|
Please remember that while this thread is for QQ and venting about the game, racism is not tolerated here on LD. |
On March 25 2015 05:35 spudde123 wrote:
As for the Waga example, even if he plays with and against people who are mostly worse than him, most of the time the average MMR of each team is relatively even because the other team will also have one very high rated player. Hence if he holds an MMR of 7k, he is not really expected to win more than 50% of his games. He'll probably win a bit more because you can't always find an even game and you may get those +5/-40 games that you are heavily expected to win, but anyway you understand the point. If we assume that the matchmaking system finds games where both teams have the same average mmr, a player will eventually reach a point where he wins about 50% of his games when his ability doesn't allow him to progress in mmr any further.
If we take as another example a 4k game where the mmr range between players is only 100-200, but one team has a player who has a "true rating" of let's say 6k, then the team with the 6k player will most likely win the game and gain a lot of mmr doing so, because the system thinks the game is even although it is in reality very lopsided. The difference to the Waga game is that while in Waga's game also the other team has a high rated player who feeds off the mistakes your teammates do (or the other team will all have mmrs somewhere between Waga's and his team to balance it out), in this game the other team most likely will not have such a player. This allows players who are better than their current rating raise their mmr fairly quickly, especially if the disparity is large.
Of course there are still games where your team picks/plays far worse than the opposing team for whatever reason, but on average that isn't going to be the case. And of course you also have to make sure that your hero, your lane, your role and your play are such that you can use the skill disparity to impact the game as much as possible.
When Waga and w33 queue at the same time, the matchmaking system will put them on opposite sides of a game. When TrenchWaga and Trenchw33 queue at the same time, they are randomly distributed. I'm sure you understand the implications of this.
Regarding the Spectre example, about half of my top ten heroes have about 65% winrate, +/- say 3% (I'm on my phone so not getting more precise than that right now). But TrenchWaga has to deal with the team he's given, who have no reason to defer to him. Of course, these situations are randomly distributed too.
TrenchWaga is not a singular entity within the trench. He is a phenomenon, and as such TrenchWagas may play on the same team or play against each other. As such, a single TrenchWaga is not free to carry his team. He may instead simply serve to cancel himself out.
|
Trenchwaga is not a phenomenon, he is a delusion.
I mean, you seem to understand the system fairly well except in the specific case where it pertains to your own rating, so I'm really just confused.
You know winrate is among the most unreliable stats there are. You know someone can have a 55% rating for a variety of reasons. Yes, one of those reasons is that they are slightly underrated, and if that's the case their MMR will steadily improve. Congratulations if that occurs. I'm sure we'll hear about it here.
But at 55% you're unlikely to be underrated by more than a few hundred points, and trying to prove anything by comparing your winrate to that of a specifically cherrypicked semi-pro is silly.
|
I simply invoke Waga to make a point. I could have used lots of players as an example. The point I'm making is still legitimate: the catechisms about everyone deserving their MMR are based on logic that holds up under no scrutiny.
And actually my winrate was more like 58% until pretty recently. What happened? First I went on a big losing streak. The kind where games are simply beyond your power because yes, you have game ruiners that many games in a row. Somewhere along the way I went on massive tilt and continued to plummet. Then my girlfriend got super sick, and I got super sick when I got done taking care of her, then some other shit happened, and when I started playing again after weeks I was rusty and also super irritable about the pronouncedly worse level of teammates I now had. This is when I started getting muted on a regular basis.
There are definitely some parts in there I have control of that hurt my rating.
But let's say my winrate doesn't return to normal (I'm betting it will, but never mind that). You say only a few hundred points at most. Let's call that 500. What do you think is a safer bet: playing TWO HUNDRED games to gain that rating, or recalibrating?
And don't get it twisted: Waga is an excellent player. TrenchWaga is not. TrenchWaga is pretty mediocre. He's just better than his typical teammates by a similar factor. And he gets similar results.
|
If someone is just better than the MMR he/she belongs to by an unknown margin, I expect him/her to make some difference similar to the unknown margin in long term to take him/her to upper MMR levels. It'll take more than it should maybe hundreds of games because of pubs(throwers, feeders, bad picks etc..).
Also keep in mind that we are more or less at the same level with the people who have let's say +-300 MMR(an arbitrary number). So having a loss streak that takes you 200 MMR doesn't actually mean anything, you'll gain mmr eventually if you keep your play at the same level.
