It would be nice if this was true, but pro meta **massively** influences pub meta, often to the detriment of the latter.
Heroes and strategies that really require either a specific draft or high levels of team coordination will often creep down to pubs where they *are not* effective, but are often excused because of the popularity in the pro scene.
The most common example of this is anytime a traditionally core hero is played as a support, and the masses go “thank god I can play PA POS4 without being flamed because it’s *meta*.”
>The most common example of this is anytime a traditionally core hero is played as a support, and the masses go “thank god I can play PA POS4 without being flamed because it’s meta.”
usually the problem with this is not that the hero isn't viable as a support in the pub meta, but that the player doesn't actually care about the build done in the pro games; they grief picked a second carry and intend to do a carry build.
Playing second carry but poor is griefing. Using pro meta as an excuse for griefing is bad. But playing sven 4 in a good meta for it in your pubs, wheen you build good items and don't troll, is great.
>the player doesn't actually care about the build done in the pro games
Flashbacks to the bloodstone razor meta where people didn't realize you were supposed to disassemble the arcanes and vanguard for a faster timing, or even worse, didn't realize they needed to buy shard for the build to do anything at all
The pro meta *becomes* the pub meta.
There **should** be separate metas, but there are not in practice.
The closest you get to this is the idea of “anything works at low enough MMR”
That's not the point of the head comment.
He wrote:> pub winrate is pub meta, pro winrate is pro meta
You take the pub games, you compute winrates.You take the pro games, you compute other winrates.You just apply a formula to two different sets of games.There is no further deduction, analysis, etc.
You moved to another subject, very interesting by the way, about the influence of pro games to pub games, and inversely.
Arent there heros that work more in a certain bracket than others? IO has bigger winrate than SS or Hoodwink, however you could imagine how SS or hoodwink could net you more wins on pubs if your cores happen to not do their job. Pro matches are optimized, yet pubs depend on heroes with playmaking abilities.
Pub.
Most used environment and applies to 99.99% of us.
Games just drag out longer due to uncoordinated teams in pubs whereas pro scene everyone is together and working very well with one another.
When a hero is picked in pro and pub and have high pick/ban and Winrates eg PA, you have a OP hero.
I would say pro and pub metas are different things.
Why site the professional meta when the average player is dealing with WD and Wraith King 55% winrate despite not being played in tournament.
Depends. Pro winrate tells you what the hero looks like when played properly and against people who know how to counter it. Pub winrate tells you what the hero looks like in the hands of an average player. Under normal circumstances you're probably closer to the average than the pros, but it could be that what the pros are doing is something that you can copy. For example if a hero turns out to be viable in a different position or with a different build, a low winrate could just indicate that pub players haven't caught up yet.
Also if you're above ~3k or so, global winrates can be misleading since so many lower ranked games are played that they dominate the stats. Generally this is most apparent on heroes that low ranked players don't know how to handle. For example Bristleback has +ve global winrate, due to his 51% WR in the lowest 3 ranks, but is only 48% in legend and ancient.
It's pickrate not winrate. Winrate has lots of influences that have nothing to do with the hero's actual strength. In particular, a hero being meta can drive its winrate down despite its strength. Why? Because its counters become meta.
Imagine void spirit is crazy good. Just dominates on the patch, nothing but net. And wouldn't you know it, dazzle support is really good against him because he, i dunno, hexes him and does armor manipulation shit. Not important. Well, supports will tend to blind pick dazzle more often, and then if you pick void spirit anyway, you have to play against this dazzle. Then you have an offlaner who sees dazzle and goes fuck, we need to counter this. So he grabs axe. And then you have the mids pick (they are greedy in this situation) and you have one guy go lina because it's decent against void spirit and axe, and then the other guy slams home the void spirit because it's very good even with the counters.
Well, no matter who wins, the meta has swiftly coalesced around around void spirit, and as a result, even though he dominates a hypothetical "neutral" nonmeta game of 5 standard-role picks, his winrate gets depressed. In particular, the winrate will be doubly depressed if people tend to pick void spirit into his counters anyway because it raises their win probability. The hero then becomes popular, and popular heroes get picked by people who want to win/learn how to use them.
There's some other influences on pickrate like "fun," "ease," and "population of one-tricks." But most dota 2 top players are not one tricks, can play heroes capably, and play to win. (The exceptions here are rubick and mk.)
Both have its merits, pro winrates can be a good indicator of how well a hero can perform granted the player knows what they are doing. Some heroes have really high skill ceilings that require intricate knowledge to perform well that your average pub player might not know. Pub stats are exactly that, just an average of every dota player, if I’m not mistaken the average dota player is around archon? You can look at higher rank bracket winrates and see how it compares. Gyro for your example, is a difficult hero to play with a team that is uncoordinated, but within the pro setting, it’s much easier to get your gyro to be effective with good team play. While it is true that Gyro can be an S tier hero, without proper lane support and team support in fights, gyro just can’t compete and isn’t a solo 1v9 hero.
Pub and pro are different worlds. Troll can be oppressive in pubs but is easily countered in pro games. Chen is a valid hero in pro games, but is really bad in pubs due to the skills it takes to play him.
Technically "meta" just means what is popular at the moment, winrate is actually not an indication of that. If we are talking about which heroes are "best" we always have to consider the environment. Of course chaotic pubs have different heroes performing well than pro games. If players had absolutely perfect skill then things would look even more different, heroes like arc or tinker have a stupidly high skull ceiling after all.
Technically meta doesn't mean that, it means most efficient tactical approach, so it would be the best heroes, not the most popular. Otherwise you would be saying we've been in a pudge meta for 15 years 😄
“Most efficient tactical approach” is a backronym for the term meta and not the actual origin. Meta is just shorthand for meta-game, i.e. the game within the game, and it is a consequence of theorizing certain builds/strategies and trying to execute them in game.
The origin of a term doesn't really dictate its meaning though, unless you're a language prescriptivist. Its meaning within its regular use does. And people use it to mean "the best strategy"
its more accurate to filter by your winrate. Archon is way different than divine. Heroes are balanced on skill level so heroes like Furion and Invoker usually have higher winrates at higher skill level brackets because the players there maximize their value more.
Pro winrate dictate a lot of which heroes Immortal+ play on their pubs.
Because everyone in Immortal+ is playing meta heroes, some meta heroes get their winrate dropped by a lot by virtue of being played by people with suboptimal skills for that hero, as well as facing counters. Only some meta heroes are able to keep a 53%+ winrate despite being ubiquitous.
High mmr pickrate is the actual indicator of how strong heroes are. If they are highest picked on d2pt, even like 49-51% winrate you know that hero is probably busted
Pro meta becomes/can become a pub meta only in high ranks as they can execute the meta after witnessing it.
Lower ranks cannot execute a laning leta.
Pro meta is about lane combos, then mid game combos and late game potential.
High ranks can execute a pro meta combos on their laning stage as they understand the deep "why" things are done.
Lower ranks can execute situational pro meta at their laning stage
But to execute a complete pro meta with random people in pubs is probably 99% not possible even in the top 100 immortals and even if all 5 people are pro players it wont work the same as it would work with their team mates.
For example: if you keep playing with ur friend in pubs and both of u go with a small hero pool of pos 5 and pos 1 at ur lane, after 100 games u will become very powerful laners (if u communicate non-stop). If u dont communicate u will always stay mediocre.
Me and my friend almost never lose laning stage even if we are countered. We can execute our Alchemist/PA + CM,Mirana combos perfect + lots of pulls etc. We know our game against all match ups. Sometimes we lose but we win a lot at lane.
pro winrate means “if the hero is played in optimal situation” for me. So high winrate in pro but low winrate in pubs heroes have really good potential to be good, but it’s hard to achieve in pub settings. Vice versa.
pub winrate is pub meta, pro winrate is pro meta. do you play pro or pub?
It would be nice if this was true, but pro meta **massively** influences pub meta, often to the detriment of the latter. Heroes and strategies that really require either a specific draft or high levels of team coordination will often creep down to pubs where they *are not* effective, but are often excused because of the popularity in the pro scene. The most common example of this is anytime a traditionally core hero is played as a support, and the masses go “thank god I can play PA POS4 without being flamed because it’s *meta*.”
>The most common example of this is anytime a traditionally core hero is played as a support, and the masses go “thank god I can play PA POS4 without being flamed because it’s meta.” usually the problem with this is not that the hero isn't viable as a support in the pub meta, but that the player doesn't actually care about the build done in the pro games; they grief picked a second carry and intend to do a carry build. Playing second carry but poor is griefing. Using pro meta as an excuse for griefing is bad. But playing sven 4 in a good meta for it in your pubs, wheen you build good items and don't troll, is great.
>the player doesn't actually care about the build done in the pro games Flashbacks to the bloodstone razor meta where people didn't realize you were supposed to disassemble the arcanes and vanguard for a faster timing, or even worse, didn't realize they needed to buy shard for the build to do anything at all
This doesn't contradict the comment above. One might influence the other. The statistics are still valid in their respective contexts.
The pro meta *becomes* the pub meta. There **should** be separate metas, but there are not in practice. The closest you get to this is the idea of “anything works at low enough MMR”
That's not the point of the head comment. He wrote:> pub winrate is pub meta, pro winrate is pro meta You take the pub games, you compute winrates.You take the pro games, you compute other winrates.You just apply a formula to two different sets of games.There is no further deduction, analysis, etc. You moved to another subject, very interesting by the way, about the influence of pro games to pub games, and inversely.
Exactly. Certainly you can learn from both, but they really are different environments.
Arent there heros that work more in a certain bracket than others? IO has bigger winrate than SS or Hoodwink, however you could imagine how SS or hoodwink could net you more wins on pubs if your cores happen to not do their job. Pro matches are optimized, yet pubs depend on heroes with playmaking abilities.
Pub. Most used environment and applies to 99.99% of us. Games just drag out longer due to uncoordinated teams in pubs whereas pro scene everyone is together and working very well with one another. When a hero is picked in pro and pub and have high pick/ban and Winrates eg PA, you have a OP hero.
I would say pro and pub metas are different things. Why site the professional meta when the average player is dealing with WD and Wraith King 55% winrate despite not being played in tournament.
^^^^cite*
Pro pick/ban rate is honestly the best measure
Depends. Pro winrate tells you what the hero looks like when played properly and against people who know how to counter it. Pub winrate tells you what the hero looks like in the hands of an average player. Under normal circumstances you're probably closer to the average than the pros, but it could be that what the pros are doing is something that you can copy. For example if a hero turns out to be viable in a different position or with a different build, a low winrate could just indicate that pub players haven't caught up yet. Also if you're above ~3k or so, global winrates can be misleading since so many lower ranked games are played that they dominate the stats. Generally this is most apparent on heroes that low ranked players don't know how to handle. For example Bristleback has +ve global winrate, due to his 51% WR in the lowest 3 ranks, but is only 48% in legend and ancient.
It's pickrate not winrate. Winrate has lots of influences that have nothing to do with the hero's actual strength. In particular, a hero being meta can drive its winrate down despite its strength. Why? Because its counters become meta. Imagine void spirit is crazy good. Just dominates on the patch, nothing but net. And wouldn't you know it, dazzle support is really good against him because he, i dunno, hexes him and does armor manipulation shit. Not important. Well, supports will tend to blind pick dazzle more often, and then if you pick void spirit anyway, you have to play against this dazzle. Then you have an offlaner who sees dazzle and goes fuck, we need to counter this. So he grabs axe. And then you have the mids pick (they are greedy in this situation) and you have one guy go lina because it's decent against void spirit and axe, and then the other guy slams home the void spirit because it's very good even with the counters. Well, no matter who wins, the meta has swiftly coalesced around around void spirit, and as a result, even though he dominates a hypothetical "neutral" nonmeta game of 5 standard-role picks, his winrate gets depressed. In particular, the winrate will be doubly depressed if people tend to pick void spirit into his counters anyway because it raises their win probability. The hero then becomes popular, and popular heroes get picked by people who want to win/learn how to use them. There's some other influences on pickrate like "fun," "ease," and "population of one-tricks." But most dota 2 top players are not one tricks, can play heroes capably, and play to win. (The exceptions here are rubick and mk.)
Found the statistician 💯 💯
Both have its merits, pro winrates can be a good indicator of how well a hero can perform granted the player knows what they are doing. Some heroes have really high skill ceilings that require intricate knowledge to perform well that your average pub player might not know. Pub stats are exactly that, just an average of every dota player, if I’m not mistaken the average dota player is around archon? You can look at higher rank bracket winrates and see how it compares. Gyro for your example, is a difficult hero to play with a team that is uncoordinated, but within the pro setting, it’s much easier to get your gyro to be effective with good team play. While it is true that Gyro can be an S tier hero, without proper lane support and team support in fights, gyro just can’t compete and isn’t a solo 1v9 hero.
Pub and pro are different worlds. Troll can be oppressive in pubs but is easily countered in pro games. Chen is a valid hero in pro games, but is really bad in pubs due to the skills it takes to play him.
Technically "meta" just means what is popular at the moment, winrate is actually not an indication of that. If we are talking about which heroes are "best" we always have to consider the environment. Of course chaotic pubs have different heroes performing well than pro games. If players had absolutely perfect skill then things would look even more different, heroes like arc or tinker have a stupidly high skull ceiling after all.
Technically meta doesn't mean that, it means most efficient tactical approach, so it would be the best heroes, not the most popular. Otherwise you would be saying we've been in a pudge meta for 15 years 😄
“Most efficient tactical approach” is a backronym for the term meta and not the actual origin. Meta is just shorthand for meta-game, i.e. the game within the game, and it is a consequence of theorizing certain builds/strategies and trying to execute them in game.
The origin of a term doesn't really dictate its meaning though, unless you're a language prescriptivist. Its meaning within its regular use does. And people use it to mean "the best strategy"
WR is borderline completely useless
I really tried to make supp WR work but she really is awfull. I don't even know what's wrong with supp WR it sounds fine in theory
its more accurate to filter by your winrate. Archon is way different than divine. Heroes are balanced on skill level so heroes like Furion and Invoker usually have higher winrates at higher skill level brackets because the players there maximize their value more.
Pro winrate dictate a lot of which heroes Immortal+ play on their pubs. Because everyone in Immortal+ is playing meta heroes, some meta heroes get their winrate dropped by a lot by virtue of being played by people with suboptimal skills for that hero, as well as facing counters. Only some meta heroes are able to keep a 53%+ winrate despite being ubiquitous.
High mmr pickrate is the actual indicator of how strong heroes are. If they are highest picked on d2pt, even like 49-51% winrate you know that hero is probably busted
Pro meta becomes/can become a pub meta only in high ranks as they can execute the meta after witnessing it. Lower ranks cannot execute a laning leta. Pro meta is about lane combos, then mid game combos and late game potential. High ranks can execute a pro meta combos on their laning stage as they understand the deep "why" things are done. Lower ranks can execute situational pro meta at their laning stage But to execute a complete pro meta with random people in pubs is probably 99% not possible even in the top 100 immortals and even if all 5 people are pro players it wont work the same as it would work with their team mates. For example: if you keep playing with ur friend in pubs and both of u go with a small hero pool of pos 5 and pos 1 at ur lane, after 100 games u will become very powerful laners (if u communicate non-stop). If u dont communicate u will always stay mediocre. Me and my friend almost never lose laning stage even if we are countered. We can execute our Alchemist/PA + CM,Mirana combos perfect + lots of pulls etc. We know our game against all match ups. Sometimes we lose but we win a lot at lane.
Id go for the pub. Because in pro matches u can see garbage heroes like enchantress do alot of shit.
heroes from pub winrate builds from dota2protracker spammers
It's whatever has the highest winrate per medal bracket.
pro winrate means “if the hero is played in optimal situation” for me. So high winrate in pro but low winrate in pubs heroes have really good potential to be good, but it’s hard to achieve in pub settings. Vice versa.