MMR translates to playerskill in most peoples eyes and Dota 2 is a highly competitive game where moste people would like to improve, do better. But most important is the e-penis. With mmr the penis grows too and everyone want a big juicy penis to rub in peoples faces.
i feel like there is less emphasis on improving and more emphasis on winning, but you cannot have the second without the first, at least not long-term
sort of learning this the hard way, at a painfully slow rate. But progress is progress
mmr is a number meant to indicate in general when you are improving, when compared against a pool of your peers. It's a more tangible way for people to understand if they're doing things right or wrong in games.
The issue, however, is that the correlation between good play and winning games is no where near absolute.
PenisdickbuttKappaPridenoKeepocykablyatWhOcArEsLOLOLOLOL
I think playing ranked is slightly more serious than nonranked. However in my three years of ranked dota 2 I came to the conclusion that, unless you are miscalibrated by a few thousand points , it is largely dependent on luck. Unless you are mechanically superior by a large margin all that improvement and knowledge will not translate into massive mmr gain. The lower you go the less it has to do with good dota and the less you are able to rely on other players correct responses to win. If you are mechanically superior you will be able to solo win a significant amount of games in every bracket because to do that your team does not really matter. But if your redeeming factor for mediocre reactions is good game awareness and knowledge it is not translating into anything. People at lower mmr just do not do what is expected. They do not see the patterns and opportunities. It is like a math test where the good people see the possible transformations into simpler problems and the bad people do not. Problem here is, that it is a group assignment and unless everyone sees it you can not win.
Your rating has some significance but is by no way an absolute measure of skill or quality. On average a higher ranked player is better than a lower ranked player. But individually there is a lot of heterogenity. Not saying that those ppl claiming to be entitled to more mmr are correct, a small amount of them actually is, but overall it does not mean as much as some people think it does.
The problem with MMR is you could be the worst dota player in history but you got godly luck and every game they carry you. You could be support CM with 0 last hit every game and 12 deaths etc...
Until they change to TSR rating don't think MMR means anything at all. People in 5K and 3K still have like 1K account buyers in their games.
How do all the pros manage to get to the top of the mmr ladder if luck is a factor? Yea you might get a account buyer but then your next game is slightly easier. It is always the normal bracket or the 3k arteezy wannabes that think the issue is the system and not them.
Claiming that mmr system is based on luck is fucking hilarious. Really, people need to stop blaming the system. Its nothing wrong in the algorythm.
If you look it in the long period, you have phases where you win literally everything, there are phases when you lose pretty much every game until you are tilted and there is phase when you loss win loss win. Its all balanced.
But on the end, either you move up, either you move down, it all depends on your individual skill and capability on adjust to games and meta after all over long period of time.
If you think that somebody can be carried every fucking dota game, then I can say you are lunatic. Sure, somebody can jump really fast from like 4000 to 4600, but soon his lack of skill and adjustment to that MMR range will be recognized and he will for sure go down.
YOU CAN move in MMR, you can progress. Look at leaderboard, 2 years ago in Februrary 2014 when ranked was introduced, first guy had 6.2k. And look at it now, last guy has 6.4k.
Its always easier to blame someone else but until you realise its not anyone else fault, you will progress.
And yeah, I think that MMR matters. It shows someones capability to adjust to meta, game, personal progression. It helps you to look at ur long period growth. How much will you care about it depends entirely on you.
You are clearly not reading my post correctly. I said it is luck unless you are one of the top players. In the bracket where you can calibrate into, it is a lot about the ebb and flow of your matchmaking. If I was true 5k or 6k I would probably climb rather fast. If I am true 3,5k and am at 2,7k I have a really hard time. That is all I said. Matchmaking has a luck component and if your skill is better than your bracket but not by much, you will climb incredibly slow. And that frustrates me and a lot of people. You are objectively or subjectively better than your peers but you can do nothing. I can not prevent my teammates from getting ganked if they do not listen to me or ignore my miss calls. And so on.
