Help Support Our Growing Community

DOTAFire is a community that lives to help every Dota 2 player take their game to the next level by having open access to all our tools and resources. Please consider supporting us by whitelisting us in your ad blocker!

Want to support DOTAFire with an ad-free experience? You can support us ad-free for less than $1 a month!

Go Ad-Free
Smitefire logo

Join the leading DOTA 2 community.
Create and share Hero Guides and Builds.

Create an MFN Account






Or

Why the system sucks

Please review our General Rules & Guidelines before posting or commenting anywhere on DOTAFire.

Forum » General Discussion » Why the system sucks 67 posts - page 4 of 7
Permalink | Quote | PM | +Rep by L0bstz0r » June 17, 2015 1:46pm | Report
Sando wrote:


That's pretty much your road to 3k+ support right there.


Thats 4k at least. When playing with 3k friends, they literally just stand in lane ...not doing a single thing but leech exp. This is especially frustrating if you are up against a good solo offlaner, who will jsut make your life misserable, once he outlevels you.

But srsly ....for whatever reason i also have come to almost solely play support in my solo ranked matches and it really is paying off most of the time. You pull constantly, so that your safelane farmer gets a nice item and level advantage over the other offlaner(s), try to maybe go for a kill inbetween pulls and go piss off the enemy midlaner....im not even talking about good warding or spellusage or whatever. Just these basic things won me so many matches already...

L0bstz0r

Awards Showcase
Show more awards

Notable (12)
Posts: 343
Steam: L0bstz0r
Permalink | Quote | PM | +Rep by Swixcap » June 17, 2015 3:11pm | Report
Me again, prepare for a long one :P

There seems to be a great deal of bitterness among players who feel that they deserve a higher number next to the "MMR:"-tags on their profile... As in all activities and actions, it is easier to see others mistakes than one's own. This "discussion", and the million just like it, is such an amazing example of how easy it is to perceive our failures as "unfair" and blame something outside of ourselves.

But back on topic. Why the system isn't stupid:
  • First of all: it's the same for everyone. You're not treated any differently than any others.
  • Dota is a team-based game, and your "performance" in the game relates to how well you contribute to your team. You might think you did well buying those wards or killing that enemy, but what counts is how much it contributes to your team's probability of winning the match.
  • The system does exactly what it should: it rewards the better team. One team wins because they played the game better, and the system rewards them for it - simple as that.
  • Rewarding the team as a whole promotes teamwork, which I hope everyone agrees is desirable.
Try looking at it the other way: Imagine a system that rewards the best players in the game, which is what you all seem to want. Ignoring the obviously huge issue of balancing such a system, rewarding players individually would create competition within the team. You think Dota has a mean community now? How do you imagine players acting when they compete with their own team-mates as well as the enemies, for ranking points? Last hits, denies, kills, towers, XP, farm, items, wards, EVERYTHING would fuel the flames. Would that make a better, more enjoyable game? In my mind, no; that is not the solution.

Try to accept that the system is actually fair, it does what it's supposed to and it works as well as it could. The system is the same for everyone, so if you want to climb the ranks you have to improve relative to other players.
(Although, if you played the game for the entertainment rather than for the numbers on your profile, you'd probably enjoy it more)


Allright, on to some answers:
Fumbles16x wrote:

A few notes from the OP of the thread..
Hi OP :)

I find it a little offensive that you dismissed my entire post by saying I gauged the entire system off of one of my losses.
Anonymity enables me to skip the sugar-coating and get to the point. My responses are never meant to be "offensive" (although you probably meant "rude", which I did not aim for either ["offensive" is such an over-used word...]). I dismissed the basis for your statement - "I should not have lost this game". There exists a million forum threads identical to yours, with the basic form: I lost a game; the system is broken, which are all equally ridiculous. I retorted by saying that one game does not define a broken system, neither does 10 of 200. With millions of matches being played every day, it is difficult but necessary to evaluate the big picture.

