what is wronge with psr system?

[ilikedat]

Make the system like RGC 5 psr per win - 3 per lose

maybe that would be good. the current one takes too much time to go above 1700 due the lack of high psr players to play againts.

[pastmistake]

Make the system like RGC 5 psr per win - 3 per lose

You have no idea what you are talking. Been there, done that. That system is flawed to the root. Mainly because 5 losses = 3 wins , that makes it for any 37.5% winrate or above, you get to go up ladder. So you reward quantity vs quality.

Adding "!balance" makes it a bit better vs the RGC version, but still shitty.

So the fix would be make it +5/-5 (Fixed amount) but that would mean we back to our version, with the only difference, Lagabuse version lets "smurfs" go up faster so they don't fuck with lowpsr games too much.

Just like what valve does now, when after 10 wins in a row or something like that, it starts giving you +50 MMR.

[ilikedat]

My friend even on la system if the game is balanced 50/50 or below  u will lose less than u earn so your argument is irrelevant.

[pastmistake]

That explains why low-winrate/average skilled players are in top 50.
I never said lagabuse system is excellent.

[AntlermanXXL]

Spoiler for Hiden:

Sorry for offtopic, but mister ilikedat was never good at discussing anything, like really never; At least via internet, from what we have observed over years here; Awesome suggestion is to just skip those messages

Just like what valve does now, when after 10 wins in a row or something like that, it starts giving you +50 MMR.

Sounds interesting btw !

[Nexxus]

Do you really get 50 mmr per game if you go on 10 winstreak?

[pastmistake]

Well is not all about winstreak with current (pretty sure AI involved) matchmaking system. They say it's a complex formula, but main components are winstreak and account uncertainty.

But I think same applies for boosted accounts, where you can lose more than 30MMR / game.

We also track our uncertainty about your MMR. New accounts and those playing in Ranked Matchmaking for the first time have high uncertainty. Higher uncertainty allows larger adjustments after each match, and lower uncertainty leads to smaller adjustments. Together, the MMR and uncertainty can be interpreted as a probability distribution of performance in your next game; the MMR itself serves as the mean of this distribution and the uncertainty is its standard deviation. If the match outcomes (both the win/loss and individual performance) repeatedly match our expectations, the uncertainty tends to decrease until it reaches a floor. A surprising match outcome will tend to cause an increase in uncertainty.

[pastmistake]

tl;dr.

The advantage of the dota 2 system is, THEY DON'T PUT IN CHARGE a player (the host) of balancing a game. And you cannot know/pick your team before game starts. So you don;t get to choose with whom you play. That makes it fair from my perspective.

Having players with %70+ winrate it's a clear sign of bad balancing.

[luke]

agree, in overwatch you have 50% winrate because you are placed on rating which suits you, so all have decent game. Only problem is with smurf, for example platinum comes to silver and wins game solo, same like here a lot of smurfs

[Arthas]

Any form of metric is good for determining who is the best at that specific metric.

Winning is the main objective of the game, therefore having winning as the metric is the best way to rank people.

If other forms of rating were present, people would give up on trying to win when the game is even slightly difficult and they would instead try to farm rating points in those specific hypothetical ways.

To give a small example, if you would gain some rating points for having x amount of last hits, people would afk on lanes to get those last hits instead of doing things on the map like they should.

Another example, if you would gain some rating points for having y amount of kills, people would start using spells only to last hit the kill instead of using the spells when they should in order to win the fight.

Yet another example, if you would gain some rating points for having z amount of k.d.a. ratio, everyone would start being scared of dying and not going in to do things in fights even if they should, (because every death reduces the k.d.a. ratio immensely), and so on and so forth.

Therefore, having only winning as a metric is the best.

the right psr calculation should include win/lost games as a part of equation for example 
 psr =-+(x)  where x is game + won - lost  thats the current calculation

what it should be like  psr=-+x -+y+z 
x  number from game condition of win/lose  +added or - substracted from the psr

y  let it be difference between kills and deaths in positive or negative added to psr calculation

z  let it equal to zero or positive if assist is bigger than kills and deaths combined

that is example for adding other status to calculate psr

from my point of view... winning  games is not neccesary the point of playing ... destroying the tree or the throne is just how the game ends...

you made it sound like current psr forces players to play the game in specific way ...thats the fucking problem ....

[Jimmy]

This actually has sense.