I think you should change it so that a minimum of atleast 100 games on a hero is a must otherwize people will have inacurate stats while only having played say 30 games. Im not saying that 1000 games is better than 100 just becuase of the size but im saying that 30 is to few.
The reasoning behind this is very clear. when you start out on a new account it will not only be lower than your potentional MMR could be but it will also change over time creating a more Even distribution. If you have division this is a must. otherwize its pointless.
Another great change would be if you could add Top 100 players as a Mark on their Overview dotabuffpage.
Next to most played there could be a added X for whatever position that player currently is.
Oh and I for one do not think Solo should be counted or atleast not the main theme becuase dota is a TEAM game with synergy.
removing this will elimate a Huge part of Dota especially for certain heroes.
An example of this is Riki for me who I rarely ever play, I am in the top 500 players with 37 games playing unranked stacking in the past, yet I am considered. On other heroes that I play a lot in solo, ranked, and play very well I am miles off the target dispite other people up there, who i know personally being rated for heroes they rarely play outside stacking and also have a lower MMR which should equate to difficulty.
http://www.dotabuff.com/players/71875429 has 180+ more games +1% winrate and 0.60 + KDA so that makes him #48 why? This is not about my personal ranking its just hard to understand how the system works when people with equal stats, MMR, dotabuff rank, or even lower are on the list where others are not.
why platinum also can be in top 100 lol, i dont understand, isnt the minimum requirement to be in top 100, you have to be at least playing very high level games like diamond 10 bracket?
@jason "Re: suicides, KDA makes up only a tiny portion of your score. An occasional intentional suicide wont have any noticeable effect. "
It's not occasional intentional suicide, it's one EVERY game. I don't know how much it decrease ranking to get ~3 kda instead of ~4.
(and we don't want to know it, or at least not now, in order not to spoil your formula ^^)
But that's shit load of difference in a kda (percentage wise).
I think its odd how much games played matters. the only things that really say how good a player is with a hero are what level of play they are at and how high there win rate is, obviously there should be a minimum number of games required with the hero to be on the list, but a player with 1000 games shouldn't be considered better then players with 100 games and a much higher win rate and MMR.
well, some people suck ball with every hero but one, and play it maaass time. They compensate their lack of skill, by much better comprehension of the heroes it self, and thus play it way better than anyone else.
Ofc to do so, you need to play mass time the same one. So it can be an indicator.
In addition, when you tend to have so many game with one heroes, you tend to also have very few game with other heroes, thus since your winrate is supposed to tend to 50%, you'll lose in winrate on the long run, thus having a factor for having played more game compensate a bit for it.
Anyway, i guess they use a factor like (1-e^-x) for the weight of number of games, so it cann't grow out of control.
^ but a player like that would have a high rating because they play so much with that one hero they are good at, even if they only had a little over a 50 % win rate on that hero, they would have a really high MMR (or hidden mmr) so it would work out in there favor anyway. I know the equation you listed was just an example but 1-e^-x would become irrelevantly small very quickly and the difference between someone with 50 games and 5000 games would be almost nothing. my point is that a 3k player has no place in the top 50 and a 4k player with any thing short of an 80-90% win rate on a hero also shouldn't be there. someone who is skilled with a hero will likely have played many games with them, but that doesn't mean that a player who has played many games with a hero necessarily has any skill with them.
I really hope that they will have separate division for every ranking, for example top 100 wtv hero in diamond 10, then platinum 10, then gold 10 and so on.
Just wanna say I hope you are going to tweak the division system. I have 4.8k in ranked solo/party. I play A LOT with my friends who are about 3k rated. Seems like this system takes "history of your opponents" into consideration too much (at least as an average).
Earlier today I was diamond 2 with riki, I played and won all 3 games with him today each with good KDA and somehow my division is now diamond 1. Its kind of silly I think because my other group of friends with the same MMR as me are diamond 8 and 9. Feels to me like the current system 'punishes' you for playing with friends who are lower rated.