The matchmaking system blatantly put me with players who are not in my skill bracket (I don't know why it does this. Usually following a winstreak or good win/loss ratio, I get teammates like this almost like clockwork)
See below, (*)

I played well against a team who had better teamwork and farm, and I did literally all I could to motivate my team and help them with things like item choices, etc. Well done, you did your part. So if I can do all of that as a single player on my team and still lose (regularly, because of teammates) then yes, the system doesn't make sense and clearly has a problem.
The problem is your inability to consider the big picture, or even the 1-2k games you have yourself, when looking at a single game (no offence meant). One abnormal game does not prove a broken system (I repeat myself). The team-mates you are provided are all at your MMR level (that's how the system works), but there is a certain uncertainty in how well those players will actually perform in that particular game. A 3015 MMR player will not perform at exactly that level every single game. In some situations they thrive, in other they fail hard and you call them a noob. There is no guarantee that all the players on your team will (a) play well that game, (b) work well with the rest of the team and (c) be nice people. Sometimes you're lucky and all 5 play great, other times the opposite. It is however much easier to notice the latter.

I don't know why Valve would go so far as putting people well below your skill in games with you just to balance your w/l.
(*)If that is actually the case, the most probable reason is: to make players more satisfied and ultimately play more. Explained: You're more accepting of a loss after 4 wins than after 4 losses. Likewise, you're more happy about a win after 4 losses than after 4 wins. In other words, if you have fewer winning and losing streaks, you'll be more happy with the game. This theory is supported in Psychology by for example Prospect Theory.


Blubbles wrote:
Valve needs to integrate a recalibration. Not infinite ones, mind you, but let's say 2 recalibrations. That'd be fair right? You've gotten over your noob stage and you can now get a MMR representative of your skill level.
As said many times now, the system is the same for everyone. Everyone has their "noob games" with them.

I think the system is broken because of:
1. MMR being solely based on wins.
Already addressed in the beginning.

2. The ridiculously small amount of MMR you gain ( yet large amount lost).
Amount lost or won is averagely exactly the same. If more points were given, your score would just fluctuate more, you would not climp/fall faster because the system would still be the same for everyone. Your MMR number might be higher, but your rank in relation to everyone else stays the same.
You need a 51%+ win rate to climb AT ALL. THATS NOT REALISTIC. most people have a ~48% win rate.
The average win rate of ALL Dota2 players (accounts) is 50%, it literally has to be (Note: Abandonments skew this very slightly down, so it is probably like 49.9%, not 50.0). Less than 50% win rate means you(r team), on average, play worse than your opponents (team), in which case your ranking should be gradually falling.

Hamstertamer wrote:
"Unfortunately the alternative to gaining more MMR per match would also mean that you had to lose more MMR to compensate."

How is this unfortunately? That's what I want!
Right now there's no way you can be high MMR without having played 1000-2000 games.
The game rewards not skill but high number of games played.

As mentioned, if more "MMR points" were given or lost per match, your ranking in relation to all other players would be exactly the same, but the number itself would be different. Why? Because the system is the same for everyone.


The system is fair, people! Stop blaming everyone else. You are not as great as you imagine yourself to be, get over it. Being frustrated after a bad game is very understandable, and many players are douchbags who only say "**** you" or pick a bad hero. It happens, for everyone. Complaining about the system being "broken and stupid" because you don't have the "ranking number" you think you deserve however, that is just childish.

That's enough for now. Back to what I should be doing....
This is my signature. This is my dotabuff.

Swixcap


Notable (7)
Posts: 116
Steam: Cube
Permalink | Quote | PM | +Rep by Hamstertamer » June 17, 2015 3:27pm | Report
There is an unfair part about the system, which cannot be denied. Yes, IF YOU PLAY AN INFINITE NUMBER OF GAMES, your MMR will eventually end up converging to your actual skill level.

But the criticism of the MMR system is that this number of games needed is just way too damn high.

I have my fair share of friends who have a constant 55-60% winrate, but still are stuck in the scrub brackets.

Is that because they are bad? No, it's because if you do the math, a 55% winrate amounts to an average of 10% of 25 MMR gained per game, which is an average of 2.5 MMR gained per game.

So to gain 1000 MMR, they'd need to play 400 games.

So if you're actually 5K MMR but you're stuck at 1K MMR, you'd need 1600 games to get out of the scrub bracket.

I'm finding that this figure of 1600 games way way too high and discouraging.

