50% forced winrate is real, dont let anyone tell you otherwise

[Yash]

If u win 6 in a row, valve will find a way for u to lose it all back. No matter the game mode. ranked or unranked. and those 6 games you lose, it will be with the worse teammates u can ever imagine.

[العرب كلاب]

引用自 Fdynasty：

Here is a advice dont argue about 50% win rate because its here to stay and many players have left the game because of it.

It has to be here in the first place in order to "stay". And that's my point - it doesn't currently exist and I have enough data and evidence to back my claim. What do you have? A cherry picked game? At least let me see it, give me the match ID. I could also say that I have played against Miracle and won, and you have no way to prove it didn't happen. Even if it did, it wouldn't magically make me a better player. Sometimes you win, sometimes you lose, and that is the case even for the best players out there. Being able to make an impact on the game makes you better, not winning a match against a stronger enemy.

[العرب كلاب]

引用自 Venti, Patron Saint of Traps：

引用自 grilo：

i believe if you spend enough money on dota your teams will improve.

So how do smurfs post winrates up to 90% without spending any money on that account?

Exactly. Why doesn't this forced 50% win rate affect smurfs and boosters?

[The 3 Whites]

引用自 MrSirene：

Oh really? Then why is my winrate for my last 100 matches sitting at 59% ?

luck exists

[jiggly]

My WR in last 100 is around 60% as well. Still algorithm behavior is very sus.

It equally sucks to stomp enemy team and to be stomped. And thats what forced 50-50% does. It kills game competitiveness, because of "someones turn to lose".

[zZzooey.exe]

if there is forced 50% winrate how come some people have 60+% winrate and some people have 40-% winrate
make it make sense

[Си́нтез]

引用自 jiGGly：

It equally sucks to stomp enemy team and to be stomped. And thats what forced 50-50% does. It kills game competitiveness, because of "someones turn to lose".

The game is about snowballing. You are expecting some sort of games, where both teams go toe-to-toe and end up with 50-49 score. You start as equals, however at certain point small win becomes bigger and bigger and bigger, until it snowballs into a one big lead for one team. You can't expect team that is losing give you a good fight, especially each game

[Dark Sun Gwyndolin]

引用自 jiGGly：

My WR in last 100 is around 60% as well. Still algorithm behavior is very sus.

It equally sucks to stomp enemy team and to be stomped. And thats what forced 50-50% does. It kills game competitiveness, because of "someones turn to lose".

I just played a game where my carry abandoned the game after I died repeatedly as the support. Was that game 'my turn to lose'?

Because we won the game, due to Pudge's rotations and my high magic damage. We kept picking them off and wiping them with our massive teamfight damage, despite not having a carry. If I can win 'rigged' matches despite being a regular player, so can everyone else.

https://www.opendota.com/matches/6166686355

[jiggly]

Exceptions dont make the rules...

[Dark Sun Gwyndolin]

引用自 jiGGly：

Exceptions dont make the rules...

People always misuse that phrase, and it drives me nuts.

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Exception_that_proves_the_rule

Basically, an ETPTR means an exception that, by its wording, implies there is a rule to take exception to. For example, if a store has a sign that says "Closed on Sunday", that implies it's open every other day. Using the phrase to handwave away counterexamples doesn't work.

My point stands. If the system 'forces' losses, why is it so common to win with a clear disadvantage (such as a disconnected player)? You look at the natural snowballing of MOBA's as 'evidence' that there's a grand conspiracy by Valve to deprive you of your meaningless internet points.

[العرب كلاب]

引用自 Venti, Patron Saint of Traps：

引用自 jiGGly：

Exceptions dont make the rules...

People always misuse that phrase, and it drives me nuts.

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Exception_that_proves_the_rule

Basically, an ETPTR means an exception that, by its wording, implies there is a rule to take exception to. For example, if a store has a sign that says "Closed on Sunday", that implies it's open every other day. Using the phrase to handwave away counterexamples doesn't work.

My point stands. If the system 'forces' losses, why is it so common to win with a clear disadvantage (such as a disconnected player)? You look at the natural snowballing of MOBA's as 'evidence' that there's a grand conspiracy by Valve to deprive you of your meaningless internet points.

The thing that annoys me the most is that 50% believers have 0 proof for their "rule"/"theory". You give them evidence that such thing doesn't exist, and they just turn it down with "Exceptions don't make the rules" or "Luck". Literally all the evidence that we have suggests that forced 50% doesn't exist, yet they still don't want to accept the truth, because they will have to admit they are bad and can't make a significant impact on the game.