If you think you belong to an extra 500-600 or more MMR than you have currently, let me tell you are not belong there if you played a good amount of games already. If you don't believe what I say, just request a lower MMR(lets say 800) account from someone and play 25-30 games with it. If you play seriously to win and pick accordingly, you'll probably(I am %100 sure) win more than you lost.
The only problem of the current system is, you win and lose exactly the same amount of MMR regardless of your performance, having a feeder in your team, leavers, disconnects etc.. so that you have to grind an enormous amount of games to see(show) the difference and have the feeling of constantly "dragged back" by external factors.
SC2 solves this problem with to match you with weaker and stronger opponents in time to make sure the game is more exciting. In both cases you try to win because when you win against a stronger opponent you MMR increase faster and lose against a weaker it drops faster.
In Dota it doesn't matter who you play against, you'll win and lose the same amount which doesn't compensate the effort you put into. I.e I played an excellent clutch game and barely manage to win for a hard earned +25 points but next game I had to play with a baby, refuses to play a proper game and feed on purpose to "punish" the teammates. The hard earned +25 is nulled because of a 20 min def loss.
|
It's so wonderful to play against these russians on eu west. Of course they never wait for disconnected players. Just lost another game because these cowards wanted to play 5v3.
http://www.dotabuff.com/matches/1348001389
|
On March 25 2015 14:39 FHDH wrote:
I simply invoke Waga to make a point. I could have used lots of players as an example. The point I'm making is still legitimate: the catechisms about everyone deserving their MMR are based on logic that holds up under no scrutiny.
And actually my winrate was more like 58% until pretty recently. What happened? First I went on a big losing streak. The kind where games are simply beyond your power because yes, you have game ruiners that many games in a row. Somewhere along the way I went on massive tilt and continued to plummet. Then my girlfriend got super sick, and I got super sick when I got done taking care of her, then some other shit happened, and when I started playing again after weeks I was rusty and also super irritable about the pronouncedly worse level of teammates I now had. This is when I started getting muted on a regular basis.
There are definitely some parts in there I have control of that hurt my rating.
But let's say my winrate doesn't return to normal (I'm betting it will, but never mind that). You say only a few hundred points at most. Let's call that 500. What do you think is a safer bet: playing TWO HUNDRED games to gain that rating, or recalibrating?
And don't get it twisted: Waga is an excellent player. TrenchWaga is not. TrenchWaga is pretty mediocre. He's just better than his typical teammates by a similar factor. And he gets similar results.
1. At 58% you should be able to get ~400 MMR from just a hundred games.
2. Either recalibrating is worth your time or it's not. You successfully argue against yourself every day you don't create a new account. It's obviously not worth it for you to do so therefore stop trying to convince us it's the better option.
|
It's literally impossible to win anytime I pick Clockwerk or Tinker. Why?
Game 1: Clockwerk. I am solo offlane against Aba/Sniper. I manage to get level 6 / all my items despite being in this cancerous fucking lane because I'm playing really well. As soon as I have level 6 I TP bottom and gank, then run back to mid and gank, and proceed to continue ganking the fuck out of the enemy team until I'm about 11-3. At this point I'm taking down Juggernaut, Slark, and Necro in team fights and beastmoding their team. But we still lose because of a Peruvian Gyro who constantly feeds Jug, gives Rubick all his moves, and keeps trying to 1v5 them despite our best efforts.
Game 2: Tinker. I am mid vs their OD. I am doing okay in my lane but other lanes are struggling. I keep bouncing top and bottom, racking up kills and using march to keep the OD at bay in mid. Get something like 9-10 mins BoT. Get all my items, and am playing really well. But by the time I have my Blink dagger, somehow WINDRANGER is 1-11. How the actual fuck. I get my sheepstick and start going HAM on their team. I am basically the only thing keeping our team alive at this point. Then for some fucking reason I try to save our YOLO Windranger, get myself killed by Necro, and we lose promptly. Because I don't respawn for like 45 minutes.
FML.
|
I really wish the meta wasn't skewed towards these stupid fucking no skill whatsoever heroes.
At least when Tinker was OP it still took half a brain and two functioning hands to play him.
|
On March 26 2015 00:14 DinoMight wrote:
I really wish the meta wasn't skewed towards these stupid fucking no skill whatsoever heroes.
