Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 34

Thread: Ranked MMR as a single number is detrimental to a fun ranked experience.

  1. #21
    Basic Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Romania , Bucharest
    Posts
    107
    Quote Originally Posted by Lord_Talron View Post
    i stopped playing ranked because i didnt want to lose any more mmr. ill admit it
    I stopped playing SOLO ranked , I play like maximum of 10 matches / week in party ranked . My MMR is too low for me to enjoy playing SOLO .
    ( lack of basic mechanics knowledge , nobody wants to play support , etc . )

    Rest of the matches are TMM / scrims ( 90 % ) . enjoying the metagame and high quality matches there .

  2. #22
    Basic Member hsdvo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    socal
    Posts
    874
    good post

  3. #23
    Basic Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    21
    Quote Originally Posted by hoveringmover View Post
    There are lies in your post.
    Kind of a strong statement, isn't it? You're welcome to point out what you think I got wrong, but outright accusing me of lying is kind of unnecessary.

    Where do you feel I'm mistaken?

  4. #24
    Basic Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    21
    Quote Originally Posted by func_door View Post
    isn't this system just shifting from tiny disappointments every time you lose mmr to a big disappointment every time you go down a threshhold, which would actually feel even more arbitrary?
    But the tiny disappointments happen almost half of the time, even if you are improving. A big disappointment would mostly happen if you're actually getting worse.

    Also, I'm not necessarily advocating for a specific alternative, I just feel like the current representation system has huge flaws.

  5. #25
    Basic Member hoveringmover's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    2,509
    Quote Originally Posted by jpjandrade View Post
    Kind of a strong statement, isn't it? You're welcome to point out what you think I got wrong, but outright accusing me of lying is kind of unnecessary.

    Where do you feel I'm mistaken?
    I wouldn't even know where to start.
    How about accurate statements get green, and inaccurate ones get red? Of course, the majority of your post is merely opinions, so I'll ignore most of it for the purpose of putting in color to make my point.
    Quote Originally Posted by jpjandrade View Post
    Hey all, I posted this on reddit but it went nowhere and I thought I should post it here to get a little more visibility from the devs.

    Recently I was thinking about how ranked MMR is presented and I feel like they blew the MMR implementation very badly. It's not just extremely barebone, but works actively to make you feel bad about playing ranked matches in my opinion. Please note that this isn't a critique on their MMR formula, which I know nothing about but seems quite credible. This is a critique on the way ranked play was implemented, where you get two simple MMR numbers that are updated after each match.

    I'm 100% behind Dota having a ranked system. We all strive to improve and it takes away the pressure from unranked games. A ranked system supposedly gives you the incentive to actively improve your skills and get better. Currently, Valve gives you the exact number used by their formula, along with its update after every match. This is in my opinion bad for several reasons:

    Humans have loss aversion.

    This means that you are way more bummed out by a 25 points loss on your MMR than by a 25 point gain. Loss aversion isn't so much of a problem with unranked Dota because every match is different, so sometimes a close loss is satisfying while a stomp where you barely use your core items doesn't feel as great. However, with a numerical measure of your gains and losses, there's simply no way out of loss aversion. This ties very closely to the second problem:

    Humans are very bad at recognizing variance.

    The MMR climb is essentially a random walk where the average drift depends on your skill. On every Dota game you have a certain probability of winning and your skill can improve (or decrease) that probability. But except on the most lopsided matches, no team has a 100% chance of winning a match. What this means is that you're going to both lose and win frequently and unless you are seriously underranked (or overranked) your improvement can only be reflected over a reasonable number of samples.

    But we all know that, right? Why bring it up? Because humans don't know how to recognize that variance. We are also specially bad at recognizing streaks (either wins or losses) as part of random chance. This means that you will win a lot, feel pretty confident, then lose a lot and this will be just part of the random walk. But the losing streak feels way worse and we get stressed in the process. Then the next match has to take us out of the pit we just got ourselves into. I mean, if I lose another game I'll go below 3k and this will be awful. I'm sure the next match won't be stressful at all.

    This is obviously not exclusive to Dota. This is a problem for Poker players, whose livelihood depends on the state of their bankroll and have to deal with losing streaks, knowing that if they lose further they might not have enough money to play on the high stakes tables and then have to work way more to themselves out of the pit and back in their old financial situation. The same goes for anyone trading their own money in the financial market. But by giving an exact, precise number to MMR, Valve has placed this heavy burden on accepting variance on ranked players. This is compounded by the fact that most of us plateau and ranked gives you feelings of loss where there shouldn't be any (because you are not actually getting worse or better, just riding the variance). And this is specially unnecessary because...

    Only the first two digits of the MMR matter.

    Consider this thought experiment: suppose Na'vi and Alliance are equally skilled at 7000 team MMR and this is their "true" MMR, perfectly reflecting their abilities. Again, this is not a critique of the MMR method, but it's important to understand its limitations.

    They play a game. One of them is going to gain 25 points and the other will lose 25 points. So right off the bat the MMR system has a 25 point uncertainty that in no way reflects your skill. Furthermore, Na'vi has 25% chance of losing twice in a row and then will end up with a 50 point delta from their real MMR and Alliance will end up 50 points better. And a variance of this size will happen 50% of the time they play two matches in a row (because it could swing both ways). Only on the other 50% of the time will they end 1-1 and their MMR will end up even after two games.

