someone seems happy that the system is flawed when it comes to players with mass amount of games with a single hero )
:/ I was wondering why lalala disappeared from the top, how did you come to the conclusion that "someone seems happy that the system is flawed"?
And how is it flawed exactly? It's not like I have 6k slark games with a winrate of 2%
Win game +5
Lose Game -3
Explains dotabuff ranking pretty much.
You are not even remotely close to be even considered top 100 on slark. Do you think players who are not even in very high skill bracket ( I mean ATLEAST 5k+) and with a winrate of 50~ and low kda but 2k games should be top -100 on ranking?
Just look at chen and obsidian also ( smaug and snith)
@OP
The reason they disappear is because they haven't played the hero for 30+ days.
@Vroksnak, who cares, it's more important that we actually have useful people on the ranking that people can learn from. I'm myself proud that I made it to the ranking, but honestly, in terms of skill there might be others slightly better than me (as always).
Nevertheless I will just restate what I said in the other thread already: People who pick this hero every game, who play the hero in games in which the hero is countered, in which he gets destroyed, in hard games, that's interesting to see on the ranking.
I don't give a shit about some guy with 75% winrate in 40 games who only played the hero in games which are extremely favourable for him.
Real skill is measured how people behave in games that are not in their favour. High KDAs/Winrates have nothing to do with it. If it would differentiate between kda on losses and on wins, then we could have A LOT better rankings.
An OD who manages to get a KDA of 3 when his team is feeding is more impressive than an OD who manages to get a KDA of 12 when his team is owning.
@Vroksnak he didn't lose games as Slark, he actually won, but he's not in the list anymore.
Also, I'd like to see you play a few thousand games with a single hero, always trying to pick it first (usually getting instantly countered) in solo ranked games :)
I bet your performances wouldn't be impressive at all, but I'm pretty sure you'll find a couple excuses.
And why do you feel so ass hurt about me being in the top list anyway? It has nothing to do with my initial inquiry.
@Smaug he played Slark 10 hours ago: http://www.dotabuff.com/players/132291754
I see, he dropped to rank #80
It seems he is no longer Professional 5 (Diamond 10 instead) for some reason.
"be others slightly better than me"
ur below 50% with 3500 od games
:DDDDDD
wait what
shouldnt u learn the hero after the first 1k games or so and get atleast 53%
so u think the guys in professional 5 or whatever whos probably 6k+ mmr gets 70 easy games and u get 3500 hard games in 4800
:DDDDD
I looked through ur recent games as slark and confirmed 4k-5k and yet u want to come up with a ton of shit posts to make urself look better even though u're probably really bad at this game.
@OP
1 sub division = 15-20 hero score.
Hence, the drop.
Anyway, I'm curious.
May I know what's your MMR, 666 MMR?
"shouldnt u learn the hero after the first 1k games or so and get atleast 53%"
Just because you learn the hero doesn't mean you completely mastered dota. The winrate is directly tied to the MMR, without gaining higher MMR, you won't gain higher Winrate (except you're abusing/stacking/playing unranked). For example, just to get 51% winrate I would need to win another +34 matches in a row, if I gained +25 mmr for each of them, my total MMR would increase by 850 MMR to 6k.
While this is technically possible if I was an extremely good dota player, getting it to 55% or even 60% without cheating is literally impossible as it required me to be the best dota player by a very wide margin.
The mistake you're making is that you believe someone who played 1000 games with the same hero should be better than someone who played 1000 games with all heroes, while in fact, it is exactly the opposite. I can't choose which hero to pick, if someone takes or steals mid I already lost, I play this game on the extra hard extra difficult mode where I have to pick OD despite the enemies having picked Nyx, Pugna and Razor already, and I have to win games farming mid while 4 enemies are trying to prevent me from farming.
Playing 1 hero often makes you good at the hero, it doesn't suddenly enable you new abilities or make you beyond godlike every game. That is clearly impossible to do. No matter how many million games you're playing, if the enemy has a Nether Ward, you're going to be screwed with OD. Even if you're Black, there is a limit on how much farm you can get in a minute.
In addition to all this comes that I have low amount of experience of how other heroes play (and as such difficulties to predict their behaviour) and most importantly, unlike you, I can not get a 80% winchance right by picking the right lineup. I mean, of course I could, but then I would not play OD anymore.
