PDA

View Full Version : [suggestion] winning team has bigger chance of getting the items



obro
06-09-2012, 05:09 AM
In bunch of games the team who won got no items and the team who lost got all of them. There really needs to be a higher chance of drop for the winning team.

Nerdstick
06-09-2012, 05:25 AM
Because when you lose a game it not only sucks because you lost, but you get to lose item chances too?

Base it on individual performance if anything, but I'd prefer everyone have a chance.

obro
06-09-2012, 05:42 AM
Not saying lose item chance but have it decreased. So you win a great game play great other team act like morons and they get items? Is that better than what you said?

Ponto
06-09-2012, 05:46 AM
Dont think that the itens should go to "better gameplay" it should be just a completly random thing
You get more just by playing... Its not like you "deserved" them... they do nothing anyway

obro
06-09-2012, 05:52 AM
I know they dont do antyhing but still it would promote people to play better.

obro
06-11-2012, 03:24 PM
Ok I just had bunch of games today where losing team got all the items and not only that mostly people who sucked the most got them. This just isnt right.

Pilzquadrat
06-11-2012, 06:44 PM
It's perfectly good the way it is. Totally random.

Makes losing not feel as bad, cause you still got the chance for an item. Game wasn't in vain.
And if the stomper gets an item, he feels like rewarded twice.

Nothing wrong with current system.

Shouldn't punish the losers another time.

beinbliss
06-12-2012, 03:51 AM
I think it should be in opposite. Losing team has more chance to get items, while winning team gets more battle points

d34th25
06-12-2012, 08:01 AM
I think it should be in opposite. Losing team has more chance to get items, while winning team gets more battle points
Every one will just lose then. Items are way more valuable then battle points.

IMO maybe 60% chance to winning team 40% losing team.

ChadiX
06-12-2012, 08:16 AM
I also think that the chance of items for the winning team should be a bit higher in comparison to the losing team; why shouldnt the winners be rewarded for their win ? Maybe set the chance to 65 % - 35 %
Because most of the players like cosmetic items, they might play a bit better the next game in terms of picks and playstyle in order to win.

Kevinriz9r
06-12-2012, 08:26 AM
- no sorry

Clerono
06-12-2012, 01:39 PM
In my last matches the losing team always got items, while the winning got nothing except for one exception when one of my teammates got an item.
Should be so winning team gets at least 1 item and everything else is random, or winning team has more chances to get them.

Nerdstick
06-12-2012, 02:47 PM
All this will do is lead to more grief when you lose. I'm fairly certain you get more battle points when you win, leave it at that. Having the same chances at items when you lose is one of the only upsides.

ViciousJawa
06-12-2012, 02:56 PM
A slightly higher chance of getting an item on the winning side wouldn't be bad, to give those who only care for items a little incentive.
Doesn't have to be much. Maybe 15% increased odds or something

Aravis
10-10-2012, 03:08 AM
This should definatly be done.
I cant believe how people dont want this. Anybody with winrate >50% should support this ;)

The game needs a higher incentive to win it. Atm only the satisfaction to win it is there. Nothing else.

I would go as far as taking the losing team chance of drops and add it to the winning team. (lvlup items stay ofc. as do battlepoints for both)

Monsterlord
10-10-2012, 09:15 AM
Anybody with winrate >50% should support this

You do know that's retarded, right? Over 50% means the matchmaking will rig your games so a loss becomes more and more guaranteed.

Albain
10-10-2012, 02:10 PM
Because when you lose a game it not only sucks because you lost, but you get to lose item chances too?

Base it on individual performance if anything, but I'd prefer everyone have a chance.

Sorry I disagree with you completely. Winning should matter, it should matter a lot. You know what maybe people would play more as a team, and buy good items and try to win, unlike my Pugna last game who went dagon 3.

jim109109
10-10-2012, 05:32 PM
If you don't give people incentive to win, imagine this situation. You sometimes play with those noobs that suck so bad and are 0 - 10. You tell them to try harder, and they answer "I don't play to win, I play for fun". I can honestly say that nothing pisses me off more than these types of people who play games without attempting to win. The game itself is to try and find a way to win. It's like playing monopoly while actively never trying to win. Are you actually playing it at all? What kind of match will you get? Will you be excited when you get an advantage? Will you care at all about the game?

These "oblivious", "apathetic" players make the game not even worthy to be played at all.
No, make players want to win as much as possible, make the stakes higher, make matches more exciting.
This is how item chances should be: 100% to winners, 0% to losers

Nerdstick
10-10-2012, 06:40 PM
Sorry I disagree with you completely. Winning should matter, it should matter a lot. You know what maybe people would play more as a team, and buy good items and try to win, unlike my Pugna last game who went dagon 3.

It matters a lot..if you want to win. I'm so sure that if the MINUSCULE chance at getting an item was only there if you won that Pugna would have went a serious build, securing your victory.

Sarcasm of course, Pugna went a Dagon 3 because he wanted to get a Dagon 3. So what? The point of the item system is an incentive and reward for playing the game, completely unaffected by winning or losing, random. And then I'm sure you'd come to the board to cry how the Pugna not only ruined your game, but lost you your item chance. There's nothing to suggest that an incentive for winning would make people play more seriously, but there are some pretty big consequences for the removal of chances for losses.

And the funny part is that there's no chance that someone that lost the game getting an item cost you a chance at getting an item.
Or to spell it out for you, if OP's suggestion were to come to light, you'd have NO higher chance of getting an item. All that would happen is you'd lose your chance at an item when you lose a game. Loss loss, anybody who would +1 this is an idiot, end of story.



No, make players want to win as much as possible, make the stakes higher, make matches more exciting.
This is how item chances should be: 100% to winners, 0% to losers

Again, only alloting items to winners does nothing to change these players. And how then does that logic work? You'd not only have someone ruin your game, but you'd lose your item chance because of them on top of it. See above for why this is such an awful idea.



The alternative that I suggested to OP was that you can't have this kind of suggestion without basing it on individual performance. This way even if you lose, so long as you performed well, you'd have higher item chances over the guy that played awfully (such as the ones you guys are somehow using as an excuse for such a system to be implemented). This way win or lose, if you perform well, you get an item. This is the only 'winner' system that would work. Except even that's flawed (supports), and it's still a silly suggestion when the current system works fine as is. Stop being greedy item-mongers and play the game.

jim109109
10-10-2012, 07:12 PM
Individual performance would kill team play, people wouldn't want to play supports but rather those hero who get a high GPM, for better items. This is why a team-based win is the best solution. It is possible a noob ruins your game but if you're a better player you have higher chances for your team to win the game, and everybody has to deal with this.

Dota isn't an invidual game it's a team game

Radio
10-10-2012, 07:26 PM
If I have to be honest I don't see anything negative in this. It would push people who are interested in items to pick better and perform better which results in less trolling; it would also fix the problem of botting for items that's slowly taking root. People tend to have 50% winrate so it wouldn't really affect the rate of drops.

The only argument against this so far is "oh well but it makes losing more bearable" which in my opinion doesn't outweigh the good things about it.

Albain
10-10-2012, 08:32 PM
It matters a lot..if you want to win. I'm so sure that if the MINUSCULE chance at getting an item was only there if you won that Pugna would have went a serious build, securing your victory.

Sarcasm of course, Pugna went a Dagon 3 because he wanted to get a Dagon 3. So what? The point of the item system is an incentive and reward for playing the game, completely unaffected by winning or losing, random. And then I'm sure you'd come to the board to cry how the Pugna not only ruined your game, but lost you your item chance. There's nothing to suggest that an incentive for winning would make people play more seriously, but there are some pretty big consequences for the removal of chances for losses.

And the funny part is that there's no chance that someone that lost the game getting an item cost you a chance at getting an item.
Or to spell it out for you, if OP's suggestion were to come to light, you'd have NO higher chance of getting an item. All that would happen is you'd lose your chance at an item when you lose a game. Loss loss, anybody who would +1 this is an idiot, end of story.



Again, only alloting items to winners does nothing to change these players. And how then does that logic work? You'd not only have someone ruin your game, but you'd lose your item chance because of them on top of it. See above for why this is such an awful idea.



The alternative that I suggested to OP was that you can't have this kind of suggestion without basing it on individual performance. This way even if you lose, so long as you performed well, you'd have higher item chances over the guy that played awfully (such as the ones you guys are somehow using as an excuse for such a system to be implemented). This way win or lose, if you perform well, you get an item. This is the only 'winner' system that would work. Except even that's flawed (supports), and it's still a silly suggestion when the current system works fine as is. Stop being greedy item-mongers and play the game.

Nerd, you are sooo wrong on every facet of this argument. So lets base it on individual play, ok so I ks like a BOSS on zeus, instead of use my ult at the start of a team fight. I can't tell you how off you are on this.

The only measuring stick is winning so I think it should be rewarded. You argument is speculative and hearsay, I said maybe people will play a bit more serious and try and win the game, that is a fair statement.

And who determines who played good ? Is it my 0-6-15 lion that bought all couriers all the wards at least 20 sets of sentries, dust smoke did not ks with ult on purpose ? We won that game, but my performance bar went down half a bar, lol.

I am sure you would think my 32-5 sven game should deserve something right ? Who cares it's a team game and I had awesome support that game, the team should be rewarded.

Nerdstick
10-10-2012, 11:13 PM
Thanks for going on a tangent and only responding to the one part of my argument I already disputed myself? I was saying how that idea is superior to the one you're proposing, and then I shut it down as well and said that the current system is fine as is. Why bother disputing it's validity when I already dismissed it? Don't bother debating personal performance, your Lion example is exactly as I mentioned in my post, it's flawed, especially for supports, just as team-based rewarding is. The ONLY fair system is a random system, end of story.

And no, I don't think your 32-5 sven game deserves a reward. Items should have nothing to do with performance, other than disqualifying you under certain circumstances (such as abandoning). You got what you earned: a win. Saying that people that don't try to win currently will try to win because of item chances isn't speculative and hearsay? OKAY. :rolleyes:

And as I already mentioned the idea is flawed in how the system (presumably) works, everybody has a set chance of getting an item at the end of every game.
Knowing this, how exactly would you implement a 'winners get item' system? The only way it's possible is by depriving the loser's team their chances at an item. The winning team would get no more items than they currently do. Wonderful idea.
And then you have to look at how matchmaking works. It's designed so that you should win 50% of your games on average. Again, how exactly would this system benefit us? You'd get the same amount of items, or half as many items. Wonderful idea.

And lastly, items aren't the point. Items should never be your motivation for playing, nor should they affect the way you play. If you're playing DOTA2 for items rather than the fun of playing and the fun of winning, you're playing the wrong game.

chrisfrh
10-11-2012, 02:46 PM
+1 I guess

GrandBreaker
10-11-2012, 02:54 PM
+1 on the OP. According to Valve's logic, people like winning hats for free. So, there are too many people who play like shit and simply don't care about the game, and its because they can get hats by LOSING the match. Please remove the ability for the losing team to get items.

Mind you this is Valve's own logic. Winning team should earn free hats, losing team should get nothing. Gives more incentive to actually play. If you vote -1 on this, then your one of the morons who doesn't try to win at all.

GrandBreaker
10-11-2012, 02:56 PM
Nerd, you are sooo wrong on every facet of this argument. So lets base it on individual play, ok so I ks like a BOSS on zeus, instead of use my ult at the start of a team fight. I can't tell you how off you are on this.

The only measuring stick is winning so I think it should be rewarded. You argument is speculative and hearsay, I said maybe people will play a bit more serious and try and win the game, that is a fair statement.

And who determines who played good ? Is it my 0-6-15 lion that bought all couriers all the wards at least 20 sets of sentries, dust smoke did not ks with ult on purpose ? We won that game, but my performance bar went down half a bar, lol.

I am sure you would think my 32-5 sven game should deserve something right ? Who cares it's a team game and I had awesome support that game, the team should be rewarded.

If you KS like a baws on Zeus, your team will most likely lose. Don't take this the wrong way, but Zeus isn't really a strong carry hero, hes powerful yes but hes maybe mid tier. 9 times out of 10 a KSing Zeus will lose the match, and if the losing team gets no hats, he'll learn really fast not to be KS'ing.

Nerdstick
10-12-2012, 03:40 AM
Mind you this is Valve's own logic. Winning team should earn free hats, losing team should get nothing. Gives more incentive to actually play. If you vote -1 on this, then your one of the morons who doesn't try to win at all.

And this is the general logic of someone who would upvote this idea, someone who would call you a moron if you disagree.
If you're seriously at an MMR where the only motivation people would have to try and win is items then I feel pretty sorry for you. How about we come to a truce and impliment 'winner rewards' for low-bracket MMR players? Maybe then you'll get better.

But seriously if you're going to play it like that I vote they remove items for playing altogether just so all you people quit the game and stop posting bad ideas.

Albain
10-12-2012, 05:12 AM
If you KS like a baws on Zeus, your team will most likely lose. Don't take this the wrong way, but Zeus isn't really a strong carry hero, hes powerful yes but hes maybe mid tier. 9 times out of 10 a KSing Zeus will lose the match, and if the losing team gets no hats, he'll learn really fast not to be KS'ing.

Try reading next time ok ? I said if it was based on player skill level like NERD SUGGESTED, then this could happen even more. I am for the winning team getting items and the losing team NADA.

Enhance
10-12-2012, 05:33 AM
Good motivation for winning, yes, but next step would be "I played awesomely and carried whole team helping everyone out, and this loser/feeder in my team got some mythical stuff when I got nothing for the game", suggestion would pass that it's based on individual results => ks galore / supporters crying.

"More chance to get it" on winning team would be fine though, but I find it alright as it is. Random is random. I got my Mythical/Rare items precisely when I was MVP in a match anyway.

Nerdstick
10-12-2012, 07:42 AM
Try reading next time ok ? I said if it was based on player skill level like NERD SUGGESTED, then this could happen even more. I am for the winning team getting items and the losing team NADA.

Try reading next time ok ? I didn't suggest that as an actual idea, just as an alternative to this topic and said for the second time that I already threw it out.

Enhance has some sense.

Albain
10-12-2012, 03:21 PM
Try reading next time ok ? I didn't suggest that as an actual idea, just as an alternative to this topic and said for the second time that I already threw it out.

Enhance has some sense.

Nerd, I was talking to Grand he seems to be confused lol. I know bud, I am just using your example of why I feel the winning team should be the only ones to get items.

BJSV
10-12-2012, 04:15 PM
I would like to see this.
Enemy team goes afk at min 10 and only they got items... makes you feel weird. Dont know if I should afk more. This whole item thing makes you feel like you lost even though you win when you see enemy getting mythicals for leaving the games or for afking, while I cant even get rare not to mention mythical items.

Aravis
10-13-2012, 01:55 PM
And lastly, items aren't the point. Items should never be your motivation for playing, nor should they affect the way you play. If you're playing DOTA2 for items rather than the fun of playing and the fun of winning, you're playing the wrong game.
If dont care, why bother discussing here? As you see it matters for the players here. Nobody said that items were the motivation to play. Or how do you explain there are people currently playing.

Its an incentive to try to win. Not giving up. Fight.

Nerdstick
10-13-2012, 02:12 PM
If dont care, why bother discussing here? As you see it matters for the players here. Nobody said that items were the motivation to play. Or how do you explain there are people currently playing.

Its an incentive to try to win. Not giving up. Fight.

Because I do like items and the item system the way it is, but it's not why I play the game, unlike some of the people here. That sort of dismissive argument is like saying "If you don't like Alpine Ursa, don't buy it?".

Your incentive to try to win, to not give up, and to fight..is to win. The current item chance is what, like 1/10 currently, if that?

