How's the new matchmaking?

[sea]

I won't be playing until my 24 hour low priority is up for abandoning a game with 14 win quelling blade vlads first omniknight

[Lenciades]

who cares man, at least he builds an aura.

[lordcyber82]

it doesnt seem to be any better

[F2P]

Steam Summer Sale going on. Just enjoy some other games for $3!

[Noo]

Doesn't seem to be any better, I'm getting matched against 80 wins players.

[fletcher]

If you guys post some Match ID's I might be able to either explain why the match was formed, or else get some data to help adjust numbers in the matchmaker.

[Noo]

Here's one before the changes 245698026
One after the changes 246572710

Won both of them easily.

[iceinaglass]

hey fletcher could you please revert my LP status back to where it was before this game? Match 246511573. Now I have an additional 24 hour LP. this is just unfair

I'm supposed to be out of my LP in 22 hours unfortunately I got dc'ed because of the patch and wasn't able to reconnect coz the patch was downloading. all of us got an abandon.

btw, i'm the crystal maiden of that game.

[fletcher]

>246572710

The game looks pretty balanced to me. The Elos are all relatively close. Here are the Elo's on the two teams:

R D
3172 3047
2918 2958
2810 2804
2788 2720
2409 2508

Now it's a pretty big spread between 2409 and 3172, and it is a legitimate question to ask why in the world would we put people together with that big of a skill differential. The answer is that we didn't. The Radiant had a 4-stack which covered that range (the highest and lowest Elos on the Radiant were in the same party). We matched them with two 2-stacks on the Dire. One of the two-stacks had the highest and lowest Elos for the Dire, and the other two stack was in 2 of the middle slots. You were a single who was also in the middle, and there was also a single on the Radiant, also in the middle of the Elo range.

So, the average Elos of all the parties were pretty close. And, player-by-player, each team had somebody on the opposing team of roughly equal skill. Given that 4 stack with the big skill spread, I think it's hard to come up with a better way to get them into a game.

Would you mind being a bit more specific about what you think could have been better?

Note: all of the players had sufficient experience such that we rely almost entirely on Elo. (We do not consider a player with 75 wins to be a "noob".) In this match, there was no correlation between the Win count and the Elo. Perhaps 75 is too low of a number? We have some pretty good data that suggests that it's not. But averages and numbers often don't tell the whole story.

[Jaxe]

Hey fletcher, my last 3 games since the patch (eg 246595357) I've been matched with players with around 200 wins (some around 50 wins, highest I saw was around 300 wins) when I have 1000+ wins. I know win count doesn't reflect skill level but I don't remember getting matched with much lower win count players before the patch. The patch notes indicated there would be more segregation based on win count.

If they are really the same elo as me then that's fine, I just found it odd.

[coincidence]

Now it's a pretty big spread between 2409 and 3172, and it is a legitimate question to ask why in the world would we put people together with that big of a skill differential. The answer is that we didn't. The Radiant had a 4-stack which covered that range (the highest and lowest Elos on the Radiant were in the same party). We matched them with two 2-stacks on the Dire. One of the two-stacks had the highest and lowest Elos for the Dire, and the other two stack was in 2 of the middle slots. You were a single who was also in the middle, and there was also a single on the Radiant, also in the middle of the Elo range.

The problem here is kinda self-made, to be honest. Sure, the matchmaking can not fix the wide spread of skill caused by the heterogeneous stacks. But then again a visible ladder system would let people understand that there is no way of having a well balanced match as long as player Diamond and player Bronze choose to group up.

[mattieshoes]

Honestly, I think this is because players don't know what's going on. They didn't know they were against a 4-stack with a broad skill spread. The 4-stack, however, did. I get why ratings are hidden, but I think it'd be nice to see something that indicates the distribution of ratings so players will expect it and can play accordingly.

>246572710

The game looks pretty balanced to me. The Elos are all relatively close. Here are the Elo's on the two teams:

R D
3172 3047
2918 2958
2810 2804
2788 2720
2409 2508

Now it's a pretty big spread between 2409 and 3172, and it is a legitimate question to ask why in the world would we put people together with that big of a skill differential. The answer is that we didn't. The Radiant had a 4-stack which covered that range (the highest and lowest Elos on the Radiant were in the same party). We matched them with two 2-stacks on the Dire. One of the two-stacks had the highest and lowest Elos for the Dire, and the other two stack was in 2 of the middle slots. You were a single who was also in the middle, and there was also a single on the Radiant, also in the middle of the Elo range.

So, the average Elos of all the parties were pretty close. And, player-by-player, each team had somebody on the opposing team of roughly equal skill. Given that 4 stack with the big skill spread, I think it's hard to come up with a better way to get them into a game.

Would you mind being a bit more specific about what you think could have been better?

Note: all of the players had sufficient experience such that we rely almost entirely on Elo. (We do not consider a player with 75 wins to be a "noob".) In this match, there was no correlation between the Win count and the Elo. Perhaps 75 is too low of a number? We have some pretty good data that suggests that it's not. But averages and numbers often don't tell the whole story.

[Sleepykins]

I don't see how people knowing they are against a stack would play any differently. Would they intentionally play poorly to end the match they might feel is a stomp end even quicker? I think people are making the assumption that giving all of the information would be beneficial without thinking of any of the possible negatives.

If I get stomped in a game I tend to think its because my team team as a whole likely made some pretty big mistakes, or got completely outdrafted (which at the low elos doesn't happen very often IMO, mostly because draft matters way less it seems).

Transparency with the ratings could be a good or bad thing. Maybe show some kind of information post-match (similar to CS:GO)? Either way I think people would end up blaming the ELO as opposed to blaming actual mistakes they (or their team) made while playing that caused the loss.

[micaele0]

I very strongly agree with this idea. Since the game doesn't tell us our ELOs, I think a sufficient alternative is to let us know at least that we're up against a stack and that we have two -stacks on our team. I think that that would provide enough information to prevent this particular thread from happening.

Honestly, I think this is because players don't know what's going on. They didn't know they were against a 4-stack with a broad skill spread. The 4-stack, however, did. I get why ratings are hidden, but I think it'd be nice to see something that indicates the distribution of ratings so players will expect it and can play accordingly.

[Axe_is_a_mansman]

If I get stomped in a game I tend to think its because my team team as a whole likely made some pretty big mistakes, or got completely outdrafted (which at the low elos doesn't happen very often IMO, mostly because draft matters way less it seems).

Transparency with the ratings could be a good or bad thing. Maybe show some kind of information post-match (similar to CS:GO)? Either way I think people would end up blaming the ELO as opposed to blaming actual mistakes they (or their team) made while playing that caused the loss.

Getting outdrafted matters at all levels of play, arguably more so at low-mid tiers of play. If your opponents draft strong lanes, even by accident, they're going to gain an advantage immediately due to kill potential becoming snowball potential. The generally lower levels of communication for pub teams means that the snowball potential isn't mitigated by good play; if the snowballer is even average he'll recognize his ability to shut out the game.



As for blaming the ELO for a players loss, I don't see that being substantially different from players blaming all the things they blame now. If self-criticism is something a player isn't willing to indulge in, then no scoring system or MMR will ever influence that player in the slightest. Transparency in the ratings only has the power to give clear information to the players that want to understand their shortcomings and improve upon them.