MMR is a measure of your player skill. It's not entirely accurate, but it does give a good enough estimate. Currently, there are two MMR values disclosed - solo and party ratings.
Your solo rating is a measure of how well you play when you're playing on a team with 4 randoms, whereas your party rating measures your performance when you play with groups of friends.
The reason I say MMR isn't entirely accurate is because your initial ratings are based off your hidden public MMR. This means, you can break into a 5k+ MMR bracket by just stacking and owning on a fresh account, until you reach the minimum amount of games to play ranked. As an example, I'm sitting on 4180 solo MMR on this account, whereas one of my smurfs is at 5020. In a nutshell, your initial MMR means garbage, it's how much you go up/down that says more about how good/bad you are.
it doesnt and even if mmr would work 10/10 it would still be inacurate due to cheaters and abusers
ok, i have 2714 mmr after placement matches, how good/bad is this?
i did well in most of my matches, a couple of them i fed hard, i shouldnt try new heroes in ranked :P
edit: this is solo mmr, also why is there nothing telling whats a good or bad mmr? shouldnt we have a ladder page?
its average
plzgtfo: 0-1000
trench: 1000-2000
semi trench:2000-2700
average:2700-3700
high:3700-4500
veryhigh:4500-5500
pro:5500+
Ok, it looks like this forum is very uncertain as to how MMR actually works, inb4 says that the higher your MMR the better you are, yet SwAg seems to think it is quite the opposite? Could someone who has any evidence beyond their word shed some light onto this subject, possibly through a DOTA post?
The higher the better. The way they do it is they make a blackbox that takes 10 (for each player in the game) of these numbers and spits out the chance each team has of winning (a number between 0 and 1). The closer the number is to 0.5 (a 50/50 chance of winning), the more of a toss up the game outcome should be. That will mean the winner will get as much as the loser, and that number is about 25 from my experience (the most frequent +/- you tend to get should correspond to right about 50/50 since they try to make it 50/50). However, sometimes they match up 10 people where the odds are VERY different from 50/50. As the prediction becomes closer to 0 (and 1 for the other team), the points gained by the 1.0 team approaches zero [ they usually get 2 or 3 points, sometimes literally 0] ("We knew this would happen, it was so obvious that it doesn't even indicate the players are better than we thought they were"). However, if you beat a team that almost surely will win, you get a bunch of points, something like 60. ("Wow, we didn't expect these people to even have a chance, and they won. I guess they are much better than we previously thought.")
As for what 3 guys feed in team says about how good you are at what rating, he's about right. But being 5k or even near it (4.9k, etc.) means you're very competent and very good. I'm saying this in the sense of comparing a 4.5k to a 5k. There is a large gap I feel. But most pros are 5.5k, some are 5k-5.5k. Others even reach as high at 6k.
Isn't everything less then 5k is a trench? Then, from 5k to 6k it's another trench. Finally, starting with 6k and beyond it's a trench.
Bitte melde dich an um Kommentare zu posten.
what is a good MMR, higher = better? how does it work. thanks.