The only argument that I've seen repeated over and over is 'it'll make people want to win', but no, it won't. If somehow there are people that would otherwise give up the game, there's no way in hell you're telling me that a 1/5 chance at an item instead of a 1/10 chance at an item is somehow going to give them that drive.

The only honest answer comes out of BJSV (banned, but regardless): Jealousy out of seeing the losing team get items, and I'm sure that's all of your reasoning.

But if you're going to play it like that, I can apply your same broken logic in reverse: In that same sense, someone could just as easily -give up a game- when they feel like their loss is assured because the rest of the game is a waste when a loss will guarantee no cosmetics. May as well afk at base and wait for the next game, right? It's just as much an incentive for people to win a game they can win as it is to give up a game that they feel is lost.

Huntersteve
10-13-2012, 03:35 PM
Because I do like items and the item system the way it is, but it's not why I play the game, unlike some of the people here. That sort of dismissive argument is like saying "If you don't like Alpine Ursa, don't buy it?".

Your incentive to try to win, to not give up, and to fight..is to win. The current item chance is what, like 1/10 currently, if that?

The only argument that I've seen repeated over and over is 'it'll make people want to win', but no, it won't. If somehow there are people that would otherwise give up the game, there's no way in hell you're telling me that a 1/5 chance at an item instead of a 1/10 chance at an item is somehow going to give them that drive.

The only honest answer comes out of BJSV (banned, but regardless): Jealousy out of seeing the losing team get items, and I'm sure that's all of your reasoning.

But if you're going to play it like that, I can apply your same broken logic in reverse: In that same sense, someone could just as easily -give up a game- when they feel like their loss is assured because the rest of the game is a waste when a loss will guarantee no cosmetics. May as well afk at base and wait for the next game, right? It's just as much an incentive for people to win a game they can win as it is to give up a game that they feel is lost.

Implying people don't already afk in fountain and sit there when they are getting stomped.

Nerdstick
10-13-2012, 05:08 PM
Implying people don't already afk in fountain and sit there when they are getting stomped.

No? I implied the opposite. Do you really want to give them -another- incentive to give up?

jim109109
10-14-2012, 05:30 PM
But if you're going to play it like that, I can apply your same broken logic in reverse: In that same sense, someone could just as easily -give up a game- when they feel like their loss is assured because the rest of the game is a waste when a loss will guarantee no cosmetics. May as well afk at base and wait for the next game, right? It's just as much an incentive for people to win a game they can win as it is to give up a game that they feel is lost.

Right now, you get prizes even if you lost - therefore you can sit in fountain if you're getting stomped, no reason not to.
If only winners got items - more incentive to try and win and not sit in fountain.


when a loss will guarantee no cosmetics. May as well afk at base and wait for the next game, right?

how do you even make that association?

GrandBreaker
10-14-2012, 06:40 PM
And this is the general logic of someone who would upvote this idea, someone who would call you a moron if you disagree.
If you're seriously at an MMR where the only motivation people would have to try and win is items then I feel pretty sorry for you. How about we come to a truce and impliment 'winner rewards' for low-bracket MMR players? Maybe then you'll get better.

But seriously if you're going to play it like that I vote they remove items for playing altogether just so all you people quit the game and stop posting bad ideas.

You assume that I don't win, which is one of your arguments flaws. Likewise, you seem to completely ignore the fact that there are winners AND losers in EVERY bracket. Even the lower brackets. I'll call you a moron because the things you say are retarded, not because you disagree with me. Thats what you did, good sir.


Good motivation for winning, yes, but next step would be "I played awesomely and carried whole team helping everyone out, and this loser/feeder in my team got some mythical stuff when I got nothing for the game", suggestion would pass that it's based on individual results => ks galore / supporters crying.

"More chance to get it" on winning team would be fine though, but I find it alright as it is. Random is random. I got my Mythical/Rare items precisely when I was MVP in a match anyway.

This is why Valve needs to be able to put their foots down. If they change it to "Only members of the winning team can get items at the end of a match" they will accept a stance that is far more beneficial to promoting ACTUAL GAME PLAY from the community as a whole, since we are all here (supposedly) to play the game in the first place. If they accept this, then when players whine and say that they want hats even when they win, Valve needs to be able to say "gtfo and get better". No one expects you to be able to win EVERY game, but EVERYONE expects you to try and not just afk or half ass it because you KNOW you can get a hat anyway.


how do you even make that association?

He makes that association because it's what he would do. He's probably one of the people that just afk's in the fountain when hes getting stomped too.

Nerdstick
10-14-2012, 10:45 PM
Right now, you get prizes even if you lost - therefore you can sit in fountain if you're getting stomped, no reason not to.
If only winners got items - more incentive to try and win and not sit in fountain.
how do you even make that association?

There is no association to make in ANY case. There is no evidence to suggest that people would try harder to win if this system were in place, and there's no evidence to suggest people would try less. That was my point. There's just as much evidence that someone would say "I think I'm going to lose, but I'll keep trying for cosmetics" as there is evidence that someone would say "I already feel like this game is a lost cause and now that cosmetics are win-based, just one more incentive to throw in the towel instead of elongating a game I'm going to lose". You can pretend that people that would normally rage-quit will stay in the game to try to win cosmetics, I can pretend that people that would normally rage-quit will have less reason to stay in a game they think they're going to lose.

As for GrandBreaker: I wasn't being serious, I was pointing out that you're drawing unfair conclusions about people. Like calling them a moron for disagreeing for instance. I was also pointing out 'one of your argument flaws', drawing false conclusions, by drawing a false conclusion that you must be at a low MMR because of your suggestion. Nobody AFKs because they'll get a hat anyways, they AFK because they gave up the game, and cosmetics -isn't going to change that-. And as I mentioned earlier, there's just as much reason to believe it could cause the exact opposite as well, an extra incentive to rage-quit a game you know is lost. The only way to promote actual GAMEPLAY is by removing cosmetics from the equation at all. Like..by awarding them completely at random! Honestly the best idea would probably be to not show you the rewards anybody else got, then nobody would have anything to complain about.

As you mention in your first few sentences, there are winners and losers in every bracket. The matchmaking strives for you to have a 50% win-rate on average. So it would make no sense for you to 'get better', -you'll be winning the same amount of games no matter how good you are-, you contradict yourself in your very argument.

And no, I never afk, and have 0 abandons on record. I play the game for fun with cosmetics as a bonus for playing the game, and I find it sad that there are people who will actually complain and whine about the losing team getting items, that's not the point of playing the game, and I'd rather they remove item drops altogether than adopt this system.

And stop with the insults, seriously.



To make my argument more clear as you guys aren't seeing it, take it this way: Imagine that there is no Abandon system and that you can leave any game at any time without consequence. If you think you're going to lose a game, you can leave and start the next one for a new chance. However, if you stay and lose, or leave and lose, you lose your chance at cosmetics.

You guys honestly believe that this person on the verge of ragequit would rather stay and elongate a game that they think is over and don't want to play anymore just for a CHANCE at cosmetics if they manage to win?

Or, like me, do you believe that the loss of cosmetics in a game they already believe is done with is just -that much more- of an incentive to start a new game? Why would they possibly bother to stay in a game they think is lost and don't want to play in any longer for a -chance- at winning for a -chance- at cosmetics when they can simply start a new game they think they can win?

My point was that either situation can happen. You have JUST as much reason to suggest that someone will for some reason keep playing a game they would otherwise quit as I have to suggest that all it would provide is that much more of a reason to call it quits on a lost game as at that point it is a COMPLETE waste of time, you don't even have cosmetics left to play for. It is completely bogus speculation and not worth changing the current system as it stands. And this doesn't even take into account the numerous other arguments to take against it, such as Enhance's post: that rather than items 'unfairly' going to the losing team you'd then see items 'unfairly' going to your teammate that did not perform up to par. And even -if- it were implemented and -somehow- your hypothetical situation where someone perseveres, where's the results? What will be of the complaints: 'I was going to ragequit this game, but with the new item system I decided I'd persevere. It took an hour of the hardest game I've ever played, we finally managed to win, and we got NO items. wtf? I should have just quit." Or how about the fact that it's meant to be a suggestion to motivate people to play, but could very well serve only to -demotivate- people that lose multiple times from wanting to play. In that sense it completely defeats it's purpose, again.

Where does it end? With this horrible suggestion.

Anonal
10-15-2012, 02:07 PM
I personally feel like player performance should be the prime factor in determining drop and exp rates, at least this way you can still have some motivation to play well and still know you're likely to get an item despite winning or losing. Heck, I've seen leavers who get items at the end of the game despite being nothing but a detriment to the game. I find it completely illogical that afkers, feeders and leavers should have any chance at all to win items.
Or even better yet, reward players for playing their role as they should (ie. supports buying wards and not taking kills, carries farming well and carrying the team, etc.)

Nerdstick
10-15-2012, 03:21 PM
I personally feel like player performance should be the prime factor in determining drop and exp rates, at least this way you can still have some motivation to play well and still know you're likely to get an item despite winning or losing. Heck, I've seen leavers who get items at the end of the game despite being nothing but a detriment to the game. I find it completely illogical that afkers, feeders and leavers should have any chance at all to win items.
Or even better yet, reward players for playing their role as they should (ie. supports buying wards and not taking kills, carries farming well and carrying the team, etc.)

That was my first response to the topic. This idea assumes that whoever wins deserves to win, basing it on individual performance makes more sense but there's no way to measure it accurately (such as you say, roles). AFKers will get abandons, leavers get abandons, and abandons = no items. Even if the system isn't perfect as-is, this suggestion wouldn't help anything.

For the sake of it, here's another better suggestion: Basing the rate on your MMR. This means if you throw games, you drop in rank, you get less items. If you play well and better yourself, you get more items. Bases it on individual performance, roles excluded.

falconD
10-15-2012, 03:30 PM
I am so lol'ing at people who think that giving items to winners only will make people play better. Hah! With current playbase of this game, what you will get is: "Mid has given them FB OMG finish plz I don't want to stay in this game anymoar, I won't get items anyway!" *leaves*

Games will turn into 5-minute stomps with one team afk.

kingduckling
10-15-2012, 04:08 PM
I am so lol'ing at people who think that giving items to winners only will make people play better. Hah! With current playbase of this game, what you will get is: "Mid has given them FB OMG finish plz I don't want to stay in this game anymoar, I won't get items anyway!" *leaves*

Games will turn into 5-minute stomps with one team afk.
you dont play the game because item drop,item drops are like the cherries on top of the cake really.....and we all know cherries are for the skull fuckers not the skull fucked.

falconD
10-15-2012, 04:24 PM
you dont play the game because item drop,item drops are like the cherries on top of the cake really.....and we all know cherries are for the skull fuckers not the skull fucked.

I do not play the game for the items... Unless the game is inevitably lost. If I see that this game is surely lost, I am still there playing not because I'm afraid of LPQ - nah, I have smurf for that; I just want BP and items (as leavers do not get them).

But with the system described, people will start leaving very early in the game, and this is something we all would Like to avoid, now wouldn't we?

Nerdstick
10-15-2012, 04:39 PM
you dont play the game because item drop,item drops are like the cherries on top of the cake really.....and we all know cherries are for the skull fuckers not the skull fucked.

You realize that all you're doing is proving his point? Exactly as you say, you don't play the game for items. The ENTIRE justification that OP and other posters have been making for this suggestion is that winning for a chance at items will make people play more seriously, to win. And as you put it: You don't play for items.

kingduckling
10-16-2012, 07:05 AM
You realize that all you're doing is proving his point? Exactly as you say, you don't play the game for items. The ENTIRE justification that OP and other posters have been making for this suggestion is that winning for a chance at items will make people play more seriously, to win. And as you put it: You don't play for items.
yes ofc,most veterans dont really give to shits about items etc,item drop should be used as an incentive to move your low skilled sorry ass up the food chain of dota.Want them good sweet cherries?well its time to step up your fucking game.
i wont give 2 shits if kids want to start a new game because they buried on theyre lane so hard they end up on the other side of the fucking planet.Its a game youre natural interest should be winning the game and developing ways to win the game it might be hard to admit but fucking up the enemy it feels so good because winning feels good....ok ok sometimes its a good game when you dont win,sometime in very rare occasions.
i think the vast majority if people dont like it when they lose the game.
also if these kids start griefing omg omg we wont get shit just report them(if you cant wait this report system to get improved).
giving giving a slight advantage to the winning team is good,even tough item drop wise it not even noticeable.
so recap most players that have lets say 1000 + games wont care about items etc because lets say they could appreciate the game for what it is,but kids and clowns need items as an incentive to play.

Rugz
10-16-2012, 07:37 AM
,item drop should be used as an incentive to move your low skilled sorry ass up the food chain of dota.

Not being in the Plankton & Friends bracket should be all the incentive anyone needs to stop being horrendous at the game. Items should be given to the losing team so that winning requires the willpower to actually be good rather than to collect cosmetics.

kingduckling
10-16-2012, 08:40 AM
Not being in the Plankton & Friends bracket should be all the incentive anyone needs to stop being horrendous at the game. Items should be given to the losing team so that winning requires the willpower to actually be good rather than to collect cosmetics.
yes omg this is so true we have to make bads feel good about theyre gameplay,i get youre point i really do(but then again your point is a double edge sword heh) but i dont think its a good approach giving a reward for not doing your "job",You shouldnt get more if you fuck up and lose the game.
but in the end it can be argued either way and make it sound thats a good idea,but they do have different outcomes(if you have common sense you should know the end behaviour of players)->
you guys are saying that if the winning team has 60% chance
-losing team will be like omg we dont want play anymore,winning team is cool they are winning getting a higher change
if losing team has 60% change
-i think they will be contempt to lose the game regardless,because they get items->this is bad because it also serves as a justification for not doing shit to improve theyre current game
this is like so dumb i dont even feel like elaborating(also its a bit harder for since english is not my native language),giving higher item drop to losing team is like giving your dog a fucking treat for shiting in your bed.
also that plankton and friend remark made me giggle a bit :D!!

Nerdstick
10-16-2012, 09:30 AM
You're forgetting that winning has little to do with personal performance in a team game. I can play perfectly and still lose if my team drops the ball. And as I've said about infinite times now, there is NO evidence that people will step their game up because of this. All it will be is a demotivation to the losing team and negligible towards the winners, items aren't the point of playing and shouldn't be treated as such, etc etc.

And as I've said you've just as much evidence that people will try harder to win as I can say people will try less. This suggestion is pointless, if not harmful. You're free to make a valid argument but "people will try harder to win" isn't one. By the topic's logic we may as well have you earn 0BP if you lose the game, after all we need an incentive to win and then people will play seriously, right? More likely it would be suffering to continually lose games. This just reeks of illogical elitism.

But to specify how negligible this is towards the winners, we'll use your stats kingduckling. 884 games, 52.71% winrate. I'm going to guess that the chance of earning a random cosmetic is 10%. 2.71% (positive winrate) of 884 games is..30 wins! You're 30 wins positive compared to losses. Under this suggestion you'd have gained an additional 30 chances at cosmetics. Or roughly 3 (most likely common) cosmetics, for 884 games, under this idea. Assuming my math is correct, but saying it's within a few cosmetics is fine. But those 3 cosmetics comes at the loss of how many frustrating games you'd have lost because of a feeder/griefer on your team costing you your chance, and win.

