Announcement

Collapse

Forum Rules

  • No flaming or derogatory remarks, directly or through insinuation.
  • No discussion, sharing or referencing illegal software such as hacks, keygen, cracks and pirated software.
  • No offensive contents, including but not limited to, racism, gore or pornography.
  • No excessive spam/meme, i.e. copious one liners in a short period of time, typing with all caps or posting meme responses (text/image).
  • No trolling, including but not limited to, flame incitation, user provocation or false information distribution.
  • No link spamming or signature advertisements for content not specific to Dota 2.
  • No Dota 2 key requests, sell, trade etc.
  • You may not create multiple accounts for any purpose, including ban evasion, unless expressly permitted by a moderator.

  • Please search before posting. One thread per issue. Do not create another thread if there is an existing one already.
  • Before posting anything, make sure you check out all sticky threads (e.g., this). Do not create new threads about closed ones.
  • It is extremely important that you post in correct forum section.

  • Balance discussion only in Misc.
  • All art related (such as hero model) feedbacks go to Art Feedback Forum.
  • All matchmaking feedback should go here: Matchmaking Feedback
  • All report/low priority issues should go here: Commend/Report/Ban Feedback
  • No specific workshop item feedback. These should go to workshop page of that item.
  • When posting in non-bugs section (such as this), use [Bugs], [Discussion] or [Suggestion] prefix in your thread name.



In case you object some action by a moderator, please contact him directly through PM and explain your concerns politely. If you are still unable to resolve the issue, contact an administrator. Do not drag these issues in public.



All rules are meant to augment common sense, please use them when not conflicted with aforementioned policies.
See more
See less

How's the new matchmaking?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • How's the new matchmaking?

    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

  • #2
    who cares man, at least he builds an aura.
    Dota 2 status:
    http://hydra-media.cursecdn.com/dota...respawn_04.mp3

    Comment


    • #3
      it doesnt seem to be any better

      Comment


      • #4
        Steam Summer Sale going on. Just enjoy some other games for $3!

        Comment


        • #5
          Doesn't seem to be any better, I'm getting matched against 80 wins players.

          Comment


          • #6
            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.

            Comment


            • #7
              Here's one before the changes 245698026
              One after the changes 246572710

              Won both of them easily.

              Comment


              • #8
                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.

                Comment


                • #9
                  >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.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    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.
                    Last edited by Jaxe; 07-18-2013, 07:13 PM.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by fletcher View Post
                      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.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        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.

                        Originally posted by fletcher View Post
                        >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.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          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.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            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.

                            Originally posted by mattieshoes View Post
                            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.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Sleepykins View Post
                              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.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X