At least when Tinker was OP it still took half a brain and two functioning hands to play him.
I've said that before too and people in the thread didn't agree with me. Even in his heyday Tinkers pub (and pro I believe but I'm less sure on that) winrate was below 50%. Yeah he was annoying to play against but I agree Sniper and Troll are just as bad and require even less mechanical skill/thought. The pubstomp void time was basically just as shitty as the current meta is though.
|
troll doesnt require anything, atleast sniper requires some positioning especially if enemy team picks storm clock axe pa etc. Not like im huge fan of sniper meta but still. Id like to see teamfight meta again, tide enigma magnus warlock void team 
|
On March 26 2015 00:24 blobrus wrote:Show nested quote +On March 26 2015 00:14 DinoMight wrote:
I really wish the meta wasn't skewed towards these stupid fucking no skill whatsoever heroes.
At least when Tinker was OP it still took half a brain and two functioning hands to play him. I've said that before too and people in the thread didn't agree with me. Even in his heyday Tinkers pub (and pro I believe but I'm less sure on that) winrate was below 50%. Yeah he was annoying to play against but I agree Sniper and Troll are just as bad and require even less mechanical skill/thought. The pubstomp void time was basically just as shitty as the current meta is though.
Well, Tinker's always been reliant on getting fast BoT. His last hitting is pretty shit and takes a bit of skill. Even stacking ancients and farming them with march required SOME amount of coordination from your team.
I have no idea how people lose as Sniper. Whenever I pick him I just stand under my tower, get every single last hit, farm a Mask/ShadowBlade and eventually become invincible.
AND you're right, even then Sniper requires a little bit of discretion because of his slow speed / squishiness.
Jugg/Axe/Troll make me want to vomit.
You can literally sneak up on a Juggernaut with 2 HP in the woods and if his R is available he just insta-murders you.
Healthy pub meta....
|
On March 26 2015 00:24 blobrus wrote:Show nested quote +On March 26 2015 00:14 DinoMight wrote:
I really wish the meta wasn't skewed towards these stupid fucking no skill whatsoever heroes.
At least when Tinker was OP it still took half a brain and two functioning hands to play him. I've said that before too and people in the thread didn't agree with me. Even in his heyday Tinkers pub (and pro I believe but I'm less sure on that) winrate was below 50%. Yeah he was annoying to play against but I agree Sniper and Troll are just as bad and require even less mechanical skill/thought. The pubstomp void time was basically just as shitty as the current meta is though.
I think it's worse now because of comeback mechanics. And void was only one hero, so we could not see him from games to games, now GL not getting any SF/troll/jugg/sniper/axe. It's impossible and those heroes are just too good in pubs atm. They bring way too much to the table compared to other heroes.
|
think i figured out a way to beat sniper pickers in pubs:
pick SB and get lvl 3 and charge his ass all game and force him to ragequit
(happened twice today XD)
|
On March 26 2015 02:01 Nymzee wrote:
think i figured out a way to beat sniper pickers in pubs:
pick SB and get lvl 3 and charge his ass all game and force him to ragequit
(happened twice today XD)
I pick clockwerk and dedicate everything after lvl 6 to making their life a fucking nightmare.
|
dagon spirit breaker does in fact ruin sniper. especially now that there's no chance of lol headshot ruining the charge.
even if the sniper ends up building drums into sny or something to deal with the burst that's still basically a win.
|
On March 26 2015 00:30 DinoMight wrote:Show nested quote +On March 26 2015 00:24 blobrus wrote:On March 26 2015 00:14 DinoMight wrote:
I really wish the meta wasn't skewed towards these stupid fucking no skill whatsoever heroes.
At least when Tinker was OP it still took half a brain and two functioning hands to play him. I've said that before too and people in the thread didn't agree with me. Even in his heyday Tinkers pub (and pro I believe but I'm less sure on that) winrate was below 50%. Yeah he was annoying to play against but I agree Sniper and Troll are just as bad and require even less mechanical skill/thought. The pubstomp void time was basically just as shitty as the current meta is though. You can literally sneak up on a Juggernaut with 2 HP in the woods and if his R is available he just insta-murders you. Healthy pub meta....
This so much. Fucker has like no HP after teamfight me and someone go to get tehn HEERRR RRRRR I SO SKILLZZ.
Its so bullshit it goes through FV Chrono which is like the ultimate level of bullshit.