Of course, this would be all the more negligible for anybody with less wins. If you have 100 wins with a 55% win-rate, that would be what, half of a cosmetic in profit? Wonderful. There's no way to know exact numbers since we don't know the item rate nor the bonus chance the winning team would get compared to norm under this idea, but my point is that it is completely negligible. Pointless. This is nowhere near worth the frustration it would cause.

kingduckling
10-16-2012, 10:21 AM
well ofc the math makes sense since the majority if people will will be around 50%(gauss bell theory) percent win/loss.so in the end i wont matter.but it would feel more rewarding to win and more painful to lose,which yes it would cause overall balance issues.Random drop is ok to me dont get me wrong,i was just stating why i think if there would be a choice the winners should be rewarded slightly more.
and yes this might be a horrible approach of improving gameplay.
but then again :D the majority if people are hedonistic are the immediate reward would feel better(ofc in reality is close to nothing as the your math showed).So in my eyes it has a slight potential but the more replies i see the more i get the impression that its not worth investing time in it.
hehe i still hope valve is working on visible ladder system :P

and as an overall note i dont think that either of winning or losing side should get an advantage but i felt a bit brain zapped when people said that losing side should get it.

MrH
10-16-2012, 11:07 AM
I would like to see it based on personal performance, the guy who went 0 - 15 on the winning team doesn't deserve a higher chance at items over the guy who went 15 - 0 on the losing team.

Nerdstick
10-16-2012, 12:45 PM
I would like to see it based on personal performance, the guy who went 0 - 15 on the winning team doesn't deserve a higher chance at items over the guy who went 15 - 0 on the losing team.

That's the point I was trying to make, but even that is flawed in that there's no way to measure personal performance. Such a system would exclude supports.

NoGoN
10-16-2012, 03:21 PM
This is a dumb idea close this thread lol based on chance for a reason everyone has the same chance fair is fair just cause a guy had a poor game doesnt mean we should slap him in the face for it. This obro guy is just a QQ biotch.

jim109109
10-16-2012, 05:31 PM
There is no association to make in ANY case. There is no evidence to suggest that people would try harder to win if this system were in place, and there's no evidence to suggest people would try less. That was my point.

Given that
-> People want items
And that
-> Winning gives items
Then
-> People will want to win

It's that simple, if you still don't understand the association can be made, I can't do anything more for you.

Albain
10-16-2012, 06:06 PM
I would like to see it based on personal performance, the guy who went 0 - 15 on the winning team doesn't deserve a higher chance at items over the guy who went 15 - 0 on the losing team.

You just don't get it do you. It is a team game and it takes a team to win. Basing it on personal performance is so bad on so many levels I don't have enough time to delve into it. Let's put it like this, Guys rushes for 150 yards and scores 3 touchdowns in a football game. I guarantee you he would trade his stats for a win, and if doesn't he shouldn't be on a team anyway.

Nerdstick
10-16-2012, 07:11 PM
Given that
-> People want items
And that
-> Winning gives items
Then
-> People will want to win

It's that simple, if you still don't understand the association can be made, I can't do anything more for you.

-> People will ragequit
and that
-> losing gives no items
then
-> people will want to ragequit

I've already said, it can be made. But there is NO evidence. It's all speculation. And you can just as easily speculate the opposite. It's a stupid idea. You shouldn't be playing for cosmetics, so again, stupid idea. It benefits nobody and only causes aggravation, again, stupid idea.


You just don't get it do you. It is a team game and it takes a team to win. Basing it on personal performance is so bad on so many levels I don't have enough time to delve into it. Let's put it like this, Guys rushes for 150 yards and scores 3 touchdowns in a football game. I guarantee you he would trade his stats for a win, and if doesn't he shouldn't be on a team anyway.

You just don't get it do you. This idea is so bad on so many levels. The entire point of this idea is to reward people for their winning performances. In the same way that it's broken to reward individual performance, it's more-so broken to reward team performance because individuals on said team don't necessarily deserve items any more than the losing teams members. If my team wins with me as a 1/10/2 Chaos Knight, it's not fair for me to win items over the enemy team's 15/2/11 Morphling just because my team won.

Do you go by Albain in-game? Because the only Albain has less than a 50% win-rate, and is on a huge losing streak. His last game was a 13/6/14 Clockwerk that he LOST. How you'd be in favor of this idea is beyond me.

Rugz
10-17-2012, 01:20 AM
Given that
-> People want items
And that
-> Winning gives items
Then
-> People will want to win

It's that simple, if you still don't understand the association can be made, I can't do anything more for you.

Given that
-> People want to win
Then
-> Items are irrelevant

Unless you are implying that without items people would play to lose.

Albain
10-17-2012, 07:26 AM
-> People will ragequit
and that
-> losing gives no items
then
-> people will want to ragequit

I've already said, it can be made. But there is NO evidence. It's all speculation. And you can just as easily speculate the opposite. It's a stupid idea. You shouldn't be playing for cosmetics, so again, stupid idea. It benefits nobody and only causes aggravation, again, stupid idea.



You just don't get it do you. This idea is so bad on so many levels. The entire point of this idea is to reward people for their winning performances. In the same way that it's broken to reward individual performance, it's more-so broken to reward team performance because individuals on said team don't necessarily deserve items any more than the losing teams members. If my team wins with me as a 1/10/2 Chaos Knight, it's not fair for me to win items over the enemy team's 15/2/11 Morphling just because my team won.

Do you go by Albain in-game? Because the only Albain has less than a 50% win-rate, and is on a huge losing streak. His last game was a 13/6/14 Clockwerk that he LOST. How you'd be in favor of this idea is beyond me.

It's a team game man, just want to encourage winning. Many many times I have a good game and am the only positive on my team, but it doesn't matter we lost AS A TEAM.

Albain
10-17-2012, 07:39 AM
->



You just don't get it do you. This idea is so bad on so many levels. The entire point of this idea is to reward people for their winning performances. In the same way that it's broken to reward individual performance, it's more-so broken to reward team performance because individuals on said team don't necessarily deserve items any more than the losing teams members. If my team wins with me as a 1/10/2 Chaos Knight, it's not fair for me to win items over the enemy team's 15/2/11 Morphling just because my team won.

Do you go by Albain in-game? Because the only Albain has less than a 50% win-rate, and is on a huge losing streak. His last game was a 13/6/14 Clockwerk that he LOST. How you'd be in favor of this idea is beyond me.

So nerd on a sidenote, Yes it is me and yes I am currently on a terrible losing streak right now which when it started I was at 50% winrate with 1350 games played. When I first got into the beta I let some of my friends and my girlfriends nephew come over and play A LOT, probably a combined score of 10-90 or worse, lol. I definitely thought valve would reset stats after beta.

Any way match making is just for fun for me if you look at my almost 1,400 game I very very rarely play a carry (omg last void game was a nightmare please dis-regard lol ). I play on a competitive team and in in-house league and sub in for some teams sometimes (not pro but all aspiring even though last game we lost the other team subbed in black no idea how they knew him.) I solo que at least 85% of the time, or I que with my buddy, who has gotten MUCH better but was pretty awful in the beggining.

Matchmaking is not a great barometer for someones true skill level. I specialize at the suicide lane, that is what I have do been doing it FOREVER.

First beta I have ever been in where stats or players were not wiped, but no big deal. If you look at my games many many times I am positive or played very well on the losing team but you know what, I don't feel good because we lost.

Anyway in matchmaking I really like to play so so heroes get LOTS OF HATS, and win. I just wish people would try and win more as a team I think encouraging more loot for the winning team is not only correct BUT A BRILLIANT idea sir, love your name btw.

Nerdstick
10-17-2012, 08:31 AM
If you look at my games many many times I am positive or played very well on the losing team but you know what, I don't feel good because we lost.

That's my point. You more than anyone should know that it already sucks to lose when you had a good game and your team lost it for you. Or to have an upsetting loss, like a Prophet or Wisp backdoor. This item system wouldn't encourage people to play better or play as a team, the item-rate is completely negligible, you'd see no performance gain out of it. But it would be salt in the wound to make those losses even worse by not even having a chance at an item. In that large amount of games you've played I'm sure you've had a large number of upsetting games lost where you got an item at the end. Losing that perk isn't worth a non-existent drive to win.

This logic would practically be the same as saying an entire team would be penalized if someone leaves a game rather than just them getting the abandon. You'd have peer pressure keeping them in, and their teammates would no longer get mad at them but be nice and try and influence them to keep playing. No more ragequits. But like this idea, not true. It's misdirected.

mindfaQ
10-17-2012, 09:07 AM
Noone loses on purpose and those who do probably don't care about the better chance for cosmetics anyway. I don't think Dota 2 is a game where you really need to encourage people to win. Just look at all the flaming that comes up, when someone makes a mistake or the team is in a bad situation. Do you really think people would start to flame, if they did not care about the outcome of the game / wanted to win?

Albain
10-17-2012, 09:20 AM
That's my point. You more than anyone should know that it already sucks to lose when you had a good game and your team lost it for you. Or to have an upsetting loss, like a Prophet or Wisp backdoor. This item system wouldn't encourage people to play better or play as a team, the item-rate is completely negligible, you'd see no performance gain out of it. But it would be salt in the wound to make those losses even worse by not even having a chance at an item. In that large amount of games you've played I'm sure you've had a large number of upsetting games lost where you got an item at the end. Losing that perk isn't worth a non-existent drive to win.

This logic would practically be the same as saying an entire team would be penalized if someone leaves a game rather than just them getting the abandon. You'd have peer pressure keeping them in, and their teammates would no longer get mad at them but be nice and try and influence them to keep playing. No more ragequits. But like this idea, not true. It's misdirected.

I understand your logic a lot more now, I was just trying to encourage team play. I see what your saying : )

TheWilder
10-17-2012, 10:05 AM
I don't think that this is a good idea, basicaly what Nerdstick said
-1

jim109109
10-17-2012, 06:07 PM
Given that
-> People want to win
Then
-> Items are irrelevant

Unless you are implying that without items people would play to lose.

People want to win regardless of items but items add another reason to win.


-> People will ragequit
and that
-> losing gives no items
then
-> people will want to ragequit

Thanks for your argument, arguments can indeed be made for both sides of the debate. I see what you mean. After all every player is different.

I feel of course that my argument is stronger than yours and it would affect more players [items to winners = people want to win]. In the end it can't be proven to be 100% certain but shouldn't be dismissed for that reason.

Nerdstick
10-17-2012, 08:22 PM
It's beyond idiotic to suggest that a, what, 10% chance at item drops would encourage people to win more than they already do. People already want to win. Even if they doubled the drop rate for winners it would be completely negligible as it would be roughly the same. If Valve simply took away items from losers without touching the rate, heh, jokes on you I guess? I said it jokingly before but I do NOT want to play at an MMR where this would actually influence people. I'm not denying that people would want to win more, yes, I'd want to win more if only winners got items. But it is, again, beyond idiotic to suggest that people would try harder because of it. The only person that would care so little about winning would not give a damn, and if they made this change, guess what: they still wouldn't give a damn. Trading is a FAR more profitable time for items than playing the game for anybody that only plays for items, which is exactly who you're aiming this idea at. The idea is flawed in every way imaginable, misdirected (as I gave an example of earlier, you shouldn't punish a team for a single person's effort, and I'll be damned if you have any justification other than influencing that weakest-link to try to win). All it would do is cause more grief towards the losing team when they lose.

But I think I'm done arguing it if you're the only person left. The fact that you think you have a stronger argument proves it's impossible to sway you no matter how strong an argument I make, sort of like arguing religion. And it's clear you're not going to state anything other than the obviously false 'people will try harder to win!' anyways.

So I'll leave you with this:

I just had a horrible game where 3 people on my team were COMPLETE noobs, they were our 3 carrys. At the same time me and the other support had a positive kill death ratio and more items than any of those 3, despite buying wards and couriers.
The other team sucked really but ours was worst, like if it was their first game almost. And meanwhile I wonder how me and the other guy in my team got stuck in that shit hole game with 8 noobs. IT was NO FUN at all!

A post, by you recently. A game that you felt your teammates ruined for you, where you played strong. 'IT was NO FUN at all!', imagine how fun it would be if at the end of games like this you lost your item chances as well, huh? So much for a 'team game' when you're punished for having a bad team and bad game on top of it.

Some other highlights to show the kind of ideas jim109109 feels will improve the game like this one:

"I wish the UI would get reworked, even in LoL it's so much less imposing and large. I like to see more of the game, as I often say, the UI takes up currently 1/3 of screen space which is completely unacceptable."
"I hope they nerf pudge his hook does 50% of your hp then he disables you for 5 seconds while dealing agian 50% of your hp, plus he moves you to his location, all those things combined makes it op"
"I would quit Dota 2 if I had to play 9 games of LPQ, I would get bored before finishing them / procrastinate playing them."

Not shown is continuous hate towards russians. Clearly not the best source when it comes to ideas for changing the game.

Monsterlord
10-17-2012, 10:56 PM
You had to actually look through his posts to see that he's clueless?

Rugz
10-18-2012, 01:01 AM
People want to win regardless of items but items add another reason to win.

If people want to win regardless, they don't need another reason. If anyone is more motivated to win by items going to the winning team they shouldn't even be given the time of day.

jim109109
10-18-2012, 08:12 AM
I'd appreciate if you weren't such a dick, calling other members idiotic and trying to undermine their credibility by bringing forth quotes from previous threads put out of context. That being said I do stand behind those quotes. I was being polite with you despite your useless insistence on forming full mathematical proofs for every argument being brought forth, killing the conversation because doing so is impossible. From a pragmatic stand point all you are doing is trying to kill any argument coming forth, including your own by the same undermining logic.

I would also appreciate if you didn't automatically disagree with anybody having a contrary opinion to your own because it bruises your pride / low self esteem, people here are willing to see the truth in your arguments but you are insulting and close minded when it comes to reading other people's posts.

To come back to the argument, there is a distinction, it IS possible to want to win, and to want to win MORE. People's motivation to win the game can be further increased.

Na'Vi wants to win any game of Dota but it's nothing compared to how much Na'Vi wanted to win the finals. Do you disagree with this?
If not you have just agreed that stakes can increase a person's will to win.
Even if a "10% chance for items would only increase their will to win by a small amount" it's still a step in the right direction.

If you want to reply to the discussion maturely you are welcome to do so, if you are going to insult me and rage quit the thread saying "I'm the only one left", then please do leave the thread.

Rugz
10-18-2012, 08:50 AM
Na'Vi wants to win any game of Dota but it's nothing compared to how much Na'Vi wanted to win the finals. Do you disagree with this?

I disagree with the implied result, you either play to win or you don't, wanting to win more is not going to make you 'play-to-win more'. There is no sliding scale, you either put in the effort to be victorious or you don't, of course a bigger carrot increases the desire to win, but people don't magically become better at the game when given a bigger incentive.

If people want to win anyway, they don't need items, if people don't want to win, then they shouldn't be enticed to win with items, they should be banned.

GrandBreaker
10-18-2012, 09:02 AM
I am so lol'ing at people who think that giving items to winners only will make people play better. Hah! With current playbase of this game, what you will get is: "Mid has given them FB OMG finish plz I don't want to stay in this game anymoar, I won't get items anyway!" *leaves*

Games will turn into 5-minute stomps with one team afk.

Actually it will make people play better. Currently Valve's report system has as much bite as a baby with no teeth, but HOPEFULLY that will change in the near future. If Valve manages to make this happen, or even if they just make the low priority queue a SEPARATE QUEUE from the normal queue, then immidiatly it will work. Yes, your perfectly free to rage and quit the match if mid gives fb, then you'll be permanently stuck in a queue with crap players and never get another item. Low Priority has potential to be a grand success, but ONLY if it becomes a separate queue and people can't just report you randomly to stick you in it.


I disagree with the implied result, you either play to win or you don't, wanting to win more is not going to make you 'play-to-win more'. There is no sliding scale, you either put in the effort to be victorious or you don't, of course a bigger carrot increases the desire to win, but people don't magically become better at the game when given a bigger incentive.