Also the learning experience is very inefficient and low by playing the same hero over and over. If I pick all 100 heroes one ofter each other, I have lots of new stuff to learn. If I play OD, the only thing that is left for me to learn is some decision making, I need freaking coaches and pay them 30$ per hour in order to get a decision making process that is so good that I can (in the future) outsmart Professionals. All that just because I have to compensate for my limited hero pool.
good shit good shit
tell you what, if you were actually good at your respective heroes you'd both sit at 6.2k+ MMR just like attacker or that ukrainian who spams void and other people recognized for playing their hero properly (this is possible to do with every hero btw)
otherwise there's no difference between you and people who have 8000 games played, 49% win and 3k mmr, let's make a top list for them? lol
the cold truth is games played don't mean you actually learned how to play the hero and every leaderboard player is gonna be better than you at every aspect of it after ~20 games or less because you're mechanically deficient or whatever it is that keeps you in 4k mmr or below after that many games
@wraithseeker so by asking a legitimate question I am trying to make myself look better? Am I supposed to pretend player rankings don't exist or not to give a shit about it, otherwise I am boasting just because I am in the top? Smaug told me lalala dropped to #80 and that's all I needed to know, and I would've discovered that by myself if I would've done a simple name search on the page, but I didn't image someone could drop that fast (so I assumed he disappeared from the list).
"tell you what, if you were actually good at your respective heroes you'd both sit at 6.2k+ MMR just like attacker or that ukrainian who spams void and other people recognized for playing their hero properly"
You have no idea how I play, no idea how Attacker plays, but still you think you know everything. You're arguing with logical fallacies. You're betraying yourself.
"(this is possible to do with every hero btw)"
You do realize that this is a completely random guess that you just made up to fit your argument and has no logical reasoning?
"otherwise there's no difference between you and people who have 8000 games played, 49% win and 3k mmr, let's make a top list for them? lol "
There are huge differences, you just completely close your eyes and argue in your beliefs rather than truths. I'm sorry that I don't match your opinion, but again, that doesn't mean that the truth does not exist.
Open your eyes. And stop falling for fallacies.
"Plays slark for 6000+ games only 51% winrate, where is the talent?"
Something like Talent doesnt exist and even if it did, it would be worthless. You are not on the top list because you're predestined to it, you're on the top list because you match its criteria. You don't choose to be on the list, the list chooses you.
@rofl so being 6k mmr gives you the right to be cocky and to talk out of your ass in an irrelevant manner ? I think I can do that at 4k as well.
he wasn't cocky he just pointed the obvious, the ranking system makes a guy like you who's barely 4.3k to be in top 10 just because you have 6 fucking thousand games with slark and that's just ridiculous, if you think you're legit top10 slark in the world then you're fucking delusional
You are not a top 10 legit slark. You are only on the top 10 list because you have
Time played: 167 days.
167 straight days in time spent play slark, ffs that's ridiculous.
@Smaug
That "criteria" should reflect skill, and in terms of skill most 6k+ players are better then you at your heroes. The only reason why you are in rankings is because dotabuff don't have access to MMRs.
@6_din_49
Just because you believe those players were better doesn't make it true. You don't know how I play. You don't even know my MMR.
"You are not a top 10 legit slark. You are only on the top 10 list because you have
Time played: 167 days.
167 straight days in time spent play slark, ffs that's ridiculous."
That just proves how dense you are.
Apparently it is not easy for you to understand that the more you play, the higher the chances to lose.
There's a reason player rankings takes number of games into account (Matches Played: Risk and Effort).
@rofl Let me point out the obvious: I never stated "I think I am a legit top10 Slark", that's just your assumption. And this thread isn't about me boasting or trying to prove anything, I was simply wondering what happened to one of the top players (which for some reason experienced a dramatic drop in ranks).
And just to humour a few of you, if you'd actually check the Slark players ranks, you'd see that I am surrounded by professional players, or at least their division indicates that. I'm pretty sure that those guys don't party with random scrubs, neither do they constantly get Down's Syndrome players in their team when they solo queue (which I pretty much experience 5-6 games out of 10). For that reason I have to constantly experience and improvise on builds, which more often than not leads to failure, even after 6 thousand games.
@6_din_49
It remains unclear whether it is even technically possible no matter how well I play to ever reach 6k. The fact that I am trying to reach it doesn't mean that it is possible. Because nobody has done that yet. Of course it is fairly easy - even for me - to grind MMR by just playing all heroes and picking the hero that fits best to the lineup etc. It's however pretty difficult with a hero such as OD who is the exact opposite of being versatile, relies very heavily on his team mates, and is piss easy to counter. There is a reason this hero dominates the top 10 of worst pub heroes for an eternity.
yes typhox, everyone else that plays this game always picks the perfect hero with 0 counters every game. Seriously, try reading your own comments back to yourself, you are still as thick as ever
"That just proves how dense you are.
Apparently it is not easy for you to understand that the more you play, the higher the chances to lose.
There's a reason player rankings takes number of games into account (Matches Played: Risk and Effort)."
