MM blowout as proof

[MeioJo]

The idea that this ELU 50/50 is a genuine reason for these match-ups is very easy to disprove...

If indeed we are getting matched with players who are at our same skill level then as we get better and better the chances of a blowout win get less and less and it's just a matter of 50/50 on your wins.

In fact what happens is you get teamed with people who guarantee a blowout lose to bring you back to 50/50.

Any sane person can see that this is not the theorized ELU at work causing 50/50.

Blow out games in a true ELU would decrease as you advanced but in fact they do not. They just become more noticeable to the better players because the better a player you become you are in fact smarter at seeing what is going on.

Blow outs are a sure sign that you are not matched up fairly. Pub Stomps would factor in very little as starting a new account to play against new users would not effect people with lots of games under their belt and the "pros" managing multiple accounts with hundreds of wins gets too time consuming to be a factor as well.

All these observations people are having of how idiotic the people they are being matched up with show that it is not a fair and balanced 50/50 method but a sloppy screw you method.

Hey I've lost lots of games that were fun. The people I played with and against were of a similar level to me. It's not the loosing that is the problem.

Blow out games are proof of this very real error in mm programing.

[nadaga]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arpad_Elo

[Kryil-]

The idea that this ELU 50/50 is a genuine reason for these match-ups is very easy to disprove...

If indeed we are getting matched with players who are at our same skill level then as we get better and better the chances of a blowout win get less and less and it's just a matter of 50/50 on your wins.

In fact what happens is you get teamed with people who guarantee a blowout lose to bring you back to 50/50.

Any sane person can see that this is not the theorized ELU at work causing 50/50.

Blow out games in a true ELU would decrease as you advanced but in fact they do not. They just become more noticeable to the better players because the better a player you become you are in fact smarter at seeing what is going on.

Blow outs are a sure sign that you are not matched up fairly. Pub Stomps would factor in very little as starting a new account to play against new users would not effect people with lots of games under their belt and the "pros" managing multiple accounts with hundreds of wins gets too time consuming to be a factor as well.

All these observations people are having of how idiotic the people they are being matched up with show that it is not a fair and balanced 50/50 method but a sloppy screw you method.

Hey I've lost lots of games that were fun. The people I played with and against were of a similar level to me. It's not the loosing that is the problem.

Blow out games are proof of this very real error in mm programing.

You have no idea what you're talking about, so simply stop it.

[MeioJo]

You have no idea what you're talking about, so simply stop it.

So say you....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arpad_Elo

" FIDE also added new "Qualification for Rating" rules to its handbook awarding arbitrary ratings (typically in the 2200 range, which is the low end for a chess master) for players who scored at least 50 percent in the games played at selected events, such as named Chess Olympiads.[4][5] Elo and others objected to these new rules as arbitrary and politically driven."

Interesting point.... "Qualification for Rating" is not ELO but "arbitrary and politically driven"

Makes my point very well thanks

[GewoonDaan]

Did you see the TI3 finals? There were two 'blowout games' there in opposite directions. I think we can agree that these are among the highest skilled players, and that the skill level on both teams is roughly equal (at least within the finals it seemed to be). So blowouts are definitely not a sign that you are not matched up fairly.

[MeioJo]

Did you see the TI3 finals? There were two 'blowout games' there in opposite directions. I think we can agree that these are among the highest skilled players, and that the skill level on both teams is roughly equal (at least within the finals it seemed to be). So blowouts are definitely not a sign that you are not matched up fairly.

You are making my point for me...

2 out of how many?

the chances of a blowout win get less and less

I did not say they would stop happening.

If you as an individual in mm get 2 blow out games for every 70 games then sure...

MM forcing blow outs @ 30% to keep you at 50/50 win ratio is ludicrous.

[GewoonDaan]

You are making my point for me...

2 out of how many?

2 out of 5.. I don't see how that is making your point. You claimed that blowouts are a proof of bad MM, but blowouts happpened in almost half the games of the grand finals of TI3.



I

[Double_DeluXe]

Not a single Dev has ever noted that it forces a 50% winrate.
They have actually explained before how it works.

[MeioJo]

2 out of 5.. I don't see how that is making your point. You claimed that blowouts are a proof of bad MM, but blowouts happpened in almost half the games of the grand finals of TI3.