If people want to win anyway, they don't need items, if people don't want to win, then they shouldn't be enticed to win with items, they should be banned.

Yes, there is a sliding scale. People who play this game do so because they have something to gain out of it. If you give them more to gain they will want more because people are stupid and easily manipulable (Simple fact don't take it personal folks) and if they can only get items by winning their matches, they will immidiatly focus more on winning. Players that don't will never get another item they don't buy, and thus if they troll and can get account banned they won't ever buy an item nor will they really get out of low priority which we HOPE will have some damn teeth about this time.

Nerdstick
10-18-2012, 02:00 PM
Actually it will make people play better. Currently Valve's report system has as much bite as a baby with no teeth, but HOPEFULLY that will change in the near future. If Valve manages to make this happen, or even if they just make the low priority queue a SEPARATE QUEUE from the normal queue, then immidiatly it will work. Yes, your perfectly free to rage and quit the match if mid gives fb, then you'll be permanently stuck in a queue with crap players and never get another item. Low Priority has potential to be a grand success, but ONLY if it becomes a separate queue and people can't just report you randomly to stick you in it.

Yes, there is a sliding scale. People who play this game do so because they have something to gain out of it. If you give them more to gain they will want more because people are stupid and easily manipulable (Simple fact don't take it personal folks) and if they can only get items by winning their matches, they will immidiatly focus more on winning. Players that don't will never get another item they don't buy, and thus if they troll and can get account banned they won't ever buy an item nor will they really get out of low priority which we HOPE will have some damn teeth about this time.

I'm not really seeing what you mean. There's enough motivation to win as it is, a 10% chance at cosmetics is completely negligible. The downsides of the idea are far greater than the -slight- different it -could- make towards people's motivation to win.

But more than anything, isn't it misdirected? If anything you should rally for low priority queue punishments and a reform of the report system to make it do anything. This idea goes about it the wrong way. Such as what I mentioned a number of posts back, you shouldn't punish a team for some bad players.


I'd appreciate if you weren't such a dick, calling other members idiotic and trying to undermine their credibility by bringing forth quotes from previous threads put out of context. That being said I do stand behind those quotes. I was being polite with you despite your useless insistence on forming full mathematical proofs for every argument being brought forth, killing the conversation because doing so is impossible. From a pragmatic stand point all you are doing is trying to kill any argument coming forth, including your own by the same undermining logic.

I would also appreciate if you didn't automatically disagree with anybody having a contrary opinion to your own because it bruises your pride / low self esteem, people here are willing to see the truth in your arguments but you are insulting and close minded when it comes to reading other people's posts.

To come back to the argument, there is a distinction, it IS possible to want to win, and to want to win MORE. People's motivation to win the game can be further increased.

Na'Vi wants to win any game of Dota but it's nothing compared to how much Na'Vi wanted to win the finals. Do you disagree with this?
If not you have just agreed that stakes can increase a person's will to win.
Even if a "10% chance for items would only increase their will to win by a small amount" it's still a step in the right direction.

If you want to reply to the discussion maturely you are welcome to do so, if you are going to insult me and rage quit the thread saying "I'm the only one left", then please do leave the thread.

I said the idea was idiotic, not you. On the contrary you're the one calling me a dick. I didn't say I was ragequitting the thread, nor that I was the only one left despite you fake-quoting it, nice one. I said if YOU'RE the only person left, it's pointless to argue it with you because all you do is chant the same false statement. Not even going to touch upon the second part, you're the absolute last person who should accuse anybody of being close-minded, I've provided umpteenth arguments against it while you and every other supporter has stuck with one: 'people will try harder to win'. And yes, I dispute my own points because I'm willing to change my opinion or hear any argument. The issue is that you've provided none. Last chance.

I've already stated that yes, I acknowledge the possibility that people will want to win more under such a system. I myself would want to win more if item-chances were on the line. However, that would not make people play better, or try harder to win. Yes, Na'Vi wants to win the million dollar prize-pool. Here's the flaw: I've stated many times now that the item drop rate is completely negligible. A 10% chance at items is negligible. A million dollars is not negligible. Does Na'Vi want to win every game? Yes. Would Na'Vi try harder to win if they would lose their 10% item chance otherwise? Uuuh...No.

A 'step in the right direction' is not worth this change when it would have consequences. Besides, if you want to play with high-stakes, why do you feel the need to force everybody to? Why don't you play in a league? Why don't you play games with item-bets? If you hate playing with bad players, and want additional drive to win, you already have the means. Play a league, you'll play with good serious players. Bet items, you'll have items at risk to push you. But leave matchmaking alone for people that want to play, you know, for fun, without high stakes, without all the heartache.

The reason I brought up the quotes is because, like you, I think you're unwilling to accept being wrong. And so I bring up multiple examples of ideas you've had that almost EVERYBODY can agree is wrong. And exactly like I thought, you 'stand behind them', proof of that fact. You need to understand the game more before you start making suggestions to change it.

jim109109
10-18-2012, 07:47 PM
It's obvious that giving items only to winners would have catastrophic consequences that greatly outweigh the insignificant advantages.
Because we all know that people wanting to win more does not make them try harder.

GrandBreaker
10-20-2012, 06:06 PM
It's obvious that giving items only to winners would have catastrophic consequences that greatly outweigh the insignificant advantages.
Because we all know that people wanting to win more does not make them try harder.

I love you. No homo.


I'm not really seeing what you mean. There's enough motivation to win as it is, a 10% chance at cosmetics is completely negligible. The downsides of the idea are far greater than the -slight- different it -could- make towards people's motivation to win.

But more than anything, isn't it misdirected? If anything you should rally for low priority queue punishments and a reform of the report system to make it do anything. This idea goes about it the wrong way. Such as what I mentioned a number of posts back, you shouldn't punish a team for some bad players.



I said the idea was idiotic, not you. On the contrary you're the one calling me a dick. I didn't say I was ragequitting the thread, nor that I was the only one left despite you fake-quoting it, nice one. I said if YOU'RE the only person left, it's pointless to argue it with you because all you do is chant the same false statement. Not even going to touch upon the second part, you're the absolute last person who should accuse anybody of being close-minded, I've provided umpteenth arguments against it while you and every other supporter has stuck with one: 'people will try harder to win'. And yes, I dispute my own points because I'm willing to change my opinion or hear any argument. The issue is that you've provided none. Last chance.

I've already stated that yes, I acknowledge the possibility that people will want to win more under such a system. I myself would want to win more if item-chances were on the line. However, that would not make people play better, or try harder to win. Yes, Na'Vi wants to win the million dollar prize-pool. Here's the flaw: I've stated many times now that the item drop rate is completely negligible. A 10% chance at items is negligible. A million dollars is not negligible. Does Na'Vi want to win every game? Yes. Would Na'Vi try harder to win if they would lose their 10% item chance otherwise? Uuuh...No.

A 'step in the right direction' is not worth this change when it would have consequences. Besides, if you want to play with high-stakes, why do you feel the need to force everybody to? Why don't you play in a league? Why don't you play games with item-bets? If you hate playing with bad players, and want additional drive to win, you already have the means. Play a league, you'll play with good serious players. Bet items, you'll have items at risk to push you. But leave matchmaking alone for people that want to play, you know, for fun, without high stakes, without all the heartache.

The reason I brought up the quotes is because, like you, I think you're unwilling to accept being wrong. And so I bring up multiple examples of ideas you've had that almost EVERYBODY can agree is wrong. And exactly like I thought, you 'stand behind them', proof of that fact. You need to understand the game more before you start making suggestions to change it.


On the first question, reforms are necessary period. If there is a 50% chance for both teams to get items regardless of win or loss, there is really no incentive to win. We cannot see our match making rating nor do we have an understanding of match making beyond IT SUCKS DONKEY DONG. A very large chunk of the players in this game currently see no other value in playing it beyond getting items, thus they don't actually play to win because not only do they NOT HAVE to win in order or gain these items, but they literally gain nothing else from winning. Their chance to get items does not get higher from winning and they actually get WORSE team mates if they win. If the losing team does not get items, then in order to gain items they will have no choice other than really trying to win. It isn't about punishing the losing team, its about making players TRY to win because that is LITERALLY the point of the game. This game is played with one single goal in mind:

To crush your enemies, see their towers driven before you, and hear the lamentation of their ancient.

On the second question, the drop rate is currently closer to 50%. I can't confirm its actual amount, but its either 35% or 50% flat up. Players who understand they gain nothing from a loss WILL try harder to win because the only thing they gain, they gain only from a win. It forces players to actually TRY, not just "play like shit and lose since they have nothing else to gain beyond the item".

Nerdstick
10-20-2012, 06:10 PM
The drop rate could be somewhere around 50% for an entire team, I was guessing individual rate since that's what it should currently work on.

But if WINNING isn't enough of an incentive for you to win and you only play for items, I don't know what to tell you. Trade instead to save yourself a lot of time?

But either way your idea has 0 merit. If someone plays -only- for items and doesn't care about performing or winning, they'll be playing bot games. If they're throwing games by playing in matchmaking instead they should be punished, not incentivized. You're punishing an entire team instead, again, misdirected effort. And that's assuming such people exist, and in such quantity that it's worth a drop-system reform for them, which I don't believe.

So to summarize: Your solution is misdirected (sort of like taping a wound shut, it doesn't solve the actual problem), and redundant because even if you got your way the people you're trying to make play better would simply make the switch to bots if they aren't there already, so it solves -nothing-.

Frost
10-20-2012, 06:26 PM
The problem with any suggestion on drop rates is that the actual drop rates are based on play time for each player rather just being random like people think.

Dota2 uses the same system as tf2. IIRC, after you get an item drop, the system will determine WHEN you will get your next item (example, next 4 hours of gameplay) and if your games have reached the required time, the last game that did will give you the drop and the system will determine when the NEXT drop will occur (items from leveling up aren't considered because those are special bonus items). As you can see, this system is FAIR and you cannot increase the droprates for winning teams at the end of the game because there isn't one in the first place.

DeathCult
10-22-2012, 03:08 PM
Bad idea. -1.

GrandBreaker
10-22-2012, 05:57 PM
The problem with any suggestion on drop rates is that the actual drop rates are based on play time for each player rather just being random like people think.

Dota2 uses the same system as tf2. IIRC, after you get an item drop, the system will determine WHEN you will get your next item (example, next 4 hours of gameplay) and if your games have reached the required time, the last game that did will give you the drop and the system will determine when the NEXT drop will occur (items from leveling up aren't considered because those are special bonus items). As you can see, this system is FAIR and you cannot increase the droprates for winning teams at the end of the game because there isn't one in the first place.

Sadly, this isn't exactly the way its worth. There are some people who would try to make a game last LITERALLY that long, over an hour, so that they would have a very high chance of getting a very good item. Making a premade results in this being entirely possible, as long as your halfway decent and can dominate a game. You just prolong it and have a team with EXCEEDINGLY strong end game carries, such as void, Lone Druid and Ursa, and you make the game go on and focus on getting kills. What we need is A MAXIMUM CAP on the % chance of getting an item, or an EXACT set % chance for the winning team, I still vote losing team gets nada. Equal Opportunity has no place here, it WILL ruin this game, just as it has ruined every single sport it has been implemented on.


The drop rate could be somewhere around 50% for an entire team, I was guessing individual rate since that's what it should currently work on.

But if WINNING isn't enough of an incentive for you to win and you only play for items, I don't know what to tell you. Trade instead to save yourself a lot of time?

But either way your idea has 0 merit. If someone plays -only- for items and doesn't care about performing or winning, they'll be playing bot games. If they're throwing games by playing in matchmaking instead they should be punished, not incentivized. You're punishing an entire team instead, again, misdirected effort. And that's assuming such people exist, and in such quantity that it's worth a drop-system reform for them, which I don't believe.

So to summarize: Your solution is misdirected (sort of like taping a wound shut, it doesn't solve the actual problem), and redundant because even if you got your way the people you're trying to make play better would simply make the switch to bots if they aren't there already, so it solves -nothing-.

Several issues.

1 - As far as I know, there is not one single game where playing bot games gives you items, or points, or MMR, or any such thing beyond actual game play experience aka training. If a Dev can confirm this, that would be great, it would mean that no one will play BOTS for ITEMS.

2 - We are actually helping the losing team. At least 50% of the games played are lost because someone is a dick/gives up/trolls/plays like crap because he feels like it/completely fucks his team with his pick, as opposed to legitimately being out played in an even match. There will ALWAYS be a winning team and there will ALWAYS be a losing team, you cannot change this fact. Right now we all ASSUME Valve will be heavily tweaking their report system so that it ACTUALLY WORKS and trolls will be dealt with, put in a separate queue, banned, who knows who CARES as long as it honestly works. When this is implemented, if people throw games for items they ARE going to be banned because they are ruining the game for their team. They will end up getting banned, learn their lesson or just quit because they figure this out. Once this happens, the only players left will be the majority who honestly likes playing THE GAME CALLED DOTA 2 and isn't playing FOR the items, but appreciates them. I play for the ranking and ladder points, I want to be at the top because to me this is more of a sport. I really couldn't care about items, some of them are kick ass yeah, but I have now spent literally only bought 2 keys and that's it. I got the rest of my crap through drops and trades (including a Nightmare Blade for Axe XD) and I don't plan on spending much more, if any. I don't NEED the items to climb the ladder, I just need a working match maker that places me on a team that is close to my skill level and enemies close to my skill level so that I can beat them myself, or die trying. If this IS implemented, there will have to be an absolute % chance for item drops to the winning team (Which CAN be raised with those 10day bonus things) and it will probably be somewhere between 35% and 50%. You ALWAYS have a chance for a normal item, a lower chance for an uncommon, a crap chance for a rare, and when you get a mythical you'll shit yourself because of how rare they are. Once games are played WITH WINNING AS THE GOAL then maybe player performance can also affect it, giving players who are really trying the chance of getting better items.

TL/DR read this wall of text and you'll see exactly how this idea DOES have merit, and it WILL work. If you don't want this either you just don't want to practice to get good at the game, you legitimately don't care how badly you do or your a game throwing troll that this was designed to get rid of. Or your just naive.

Nerdstick
10-23-2012, 12:26 AM
TL/DR read this wall of text and you'll see exactly how this idea DOES have merit, and it WILL work. If you don't want this either you just don't want to practice to get good at the game, you legitimately don't care how badly you do or your a game throwing troll that this was designed to get rid of. Or your just naive.

Almost as good as calling people morons if they disagree with you. I disagree with the idea yet I do practice almost daily, I feel horrible when I perform badly and I've never thrown a game. Then again I guess I can't expect someone who agrees with this idea not to draw false conclusions, huh? I guess there's about as much chance as that being right as there is a chance that people will play better with such a system in place. (:

There is at least one single game: DOTA2. Bot games gives you items, BP, but no MMR. Not that people who only play for items cares about MMR.

I read your post and all I got out of it is that somehow if the idea were implemented reports and throws will be taken more seriously, and I don't see how. Winning is already the goal for anybody that plays matchmaking, otherwise: bot games. And again, misdirected effort, you shouldn't punish the losing team by taking away their items only because there are some people who don't take playing the game seriously or try to win without such a system in place, I already compared it to giving an entire team an abandon if someone leaves and the same false conclusions that one can come to (No items to thrower's team: people play better, abandons to abandoner's team: people act nicer): misdirected.

The obvious solution to your issue would be a working report system, and harsher punishment for game ruiners. Third time: misdirected effort. You're not fixing the actual problem.

jokertard
10-23-2012, 05:17 AM
aw come on guys don't rag on Nerdstick, he's just suffering from major butthurt since if the "losers don't get items" thingamajig comes into play he'll never get an item again!