"Feels to me like the current system 'punishes' you for playing with friends who are lower rated."
@Medzo - I think it should be relative.
If you had good KDA and won all games but your HERO RANKING went down. It doesn't mean that the system punished you for playing with lower rated friends. What it could mean is that, you didn't achieve enough KDA (winrate is already perfect at 100%) for you to maintain your HERO RANKING or to increase it AND as COMPARED TO OTHERS who also played RIKI, who also went 100% winrate who also have the same KDA as yours but were playing in a higher bracket MMR
@matrice your thoughts please on my previous post about PLAYING MORE MATCHES FOR A SPECIFIC HERO WILL DECREASE YOUR HERO RATING:
CASE 1: If you can increase your MMR from 2k to 4k using TA and any other hero (with a little less efficiency, ~3.5-4k), your rating will tend to decrease as you go higher MMR no matter which hero you played. However, this is a good indicator of a smurf account.
CASE 2: If you can increase your MMR from 2k to 4k using TA but cannot do so with other heroes then correct, your TA rating will tend to decrease. And this is a good indicator that you ARE really good with TA because she was able to increase your MMR drastically.
But if your MMR remains constant (+/- 300) while you keep on playing a combination of heroes including TA. Is it indicative that the more games you play with TA, the more probable that your rating on her will drop?
IMHO, assuming both cases above are true, your TA rating will also remain consistent (at best), a slight drop off (at worst).
If you are really a 6K player and you..
- Start @ 2K MMR, Play BEST Lanaya, INCREASE your MMR = better HERO RATING at first but it will plateau til it goes down. Why? Because opponents become better
- Start @ 2K Play BEST ANY HERO, INCREASE your MMR = better HERO RATING at first but it will plateau til it goes down. Why? Because opponents become better
Doesn't matter which hero you play. You are 6k player, you'll definitely get better stats at first until it plateaus. But that is because you went from 6k MMR games to 2k MMR games.
But in the case of a 4k MMR player who has played 2000 games:
- play @ 4K MMR, play BEST Razor = MMR same
- play @ 4K MMR, play BEST other heroes = MMR same
is his HERO RATING going to increase or decrease if he plays more matches?
come on, you can figure this out by looking at the current system easily
if you are 6k and start at 2k obviously your hero rating will keep increasing until you hit 5.5k at least, because you will be winning around 90% of games until then, with the only factor changing being your Division (i tried playing a 4k account, and all the mid 4k razor/viper counterpickers are so horrible they lose the lane outright to my TA even with the hero advantage)
it doesnt matter whether you pick your best hero or not. you will have insanely good stats while the division bonus keeps rising until you are slightly below your actual rating where the win rate starts to equalize
and for the last case it seems quite obvious in the current system that playing more games benefits you even if it comes at the cost of your win rate and KDA, look at the OD spammer Smaug for an example - although it may take an inordinate number of games to force the system to give you an advantage
I think the professional thing needs a little tweak, i just saw Brax's Meepo (yes, it seems like that is a thing) in the top 100. I had to smirk when i saw that.
I also saw several slark in top, that have:
Less winrate
Less games
Less kda
And for knowing roughly the mmr of those guys, are playing way under my bracket in matchmaking
--> professional 10, let's give him more heroes score.
Don't even know why the pro thing is still there... It's public game, and in it, most "professional X" play way under the europe leaderboard mmr.
(for eu players ^^)
It's not like they could play a slark at much higher mmr (and for most of them, they are lower mmr), so at much harder game than what i did/do.
I'm currently ranked 39 as slark, 19 personnes have less kda, less games and less winrate (and ~5 more with slightly more game but less kda and less winrate) and have a better heroes score. None of those player (mb actually just june) may have / have had harder game as slark as i do/ did.
The minimum games should be increased to 100~150 to prevent abusers (currently ~30% of all players in ranking don't belong there at all). Should also add an requirement such as must have played the hero at least 5 times within last 2 months or so.