I

Ahhh I see I missed the words "grand finals". Now we are quibbling over the definition of Blow out. You think that a comeback or even a win is a blow out while I consider it when there is no competition in the game and the victor has no problem winning.

blowout
to win by a large score (english slang)
"Did the Flames win?" "Ya, 11-2. It was a blowout."

Let me ask you this... did any of the players @ the international ignore their team mates, not talk to them, run into a fight that they were warned to pull back from or ignore being told that they were about to be ganked?

(If they did those things it would have been a blow out... In reality it was a competition.)

I assume you are smart enough to say 'no they did not' so my next question is...

At what level in MM can I expect the same? I'm not asking when can I have a more the 50/50 ratio. Just when can I expect to not be matched up with people like that?

So far it happens when I get too many wins. I don't mind if I loose in a fair fight but the fight is rigged.

You can lead a horse to water....

[Inritus]

Bottom line is (you will probably refuse to understand it once more) two out of five games between the two best teams were blowouts (and opposite ways!), even by your new definition. In games 1 and 2 the winning teams had absolutely 0 problem winning, which in turn disproves your main argument. Hint: The first game was over in just more than a third of average game time, with a score of 12-2 (check the score from your dictionary quote). Not sure why you're trying to sneak away from that being a blowout.

If everyone in a game picked the same hero, with the same build and bought the same items, then you would have a point. But this is the opposite of reality.
Finally, the game is never rigged for you to lose. Take off your tin foil hat and stop embarrassing yourself, this is as dumb as it gets.

Now try to come up a proper, reasonable response. Rather than just twist facts to fit your imaginary world and prove once again it's not really any point arguing with you.

[MeioJo]

even by your new definition..

I did not make up that definition...

Now try to come up a proper, reasonable response. Rather than just twist facts to fit your imaginary world and prove once again it's not really any point arguing with you.

As for my "reasonable response"

At what level in MM can I expect the same? I'm not asking when can I have a more the 50/50 ratio. Just when can I expect to not be matched up with people like that?

At what point in your imaginary ELO world does a person who knows how to listen and communicate the game events get <x% matches with people who do not?

[MeioJo]

In fact I can make it even simpler for you thick folks... Everyone knows that (along with knowing how to play) communication facilitates wins.

My wins area result of communicating with my team 90% of the time.
So....

How can I possibly be matched with my peers when I am matched with people who don't know how to listen and communicate the game events?

There is something else going on beside elo here. No one believes that these none focused individuals win while playing at higher levels when amongst each other. IF they win at all in higher rank it's because there is only 1 or 2 of them and the rest of the team makes up for it.

But that is not elo. It's more like the "Qualification for Rating" and is not ELO but "arbitrary and politically driven."

So Valve have said they use elo but the fact that they have layered some "Qualification for Rating" type thing onto it makes it useless and annoying.

[Inritus]

At what point in your imaginary ELO world does a person who knows how to listen and communicate the game events get <x% matches with people who do not?

The minority of players like to communicate and/or lead. Hence majority of your games have players that don't communicate. It's as easy as that.

And please, please stop taking that Wiki quote out of context.

[MeioJo]

The minority of players like to communicate and/or lead. Hence majority of your games have players that don't communicate. It's as easy as that.

Great point.. The fact that you can't be a great team without some type of communication proves my point. People who know how to play and communicate would in this fictional elo system get to a level where they play with like people simply by virtue of having that as an edge in winning more.

Wither you like to communicate or not is irrelevant to elo as it statistically gives you more wins.

And please, please stop taking that Wiki quote out of context.

That should be interesting... Please tell us it's context...

[Inritus]

Great point.. The fact that you can't be a great team without some type of communication proves my point. People who know how to play and communicate would in this fictional elo system get to a level where they play with like people simply by virtue of having that as an edge in winning more.

Wither you like to communicate or not is irrelevant to elo as it statistically gives you more wins.

Even if communication is likely to improve a team, you can still be a great team without it. Just like players can be good without communicating (and better than some of those that do communicate). There is no guarantee that communicating players will or should move to the top.

That should be interesting... Please tell us it's context...

It's related to FIDEs (the international chess federation) additional rules, unrelated to any ELO calculation, on how to classify newer chess players that have performed well in a big tournament. The "politically driven" part is about how loose the rules are. While the starting point might "typically be in the 2200 range" FIDE might give a player they like a start rating of 2350, or a player they don't like a start rating of 2000. The quotes are relevant to how FIDE manage their chess rankings only, not ELO in general.