Of course I know there is room between my level and a 4k player and a lot of room between me and a 5 or 6k. That is not the question. The point of the matter is that I felt good at 3,5k. People were at my level mostly. We got each other. We played as a team. Then I got bad teammates without changing anything in my playstyle or quality and kept losing. Now I am back and I see how bad those people are in comparison to people that are merely 1k above them. If I was Arteezy or w33 or Badman or whoever, sure, I could solo win these games. But I am Kenshin. I play objectively well in comparison to my peers in most of my games. But despite my skill being above my teammates I can not win for them if they fuck up too hard.
You are constantly trying to make it into a heaven or hell argument. You basically say because someone that is truly 8k can easily climb on his smurf the fact that someone that is only miscalibrated by about a thousand should also be able to instantly rise, never deviate and that it is always a persons own fault if he loses or wins despite it being blatantly obvious that dota is a team game with 9 other people who pretty much have more impact than a singular person unless that person is miscalibrated by a huge load. That is just silly arguing.
just cos your peak was 3.5k doesn't make you a permanent 3.5k player. people hold onto their highest mmr way too fucking much like it has any relevance. if you are 2.7k right now and stuck there it's because you're not playing as well as you used to.
I peaked at 4.6k but now im 4.0 because I don't play as often as I used to, so I got worse at the game while everyone else continued to improve, so I couldn't keep up and therefore didn't belong at my skill rating anymore. I don't try to pretend that I'm still a 4.6k player.
if you are are a 3.5k player against 2.7s, you still have an 800mmr advantage. it doesn't matter how slow it is, you will eventually get back to your theoretical true mmr. you're not going to notice anything short term but you'll definitely have a winrate above 50%, even if it's minor like 50.5%.
you say that your quality of play hasn't gotten worse but who are you to make that call? for one you're judging your own skill so you're already biased, and two, how is a human supposed to know minute changes in their skill over time?
I did not peak at 3,5k. But I already see that you need to make strawmen to try to argue against my point. Granted I did not peak much higher but 3,4k/3,5k was where games were actually really fun to me. I have just slightly above 50%.
Yes, we are all biased. No analysis of a dota game, be it pure stats, impact or whatever, can be truly objective since there is no quantifiable measure.
To me it is just silly how some people who are clearly extremely biased and possibly narcissistic make every dota game about their own performance. Sometimes it is not just you. Depending on the patch it is very easy to fuck up a game as a single person but normal games without smurfers or someone being miscalibrated is about the teamplay. You have to do your part. You have to work on yourself. But saying it is always oneself if you lose is ridiculous.
so you're either talking out your ass because you have no experience playing at 3.5k like relentless trying to talk about 6k mmr players despite being 3k, or you're being pedantic and maybe you peaked at 3.6 or 3.7 since you have 1 vh game from almost 2 years ago - if that's the case, that's not straw manning. the same argument applies. you peaked at X mmr but your current skill does not justify you being at that mmr hence you are rated lower.
if no analysis can be truly objective, why the fuck are you saying stuff like "I play objectively well in comparison to my peers in most of my games" ?
"To me it is just silly how some people who are clearly extremely biased and possibly narcissistic make every dota game about their own performance"
yet here you are blaming your teammates and saying that you're objectively better than them.
if there are 8k players who can win games alone against 5-6k opponents, then single handedly winning games against 5 players who are 3k mmr is also possible. if you lack the skill to do so, that's your problem.
Yes, I peaked at 3,7k. So what is your point? I was at 3,4/3,5 for a while and it felt right. It is where I was not mad about losing because the opponents earned it and teammates did play as well as I did.
I know these discussions are futile because it is extremely hard to objectively quantify a players impact so everyone can agree upon it. You may have other standards than I have. That is what I meant but explained poorly. The emphasis should bee on TRULY objective. I know I can be mistaken. So could you be. I think my arguments overall are sound and most counterarguments are semantics or ad hominem.
I am saying I am objectively better than most of my teammates, yes. At this bracket things are pretty obvious. It is not about who is better at keeping lane equilibrium, who has better rune control etc. It shows in your supports stealing lasthits, map being dark, people picking up nonsensical items, supports never rotating and instead just leeching xp while never zoning anyone. People have no TP etc. It is really easy to quantify that at least.