    At some point, of course, if Na'vi loses too many matches in a row you have to discard the hypotheses that they are of same skill that of Alliance. But this is somewhat beyond 2 losses in a row and therefore beyond a 50 point difference. The loss and gain of MMR decreases with the difference (ie, Na'vi won't lose 250 points on a 10 loss streak), but the principle holds for small variations. It hardly matters if your MMR is 3573 or 3548 yet right now as presented everyone will sweat over the difference. Valve would already have done much better, for example, if they simply rounded your MMR to the lowest hundred, so that you jump from 2600 to 2700, from 5100 to 5000, etc and MMR variantions inside a hundreth (sp?) are hidden. Way less variance, more average tendencies. Of course, losing 100 MMR sucks too, but this would be happen way less frequently precisely because it would better reflect the average MMR. Not that I think this is the best implementation, but it would already be an improvement over the current system.

    I will stop now because the post is lengthy already and these are in my opinion the major problems with the current MMR system. Note that this doesn't touch the fact that the ranked system is extremely simple right now (no ladder, no graphs showing your progression, no idea of where you are among the Dota community, etc). But even this simple implementation is bad at motivating players to play and try to improve their MMR.

    What are your thoughts on that? Do you feel like the current MMR gives good incentives to keep playing?

    tl;dr: A single number gives you more ladder anxiety, bums you out everytime you lose and is not a good representation of your skill and skill improvement.
    Last edited by hoveringmover; 02-14-2014 at 11:58 AM.
    I will mercilessly add to my ignore list anyone that makes an incredibly annoying signature.

  6. #26
    Basic Member Renita's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    228
    +1

    Very good points and I agree, I think it would be better to have a ladder system.

  7. #27
    Basic Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    21
    Quote Originally Posted by hoveringmover View Post
    I wouldn't even know where to start.
    How about accurate statements get green, and inaccurate ones get red? Of course, the majority of your post is merely opinions, so I'll ignore most of it for the purpose of putting in color to make my point.
    Ok, so you mainly don't agree with the loss aversion bit.

    Why call them lies? Why not expand on why you don't believe loss aversion applies to MMR?

  8. #28
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    1,475
    What's your opinion on why the old "rating" doesn't work?
    You know...
    (low)
    Normal
    High
    Very High

    The system is a little vague but at least you don't get actively stressed about losing numbers/

  9. #29
    Quote Originally Posted by Okeado View Post
    What's your opinion on why the old "rating" doesn't work?
    You know...
    (low)
    Normal
    High
    Very High

    The system is a little vague but at least you don't get actively stressed about losing numbers/
    ^Those values had nothing to do with matchmaking.
    --------------------

    OP the problem is that there's barely any information about where you stand. All you get is a random number that (without doing research) means nothing at face value. Valve needs to release new information regarding Ranked MMR.
    Last edited by Divine Rapier; 02-14-2014 at 01:16 PM.

  10. #30
    Basic Member hoveringmover's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    2,509
    Quote Originally Posted by jpjandrade View Post
    Ok, so you mainly don't agree with the loss aversion bit.

    Why call them lies? Why not expand on why you don't believe loss aversion applies to MMR?
    Because what is affecting the ranking is losing on purpose out of cowardice and not trying to win, and yet you call it 'loss aversion'. It's cowardice. They're 2 completely different things. Loss aversion would be like denying permission of your ally to buy a Rapier when you were already winning. Or for another example, winning a game despite that your opponents have more than seventy-five percent more kills than your team, just because you refused to give up. That is loss aversion in action, perhaps more accurately, loss evasion. At any rate, to dislike losing has nothing to do with winning or losing, or at least it shouldn't. Players choose to lose(whether they like losing is irrelevant, it messes up the rankings) and that's what results in losses, at least this is the case with the majority of players in the US West region. If they're too emotional, then what business do they have playing ranked games, anyway?

    Why do people choose to lose if they dislike losing so much? Is it panic? It would seem to be more of a phobia in that case, and I have seen some crazy things in games that makes me think it is a phobia, and not simply an aversion. I don't like spiders, I have an aversion to them, but do I call for help if I encounter one? No, I don't have arachnophobia. I simply avoid it or even kill it if I feel the need. Maybe I have been wrong and players do not really choose to lose some of the time, but if that is the case, we must then suppose that maybe they are more than averse to losing, they are very scared to lose, to the point of having a phobia which would fit into the broader definition of being a coward.

    At any rate, talk is cheap. You can try to tell a guy he did a good job on that play but if he doesn't follow through with consistently good play he may wash out and fail to play well at some point. For some players, there is perhaps nothing you do can change the fact that they may be having a mental break down in the game you're playing together. And I have been asking Valve to ban them in the comments of my reports. Perhaps I am harsh, but I don't see how matching me with mentally ill players is supposed to be fair or fun.

    We all have our imperfections, but as far as the mental state of many players of this game goes, it's way more than simply imperfect, it is corrupt. Why do you think there is no surrender button? It is because giving up corrupts the fun of the game. But people surrender anyway and dodge low priority by pretending to try. I will never understand why players decide to give up in team games. If you're so scared to lose, don't give up, then it's 100 percent chance to lose. Conquer your fears and be stronger. But we are a weak region. I would rather keep trying if my chance to win is only 25 percent instead of 50 percent. But some players just make it 0 when they surrender and that just outrages me to no end.
    Last edited by hoveringmover; 02-14-2014 at 01:53 PM.
    I will mercilessly add to my ignore list anyone that makes an incredibly annoying signature.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •