Tank team as bait?

Unknown

I was wondering if current system allows such exploit.

Say in lightning rounds as it starts I enter, go to 100-ish points, put up a bagman tank-like team and exit.

Then come back 40-50 minutes later, hopefully gaining a few dozen hits from people who in the meantime moved up. Then just start retailiating them with the regular heavy team enjoying a better selection and elevated points.

Does it work better than than using just the regular yellow fights? If not what prevents the gain?

Unknown

The people who would be hitting you would be in your MMR anyway, so you could just find them normally and attack in the first place. I do not think it would give you any real advantage tbh.

MarvelMan

Yes its possible and it works. Just not as well as following the standard path which is why people hit 100 and tank the rest of the LR. There isnt the same disparity in scores that you see in a longer tourney so most of the people who hit you will still be lowish points.

As for tanking the MMR, it could result in you being in a pool of people with lower scores than where you started out. Unless you reach the tip of the MMR iceberg (aka MMR Hell) youre probably better off NOT tanking if you are only going to play part of the round.

Nemek

I don't retaliate the people that beat my tank team. Since their MMR is higher, it would increase my MMR faster than if I just played against the easier/lower MMR opponents. Plus, it's kind of mean.

Unknown

Nemek wrote:

I don't retaliate the people that beat my tank team. Since their MMR is higher, it would increase my MMR faster than if I just played against the easier/lower MMR opponents. Plus, it's kind of mean.

If their MMR were significantly higher, you wouldn't have been on their list in the first place, so not sure I get where you are coming from.

Unknown

Misguided wrote:

Nemek wrote:

I don't retaliate the people that beat my tank team. Since their MMR is higher, it would increase my MMR faster than if I just played against the easier/lower MMR opponents. Plus, it's kind of mean.

If their MMR were significantly higher, you wouldn't have been on their list in the first place, so not sure I get where you are coming from.

But after tanking, assumably your MMR is now lower, and they are likely no longer in your MMR tier.

Unknown

Kyosokun wrote:

Misguided wrote:

Nemek wrote:

I don't retaliate the people that beat my tank team. Since their MMR is higher, it would increase my MMR faster than if I just played against the easier/lower MMR opponents. Plus, it's kind of mean.

If their MMR were significantly higher, you wouldn't have been on their list in the first place, so not sure I get where you are coming from.

But after tanking, assumably your MMR is now lower, and they are likely no longer in your MMR tier.

Suppose it depends on how long you waited and how many attacks occurred in the interim. I'm also not convinced that attacking someone with a higher mmr raises your own faster. Why would it, given that the system might assume that if you are attacking someone you have similar ratings? How do we know it isn't simply a ratio of wins/defeats?

Unknown

Misguided wrote:

Kyosokun wrote:

Misguided wrote:

Nemek wrote:

I don't retaliate the people that beat my tank team. Since their MMR is higher, it would increase my MMR faster than if I just played against the easier/lower MMR opponents. Plus, it's kind of mean.

If their MMR were significantly higher, you wouldn't have been on their list in the first place, so not sure I get where you are coming from.

But after tanking, assumably your MMR is now lower, and they are likely no longer in your MMR tier.

Suppose it depends on how long you waited and how many attacks occurred in the interim. I'm also not convinced that attacking someone with a higher mmr raises your own faster. Why would it, given that the system might assume that if you are attacking someone you have similar ratings?

No idea. I agree, doesn't make sense to me it'd raise you faster. Indeed, I would think it's let you get higher without gaining MMR as fast, since assumably those folks that attacked you will be worth many more points, jumping you up in rank faster than taking wins that scored less.

Unknown

Kyosokun wrote:

No idea. I agree, doesn't make sense to me it'd raise you faster. Indeed, I would think it's let you get higher without gaining MMR as fast, since assumably those folks that attacked you will be worth many more points, jumping you up in rank faster than taking wins that scored less.

That's been my assumption. Nemek may be absolutely right, though. I'd like to know how he arrived at that conclusion, or if that were also an assumption.

Nemek

Misguided wrote:

Kyosokun wrote:

No idea. I agree, doesn't make sense to me it'd raise you faster. Indeed, I would think it's let you get higher without gaining MMR as fast, since assumably those folks that attacked you will be worth many more points, jumping you up in rank faster than taking wins that scored less.

That's been my assumption. Nemek may be absolutely right, though. I'd like to know how he arrived at that conclusion, or if that were also an assumption.

It's just an assumption, but I think it makes a lot of sense, regardless. In most games I've played (and the ELO system in general) beating opponents with higher MMRs would raise yours faster.

Unknown

Much interesting input -- but it implies I have the wrong idea what retaliation is like. I thought it genuinely provides more points compared to the case if I happened to find the same match on yellow button.

If it gives the same points, what value it has beyond generating a ton of frustration?

If I actually get more points, it means I can climb up faster, doing less games. The MMR might change more per game but the total would not be considerably different then. And playing less games IMO has a good benefit assuming you can manage to win without getting hurt whatever you pick. And avoid the 10 up 30 down part, the 30 skips to find up pairing, late retailiation coming from down below and such. (instead you're that %#$%@# causing the pain).

Unknown

I have long believed that a retaliation should give more points, but don't believe it does, no.

MarvelMan

pasa_ wrote:

Much interesting input -- but it implies I have the wrong idea what retaliation is like. I thought it genuinely provides more points compared to the case if I happened to find the same match on yellow button.

If it gives the same points, what value it has beyond generating a ton of frustration?

Retaliation has two benefits:
1) Pitting you against someone who attacked you so you can get your pound of flesh (which is, wait for it, retaliation).

2) When they attack you they are moving up while you are moving down. That often leaves you with a higher percentage of the people to retaliate against having a decent return (25+).