NOW in all seriousness,
if a TEAM is bad and loses a game, do they deserve an item? politically answer would be correct, since there are factors like rigged matchmaking system to ensure your winrate never sees the light of 60% and ridiculously outmatched by tryhards imitating competitive strats. but keep in mind that the matchmaking system still exists most of the time to match you with people of your skill level i.e you having 90 wins and your high-tier friend having 600 wins could possibly match you up with a team of well rounded players in the 300~500 wins category. therefore, does the losing team deserve an item if they lose? my answer would be no.

the reason the losing team actually lost in the first place is that at some point of time, they messed up and didnt recover. DIDNT recover and COULDNT recover are 2 different things. things you CANT recover from are things like a level 25 pa with 6 rapiers at 1 min. things you DONT recover from are things like a solo mid pudge roaming and your supports arent warding to counter him.

one might argue that sometimes it's unfair, (I do this) players sometimes "scout" their opponents dota profiles and go after the one with the least wins aka the newbie. more often than not that guy's wins actually reflect their skill level and he gets picked off immediately. in that case, it would be in the team's best interest to use him as bait and countergank the team as much as possible, to RECOVER from the newb's feeding. if they let him get picked off over and over again, well that's that team's own damn fault.

once I got a rare from a game I'd won, it felt pretty good. then the next item that came up, went to a 0-14 player. that item was a freaking BLOOD CHASER. I carried my team to victory, got a decent score, didnt trash talk, got a rare. that player played worse than a monkey with dial-up internet and got an item that was worth 10 times of mine. just didnt feel right. felt like the game was rubbing it in my face that I can just as easily lose and stand a chance to win something amazing.

however, if you'd ask any player out there, they've lost a couple of matches at a time, they get into a rut and stay there for the next 5 matches or so. in that rut, would they still want to get items from losses? 10 out of 10 players would want that. even I would. it's human nature to want something for marginally less effort.

therefore, a simple solution would be to go along with what most of the posters here have suggested, increase the item drop rates for winners and leave the losers' drop rates be. I'd also like to add an ammendment to that suggestion. increase the item drop rates for winners in both RARITY and FREQUENCY and make sure that the losers' items NEVER go above the rarity level of the winners (example: winner wins a rare, losers CAN also win a rare but never a mythical)

abc0815
10-23-2012, 06:03 AM
therefore, a simple solution would be to go along with what most of the posters here have suggested, increase the item drop rates for winners and leave the losers' drop rates be. I'd also like to add an ammendment to that suggestion. increase the item drop rates for winners in both RARITY and FREQUENCY and make sure that the losers' items NEVER go above the rarity level of the winners (example: winner wins a rare, losers CAN also win a rare but never a mythical)

The first page alone you won't find a majority for the idea. Let alone that the Idea is shit.


TL/DR read this wall of text and you'll see exactly how this idea DOES have merit, and it WILL work. If you don't want this either you just don't want to practice to get good at the game, you legitimately don't care how badly you do or your a game throwing troll that this was designed to get rid of. Or your just naive.

This alone is enough to let the thread die in peace.

Hefaistus
10-23-2012, 06:23 AM
Sadly, this isn't exactly the way its worth.

Correct me if I'm wrong, cause I got the feeling you 'it works' typo'd here, but this is how the current system works. It's definitely how the BP system work.


There are some people who would try to make a game last LITERALLY that long, over an hour, so that they would have a very high chance of getting a very good item.

Which would matter naught, because in the current system, playing an one hour long match contributes as much to getting an item as playing two half an hour long matches.


Making a premade results in this being entirely possible, as long as your halfway decent and can dominate a game. You just prolong it and have a team with EXCEEDINGLY strong end game carries, such as void, Lone Druid and Ursa, and you make the game go on and focus on getting kills.

People have been doing that even before there were items in this game.


What we need is A MAXIMUM CAP on the % chance of getting an item, or an EXACT set % chance for the winning team, I still vote losing team gets nada. Equal Opportunity has no place here, it WILL ruin this game, just as it has ruined every single sport it has been implemented on.

As mentioned before, there is no percentage thing going on here, at least not as far as we have currently seen. Definitely not if TF2's system has been implemented here.
Also, exactly what sports has had cosmetic item drops implemented before that was ruined by it?


Several issues.

1 - As far as I know, there is not one single game where playing bot games gives you items, or points, or MMR, or any such thing beyond actual game play experience aka training. If a Dev can confirm this, that would be great, it would mean that no one will play BOTS for ITEMS.

Co-op in Dota 2, and Mann vs Machine and "training" (not really training as much as it is just playing against bots rather than humans) in Team Fortress 2 both give items for playing against bots. And yes, I can confirm all three personally.


2 - We are actually helping the losing team. At least 50% of the games played are lost because someone is a dick/gives up/trolls/plays like crap because he feels like it/completely fucks his team with his pick, as opposed to legitimately being out played in an even match. There will ALWAYS be a winning team and there will ALWAYS be a losing team, you cannot change this fact. Right now we all ASSUME Valve will be heavily tweaking their report system so that it ACTUALLY WORKS and trolls will be dealt with, put in a separate queue, banned, who knows who CARES as long as it honestly works. When this is implemented, if people throw games for items they ARE going to be banned because they are ruining the game for their team. They will end up getting banned, learn their lesson or just quit because they figure this out. Once this happens, the only players left will be the majority who honestly likes playing THE GAME CALLED DOTA 2 and isn't playing FOR the items, but appreciates them. I play for the ranking and ladder points, I want to be at the top because to me this is more of a sport. I really couldn't care about items, some of them are kick ass yeah, but I have now spent literally only bought 2 keys and that's it. I got the rest of my crap through drops and trades (including a Nightmare Blade for Axe XD) and I don't plan on spending much more, if any. I don't NEED the items to climb the ladder, I just need a working match maker that places me on a team that is close to my skill level and enemies close to my skill level so that I can beat them myself, or die trying. If this IS implemented, there will have to be an absolute % chance for item drops to the winning team (Which CAN be raised with those 10day bonus things) and it will probably be somewhere between 35% and 50%. You ALWAYS have a chance for a normal item, a lower chance for an uncommon, a crap chance for a rare, and when you get a mythical you'll shit yourself because of how rare they are. Once games are played WITH WINNING AS THE GOAL then maybe player performance can also affect it, giving players who are really trying the chance of getting better items.

Your argument here is so flawed, it actually broke my eyes when I read it. How on earth did you jump from 'disabling items for losing teams' to 'the report system when tweaked will get us rid of the trolls' to 'only item appreciaters will be left behind' to 'the matchmaking system needs to be fixed' to 'thus winners deserve higher quality items'. This wasn't a reasoning, this wasn't an argument, this was a loosely put together rant of the various things in the game that currently frustrate you that are inherently unrelated to the item drop system.


TL/DR read this wall of text and you'll see exactly how this idea DOES have merit, and it WILL work. If you don't want this either you just don't want to practice to get good at the game, you legitimately don't care how badly you do or your a game throwing troll that this was designed to get rid of. Or your just naive.

You really are giving yourself and your arguments more credit than it deserves.


aw come on guys don't rag on Nerdstick, he's just suffering from major butthurt since if the "losers don't get items" thingamajig comes into play he'll never get an item again!

I'd rather you do not do this anymore, at least add in the rest of your post from the start. It are posts like this that want me to close this thread, because there's already a fair bit of flaming going on, and I'm currently already on a very short fuse.

GrandBreaker
10-23-2012, 11:32 AM
Correct me if I'm wrong, cause I got the feeling you 'it works' typo'd here, but this is how the current system works. It's definitely how the BP system work.

Yes thats a spelling error. Please explain the current system IN DETAIL Hefaistus, so that we will actually know how it works.



Which would matter naught, because in the current system, playing an one hour long match contributes as much to getting an item as playing two half an hour long matches.

We are considering the effects on the system were our changes to be implemented. If the changes that the person I was responding to were implemented, where match length/performance would increase items, people would intentionally draw out matches and funnel kills.



People have been doing that even before there were items in this game.

Exactly my point.



As mentioned before, there is no percentage thing going on here, at least not as far as we have currently seen. Definitely not if TF2's system has been implemented here.
Also, exactly what sports has had cosmetic item drops implemented before that was ruined by it?

Equal Opportunity is the idea that losers and winners both receive prizes, that there is no such thing as "a loser". It is the ideal that competition can be made without the concept of losing and that it will somehow make the sport better. It takes the players of a sport who are strong and dedicated, who practice and get better willingly, and shackles them so that the ones who just don't give a damn won't cry when they lose the game. Everyone gets a trophy. No one goes home empty handed. There is less incentive to TRY. Football, Soccer, Baseball, Basketball have all seen equal opportunity in some form. School sports from elementary to college and beyond have seen equal opportunity.
(I'm going to be blunt here and your going to dislike me quite tremendously)
Cheer leading, Track, Football and Dota 2 all have several things in common. They are competitive in nature. If you practice and dedicate yourself, you will exceed many others in the quality of your performance. And they have all been crippled by equal opportunity.
Cheer leading saw the rise of "oh my daughter wants to be a cheerleader but she doesn't want to work out, or practice, or keep herself physically fit enough to perform complex actions involved. She doesn't want the blue ribbon from being the best at a competition, she just wants to have been there."
Football saw the rise of "Oh my son doesn't work out, he doesn't try to run fast, and he really doesn't care too much about the sport. But he wants to do something and everyone does football, or I'm a soccer parent who is forcing it".
Track saw the rise of "You don't have to try hard to win, you don't have to practice to be good at running, you don't have to work and sweat for the team. You just have to go and fail and everyone's ribbon is blue, yay!"
And now Dota 2 is seeing the rise of "Losers are whining that they want items regardless of losing the competition. So we are giving random trophies to everyone. Apparently items are trophies now."

There MUST be a winning and losing team. The winning team does not need items every single time, in fact I'd say the drop rate at 25% is more than fine, if not too high. The losing team needs nothing because they lost. They need to try and practice and get better so that next time, they have the balls, the skill and the strength to be THE WINNING TEAM.



Co-op in Dota 2, and Mann vs Machine and "training" (not really training as much as it is just playing against bots rather than humans) in Team Fortress 2 both give items for playing against bots. And yes, I can confirm all three personally.

Man VS Machine is not the same as simply playing with Bot's. It is a wave based zerg playstyle, not meant to be just practice. The purpose of playing against bots is to practice with heroes you are not entirely familiar with. To try new strategies. To see if that one item works on your hero. If you get items and BP for playing against bots in Dota 2, then your the first to give items away in a training scenario, and in that case just let the game throwers go play against bots. They will easily win, problem solved.



Your argument here is so flawed, it actually broke my eyes when I read it. How on earth did you jump from 'disabling items for losing teams' to 'the report system when tweaked will get us rid of the trolls' to 'only item appreciaters will be left behind' to 'the matchmaking system needs to be fixed' to 'thus winners deserve higher quality items'. This wasn't a reasoning, this wasn't an argument, this was a loosely put together rant of the various things in the game that currently frustrate you that are inherently unrelated to the item drop system.

Because there is a correlation between the two and people have already touched upon it. Do the math Hefaistus, if some people ONLY play the game for items and suddenly items are gained only by the winning team, what will these people do? There are three options: Throw games, try harder to win, or completely quit Dota 2. Out of 100% of these types of players, how many do you think will do each option? Id say about 80% will try harder, 10% will throw games and troll, and 10% will just quit. Now that 10% that quits isn't an issue, and we love the 80% who are now playing the game and people are enjoying it more. But the 10% that is throwing and trolling, they are ruining the game for everyone they come into contact with. The basis for this will be their rage that "Items no longer drop when they just play like crap because they already lost faith in every other aspect of this game from match making to mmr" and how will you make them stop ruining games? Will you ask them politely, or will you make a working report system?

Disabling items for losers --> many people play harder to win, some simply start trolling and throwing--> A better report system is needed to stop trolling and game throwing --> the better system works and game quality is much higher.

THE IDEAS CORRELATE GOOD SIR, AND I KNOW YOU OF ALL PEOPLE ARE SMART ENOUGH TO SEE THAT.




You really are giving yourself and your arguments more credit than it deserves.

Credit given where it is due. Your just playing the stubborn mule right now. As I said, you of all people should be able to find flaws in the system and attempt to fix them. You of all people should be able to connect the dots between systems that correlate and function as small parts of a singular entity called Dota 2.




I'd rather you do not do this anymore, at least add in the rest of your post from the start. It are posts like this that want me to close this thread, because there's already a fair bit of flaming going on, and I'm currently already on a very short fuse.

It would be lovely if threads with flaming would close. Legitimately, even I lose track of my thoughts around some people on these threads. But right now, I agree with Joker. The only reason someone would be complaining about making a system that promotes fair, earnest games with people trying to win and allowing winners to receive prizes while removing ideas that "if your that one badass on the team your gonna get the shiniest item" is if you really are one of the players who plays like crap, doesn't care about the game and constantly gets items via a loss.

g3orge13
10-23-2012, 12:07 PM
Nope. It should be same as before. It's bad enough that you lose already, at least you get an item if you're lucky so it keeps your moral up. For those who got a losing streak is good to get something besides battlepoints; it's that small impulse that keeps you going.

Nerdstick
10-23-2012, 01:13 PM
so that next time, they have the balls, the skill and the strength to be THE WINNING TEAM
Does not apply in a situation where the game was thrown, aka your former argument.


and in that case just let the game throwers go play against bots. They will easily win, problem solved.
Exactly. Anybody who does not care about skill, does not care about winning can just play bot games -right now-. Your system would do nothing to improve MM other than driving more people to bots. And considering that non-carers can already play bots for their items, I'd call them actual players who get fed up on these penalties.


There are three options: Throw games, try harder to win, or completely quit Dota 2. Out of 100% of these types of players, how many do you think will do each option? Id say about 80% will try harder, 10% will throw games and troll, and 10% will just quit. Now that 10% that quits isn't an issue, and we love the 80% who are now playing the game and people are enjoying it more. But the 10% that is throwing and trolling, they are ruining the game for everyone they come into contact with.

Option 0, which we already touched upon: Play Bots. And your argument has as much merit with those numbers pulled out your butt as mine does if I do the same: Out of 100% of these players, I'd say 80% will play exactly the same, 10% will throw games and troll, and 10% will just quit. Man what a terrible idea this is.


Disabling items for losers --> many people play harder to win, some simply start trolling and throwing--> A better report system is needed to stop trolling and game throwing --> the better system works and game quality is much higher.

'Many' is an assumption. People already try hard to win and although they may /want/ to win more that does not mean they will play better. And again, if you're a non-serious player you can play bots to win. And I can't fathom how you think that making more people troll and throw games will somehow improve the report system. About the logic of 'My town is messy, I should start littering so they realize they need to clean it'.


THE IDEAS CORRELATE GOOD SIR, AND I KNOW YOU OF ALL PEOPLE ARE SMART ENOUGH TO SEE THAT.

Here we go again. Insulting the people that disagree with your idea does nothing but hurt your argument, as shown in the last bunch of posts. And they don't correlate, it's all just one big misdirected assumption.


Credit given where it is due. Your just playing the stubborn mule right now. As I said, you of all people should be able to find flaws in the system and attempt to fix them. You of all people should be able to connect the dots between systems that correlate and function as small parts of a singular entity called Dota 2.

There's a difference between not wanting to change and not wanting -bad- changes, that doesn't make you stubborn. The item system as it stands is not a flaw, you're only trying to forcibly apply flaws to it (Throwers play better, unrelated. Report system is improved, unrelated and contradicts previous argument). These kinds of ideas only go to ruin the game, you shouldn't feel proud for supporting it.