What is so alien about the idea that some people miracoulusly are able to asess their own skill level? Yes, there is Dunning-Krueger and stuff but that only applies to some. The majority of people are actually quite capable of asessing their own skill at least decently. I do obviously not see all my mistakes but I know I have to work on my lasthitting because it is slightly off some games. I have to be nicer to teammates because most are delicate flowers. I have to broaden my hero pool even further and work on my micro skills. Yes, I am sure as hell not claiming to be perfect. But I also know what I can do well...
I got a little worked up because the concept I try to bring across seems not too hard to understand to me and the counterarguments are mostly hanging up on one point and not the whole.
Wow, you got one match where I did not perform that well. I was on a skype call with a friend the entire game, which admittedly is a mistake and I am disatisfied with my performance that game. My lasthitting early was horrible. I hit creeps to 20-40 hp on a regular basis.
But that is exactly what I meant. Arguments are not houses of cards where you need to nudge one card and it collapses into itself. Everyone has a bad game now and then. You are being silly.
First of all:
Luck is no excuse in a large enough samplesize. If u havent played enough games u might not be at your 'true' MMR yet.
Every player has some influence on the outcome of the match. This influence can also be by creatign good atmosphere at start of game, outpicking, suggesting items to allys, anything counts. However regardign the role system as a Core player u are gonna have overall more impact then the supports and mid and safe carry have more impact then off too. Your mistakes are much worse then mistakes of a support.
Regardign solo matchmaking where there is usually no voicechat u are not gonna find people actually 'doing something' at lower then 4 k. Basically 9/10 decisions are mistakes in some respect and its all about making less mistakes then your opponent and recognizing and punishing your opponents mistakes better. When i (i am 4,8k solo) play with real life friends in unranked or in like 3,5 k region i struggle massivly to not become mad at them. They dont recognize mistakes they make at all. So when they play by themselfes, they might not even get flamed for whatever jackshit they did. But enemy fucks up harder, it kinda works out and they dont get the feedback they d need to improve their gameplay in their own mmr category. thats why the best way of improving is too play with better players. that is one sad argument for account buyers. btw u wont find many people that hate account buyers more then i do cause they destroy the very welll thought through elo system en ruin my games.
Regarding the differences between 3k and 5k which someone here pointed out might be quite small - they are absolutly NOT.
A 3 k player can beat a 5 k player in a 5v5 game. But when u played with 5 k they just seemed toxic and not that much better to you. That however is just a bad estimation by u. As a sub 3/4 k player you cant know, that 5 k palyers are actually quite nice and communicativ if u wouldnt constantly fuck up.
^ I think you make a good point. But regarding the sample size argument: in dota it is hard to accrue a large enough sample size. On the one hand it is close to impossible to get 10k games to make it meaningful and on the other hand it is over such a large time the whole "it equals out over time and shows true mmr" is kind of futile.
I agree on the fucking up part. Ppl dive towers constantly. Overextend. Ignore objectives, to just name a few examples. But if your opponent is worse, you still win.
Just watch a stream by a good player and you will have to agree that there is a huge skill difference between 5ks and 3ks. No argument there.
"So what is your point?"
the same point I made earlier except replace 3.5k with 3.7k. that's not straw manning you dolt. anyone who is content with their teammates playing well enough think that way because they are getting carried by them. common argument of 3k players thinking they're hot shit is "if I had higher mmr I would have better teammates". while that is true, they would then be the worst player on the team who is not pulling their own weight.
can you not see how hypocritical you're being?
"It shows in your supports stealing lasthits"
get better at last hitting
"map being dark"
observer wards can be bought by any hero. it's not like skull basher on heroes that have passive bashes a few patches ago. 75g is two last hits. if that ward allows you to dodge even one gank, or allow you to farm 1 creep wave, it's already paid for itself.
"people picking up nonsensical items"
and the enemy team are also going to do that too, except they've got 5 people who have a chance to build shitty items as opposed to 4, assuming you don't build shitty items yourself. same applies to the other stuff. the enemy support is also probably trying to steal their carry's last hits. if you can farm better than the enemy carry though, you'll be ahead.