Is there supposed to be some kind of logic to this? How does playing the hero more = higher chance to lose? If the system is what vroksnak said, +5/-3 (its obviously something along those lines), then simply playing a hero hundreds, if not thousands of times is enough to get into the top 100.
http://www.dotabuff.com/players/152983883
Diamond 1 player, intentionally feeds with multiple heroes in order to keep his MMR down. Then plays heroes like Tinker and Sniper for 6k hero rating, despite playing 91 of his 94 sniper games in the normal bracket and 363 of his 507 tinker games in the normal bracket
I mean that is straight up exploiting but w/e. The system is stupid at the moment, simply spamming a hero thousands of times does not make you better than another player. IMO they should just remove any player below 5K, organise 5k+ into brackets (no professional), and then go from there using stats (trying to account for stacks if possible too)
^ Then everyone else would have 100% winrate. Stop trolling. Even if you only play Silencer you already have a huge advantage over me.
it is clear that even if you just random every game you will have more favourable matches than me.
well smaug for one your mechanics clearly still have ways to go, let's not even go into your lane control, astral timing to control denies and manipulating timings to prevent enemies from having mana to cast spells are basic aspects of OD which you have only begun improving on recently
granted you may know some aspects of the hero better than other people above you but in terms of general play i would say that many people underneath you in the rankings can bring the hero to its true potential better than you can, by virtue of having better overall understanding of the game and general mechanics alone
@Smaug
If you'd play your heroes on an account with 1k mmr less then yours, I'm pretty sure you'd win 90% of games regardless of counter-picks.
@Casual
Create dota account, play a couple games and win them, 100% winrate, stop playing on that account, have 100% winrate forever, best player in the universe, right?
@6_din_49
Probably, but then he would drop division and get lower scores (read this for details: http://www.dotabuff.com/topics/2014-10-22-is-player-rankings-broken-or-what)
"granted you may know some aspects of the hero better than other people above you but in terms of general play i would say that many people underneath you in the rankings can bring the hero to its true potential better than you can, by virtue of having better overall understanding of the game and general mechanics alone"
Huh, so you basically confirmed what I said above - just because you play a hero very often doesn't mean that you master dota.
@6_din_49
I have other accounts, and 1k lower than mine is basically the same rating as my MMR ranges between 4300 and 5300 depending on the weather.
I know many of those players who you consider to be the best players, a guy with 77% winrate on about 50 games with OD, a guy with 67% winrate in 2100 games with PL. I destroyed SingSing and a Virtus Pro stack, and I got destroyed by many professionals just as well. I know my 3 coaches (6k MMR) all of them independently claimed that OD is extremely difficult to climb MMR with, one of them claiming that it's only details I need to improve on, another one saying that he can't teach me anything after defeating him in 1v1.
I'm sick and tired of having to defend myself from smartasses with fundamental attribution error claiming that they know everything better.
You guys simply have absolutely no clue about the shit you're talking.
@Zenoth,
I used Astral Imprisonment often for denies, but to get the timings right in terms of mana, it requires me to actually know the mana cost of other heroes spells. A big deficit that comes from not having played those heroes is that I don't know their mana cost at all. And I only recently began memorizing them. Same problem with Spell Cooldowns.
In other words, in order to get better with OD, I need to obtain skill and knowledge that can not be obtained by playing OD.
well you lost to one of your coaches who was on 400 ping, i think that says something about your overall ability on the hero even if you know the small things well
not to take away from your understanding of the hero or anything but i think overall results on the hero shows more than just knowing all the little things about OD but not having the execution/knowledge to put it to good use
^ So what, most of the people in the ranking that are considered "good" have 0 games played with OD against Zeus. At least I know what it is to play against strong/difficult lane enemies/counters.
Furthermore, it's extremely unfair of you to bring my private games against my coach into this discussion and it will most likely lead to consequences (such as me switching to a different coach).
I'm sure if you check Dendi's scrims you will also see that he does not roflstomp every game and notice lots of mistakes.
you are missing the point entirely (sadly)
if i want to learn how to play a hero, i would rather observe someone who can show results on it against competent opponents, even if some aspects of his plays are not necessarily the most efficient for that particular hero, than someone who struggles against similar opponents with the same hero, even if his personal mastery of the hero is higher.
in fact nobody would even know if your personal mastery of said hero was higher or not if you cannot even win the same opponents as other players who are not even using the most "efficient builds/plays".
"if i want to learn how to play a hero, i would rather observe someone who can show results on it against competent opponents, even if some aspects of his plays are not necessarily the most efficient for that particular hero, than someone who struggles against similar opponents with the same hero, even if his personal mastery of the hero is higher"
So how is that related to me? I lose the most difficult matches, yes, such as mid against a 6k MMR Zeus, but on the other hand I win against 6k MMR Shadow Fiend or Razor mid.