The only reason someone would be complaining about making a system that promotes fair, earnest games with people trying to win and allowing winners to receive prizes while removing ideas that "if your that one badass on the team your gonna get the shiniest item" is if you really are one of the players who plays like crap, doesn't care about the game and constantly gets items via a loss.

Man you're unbelievable. How many times is this? As said, insulting people does nothing but hurt your point. And you're wrong. The only fair system is a random system. A loser is no more likely to get items than you. How is it more fair when you have an upsetting loss where you lose your items? And how is it fair when someone throws a game on your team and you lose your items for it? How is it fair if someone on your team abandons and you lose your items for it? It isn't fair. You might argue 'How is it fair for a feeder/loser to get an item when I don't when I played well?': because it's random. And even then, how does your system prevent someone from feeding on your team but your team managing to win, only for them to get the team item? What a joke. Much more fair than giving the enemy team that played well and lost a chance at an item, right?

I've already jokingly made the comparison that 'I wouldn't want to be at an MMR where people would only try to win for items'. Just like your argument, unjustified and goes both ways. Stop using insults to justify your argument.

Monsterlord
10-23-2012, 01:27 PM
I'd gotten bored of this topic a fair while ago, because it's retarded to the core, but it was definitely worth peeking back in to watch hefaistus stomp all over people.

Hefaistus
10-23-2012, 02:36 PM
Yes thats a spelling error. Please explain the current system IN DETAIL Hefaistus, so that we will actually know how it works.

I can't give you a detailed explanation of the current system, because unfortunately, I do not work at Valve. Since I joined these forums, I have always been, and will be for a long while ahead of me, a student software engineering in the Netherlands. However, I have been keeping up a bunch of spreadsheets with my own personal observations, and while I currently have far too little information on items to pull any reliable conclusions, I can confirm that Battle Points are earned in a linear fashion - the rate does not increase, or decrease over time. It's always roughly 1.3 or 1.4 battlepoints per minute. Losing, winning, having leavers, or destroying all the buildings, or just one lane and then the ancient, have no influence on it.


We are considering the effects on the system were our changes to be implemented. If the changes that the person I was responding to were implemented, where match length/performance would increase items, people would intentionally draw out matches and funnel kills.

Except that the person you replied to wasn't suggesting that system - the system he described is the one that is most likely to be used by the game, and is definitely used by TF2. That system works like this:
You just got a new, fancy item. Cool. The system then rolls the dice when you get your next item. It rolls 250 minutes. So you play a game of 50 minutes. Then one of 40 minutes. Then one of 60 minutes. Suddenly you have one of 90 minutes, meaning you have played 240 minutes since your last item drop. The game you then play is 30 minutes long, meaning you go past the 250 minutes that was rolled for the previous item drop. Congratulations, you earned an item, and the system rolled for another time frame at which point you get another item.
Now, like I said, I can't give much details about the system, so it's possible Dota 2 actually uses a different system entirely, but from what has been seen and reported, combined with Valve's reasoning and clarifications in the past, this is the system most likely used.
This system also stands apart from Equal opportunity, which I shall clarify after the break.


Equal Opportunity is the idea that losers and winners both receive prizes, that there is no such thing as "a loser". It is the ideal that competition can be made without the concept of losing and that it will somehow make the sport better. It takes the players of a sport who are strong and dedicated, who practice and get better willingly, and shackles them so that the ones who just don't give a damn won't cry when they lose the game. Everyone gets a trophy. No one goes home empty handed. There is less incentive to TRY. Football, Soccer, Baseball, Basketball have all seen equal opportunity in some form. School sports from elementary to college and beyond have seen equal opportunity.
(I'm going to be blunt here and your going to dislike me quite tremendously)
Cheer leading, Track, Football and Dota 2 all have several things in common. They are competitive in nature. If you practice and dedicate yourself, you will exceed many others in the quality of your performance. And they have all been crippled by equal opportunity.
Cheer leading saw the rise of "oh my daughter wants to be a cheerleader but she doesn't want to work out, or practice, or keep herself physically fit enough to perform complex actions involved. She doesn't want the blue ribbon from being the best at a competition, she just wants to have been there."
Football saw the rise of "Oh my son doesn't work out, he doesn't try to run fast, and he really doesn't care too much about the sport. But he wants to do something and everyone does football, or I'm a soccer parent who is forcing it".
Track saw the rise of "You don't have to try hard to win, you don't have to practice to be good at running, you don't have to work and sweat for the team. You just have to go and fail and everyone's ribbon is blue, yay!"
And now Dota 2 is seeing the rise of "Losers are whining that they want items regardless of losing the competition. So we are giving random trophies to everyone. Apparently items are trophies now."

There MUST be a winning and losing team. The winning team does not need items every single time, in fact I'd say the drop rate at 25% is more than fine, if not too high. The losing team needs nothing because they lost. They need to try and practice and get better so that next time, they have the balls, the skill and the strength to be THE WINNING TEAM.

Welcome back. Okay, so, I read what you said about Equal Opportunity, and I feel that it is the wrong comparison. 'Every participant earns a blue ribbon for having participated!'. Neither the winners nor the losers are getting items every match. Hell, in some matches neither team even get anything. That's why I'd like to give a different comparison: In baseball, they track all kinds of statistics. How many homeruns a runner has made, how many outs someone has made, how often someone has hit a ball, etc, etc. So, let's say a player hit his 1000th ball in a game that his team loses. Do they suddenly say "Sorry, but since your team just lost, your hit doesn't count. Better luck next time!"? No. They celebrate that 1000th ball, because that's a milestone for that person.
Or when you have a job, and you take a week off to go on vacation, does that not count towards your milestones at your work? "Hello Phill, we hired you 25 years ago, but since you have taken off 50 weeks for vacation in those 25 years, we won't be counting that time, so you'll be getting your golden watch next year." Sounds pretty silly, doesn't it?
Dota 2 rewards you for time played. To fall back on the football example you gave, let's say there are 16 football teams playing in a competition, where the losers fall out of the competition. To get a ribbon, you need to have played on the field at least 270 minutes, so roughly 3 matches. So, the teams that lost in the first two rounds definitely didn't get a ribbon. Of the teams that lost in the third round, only 90% of the players got ribbons. The other 10% were players that couldn't play more in due to injury, because they had been switched out during matches and only got for example 220 minutes, or the general bench warmers. Of all the other teams, that are still in the competition, there still are 1 or 2 persons per team that don't get a ribbon, even if their team wins the entire competition, since it's entirely possible that some players in those teams haven't been on the field for the 270 minutes. Quite a bit different from equal opportunity, isn't it?


Man VS Machine is not the same as simply playing with Bot's. It is a wave based zerg playstyle, not meant to be just practice. The purpose of playing against bots is to practice with heroes you are not entirely familiar with. To try new strategies. To see if that one item works on your hero. If you get items and BP for playing against bots in Dota 2, then your the first to give items away in a training scenario, and in that case just let the game throwers go play against bots. They will easily win, problem solved.

Co-op still stands apart from training, since it's basically a step between private match bots, and MM, and is more akin to Mann vs Machine than TF2's training mode, hence why I brought that one up. Besides which, game throwers will throw games anyway, regardless if it will cost them items or not. If they wanted easy games in the first place, they would've gone to co-op from the start. In fact, game throwers will now throw even harder, which you addressed here:


Because there is a correlation between the two and people have already touched upon it. Do the math Hefaistus, if some people ONLY play the game for items and suddenly items are gained only by the winning team, what will these people do? There are three options: Throw games, try harder to win, or completely quit Dota 2. Out of 100% of these types of players, how many do you think will do each option? Id say about 80% will try harder, 10% will throw games and troll, and 10% will just quit. Now that 10% that quits isn't an issue, and we love the 80% who are now playing the game and people are enjoying it more. But the 10% that is throwing and trolling, they are ruining the game for everyone they come into contact with. The basis for this will be their rage that "Items no longer drop when they just play like crap because they already lost faith in every other aspect of this game from match making to mmr" and how will you make them stop ruining games? Will you ask them politely, or will you make a working report system?

Disabling items for losers --> many people play harder to win, some simply start trolling and throwing--> A better report system is needed to stop trolling and game throwing --> the better system works and game quality is much higher.

THE IDEAS CORRELATE GOOD SIR, AND I KNOW YOU OF ALL PEOPLE ARE SMART ENOUGH TO SEE THAT.

Caps still isn't the cruise control for cool. Anyway, I feel I need to point this out. You want to encourage people throwing games?! On top of that, you once again jump to changes to the report system. you can leave feedback concerning the report system here (http://dev.dota2.com/showthread.php?t=23693). Please keep it out of this thread.
So, to get to the point, I shall filter out the irrelevant portions of the preceding text, below:


Because there is a correlation between the two and people have already touched upon it. Do the math Hefaistus, if some people ONLY play the game for items and suddenly items are gained only by the winning team, what will these people do? There are three options: Throw games, try harder to win, or completely quit Dota 2. Out of 100% of these types of players, how many do you think will do each option? Id say about 80% will try harder, [...] and we love the 80% who are now playing the game and people are enjoying it more.

Disabling items for losers --> many people play harder to win [...] --> game quality is much higher

I do not concur that the game quality would increase. Yes, there are some people that would try harder. Wanna know what they are going to do? Insta-pick iWin heroes. Do you want to see Nagas, Anti-Mages, Jakiros, Batriders, etc, every match? How enjoyable are matches when you keep seeing the same heroes over and over and over again. And why wouldn't those people pick those heroes? According to the statistics, those heroes have the highest percentage of wins. And they want items. So taking a hero with a high win percentage, makes sure you have a higher perceived chance at winning the game, thus having a higher chance at getting items.
You could argue "oh, but the amount of such people is so small, it hardly impacts me and I won't see those heroes that much more often than now", then let me ask you: if that group is so small, then why is it a problem now? Why would the amount of 'non-effort' people be a problem now, but not when they keep picking the same OP heroes over and over again?


Credit given where it is due. Your just playing the stubborn mule right now. As I said, you of all people should be able to find flaws in the system and attempt to fix them. You of all people should be able to connect the dots between systems that correlate and function as small parts of a singular entity called Dota 2.

Yes, I can see where there are problems. Leavers and throwers are an issue. I can assure you, however, that your proposed system is not the solution. It's not even a bandaid to the wound. It's like having a cut on your right knee, and putting a bandaid on your left knee, because you are under the impression it has the same effect.


It would be lovely if threads with flaming would close. Legitimately, even I lose track of my thoughts around some people on these threads. But right now, I agree with Joker. The only reason someone would be complaining about making a system that promotes fair, earnest games with people trying to win and allowing winners to receive prizes while removing ideas that "if your that one badass on the team your gonna get the shiniest item" is if you really are one of the players who plays like crap, doesn't care about the game and constantly gets items via a loss.

I would just like to point out that the part I quoted was the only piece Joker had posted at the time, and only added the rest of his post about half an hour later, hence why I highlighted it.
To address the other 'point' you made, this is still a team effort, and that means that if your team drags you down, you don't have a chance at getting an item. You can be the most badass of the entire game, going 20/0/10, and solo destroying the enemies bottom rax, but if the other people on your team are utter crap and can't defend, welp, don't expect an item for all your efforts. Because several small minded people demanded that losing teams no longer get items, to supposedly fix a completely unrelated issue.

jim109109
10-23-2012, 06:50 PM
I would just like to point out that the part I quoted was the only piece Joker had posted at the time, and only added the rest of his post about half an hour later, hence why I highlighted it.
To address the other 'point' you made, this is still a team effort, and that means that if your team drags you down, you don't have a chance at getting an item. You can be the most badass of the entire game, going 20/0/10, and solo destroying the enemies bottom rax, but if the other people on your team are utter crap and can't defend, welp, don't expect an item for all your efforts. Because several small minded people demanded that losing teams no longer get items, to supposedly fix a completely unrelated issue.

This problem could arise for every player, but if you take the average, better players will win more games. Even in that particular game, if you go 20-0 you have a higher chance of winning it. But it's not necessarily true that you will.

Even right now a 20-0 player isn't guaranteed an item, since it's random. In fact, 20-0 players on average would get items more often if the winning team only received items, so the new system is better for them.
[Considering 20-0 players have a higher probability of being on the winning team of that match than on the losing team; and that under the winner system winning players have double the chance to get items; on average 20-0 players would get items more often]

jokertard
10-24-2012, 05:25 AM
I would just like to point out that the part I quoted was the only piece Joker had posted at the time, and only added the rest of his post about half an hour later, hence why I highlighted it.
To address the other 'point' you made, this is still a team effort, and that means that if your team drags you down, you don't have a chance at getting an item. You can be the most badass of the entire game, going 20/0/10, and solo destroying the enemies bottom rax, but if the other people on your team are utter crap and can't defend, welp, don't expect an item for all your efforts. Because several small minded people demanded that losing teams no longer get items, to supposedly fix a completely unrelated issue.
that was my bad lol I have a habit to start a long speech with jokes and had to do that as a placeholder (just in case my post became out of context due to it flowing to other pages)

but since I'm here again, does anybody even remotely agree that (IGNORING DROPRATES AND CHANCES), the losing team should NEVER, EVER be entitled to a chance to win a higher rarity class of items than the winning team?



This problem could arise for every player, but if you take the average, better players will win more games. Even in that particular game, if you go 20-0 you have a higher chance of winning it. But it's not necessarily true that you will.

Even right now a 20-0 player isn't guaranteed an item, since it's random. In fact, 20-0 players on average would get items more often if the winning team only received items, so the new system is better for them.
[Considering 20-0 players have a higher probability of being on the winning team of that match than on the losing team; and that under the winner system winning players have double the chance to get items; on average 20-0 players would get items more often]
completely agree with your first statement. I've seen my friend go 13-0 with pl at 45 mins and still have his entire base cleaned out completely because his team fed so badly and couldnt hold 2 heroes pushing while he fought off 3 by himself. even then I'd say my friend made mistakes, played in a self-centered manner to attempt for a win. he has his merits and his downsides and with that score certainly deserves an item because even though he might not be a good team player with pubs, he has skill.
P.S I love your sig.

therefore, instead of rubbing it in the losers' face that their drop rate be lowered, why not REWARD the winners by increasing their drop rate or even battle point gain? quoted from the dota2 spoils of war FAQ;

"Q: What are Battle Levels? What are Battle Points?
A: Each time you complete a matchmaking game, you will be rewarded with Battle Points. Earn enough of them, and your profile's Battle Level will increase, at which point you'll receive a new item."

no where is it stated that winners get more battle points or losers get less. I've observed it myself. the BP you earn at the end of a match is relative to the amount of time that the match runs. a 50 minute game would net about 70bp.
this isn't fair to the winning team who played their best to earn themselves a win. the amount of wins on a profile are superficial and irrelevant. the current "high amount of wins" is possibly anything above 600. as time goes by and more matches are played, this number goes up, nobody cares. why not reward the players with something that actually takes form and is liked by almost everybody else? either give the winners a higher chance at getting items, or speed up the rate where they will almost certainly get one, which is when they level up; ergo, increasing battle point gain for winners.

Hefaistus
10-24-2012, 11:21 AM
This problem could arise for every player, but if you take the average, better players will win more games. Even in that particular game, if you go 20-0 you have a higher chance of winning it. But it's not necessarily true that you will.