"What is so alien about the idea that some people miracoulusly are able to asess their own skill level?"
because you're fucking deluded and you can't see your own mistakes, instead focusing on what your teammates are doing wrong, when you should be thinking about what you can do to fix your own play. last hitting, attitude and hero pool are barely scratching the surface of things that you could be working on improving.
"the counterarguments are mostly hanging up on one point and not the whole."
yet you're being pedantic over 3.5k and 3.7k
I don't see how you can actually be aware of the dunning kruger effect and then say "nah that's not me"
You all need some basic courses in statistics. For things to even out you need tens of thousands of samples. A survey below 3k participants is not dependable on in the least. 10k gets okay.
@Androgynous: You are getting more and more personal and ridiculous. You are straw manning again and in the same sentence saying you are not. Ofc you have better teammates at higher mmr... That is a true statement that unfortunately does nothing for the discussion. You are literally saying nothing there. I say I liked it at 3,4k because I felt everyone was pulling the same weight. Games were more even. More fair and more fun. That is my personal feeling. There is nothing hypocritical about that.
For lasthitting supports. Another non-argument. What does my lasthitting skill have to do with the fact that it is bad to steal lasthits? Yeah, if I was a lot better I could outlasthit 3-4 ppl maybe but I should only have to outlasthit 1-2.
Yes I know about the wards. It still is better to have it bought by supps. And most games after the early stage if I have a few items I help with wards. Early it is bad.
While I agree it might be symmetrical with bad players it is where the random element stems from. It is nonsense to claim that for every game I have a last-hit stealing support my opponent has one too. Get a grip on statistics and probabilities.
Dude I do not want to write you an essay on where I am working on. I am. But the frustrating thing is seeing years of hard work not pay off in the slightest. I was calibrated at 3k and then justly fell down to 2,8k. I was there for years. Then I managed to climb to 3k, was there for half a year and in three weeks lost it all again. No tilt in there. I was a fucking twit that had no idea in the beginning. I got a lot better. Still I am basically at the same mmr.
Yes I am pedantic because it was funny to mimic your arguments. Sorry.
I can not see how you only know the name Dunning-Krueger but have not really understood what it means. It does NOT mean everyone who is bad thinks he is the shit, nor does it mean everyone who thinks he is the shit is automatically wrong. It does however indeed show that most people can asess their skill decently.
The only thing I really understand I need to do is not get mad at bad teammates because it does not help. Neither does it appear to help to try to have a friendly and informed discussion about the topic of variance in ranked matchmaking on a non-scientific level. I am keeping calm and am trying to argue fair. I would appreciate if the same was done in return.
Yes when I took statistics at university my prof told me you need the magic 10k number I was mistaken thanks for reminding me bro.
@King of Low Prio: Now look, a game where I did my job. http://www.dotabuff.com/matches/2195317109
So I countered your pseudo-argument with a pseudo-argument of mine. Are we even now?
Ofc it is not a magic number... Wow I hate arguing with silly edgy types. I had statistics at university too. But if you were to calculate the intervall of confidence of 99% with 3k games played you would get a pretty wide array, would you not?
http://www.dotabuff.com/matches/2195064924
look at him carrying his teammates
My god this kid is sooooo delusional it is sad, in his eyes his true MMR is his peak and not his avg. Outliers matter more than the mean, glad I am taking notes for my next stats exam.
You managed to do your job in a match that you dont think reflects your true MMR? Shouldnt you be excelling?
Oh my god you are so pathetic. If it was not so sad and silly I would just pull out random games from your timeline and try to read something into them. You are fortunetelling right now. You win arguments by bad manners and pseudo-arguments. True internet keyboard warrior.
I am making a general case and at the same time I am making a special case. You take random examples and try to make them the standard. I felt good slightly above my mean not at my peak. So you are even spouting more falsehoods. Nice.
People like you make me believe the saying that arguing on the internet is like participating in the special olympics. You might win but you are still retarded.
I already said that I do not think that I am a lot better, just a little bit. I said that I felt at home at a certain range of mmr because that is where people played enjoyable dota. I said that my mechanical skill is not superior and that what I think I bring to the table is hard to quantify. There is nothing sad about that and nothing delusional. On the contrary it should show that I have thought about it a lot and evaluate myself constantly. It is so weird to see people pull out some random bullshit, invert everything I say and then act like they won an argument while arguing about something I never said.