I see Black getting on the ranking for OD for matches he played 2 years ago despite him playing the hero not even once per month. Thus the ranking is fluctuating a lot.
>feeds for x amount of games with furion to get into lower level games
>rapes with riki on the way up
>repeat
I think its really difficult to get a good idea of the top 100 for each hero, I don't think that anybody under ~5k MMR should be considered at all. Even someone with a crazy KDA/win rate, how do you know that this isn't the result of playing against weaker players, or even just stacking. At least if they are 5k+ and stacking then they are probably playing against decent opponents.
What they could do:
-restrict top 100 rankings to players that are above ~5k MMR (so whatever diamond # that is)
-maybe move the min games to 50, or maybe a filter to change min number of games
-remove professional, I mean really that makes no sense...maybe an indicator next to their name saying that they do play pro games, but I don't see why they would have their own bracket given that its just pub games we are looking at
The problem with your suggestion Typhox is that those guys are actually much, much better than you with OD. They aren't OD "specialists", they are just extremely good at the game and with a large pool of heroes as a result of that, and they can play heroes like OD at a higher level than just about everyone. You could play another 10,000 games and they would be better with OD than you. While there is a correlation between #games played and skill level, there probably isn't a strong one after a certain point, and their overall skill level (so MMR or bracket), is a better indicator of overall ability.
@You_Got_Fukt
I destroyed 2 of my coaches who are 5700 MMR in mid, I destroyed pro players and 7k MMR players in mid. Of course I also lost very often, I don't wanna claim I am best mid or best OD or anything.
But I want to state that I am not as bad as some people are trying to make me. Of course when there are 4 people trolling me I will most likely lose my lane and the game, but who does not?
The only thing I am interested in is finding other OD players that spend lots of time mastering that hero. I don't care if their map awareness is not perfect or that they can't RTZ-Block or that their laning is weird, what I do mostly care about is how OD pickers play in matches that are not in their favour at all. I want to improve and learn, thus I am more interested on watching a 1000 matches OD that also has lots of experience against Razor's and Pugna's and Zeus' than watching a 50 games OD that only picks the hero when he is sure that he's going to have an easy game with it.
razor's not really hard, as long as you don't max prison ^^
But yeah, it's totally possible for som1 to play a hero that well, that he becomes better with it, than any other player who would be better by far otherwise.
"What they could do:
-restrict top 100 rankings to players that are above ~5k MMR (so whatever diamond # that is)
-maybe move the min games to 50, or maybe a filter to change min number of games
-remove professional, I mean really that makes no sense...maybe an indicator next to their name saying that they do play pro games, but I don't see why they would have their own bracket given that its just pub games we are looking at"
+ solo rankings for solo queue ranked games only would be really interesting to have.
infact it should be 100 + ranked + solo
I think you should change it so that a minimum of atleast 100 games on a hero is a must otherwize people will have inacurate stats while only having played say 30 games. Im not saying that 1000 games is better than 100 just becuase of the size but im saying that 30 is to few.
The reasoning behind this is very clear. when you start out on a new account it will not only be lower than your potentional MMR could be but it will also change over time creating a more Even distribution. If you have division this is a must. otherwize its pointless.
Another great change would be if you could add Top 100 players as a Mark on their Overview dotabuffpage.
Next to most played there could be a added X for whatever position that player currently is.
Oh and I for one do not think Solo should be counted or atleast not the main theme becuase dota is a TEAM game with synergy.
removing this will elimate a Huge part of Dota especially for certain heroes.
at least change from 30 to 50 and see what happens. (do remember to make party and public irrelevant later)
LOL LOL LOLOLOL
L
OL
47%
3 KDA
LOLL
LOL
An example of this is Riki for me who I rarely ever play, I am in the top 500 players with 37 games playing unranked stacking in the past, yet I am considered. On other heroes that I play a lot in solo, ranked, and play very well I am miles off the target dispite other people up there, who i know personally being rated for heroes they rarely play outside stacking and also have a lower MMR which should equate to difficulty.