EDIT: Just had a Tinker lose mid to Axe and our TB thought the ebst way to fight a blink axe was to spawn a bunch of illusions and walk into melee range and hit him......
|
On March 26 2015 03:39 Mecha King Ghidorah wrote:Show nested quote +On March 26 2015 00:30 DinoMight wrote:On March 26 2015 00:24 blobrus wrote:On March 26 2015 00:14 DinoMight wrote:
I really wish the meta wasn't skewed towards these stupid fucking no skill whatsoever heroes.
At least when Tinker was OP it still took half a brain and two functioning hands to play him. I've said that before too and people in the thread didn't agree with me. Even in his heyday Tinkers pub (and pro I believe but I'm less sure on that) winrate was below 50%. Yeah he was annoying to play against but I agree Sniper and Troll are just as bad and require even less mechanical skill/thought. The pubstomp void time was basically just as shitty as the current meta is though. You can literally sneak up on a Juggernaut with 2 HP in the woods and if his R is available he just insta-murders you. Healthy pub meta.... This so much. Fucker has like no HP after teamfight me and someone go to get tehn HEERRR RRRRR I SO SKILLZZ. Its so bullshit it goes through FV Chrono which is like the ultimate level of bullshit. EDIT: Just had a Tinker lose mid to Axe and our TB thought the ebst way to fight a blink axe was to spawn a bunch of illusions and walk into melee range and hit him......
At the very least blademail should reflect it back at him, so he can't just instagib you even at super low life and get away.
|
On March 25 2015 22:56 hariooo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 25 2015 14:39 FHDH wrote:
I simply invoke Waga to make a point. I could have used lots of players as an example. The point I'm making is still legitimate: the catechisms about everyone deserving their MMR are based on logic that holds up under no scrutiny.
And actually my winrate was more like 58% until pretty recently. What happened? First I went on a big losing streak. The kind where games are simply beyond your power because yes, you have game ruiners that many games in a row. Somewhere along the way I went on massive tilt and continued to plummet. Then my girlfriend got super sick, and I got super sick when I got done taking care of her, then some other shit happened, and when I started playing again after weeks I was rusty and also super irritable about the pronouncedly worse level of teammates I now had. This is when I started getting muted on a regular basis.
There are definitely some parts in there I have control of that hurt my rating.
But let's say my winrate doesn't return to normal (I'm betting it will, but never mind that). You say only a few hundred points at most. Let's call that 500. What do you think is a safer bet: playing TWO HUNDRED games to gain that rating, or recalibrating?
And don't get it twisted: Waga is an excellent player. TrenchWaga is not. TrenchWaga is pretty mediocre. He's just better than his typical teammates by a similar factor. And he gets similar results. 1. At 58% you should be able to get ~400 MMR from just a hundred games. 2. Either recalibrating is worth your time or it's not. You successfully argue against yourself every day you don't create a new account. It's obviously not worth it for you to do so therefore stop trying to convince us it's the better option.
1) Yep. Just 100 games at 58% winrate.
2) Already discussed this: not everything is transferable. Dota's business model relies on hats. Some of those you can give to a new account, some you can't. This is a problem.
|
On March 25 2015 14:39 FHDH wrote:
I simply invoke Waga to make a point. I could have used lots of players as an example. The point I'm making is still legitimate: the catechisms about everyone deserving their MMR are based on logic that holds up under no scrutiny.
Since you've invoked logic, let's look at it logically.
- Your hypothesis is that you are underrated by 500 MMR.
- The experimental data is your local winrate at a given rating, evidenced by a change in MMR.
If a player performs this experiment and it consistently gives a result contrary to the hypothesis, logic indicates that the hypothesis is incorrect. If someone repeatedly rejects that result and invents excuses, that person is not acting logically. In your case, your winrate is dropping. It may be that one of your excuses is valid and your MMR will recover in time, but to accuse anyone else of rejecting logic at this point is absurd.
Personally, I think you're just on tilt. You're repeatedly LPQ'd/muted, you post constantly in this thread and your MMR has collapsed. I think you will do far, far better if you stop raging at your teammates, stop making excuses, and focus on your own play. That is the advice, from multiple parties, that started this whole thing.
Finally, you'll find that getting a smurf to ranked takes at least 200 games, so you're in for a grind regardless. Maybe you would find it less stressful to do that grind without a number for a while.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