MMR *does* go up, it just does so at a slow-as-hell discouraging pace that makes you say **** this game.

If you are at <= 50% winrate, then you are playing at the right level and you should blame only yourself. BUT if you are constantly at a >55% winrate I'm all for allowing recalibrations and I recommend smurfing to those people.
Strategy guide : Anti-pubstomper guide.
Hero guides : Spectre , Windranger and Clinkz
== Broodmother guide out! ==

Hamstertamer
<Editor>

Awards Showcase
Show more awards

Memorable (89)
Posts: 2620
View My Blog
Permalink | Quote | PM | +Rep by ChiChi » June 17, 2015 3:44pm | Report
"MMR *does* go up, it just does so at a slow-as-hell discouraging pace that makes you say **** this game."

But why does your MMR being high or low makes you wanna stop playing the game, if you know "the system is unfair bla bla"? Shouldn't you enjoy it for what it is, playing not for MMR but for fun, with your team if strangers annoy you, and understanding that being good at the game is something you have to feel for yourself and from the perspectives of others, instead of some random mechanic calculation from the game?

Credits to Janitsu!

Ammateurs coaching channel iei! https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCOBsWN_45WjrRXLAWUqeyaA

ChiChi
<Veteran>

Awards Showcase
Show more awards

Remarkable (47)
Posts: 1559
Steam: Chi-Chi
Permalink | Quote | PM | +Rep by Sando » June 17, 2015 4:27pm | Report
Swixcap:

I agree with your fundamental point but you're overstating it a little. It's natural to be pissed off when you've had a series of bad games, you could be a little gentler without losing your point.

I do totally agree with your sentiments on changing the MMR system though. It is massively flawed in various ways, but I think it's probably also the least-bad option when you actually start thinking about it. If you start trying to measure performance in terms of kills, net worth, wards placed, building damage or whatever...all you're doing is asking people to focus on gaming them as much as possible, at the expense of everything else. It would be horrific.

Hamster:

I do take your point...but would flip it round. If you were "worth" a 5k MMR, I'd expect to see an 80-90% win rate at lower levels, not 55%. People who's done account boosting, smurfing etc have easily recorded this, and it fits with that 10-15% of your games being almost unwinnable due to DCs/Feeders/etc. Average 25 points per win @ 85% wr = 46 games per 1k.

If accounts did win/lose say 50 or 100 points per game, you'd end up with bigger swings and probably less accuracy in the system...and how annoying would it be to lose 100 points cos of that idiotic 1v5 decision your carry made that lost the match you should have won? I'd not saying it maybe shouldn't be adjusted though.

I think the main thing that would placate a lot of players is the option to "recalibrate" every 3/6/12 months or something. There would need to be a hard limit of some kind on it, but would alleviate a lot of frustrations I think.
A full list of my guides is here

Sando
<Veteran>

Awards Showcase
Show more awards

Established (118)
Posts: 1918
View My Blog
Permalink | Quote | PM | +Rep by L0bstz0r » June 17, 2015 4:50pm | Report
Swixcap wrote:


Try looking at it the other way: Imagine a system that rewards the best players in the game, which is what you all seem to want. Ignoring the obviously huge issue of balancing such a system, rewarding players individually would create competition within the team. You think Dota has a mean community now? How do you imagine players acting when they compete with their own team-mates as well as the enemies, for ranking points? Last hits, denies, kills, towers, XP, farm, items, wards, EVERYTHING would fuel the flames. Would that make a better, more enjoyable game? In my mind, no; that is not the solution.



^THIS. SO MUCH!!

The genuine frustration here seems to be, that the current system reflects very badly on player improvement. Where it might be accurate for when you initially let yourself be rated, playing a lot of games will undeniably make you improve... which is something the system fails to acknowledge.

So what if - and i really would like some feedback on this - valve would instead implement something like "seasoned MMR". This would mean that, after a certain amount of time (like 6 months or something), the MMR of every single player would be hard reset and everybody basically had to redo his whole calibration. I dont know how this would be affected by the hidden-rating-system that already is in the game, but hey, maybe we could get achievements and sh*t :D

Edit: before anybody says it: I know that this isnt an original idea and that similar games like *cough* LoL *cough* already have something like this. I just really am interested, if you guys would consider this to be more "fair".