For example,
Scandal - http://www.dotabuff.com/players/86750262/heroes on Axe low wr, very low KDA gets considered cause of "difficulty" which isn't even accuratly defined. Same with http://www.dotabuff.com/players/53178236 pro, so gets there instantly which removes the delusions of the list being "fair" and showing only "good" axe players.
http://www.dotabuff.com/players/71875429 has 180+ more games +1% winrate and 0.60 + KDA so that makes him #48 why? This is not about my personal ranking its just hard to understand how the system works when people with equal stats, MMR, dotabuff rank, or even lower are on the list where others are not.
Same rank, worse KDA, worse win rate, 100+ more games and he's #58??? http://www.dotabuff.com/players/25078811
i will never understand how this thing works really-.-
why platinum also can be in top 100 lol, i dont understand, isnt the minimum requirement to be in top 100, you have to be at least playing very high level games like diamond 10 bracket?
If you have like 1000+ games then you can easily be in the top 100 as a platinum dude
yea means the level of gameplay is not the priority of their equation
I guess it is but having an absurd amount of matches should mean something as well
@jason "Re: suicides, KDA makes up only a tiny portion of your score. An occasional intentional suicide wont have any noticeable effect. "
It's not occasional intentional suicide, it's one EVERY game. I don't know how much it decrease ranking to get ~3 kda instead of ~4.
(and we don't want to know it, or at least not now, in order not to spoil your formula ^^)
But that's shit load of difference in a kda (percentage wise).
I think its odd how much games played matters. the only things that really say how good a player is with a hero are what level of play they are at and how high there win rate is, obviously there should be a minimum number of games required with the hero to be on the list, but a player with 1000 games shouldn't be considered better then players with 100 games and a much higher win rate and MMR.
well, some people suck ball with every hero but one, and play it maaass time. They compensate their lack of skill, by much better comprehension of the heroes it self, and thus play it way better than anyone else.
Ofc to do so, you need to play mass time the same one. So it can be an indicator.
In addition, when you tend to have so many game with one heroes, you tend to also have very few game with other heroes, thus since your winrate is supposed to tend to 50%, you'll lose in winrate on the long run, thus having a factor for having played more game compensate a bit for it.
Anyway, i guess they use a factor like (1-e^-x) for the weight of number of games, so it cann't grow out of control.
^ but a player like that would have a high rating because they play so much with that one hero they are good at, even if they only had a little over a 50 % win rate on that hero, they would have a really high MMR (or hidden mmr) so it would work out in there favor anyway. I know the equation you listed was just an example but 1-e^-x would become irrelevantly small very quickly and the difference between someone with 50 games and 5000 games would be almost nothing. my point is that a 3k player has no place in the top 50 and a 4k player with any thing short of an 80-90% win rate on a hero also shouldn't be there. someone who is skilled with a hero will likely have played many games with them, but that doesn't mean that a player who has played many games with a hero necessarily has any skill with them.
a 3k player, can be better at a specific hero, than a 5k for example.
how ever it's true for the 80-90% winrate that would anyway just happen in few hero play
It'd be great if there was an Unqualified section btw (for heroes with less than 30 games) like you do for Success Rate.
I really hope that they will have separate division for every ranking, for example top 100 wtv hero in diamond 10, then platinum 10, then gold 10 and so on.
just wondering here the 100th tiny player has better score than me just cuz he has more games played even though winrate and kdr is lower?
Just wanna say I hope you are going to tweak the division system. I have 4.8k in ranked solo/party. I play A LOT with my friends who are about 3k rated. Seems like this system takes "history of your opponents" into consideration too much (at least as an average).