[Fluffy]

Here is a tip, about win ratio and how you can use it, read MANIPULATE, to your advantage. I have checked it and it works.
First you need to understand how it works in order to understand why you need to do it this way.
THe way MM works is next:
You win = you get similar players in your team. With every game you will get similar players, and the more you win the less good players you will get. Even Valve admitted that few years ago, and they do it in order to "teach bad players how to play the game" "they might learn something from those who win more than they do".
MM will throw you some players who queue for specific roles, like support only, or Offlane only, when it wants you to win, when it "sees" that you are on a loss streak. So that you get players who play that role mostly and that way you get more chances of winning that game. When you need to lose, it goes other way around, it will give you players who play roles that they dont play often, and are queuing for all roles in order to earn more roles for their "campaign".
So
- People who queue for support role > people who need to play support to get roles.
- If you want a team to win, group up 5 players who all queued for specific role.
- If you want a team to lose, group up 5 people who dont play those roles often.
It also includes reports, hidden MMR and conduct. If you pay attention you will notice that the more you win, the more "idiots" you get. The more you win, more likely that you will get people who tilt easy, who rage, insult, feed, who get reported more than others.

So what i noticed in MM, and its proven few times now, is that when you get some win streak in ranked and then you suddenly find your self in totally opposite teams and you notice that, make a pause from ranked and to for some turbo games, go for SD games, avoid Ranked. After 1 month of playing like that you will see improvement in your MMR.

Before you say "♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥", give it a go and see it for your self.

[Frank Horrigan]

Getting high in this game is luck based. play in a 5 man group. playing solo is just all luck based. 50/50 win rate i do believe. a range of sorts.

[Fluffy]

引用自 Gleipnir：

引用自 Fluffy：

Here is a tip, about win ratio and how you can use it, read MANIPULATE, to your advantage. I have checked it and it works.
First you need to understand how it works in order to understand why you need to do it this way.
THe way MM works is next:
You win = you get similar players in your team. With every game you will get similar players, and the more you win the less good players you will get. Even Valve admitted that few years ago, and they do it in order to "teach bad players how to play the game" "they might learn something from those who win more than they do".
MM will throw you some players who queue for specific roles, like support only, or Offlane only, when it wants you to win, when it "sees" that you are on a loss streak. So that you get players who play that role mostly and that way you get more chances of winning that game. When you need to lose, it goes other way around, it will give you players who play roles that they dont play often, and are queuing for all roles in order to earn more roles for their "campaign".
So
- People who queue for support role > people who need to play support to get roles.
- If you want a team to win, group up 5 players who all queued for specific role.
- If you want a team to lose, group up 5 people who dont play those roles often.
It also includes reports, hidden MMR and conduct. If you pay attention you will notice that the more you win, the more "idiots" you get. The more you win, more likely that you will get people who tilt easy, who rage, insult, feed, who get reported more than others.

So what i noticed in MM, and its proven few times now, is that when you get some win streak in ranked and then you suddenly find your self in totally opposite teams and you notice that, make a pause from ranked and to for some turbo games, go for SD games, avoid Ranked. After 1 month of playing like that you will see improvement in your MMR.

Before you say "♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥", give it a go and see it for your self.

The exact same thing has been said in League and leaked documents hints at activision giving this idea of "milking the player into playing more matches". Obviously it's an exploit of your emotional/weak state and since most players aren't stoic they are going to click that play button to prove everyone wrong, that's all the 50% system is about and you can't tell me otherwise. Because then, you would be a very, very bad person.

Well, its out there in the open for everyone to try out. THe issue is, like you said, people either dont have patience to try it or they dont believe in it.

[Dark Sun Gwyndolin]

引用自 Fluffy：

引用自 Gleipnir：

The exact same thing has been said in League and leaked documents hints at activision giving this idea of "milking the player into playing more matches". Obviously it's an exploit of your emotional/weak state and since most players aren't stoic they are going to click that play button to prove everyone wrong, that's all the 50% system is about and you can't tell me otherwise. Because then, you would be a very, very bad person.

Well, its out there in the open for everyone to try out. THe issue is, like you said, people either dont have patience to try it or they dont believe in it.

I almost never play back-to-back matches, but not because of MMR manipulation. It's just because Dota is inherently stressful game, and playing matches in succession increases the risk of tilt. I honestly don't care about my MMR, I just want to put my various theorycrafted builds to the test.

[BossGalaga]

引用自 Fluffy：

Even Valve admitted that few years ago, and they do it in order to "teach bad players how to play the game" "they might learn something from those who win more than they do".

You're claiming that Valve stated they match good players with bad players to quote, "teach bad players how to play the game" and so "they might learn something from those who win more than they do." You used quotations so please provide a link to an official Valve source that matches those exact words that you used. You can't, because Valve did not make that statement.

I'll just go ahead and clear this up since it doesn't seem likely that you will. What Valve did announce is that they were matching players with more experience (time played) and high behavior score with newer players with high behavior score. They were not matching Ancient/Divine/Immortal ranked players with Heralds. They were matching players with similar mmr (or hidden mmr) and high behavior score with other players with similar mmr and high behavior score.

That was in 2017, and later in 2017, Valve reverted that so it placed more weight on games played than similar behavior score. "- Adjusted matchmaking for new players to be more sensitive to the number of games played rather than behavior." Valve never stated that it was to quote "teach bad players how to play the game."