high range means that your impact is severely reduced, compared to a Valla having the range talent. Take this with a grain of salt as I've primarily only played with range. However, take an example, in teamfights when a lot of shit is going down, the difference between range and not range might be nuking 4 heroes instead of 2, slowing 2-3 instead of 1-2. etc. It just means a lot more pressure on enemy team. | ||
|
Lokian
United States699 Posts
attack speed if your own team is siege, will take down camps and boss faster. getting boss faster alone makes up for it. range if the game has many squishy hero and you want to burst down people that have evasion. i dont get range often.. damage is insignificant. valla is not really a splash hero and focused skills are better. though i totally see range being the prime talent to get in pro games when turtling is pretty much the meta. | ||
|
deth2munkies
United States4051 Posts
| ||
Excalibur_Z
United States12235 Posts
| ||
| ||