Earlier today I was diamond 2 with riki, I played and won all 3 games with him today each with good KDA and somehow my division is now diamond 1. Its kind of silly I think because my other group of friends with the same MMR as me are diamond 8 and 9. Feels to me like the current system 'punishes' you for playing with friends who are lower rated.
to be honest system Professional should be = Diamond
"Feels to me like the current system 'punishes' you for playing with friends who are lower rated."
@Medzo - I think it should be relative.
If you had good KDA and won all games but your HERO RANKING went down. It doesn't mean that the system punished you for playing with lower rated friends. What it could mean is that, you didn't achieve enough KDA (winrate is already perfect at 100%) for you to maintain your HERO RANKING or to increase it AND as COMPARED TO OTHERS who also played RIKI, who also went 100% winrate who also have the same KDA as yours but were playing in a higher bracket MMR
@matrice your thoughts please on my previous post about PLAYING MORE MATCHES FOR A SPECIFIC HERO WILL DECREASE YOUR HERO RATING:
CASE 1: If you can increase your MMR from 2k to 4k using TA and any other hero (with a little less efficiency, ~3.5-4k), your rating will tend to decrease as you go higher MMR no matter which hero you played. However, this is a good indicator of a smurf account.
CASE 2: If you can increase your MMR from 2k to 4k using TA but cannot do so with other heroes then correct, your TA rating will tend to decrease. And this is a good indicator that you ARE really good with TA because she was able to increase your MMR drastically.
But if your MMR remains constant (+/- 300) while you keep on playing a combination of heroes including TA. Is it indicative that the more games you play with TA, the more probable that your rating on her will drop?
IMHO, assuming both cases above are true, your TA rating will also remain consistent (at best), a slight drop off (at worst).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you are really a 6K player and you..
- Start @ 2K MMR, Play BEST Lanaya, INCREASE your MMR = better HERO RATING at first but it will plateau til it goes down. Why? Because opponents become better
- Start @ 2K Play BEST ANY HERO, INCREASE your MMR = better HERO RATING at first but it will plateau til it goes down. Why? Because opponents become better
Doesn't matter which hero you play. You are 6k player, you'll definitely get better stats at first until it plateaus. But that is because you went from 6k MMR games to 2k MMR games.
But in the case of a 4k MMR player who has played 2000 games:
- play @ 4K MMR, play BEST Razor = MMR same
- play @ 4K MMR, play BEST other heroes = MMR same
is his HERO RATING going to increase or decrease if he plays more matches?
come on, you can figure this out by looking at the current system easily
if you are 6k and start at 2k obviously your hero rating will keep increasing until you hit 5.5k at least, because you will be winning around 90% of games until then, with the only factor changing being your Division (i tried playing a 4k account, and all the mid 4k razor/viper counterpickers are so horrible they lose the lane outright to my TA even with the hero advantage)
it doesnt matter whether you pick your best hero or not. you will have insanely good stats while the division bonus keeps rising until you are slightly below your actual rating where the win rate starts to equalize
and for the last case it seems quite obvious in the current system that playing more games benefits you even if it comes at the cost of your win rate and KDA, look at the OD spammer Smaug for an example - although it may take an inordinate number of games to force the system to give you an advantage
!
@JASON
I lost 8 points for THIS GAME http://www.dotabuff.com/matches/959112583
HOW THE FUCK. I dont play, i get moved downwards in the ranks, I do play and i fall faster!!!!!!!!!
Now im suddenly diamond 8? GO FuUCK YOURSELF JASON
why so badmannered benao
because he ignores me :) (and notice thats before being badmannered)
I think the professional thing needs a little tweak, i just saw Brax's Meepo (yes, it seems like that is a thing) in the top 100. I had to smirk when i saw that.
I also saw several slark in top, that have:
Less winrate
Less games
Less kda
And for knowing roughly the mmr of those guys, are playing way under my bracket in matchmaking
--> professional 10, let's give him more heroes score.