Even right now a 20-0 player isn't guaranteed an item, since it's random. In fact, 20-0 players on average would get items more often if the winning team only received items, so the new system is better for them.
[Considering 20-0 players have a higher probability of being on the winning team of that match than on the losing team; and that under the winner system winning players have double the chance to get items; on average 20-0 players would get items more often]

Actually, that is false, should Matchmaking work properly. If matchmaking works according to the ideals, every player has a win/lose ratio of 50%. That means that the player loses one, then wins one, then loses one, then wins one, ad infinitum. With a doubled drop rate, the winner would see drops as frequent as he/she currently does, except only during matches that the player wins.
Of course if things worked ideal, the situation I described earlier wouldn't happen. Heck, in the ideal situation no one would be requesting for this either, because then no one would actually believe the bullcrap of 'The people I play with are horrible because they don't want to win enough, so items will absolutely fix that!'


that was my bad lol I have a habit to start a long speech with jokes and had to do that as a placeholder (just in case my post became out of context due to it flowing to other pages)

That's what they got quoting for. At least add in 'I'll be adding more to this post soon'.


but since I'm here again, does anybody even remotely agree that (IGNORING DROPRATES AND CHANCES), the losing team should NEVER, EVER be entitled to a chance to win a higher rarity class of items than the winning team?

I do not agree at all with this in the current drop system. Like I explained, Dota 2 appears to be using a system where an item drops guaranteed after you play a certain amount of time. Someone can win 5 games, but if their 6th is a loss, but also just so happens to be the one where they got their item - tough luck, pall. Sure, you won 5 matches before this, but you lost this one and this is where you got your item, so we can't give you anything above uncommon.


therefore, instead of rubbing it in the losers' face that their drop rate be lowered, why not REWARD the winners by increasing their drop rate or even battle point gain?;

Since by now it would seem I appear to be shooting off every proposed change, I just would like to say that I am not opposed to this idea. I don't support it, but it's definitely more fair and reasonable than removing drops for losers altogether.


no where is it stated that winners get more battle points or losers get less. I've observed it myself. the BP you earn at the end of a match is relative to the amount of time that the match runs. a 50 minute game would net about 70bp.

You may want to read my previous post, I already explained the BP system before. To quote myself:
I can confirm that Battle Points are earned in a linear fashion - the rate does not increase, or decrease over time. It's always roughly 1.3 or 1.4 battlepoints per minute. Losing, winning, having leavers, or destroying all the buildings, or just one lane and then the ancient, have no influence on it.


this isn't fair to the winning team who played their best to earn themselves a win. the amount of wins on a profile are superficial and irrelevant. the current "high amount of wins" is possibly anything above 600. as time goes by and more matches are played, this number goes up, nobody cares. why not reward the players with something that actually takes form and is liked by almost everybody else?

I'll be honest, this is an attitude that I never really got. This game has been alive for nearly a decade without earning any form of items, or even a win counter. It was a mod for Warcraft 3 that people enjoyed to play. But why is that now that the game has items, winning the game is no longer the reward in of itself? Why do people suddenly feel entitled to get items for winning games when people have been doing this for no items for nearly a decade? Whatever happened to the idea of 'I play this game, because I enjoy the game, and I try to win, because I enjoy to win'?

Aravis
10-24-2012, 11:45 AM
Actually, that is false, should Matchmaking work properly. If matchmaking works according to the ideals, every player has a win/lose ratio of 50%. That means that the player loses one, then wins one, then loses one, then wins one, ad infinitum.

We don't enforce a 50-50 win rate from the matchmake feedback thread.



I do not agree at all with this in the current drop system. Like I explained, Dota 2 appears to be using a system where an item drops guaranteed after you play a certain amount of time.
until Valve reveals how it works I call bullshit on that. Wild speculations in the dark.



I'll be honest, this is an attitude that I never really got. This game has been alive for nearly a decade without earning any form of items, or even a win counter. It was a mod for Warcraft 3 that people enjoyed to play. But why is that now that the game has items, winning the game is no longer the reward in of itself? Why do people suddenly feel entitled to get items for winning games when people have been doing this for no items for nearly a decade? Whatever happened to the idea of 'I play this game, because I enjoy the game, and I try to win, because I enjoy to win'?
Thats for you to figure out. And its not even hard.


also to contribute to the thread again:
The current way to distribute items is made to please everyone.
Even the attemt to do so is doomed to fail (we can see that here).

Giving items to the winning team only would certainly displease more than the current system does.
Some might call it unfair.
I would say its justice. From nothing nothing comes.

Hefaistus
10-24-2012, 12:43 PM
from the matchmake feedback thread.

With emphasis on 'ideal'. Not to mention that that is a comment about the claims that matchmaking enforces loses on people with a high percentage rate. As you keep winning, your MMR keeps rising, until it hits the point where you are playing at a level with people of your skill level, at which point it becomes a fight so close, the win might as well be from a coin toss.


until Valve reveals how it works I call bullshit on that. Wild speculations in the dark.

It's how Team Fortress 2 works, not to mention that drop rates are pretty steady. So this isn't as much of a 'wild speculation in the dark' as it is 'basing the speculation on the previously set standard'. Which I admitted before.


Thats for you to figure out. And its not even hard.

It indeed isn't. Something shiny came along, and people want it. Because it's new, and it's shiny. Doesn't make their reasoning any less bullshit. People have been winning just because they wanted to win for years, but now that there are items, winning without items is not a real win? It doesn't count? Bull. Shit.


also to contribute to the thread again:
The current way to distribute items is made to please everyone.
Even the attemt to do so is doomed to fail (we can see that here).

Considering every system will have people whining, every system will be doomed to fail. Seriously, don't write a system off by the disgruntled few.


Giving items to the winning team only would certainly displease more than the current system does.
Some might call it unfair.
I would say its justice. From nothing nothing comes.

Justice? Are you bloody serious? Can you please keep your self-righteous bullcrap off my sections, Judge Dredd? This isn't about 'justice', this is about creating a system that enhances the gaming experience for everyone. Raising the drop rate for winners would be such a potential system. Removing item drops for losers is not, especially not when the reason for that system is as nonsensical as 'it will make them try harder' - not to mention that the very same reason supports just the raising of drop chances for winners as well.

Aravis
10-24-2012, 01:02 PM
It's how Team Fortress 2 works, not to mention that drop rates are pretty steady. So this isn't as much of a 'wild speculation in the dark' as it is 'basing the speculation on the previously set standard'. Which I admitted before.
I am not familiar with Team Fortress 2. You may be right then.



Considering every system will have people whining, every system will be doomed to fail. Seriously, don't write a system off by the disgruntled few.
Yes. Stick to your words. There is no need to settle for a system if a better one can be found.



Justice? Are you bloody serious? Can you please keep your self-righteous bullcrap off my sections, Judge Dredd? This isn't about 'justice', this is about creating a system that enhances the gaming experience for everyone.
Raising the drop rate for winners would be such a potential system.

People would also like to get an ensured item after each game.



Removing item drops for losers is not, especially not when the reason for that system is as nonsensical as 'it will make them try harder' - not to mention that the very same reason supports just the raising of drop chances for winners as well.
No. We are not on the same page here.
The current discussion is not about touching the odds of itemdrops. Its about the distribution.

KSnarl
10-24-2012, 01:26 PM
Turning the actual "play game" mode into a competition ruleset would not be possible, so how about that:
An extra game mode called tournament (along the "play game" mode, "play vs bots" mode...)
Tournament mode will work like asked in that tread: grant items to the winners, matchmaking pit the player with other players of similar/higher levels.
The actual "play game" will function the same way it function actually, with maybe a diferent name (pub mode, fun mode, random mode, etc.)

With this, competitive/serious players will all go in tournament mode not conflicting the non competitive players playing the actual "play game" mode for fun/random.

gimmy
10-24-2012, 01:30 PM
maybe they should just remove the part where it shows who got items so there isnt any complaing about this, id rather have a suprise when i open my backpack

Nerdstick
10-24-2012, 02:52 PM
maybe they should just remove the part where it shows who got items so there isnt any complaing about this, id rather have a suprise when i open my backpack

If only. Or perhaps removing all rewards at the end of the game other than your own.

knurlhelm
10-24-2012, 03:01 PM
-1. Random rulz, having crappy games and 100% sure of no items will make the attitude of the players even worse... the random is fair, your method isn't, the reward of your win is YOUR WIN, this game don't reward the wins, it rewards you playing it.

Monsterlord
10-24-2012, 05:04 PM
but if you take the average, better players will win more games

Wrong. Better players will play against other better players, so the games will be just as close as 10 brand new players bashing at the mouse.

jim109109
10-24-2012, 05:27 PM
Actually, that is false, should Matchmaking work properly. If matchmaking works according to the ideals, every player has a win/lose ratio of 50%. That means that the player loses one, then wins one, then loses one, then wins one, ad infinitum. With a doubled drop rate, the winner would see drops as frequent as he/she currently does, except only during matches that the player wins.
Of course if things worked ideal, the situation I described earlier wouldn't happen. Heck, in the ideal situation no one would be requesting for this either, because then no one would actually believe the bullcrap of 'The people I play with are horrible because they don't want to win enough, so items will absolutely fix that'

Yes, that's true. I am hoping they fix MM, but currently what I said is applicable.
if MM was constantly 50/50 this entire thread would be completely useless btw

Nerdstick
10-24-2012, 10:12 PM
Yes, that's true. I am hoping they fix MM, but currently what I said is applicable.
if MM was constantly 50/50 this entire thread would be completely useless btw

That's weird of you to say. I was under the impression the supporters of the idea didn't care you'd get no more items than currently, but just the satisfaction of winners getting items.
Even if it's not exactly 50/50, most would probably only have a small percentage above or below. I did make-shift math a few pages back but you're looking at maybe -one- extra item every few hundred games or something even if you have a slightly above-average percentage under this idea.

jim109109
10-25-2012, 06:30 PM
That's weird of you to say. I was under the impression the supporters of the idea didn't care you'd get no more items than currently, but just the satisfaction of winners getting items.
Even if it's not exactly 50/50, most would probably only have a small percentage above or below. I did make-shift math a few pages back but you're looking at maybe -one- extra item every few hundred games or something even if you have a slightly above-average percentage under this idea.

Why would I support something that has no effect?
Under fair MM I would not care whether my teammates tried or not, as they would eventually get moved on to lower brackets. Many problems would be solved; and solved much better than with the items to winners solution.

DeathCult
10-26-2012, 01:06 AM
People would also like to get an ensured item after each game.


Sure, you can ensure that you get an item after every game just by opening the store tab and using your credit card.

john_volkov
10-26-2012, 01:16 AM
if they make winning team get more chanse of getting an itam then people will just stop playing the game , because evryone will play pubs with stacks of 5 people and the ones that try to lern the game will get bashed or people will just quit the game if they know they will lose.It's gona be a bad move.Right now the system works fine i hate that I get more boxes then Itams but that's life.

GrandBreaker
10-26-2012, 11:41 AM
Hmmmm. Well now I believe I can easily prove my point. Hefaistus is heavily against the idea to only give items to winning teams, ignoring all logic and using entirely false, ignorant and foolish logic. As you can see here:

https://dotabuff.com/players/39150424

Hefaistus himself holds an abyssal 35% winrate.

Conclusion: Hefaistus wants items. He doesn't want to try harder to play better and win matches. Hefaistus won't accept the item change because HE DOES NOT WANT TO HAVE TO WORK FOR ITEMS.

Hefaistus
10-26-2012, 11:55 AM
Hah, reverting to persona attacks, huh? Getting that desperate? Wanna know how many Matchmaking games I have? About 16. I play almost exclusively co-op games, which are not calculated by DotaBuff. I only play Matchmaking when a group of friends drag me along to mess about for a bit. Such as going '5 push support all mid'. That was a fun game.

Here's a tip if you want to destroy someone's argument: come with well underbuilt arguments, and do your bloody research. Don't come here with personal attacks based on false or lacking information.

Monsterlord
10-26-2012, 04:43 PM
Hefaistus himself holds an abyssal 35% winrate.

1: It's abysmal, not abyssal. Abyssal means hellish or unholy, abysmal means terrible.
2: As he's already said, he doesn't play games via dotabuff often. 16 is a terrible sample size for anyone, especially for the early games of an account when you're playing with completely new players.
3: Bad winrates would benefit more from this change. The matchmaking is rigged to pull players towards 50%, regardless of what some mods might say, so having such an abysmal rate means he's more likely to win his next 6 or so games.

GrandBreaker
10-26-2012, 08:26 PM
Hah, reverting to persona attacks, huh? Getting that desperate? Wanna know how many Matchmaking games I have? About 16. I play almost exclusively co-op games, which are not calculated by DotaBuff. I only play Matchmaking when a group of friends drag me along to mess about for a bit. Such as going '5 push support all mid'. That was a fun game.

Here's a tip if you want to destroy someone's argument: come with well underbuilt arguments, and do your bloody research. Don't come here with personal attacks based on false or lacking information.

Absolutely. I am most certainly backed into a corner after using logic, facts and general common sense to prove my point, the sheer ignorance of your text truly forced me into a desperate position. You sir, make me desperate. All of my previous posts definitely consist of no logical explanations, or logical points at all. This is a fact.

Rofl Hefaistus, really now. Personal attack, no, I'm making a logical argument. The logic dictates that if the match maker starts working, good players will progressively climb the ladder. Logic also dictates that if the match maker works, and the report system works, players who ruin the game will get removed from the game either by their own choice or by being banned while matches are generally more equal in quality. Logic finally dictates that if the winning team is the only one that gets items, then everyone will try to win because people want items. Logic dictates that anyone against a plan that promotes these positive qualities in the game, just doesn't want to play hard enough to win and will probably throw games and troll. On the plus side, the matches I've had today have been fairly even in nature. even the one obnoxious player so far wasn't THAT bad. There's hope yet (I hope).


1: It's abysmal, not abyssal. Abyssal means hellish or unholy, abysmal means terrible.
2: As he's already said, he doesn't play games via dotabuff often. 16 is a terrible sample size for anyone, especially for the early games of an account when you're playing with completely new players.
3: Bad winrates would benefit more from this change. The matchmaking is rigged to pull players towards 50%, regardless of what some mods might say, so having such an abysmal rate means he's more likely to win his next 6 or so games.

1 - Being under 40% is a hellish and unholy act.
2 - This also means he doesn't play or practice very much, and the games he does play are ones where hes literally just fucking around and not even trying to win. If he ever solo queue's, I truly feel for his teams.
3 - A WORKING match maker won't hold people to 50%. It will set them with players of as even skill as it can get them to, and they will have to fight and work to win their matches. It won't be "oh hes under 50% lets give him some wins" especially since the more games you play the more you need to make the equivalent of a .1% change in your winrate. This will benefit people because it will discourage players from simply throwing games and ruining the experience of their team simply because they "want an item".

Hefaistus
10-27-2012, 05:20 AM
Absolutely. I am most certainly backed into a corner after using logic, facts and general common sense to prove my point, the sheer ignorance of your text truly forced me into a desperate position. You sir, make me desperate. All of my previous posts definitely consist of no logical explanations, or logical points at all. This is a fact.

You were applying logic, facts, and general common sense? I'm sorry, was I reading the wrong thread, cause I sure haven't seen anything of it yet. It is fact that the majority of your statements are completely nonsensical, lack all kinds of logic and reasoning, and rather than trying to actually counter anything, you attempt to ruin someone's reputation, go off into rants that are not remotely related to the discussion at hand, and keep repeating the same stuff over, and over, and over again in just a different coat of paint. As a direct result, this discussion isn't moving on any way, shape, or form, and if this keeps being the case, I'll have to close this thread, just like why the concede, stats, and Russian discussions have been banned. Take of that what you want - in your warped views, you are probably convinced that it's me being butthurt, that I am seeing that I am losing, and thus shutting you up rather than allowing you to roflstomp me. Hey, it's you that gets the sense of superiority out of it, so rock on, bro - and if you wish to complain about my performance, you can contact Chairraider, as he appears to be the one in charge of mod related issues. Quite frankly, the chances of this system getting into Dota 2 is extremely low anyway, because it should be no secret that this goes against what Valve is trying to create.