L0bstz0r

Awards Showcase
Show more awards

Notable (12)
Posts: 343
Steam: L0bstz0r
Permalink | Quote | PM | +Rep by ChiChi » June 17, 2015 5:22pm | Report
L0bstz0r wrote:


Edit: before anybody says it: I know that this isnt an orgiginal idea and that similar games like *cough* LoL *cough* already have something like this. I just really am interested, if you guys would consider this to be more "fair".


I think it would probably end being the same thing, since the smurfing somehow functions as a recalibration for those who are not satisfied with their initial level (and at the moment smurfs are so spread they have to be considered as a part of the game). If what people say about MMR is true (that it slowly inscreases at a steady pace if you are indeed improving), the recalibration would feel the same, and the problems would still be there (the games with factors that you can't control, the loss when you played well, etc).

But it would be funny to see those big egos coming down from their 5k's to 0k every six months :D

Credits to Janitsu!

Ammateurs coaching channel iei! https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCOBsWN_45WjrRXLAWUqeyaA

ChiChi
<Veteran>

Awards Showcase
Show more awards

Remarkable (47)
Posts: 1559
Steam: Chi-Chi
Permalink | Quote | PM | +Rep by Sando » June 17, 2015 10:19pm | Report
ChiChi wrote:

But it would be funny to see those big egos coming down from their 5k's to 0k every six months :D


As funny as it would be to see some players knocked down to size, this would be a disaster for everyone. Can you imagine the ragey, chaotic game that happen after a reset? When there's no skill balancing whatsoever and your formerly 1k mmr mid is getting kicked into touch by their former 4.5k mmr mid? When you have no idea what the relative skill level of your team or opposition is every game? Uhh, horrible.

I worked hard for my MMR, I don't have the time to commit anymore to building it up from scratch again every 6 months. So that means I probably wouldn't even bother playing as the games would be routinely imba and therefore no fun.

L0bstz0r wrote:

The genuine frustration here seems to be, that the current system refelcts very badly on player improvement. Where it might be accurate for when you initially let yourself be rated, playing a lot of games will undeniably make you improve... which is something the system fails to acknowledge.


This seems a very fair point, in is why I'd favour some kind of recalibration system every so often, or maybe if people's visible and invisible MMRs are highly divergent (e.g. you played ranked 20 times when you were 1.5k and didn't bother for a year). The alternative is purely to played ranked games all the time so that your "true" MMR is always reflected there.
A full list of my guides is here

Sando
<Veteran>

Awards Showcase
Show more awards

Established (118)
Posts: 1918
View My Blog
Permalink | Quote | PM | +Rep by PrimarchXIII » June 17, 2015 10:29pm | Report
This is a great thread and people are making some very good points! It's nice to hear some different ideas and perspectives on the matter. After a few ridiculously bad games ending in losses, teamed up with people who are supposed to be "equal" or "close enough" in skill level to yourself, it's understandable that you may feel discouraged and feel like it is unfair. Don't give up! d;p

When people mention that it is possible to raise MMR as support, it gives me Hope. TY!
I also think it's a good idea to make yourself a more well-rounded player too, something that I definitely lack (I hardly ever play Carry or Mid Heroes anymore...)

Quick question; I noticed that occasionally I'll be against people who have 300-400 higher MMR than the highest person on my team. Does this occur often???

PrimarchXIII


Notable (1)
Posts: 58
Permalink | Quote | PM | +Rep by masaaki14 » June 18, 2015 12:02am | Report
The system matches you with the enemy based on average mmr, so it is possible to have mmr flunctuations where your enemy team has a player who has a much better mmr than you. However, when you take everyone's mmr and average it out, it should be roughly the same. There is a second piority to match people as close to the mmr you are at, so such situations might be rare, but they do occur.

masaaki14


Notable (11)
Posts: 724
Steam: masaaki14

Quick Reply

Please log in or sign up to post!

DOTAFire is the place to find the perfect build guide to take your game to the next level. Learn how to play a new hero, or fine tune your favorite DotA hero’s build and strategy.

Copyright © 2019 DOTAFire | All Rights Reserved