Don't even know why the pro thing is still there... It's public game, and in it, most "professional X" play way under the europe leaderboard mmr.
(for eu players ^^)
It's not like they could play a slark at much higher mmr (and for most of them, they are lower mmr), so at much harder game than what i did/do.
I'm currently ranked 39 as slark, 19 personnes have less kda, less games and less winrate (and ~5 more with slightly more game but less kda and less winrate) and have a better heroes score. None of those player (mb actually just june) may have / have had harder game as slark as i do/ did.
Matrice for slark president pls
Remove professional division! We all play same ranked queue
The minimum games should be increased to 100~150 to prevent abusers (currently ~30% of all players in ranking don't belong there at all). Should also add an requirement such as must have played the hero at least 5 times within last 2 months or so.
I see Black getting on the ranking for OD for matches he played 2 years ago despite him playing the hero not even once per month. Thus the ranking is fluctuating a lot.
^How do you prevent abuse with playing 150 games instead of 30? You would only cut the players poll to 10%.
That isn't abuse...
and the other problem is that players that are shit can easily get into top 100 if they just play the hero a ton at a relatively low level.
look at this:
http://www.dotabuff.com/players/162377040
>feeds for x amount of games with furion to get into lower level games
>rapes with riki on the way up
>repeat
I think its really difficult to get a good idea of the top 100 for each hero, I don't think that anybody under ~5k MMR should be considered at all. Even someone with a crazy KDA/win rate, how do you know that this isn't the result of playing against weaker players, or even just stacking. At least if they are 5k+ and stacking then they are probably playing against decent opponents.
What they could do:
-restrict top 100 rankings to players that are above ~5k MMR (so whatever diamond # that is)
-maybe move the min games to 50, or maybe a filter to change min number of games
-remove professional, I mean really that makes no sense...maybe an indicator next to their name saying that they do play pro games, but I don't see why they would have their own bracket given that its just pub games we are looking at
The problem with your suggestion Typhox is that those guys are actually much, much better than you with OD. They aren't OD "specialists", they are just extremely good at the game and with a large pool of heroes as a result of that, and they can play heroes like OD at a higher level than just about everyone. You could play another 10,000 games and they would be better with OD than you. While there is a correlation between #games played and skill level, there probably isn't a strong one after a certain point, and their overall skill level (so MMR or bracket), is a better indicator of overall ability.
@You_Got_Fukt woah..that guy got too much time on his hands.
"+ solo rankings for solo queue ranked games only would be really interesting to have."
Yes please! Team stacking ruins all the data!
@You_Got_Fukt
I destroyed 2 of my coaches who are 5700 MMR in mid, I destroyed pro players and 7k MMR players in mid. Of course I also lost very often, I don't wanna claim I am best mid or best OD or anything.
But I want to state that I am not as bad as some people are trying to make me. Of course when there are 4 people trolling me I will most likely lose my lane and the game, but who does not?
The only thing I am interested in is finding other OD players that spend lots of time mastering that hero. I don't care if their map awareness is not perfect or that they can't RTZ-Block or that their laning is weird, what I do mostly care about is how OD pickers play in matches that are not in their favour at all. I want to improve and learn, thus I am more interested on watching a 1000 matches OD that also has lots of experience against Razor's and Pugna's and Zeus' than watching a 50 games OD that only picks the hero when he is sure that he's going to have an easy game with it.
razor's not really hard, as long as you don't max prison ^^
But yeah, it's totally possible for som1 to play a hero that well, that he becomes better with it, than any other player who would be better by far otherwise.
"What they could do:
-restrict top 100 rankings to players that are above ~5k MMR (so whatever diamond # that is)
-maybe move the min games to 50, or maybe a filter to change min number of games
-remove professional, I mean really that makes no sense...maybe an indicator next to their name saying that they do play pro games, but I don't see why they would have their own bracket given that its just pub games we are looking at"
+1
rework this pls
My slark seems okish but not even in top100