Rofl Hefaistus, really now. Personal attack, no, I'm making a logical argument.

How is me having a 35% winrate for about 16 games suddenly 'a logical argument' for my skill? You say that to anyone that practices the fields of science or statistics, and they will laugh you out of the room.
Heck, you failed to note just how many games I had actually played in your previous post, thus obscuring vital detail, thus trying to make me look bad. So yes, it is very much a personal attack, or at least part of a smear campaign to ruin my supposed reputation.


The logic dictates that if the match maker starts working, good players will progressively climb the ladder. Logic also dictates that if the match maker works, and the report system works, players who ruin the game will get removed from the game either by their own choice or by being banned while matches are generally more equal in quality.

This is indeed what logic dictates, and I concur with you on these points. Unfortunately for you, these points are absolutely irrelevant to the discussion at hand, and I really wish you would stop continuously bringing these up. They are just there to bloat up text with useless information without bringing anything to the discussion.


Logic finally dictates that if the winning team is the only one that gets items, then everyone will try to win because people want items.

False. The correct way to say it is "Logic finally dictates that if the winning team is the only one that gets items, then everyone that wants items, will try to win harder." This may come as a surprise to you, but there is still a sizeable amount of players who do not play for items, but play the game for, ya know, the gameplay. To have a good time, to have tight, exciting matches, or maybe just to mess around for a bit, and try out something new. In fact, there is even a group of people who would love to see item rewards at the end of the game removed altogether. Will these people really suddenly try to win (harder) if item drops are only for winners? Nope.
Yes, it is true that there are people that will try to win harder when this system is implemented. No, it's not 'everyone', as you continuously try to convince us.


Logic dictates that anyone against a plan that promotes these positive qualities in the game, just doesn't want to play hard enough to win and will probably throw games and troll.

Except this plan hardly has any 'positive qualities'. A small group of people will try to win where they first didn't. Woopdee-fucking-doo. Wanna know what fixes this better? Having two separate queues. One for those that really want to win, and one for people that just want to goof off. And that has been suggested before. Here's the link (http://dev.dota2.com/showthread.php?t=20159). Go bump that up instead of trying to force in a system that doesn't even remotely fix the currently perceived issue.


On the plus side, the matches I've had today have been fairly even in nature. even the one obnoxious player so far wasn't THAT bad. There's hope yet (I hope).

Having nice matches is indeed a plus, but it's unrelated to the discussion.


1 - Being under 40% is a hellish and unholy act.

Only when you have played a lot of matches. I haven't. I won my very first MM match, meaning I at one point had a winrate of 100%. According to your logic, I have been a God at some point.


2 - This also means he doesn't play or practice very much, and the games he does play are ones where hes literally just fucking around and not even trying to win. If he ever solo queue's, I truly feel for his teams.

Except when I solo queue, I do try my best. I already told you, I only MM with friends, meaning I only mess around with friends. Otherwise, I only play co-op matches, of which I already have what? About 200? And I only lost about a handful. Heck, before there was co-op, I would only play private bot matches, because I wasn't too sure of my skill, and I didn't want to bring my team down. I didn't solo queue, because I doubted I was competent enough.
So, seriously, cut the bullshit about my performance in Matchmaking. It holds little meaning, it's not my preferred style of play, and it holds no relevance to this discussion, other than an attempt to damage the reputation of someone that does not concur with you.


3 - A WORKING match maker won't hold people to 50%. It will set them with players of as even skill as it can get them to, and they will have to fight and work to win their matches. It won't be "oh hes under 50% lets give him some wins" especially since the more games you play the more you need to make the equivalent of a .1% change in your winrate. This will benefit people because it will discourage players from simply throwing games and ruining the experience of their team simply because they "want an item".

That is indeed the purpose of a working matchmaker. But it's no secret that the current matchmaker is far from perfect, so at the moment, we are still seeing the issue where people are pretty much forced to the 50%, probably by a system that awards/subtracts too much MMR by a win/lose. So in the current matchmaking system, should your system be implemented, it is true that people with a low winpercentage has a higher chance to win matches, because the system, for all intents and purposes, tries to pull the player back to 50% with a too wide of a margin.

GrandBreaker
10-27-2012, 04:32 PM
Before we start I have a question: how in the blue blazing popcorn hell did YOU become a forum mod? Is it really this simple, that all one had to do is apply for the position? Or do you just know the other mods? Are you a friend of EricTams? Lord knows you know NOTHING of the game are completely unqualified for the position. Granted every forum mod on this forum has no idea what Valve is doing and is really just going on their own ideals, but there's maybe two left that actually TRIED to give a damn. The others that gave a damn dropped from being admins probably because they saw that there was no point. Now, onward:


You were applying logic, facts, and general common sense? I'm sorry, was I reading the wrong thread, cause I sure haven't seen anything of it yet. It is fact that the majority of your statements are completely nonsensical, lack all kinds of logic and reasoning, and rather than trying to actually counter anything, you attempt to ruin someone's reputation, go off into rants that are not remotely related to the discussion at hand, and keep repeating the same stuff over, and over, and over again in just a different coat of paint. As a direct result, this discussion isn't moving on any way, shape, or form, and if this keeps being the case, I'll have to close this thread, just like why the concede, stats, and Russian discussions have been banned. Take of that what you want - in your warped views, you are probably convinced that it's me being butthurt, that I am seeing that I am losing, and thus shutting you up rather than allowing you to roflstomp me. Hey, it's you that gets the sense of superiority out of it, so rock on, bro - and if you wish to complain about my performance, you can contact Chairraider, as he appears to be the one in charge of mod related issues. Quite frankly, the chances of this system getting into Dota 2 is extremely low anyway, because it should be no secret that this goes against what Valve is trying to create.

Yes, there is absolutely no logic in my statements. I'm definitely agreeing with you. And the best part is, its working. You are getting pissed. Your losing your cool. It's bringing to light exactly how pathetically bad your logic is. And you know what Valve is trying to create? Then why don't you fill us all in because none of us have a clue, and we've said this before. Please, do close this thread if you want. It will return because PEOPLE KNOW ITS A GOOD IDEA, and because it is the sole purpose of these development forums, you freaking moron. Neither myself or even Joker made this forum a troll thread, you made it so by bringing all manner of bad arguments, fallacy filled logic and general trollish crap onto it.



How is me having a 35% winrate for about 16 games suddenly 'a logical argument' for my skill? You say that to anyone that practices the fields of science or statistics, and they will laugh you out of the room.
Heck, you failed to note just how many games I had actually played in your previous post, thus obscuring vital detail, thus trying to make me look bad. So yes, it is very much a personal attack, or at least part of a smear campaign to ruin my supposed reputation.

Well you see, when you specifically say "all of my games were played when my friends grabbed me and we just fooled around, such as when we played 5 support mid push" then you admitted to "Just plain fucking around in your games and not giving a damn". Thus, your win rate is legit and measures your skill rating perfectly. Logically when you can admit it so casually and honestly not care who reads it, you really don't care who plays. You also don't play dota 2 at all because you've been around longer than even me and have only 16 games, which lowers your credibility as a source entirely. Anyone who practices the field of statistics would first ask WHY this is important, then they would ask HOW you are a credible opinion. Clearly, I have far more experience than you (More games played higher win rate etc) I am making logical arguments which you are trying to destroy with sheer jackassary. They would denounce this ENTIRE FORUM and Valve for even making it, since they have literally no hand in this forum at all.



This is indeed what logic dictates, and I concur with you on these points. Unfortunately for you, these points are absolutely irrelevant to the discussion at hand, and I really wish you would stop continuously bringing these up. They are just there to bloat up text with useless information without bringing anything to the discussion.

So what your saying, what your openly saying, is that the match maker and the report system do not work with teach other or affect each other at all. Your saying that if players ruin games for hats, even though the report system would remove them and thus the match maker wouldn't have them in it so it would function better, is an entirely moot point because none of these systems can affect each other AT ALL. If you aren't saying this, then please do explain what exactly you are saying.

Do you see now, why I am saying the following sentence: You are a moron doomed to failure.


False. The correct way to say it is "Logic finally dictates that if the winning team is the only one that gets items, then everyone that wants items, will try to win harder." This may come as a surprise to you, but there is still a sizeable amount of players who do not play for items, but play the game for, ya know, the gameplay. To have a good time, to have tight, exciting matches, or maybe just to mess around for a bit, and try out something new. In fact, there is even a group of people who would love to see item rewards at the end of the game removed altogether. Will these people really suddenly try to win (harder) if item drops are only for winners? Nope.
Yes, it is true that there are people that will try to win harder when this system is implemented. No, it's not 'everyone', as you continuously try to convince us.

Everyone is a general term, which you are trying to take literally and only makes you look like a jackass. If you do want a politically correct term, then MAJORITY. The MAJORITY of players like hats. The MAJORITY of players want to get something out of the game, and right now that is ONLY hats. The MAJORITY of players will try harder to win if only the winning team gets hats. The MAJORITY of players will benefit quite positively from this. Out of the several minority groups, of which there are trolls who just want items but don't want to try, trolls who just want to see the game burn, legit players who don't care about items either way, and legit players who want to get rid of items entirely; WHICH of these four groups do you think would oppose what this change would bring? Legit players who are far more concerned with the gameplay and not with items or think the items are bad, do you think they will leave? If the gameplay becomes better since people can only get the items they want by winning, which puts them on the same side as the players concerned with gameplay, do you think they will complain and leave? Or do you think the trolls and game ruiners will leave? What will the player group who wants items but doesn't like playing hard to get them do? Will some leave, will some start trying harder? Logic dictates that players who already wanted to win, will still want to win. Players who want items will try to win because winning gives items. Players who don't care, will still not care. Players who troll, will still troll. Players who don't want to work for items will be on an individual level. So what does this mean?

I win you lose. Thats what it means.



Except this plan hardly has any 'positive qualities'. A small group of people will try to win where they first didn't. Woopdee-fucking-doo. Wanna know what fixes this better? Having two separate queues. One for those that really want to win, and one for people that just want to goof off. And that has been suggested before. Here's the link (http://dev.dota2.com/showthread.php?t=20159). Go bump that up instead of trying to force in a system that doesn't even remotely fix the currently perceived issue.

Rofl, the two separate queue system involves the report system. Currently, being in low priority queue really does nothing to anyone. It isn't a separate queue, you just don't get BP and as such items. All of it is intertwined and thus it does affect and fix the problem. By all means, let there be two separate queues. It's literally part of MY plan and has been from the beginning if you actually read my plan which I don't think you did. Again, your a moron.



Having nice matches is indeed a plus, but it's unrelated to the discussion.

No, no its not unrelated. Having good matches is literally the point of the match maker. Having good even matches is WHAT DOTA IS. Dota is about playing the match properly and the game is played in a specific manner. What you just said is the equivalent to "The gun used in the murder and the gunshot wound that killed the victim are two entirely unrelated things". Once again, you are a moron.


Only when you have played a lot of matches. I haven't. I won my very first MM match, meaning I at one point had a winrate of 100%. According to your logic, I have been a God at some point.

And this is one of the criticisms of the bracket elo system. It starts everyone off at either 1200 or 1500 and then takes about 200 games to actually get a good grasp on where you should be. Then from there, you get better and better and start slowly climbing the ladder. Being under a 40% win rate is extremely hard for anyone who has played more than 5 games and isn't completely new or absolutely horrible. It is entirely an unholy act, especially when the current match maker works to hold us all (INCLUDING YOU SIR) as close to a 50% win rate as possible. Are you ever going to get tired of being a moron?



Except when I solo queue, I do try my best. I already told you, I only MM with friends, meaning I only mess around with friends. Otherwise, I only play co-op matches, of which I already have what? About 200? And I only lost about a handful. Heck, before there was co-op, I would only play private bot matches, because I wasn't too sure of my skill, and I didn't want to bring my team down. I didn't solo queue, because I doubted I was competent enough.
So, seriously, cut the bullshit about my performance in Matchmaking. It holds little meaning, it's not my preferred style of play, and it holds no relevance to this discussion, other than an attempt to damage the reputation of someone that does not concur with you.

And when you only mess around with friends you freely give out rating and wins to the enemy team. Now here is the most interesting thing about this situation: Dota buff and the client both record differently and show us different things about you. Dota buff shows you play lots of bot matches, where even though you win a lot of the, your regularly negative, poorly playing, etc. The client shows us that you have 9 pages of games played with 13 per page, of which we are "Denied access" if we try to view any of your private co-op matches as you put them. Your performance in match making IS EVERYTHING. Your performance in match making IS this game. You clearely suck and have no clue how to play the game, because your constantly putting forth literally some of the worst performance imaginable. I can view Dota buff and see your performing poorly against bots and human beings regularly. I can look at the client and see that there are many many more games you've played with your friends that I don't have access to the replay, they are private games where your team and your enemies teams are premade. I can make the logical conclusion that since human beings are generally smarter and better than bots, that you do even WORSE in these matches. Translation: You should NEVER try to tell anyone anything about this game, because you know nothing. It is entirely relevant. I play the game regularly. I'm a tryhard in every one of my games. I learned every single hero that I could. I learned every mechanic that I could. I learned what counters heroes, what they are effective against, what they can do, alternate effective ways of play, good lane partners FOR those heroes. I am a credible source of information because anyone who views my profile will see that I play solo queue almost 100% of the time and perform very well, regularly. This is entirely relevant. If you want to be a credible source of information, then go get better at the game. Learn its mechanics and learn how to play it, then you can come back and tell me that my points are moot. Until then I am going to always tell you that you are an ignorant moron who has no place on these forums, in the game, or anywhere else that you think you think your opinion matters.



That is indeed the purpose of a working matchmaker. But it's no secret that the current matchmaker is far from perfect, so at the moment, we are still seeing the issue where people are pretty much forced to the 50%, probably by a system that awards/subtracts too much MMR by a win/lose. So in the current matchmaking system, should your system be implemented, it is true that people with a low winpercentage has a higher chance to win matches, because the system, for all intents and purposes, tries to pull the player back to 50% with a too wide of a margin.

You do realize that this statement you just made is a complete contradiction to several of your earlier statements quoted? Your the Eternal Moron.

Monsterlord
10-27-2012, 07:41 PM
I think a smart course of action would be to bring in an independent mod to conclude that you are indeed being a jackass, seen as you're completely ignoring everything this one's saying to you and charging about with your rage-diarrhea.

Try and make the same post as concisely as possible, and without attacking anyone. I'll be surprised if you can manage four sentences.

ElvishArcher
10-28-2012, 12:04 AM
Giving players a random items after every match is good idea...

Until a few days ago i realize : that a player who left in the middle of the match received a rare (purple) item, and the other players who stayed until the end of match receive nothing but a K/D/A statistics on their screen.

That's really unfair.

Please repair the random items giving mechanism so the players who stay until the end of the match get the rewards, not the leaver one(s).

CvP
10-28-2012, 07:13 AM
...
People with your attitude are not welcomed in this forum. Have a nice day.

CvP
10-28-2012, 07:16 AM
As for this suggestion, it is not happening. Winners get more BP which means faster level up which means guaranteed item during level up. That's all you'll get.

Aravis
10-29-2012, 04:11 AM
As for this suggestion, it is not happening.
Actually it seems that most people want it.


Winners get more BP which means faster level up which means guaranteed item during level up. That's all you'll get.
Where do you get this information from?
According to Hefaistus the BP he got were linear to the game length.

Monsterlord
10-29-2012, 12:03 PM
Actually it seems that most people want it.

Lolno.