You are the metaphorical pidgeon, that struts over the chess board, shits all over it, knocks down pieces and at the end looks triumphantly and acts as if it won a game of chess. So annoying...
Reminder that germany has a higher standard of education than the US and we do not have to pay millions for good schools or textbooks. But nice try at a useless ad hominem argument. Looks like they do not teach proper argumentation skills in the US.
I am pretty close to done with this here. Yes, if I was truly 5k or smth I should absolutely crush ppl at 2,9k. But again you make something I used as an argument - that it is incredibly hard to make a huge splash in agame when you are just slightly miscalibrated - an argument against me. That is just so dumb and uninformed I can hardly believe you did it.
Everything I explained you discard and push me into your preformed stereotype of the rambling noob. You put words into my mouth I never said and try to make arguments against me with things that are proof of my arguments. That is just absurd.
What you feel is just your own delusions, I am not pulling up random games 10 months ago I am pulling up all your recent games where you either just maintain playing at your current lv or play under your current level. But no in your mind the outliers matter more than the mean.
Sorry, I am out. You are not right, you are just annoying. And from the way you argue I can not see us ever agreeing on anything.
The thing is that I really never said I am carrying my teams. I said that I am better in several non-mechanical ways that are hard to translate into game wins. It is mostly just basics I have to admit. What weirds me out is that you keep claiming that I said or mean something I never did at all. I said that I think unless you are mechanically severely more gifted than others or are miscalibrated by a few thousands it is incredibly hard to make a huge splash. My claim was that I think I could beabout 300 higher than my average mmr which is not really much and that it is mostly teammates that decide games when you are close but not yet at your "true mmr". Then you pull out games that literally prove the point that I can not make a huge splash and act as if they contradict me. In both your quoted games teammates dove enemy bases, had no tps etc. Both games I had to whip them to take roshan, in the drow games I even smoke roshed solo to get shit going. That is not all that went wrong I would not do wrong but just so you get the basic idea.
Yes, if I was much better I would solo carry these games. But that is exactly the point... I am not a huge deal better, just a little bit. And that makes it hard to turn games alone and mmr very volatile around a certain point.
To me it seems you do not read my posts. You just assume I am rambling about being truly 6k while being merely 2k/3k and that I am delusional dogshit. You do not even pretend to care about or understand the arguments. You seem to get your fun from bashing other people no matter how hard you have to contort and twist what they actually said. And that is just something I will not give you anymore.
Yo Kenshin, u the OPs main? Wat was the arguement here again? Is it something that the doto tradition of 1v1 can solve man? :]
Cos it be interesting Samps Ember vs Kenshins PA! :D
I do not know OP. I only have this one account... Too many items and no interest in smurfing. No reason to too, because I think I can reach 3,2k or whatever my true mmr is (150 to go...) the normal way.
The argument apparently does not matter because it is argued against something I explicitly said the contrary of.
'I said that I am better in several non-mechanical ways that are hard to translate into game wins.'
You just went full retard
Dude you have no culture when it comes to arguments. You pick someting out of context, try to give it a new tone and then act as if you refuted everything I said. Then you do some meme stuff. You still have not done anything but argue ad hominem, build straw men and memed your way around. To be honest I am just sad that you are so blatantly trying to use thinly veiled eristic dialectics and do not even recognise it. You are just a troll and I will not honor you with any further comments unless you argue without being personal or ridiculous. You are bad at arguing and thus try to force people into sumbission by outlasting them with your rethoric diarrhea and win by them tapping out. You got me. I tap out. This is such a bad form you are displaying that I have to assume you are trolling.
Are you good at buying clarities? friendly team banter? using console commands? what exactly?
Lütfen yorum yapmak için giriş yapınız
I started to think we are wasting time and mind on this useless MMR bullshit.
I mean before we play ranked and know the concept of MMR we just wanna do well and win game. Win and you turn off the comp happy. But after u calibrated you start to think about raising it.