Do you really call me bad just because I don't win the most difficult matchups, instead of not picking the hero in such situation at all?
"in fact nobody would even know if your personal mastery of said hero was higher or not if you cannot even win the same opponents as other players who are not even using the most "efficient builds/plays"."
I win against the same opponents as other players, no idea what you are trying to tell me.
what if i told you i, someone who has 4 games of OD played in Dota 2 with 0% win rate, could do much better in the same match up against the same player? what does that speak of your competency at that hero?
let's be frank here, i'm not calling you bad. i'm just saying that you are overestimating the effects of whatever experience you have on that hero. as a result of the various areas you are still lacking in, just because you've played OD so many games doesn't necessarily make you a better OD player than some random pro like Black, whom you happily flamed in another thread. Yes, you may understand the hero better in general compared to him, but that doesn't necessarily make you better at that hero.
^ That's what you want to believe, but unfortunately, you haven't yet come up with a reason, except from the typical "ure just bad","you won't be as good as Black" etc stuff, which are just random guesses.
The first reason why black shouldn't be in the ranking in the first place is already that there are never replays of him available, that he only was successful with the hero ages ago and as such nobody can learn from how he plays OD - because in fact he doesn't.
Secondly, I can just look at Black's match history to see that he has at least the same struggle as me. Yes, his KDA might be higher, but that's just because he commits less (and as such dies less). That might be a good thing, or it might be not, who knows, the stats don't tell you this.
Third, the hero rankings are supposed to list "hero specialists" and when you're top 10 for 50 heroes, then you're not a specialist.
If the list is just supposed to list people by their MMR, then I'm happy to tell you that such a list already exists: The Dota 2 Leaderboards. I'm sure, according to your opinion, only the people from the Leaderboards should be eligible for the ranking, and when Vroksnak plays 30 games with OD, he automatically is one of the best OD players.
Pointless.
"Third, the hero rankings are supposed to list "hero specialists" and when you're top 10 for 50 heroes, then you're not a specialist."
this is the stupidest thing in the entire thread
"you may understand the hero better in general compared to him, but that doesn't necessarily make you better at that hero."
Every single dota game is unique and even if most circumstances are replicated (same players, same lanes, same skill builds, same item builds in the same order), no game will ever produce the exact outcome as another, it is hard to tell who would do better (for the purpose of comparing player skill), so that's why we have rankings which deliver scores based on a formula which is applied to everyone.
If you come and tell me that someone is better than me just because you say so and disregard the same rules of ranking that are applied to everyone, then you are unreasonable and a possible Down's Syndrome case. And no, higher MMR doesn't mean you're right, nor does it change the facts.
ugh, you are really incorrigible.
put it this way, who do you think is harder to lane against on OD under identical conditions, you or black?
now mid game, OD is 95% about positioning and movement, in which case familiarity with the hero accounts for little. which do you think will handle that better, you or black?
so overall, in any particular game, do you think you or black will perform better at OD?
@666
wat. i can't even spot any form of logic in your post LOL.
@Zenoth
There is no absolute way of indicating whether a player's overall performance is better than a different player's overall performance for the simple fact that you can not fully replicate every aspect of a dota game and have each player go through the same process (which would be the only way to accurately indicate which would perform better).
Player rankings is based on a formula which delivers results that display the overall performance of players on a particular hero. If the formula would change, the results may be different, so until a new one (a better one in terms of accuracy based on collected stats) is developed, the current one is generally accepted to provide an overview of whom is better at playing a particular hero.
Now, I am tired of hearing potato-heads telling me that "you're top10 just because you played the hero 6 thousand times" for a couple reasons:
1. You can play a hero 100 times and lose 50 games, or you can play the same hero 100 times and lose 90 games- that is strictly a winrate comparison, but it is relevant because it's used in the rankings formula. Point is: if I'd have a 1% winrate as Slark after 6K games, I'm pretty sure I wouldn't be top 10, so it's not just the amount of games that matters.
2. It is extremely difficult to increase the winrate when you're talking thousands of games on a particular hero. For me to gain 1% in the current state, it would mean winning 60+ games in a row. I am currently 4.5K MMR; with every game I win, I get to face better opponents: now how the fuck am I supposed to be able to win game after game at above 5K MMR considering the circumstances (having to pick Slark first, hazardous match making, etc)?
Pro psaní komentáře se přihlaste.
One day it's this: http://s22.postimg.org/5cqxhocdd/10655351_738568579549303_326591770109350595_o_1.jpg
The next day there's this: http://s9.postimg.org/chtbsy7j3/SNAG_MINERSLARK1_y14m11d09_h12m03s20.png