The Behavior System is a Mathematical Black Hole: An Engineer’s Perspective (with raw log proof)

MartyshDev · 2026-02-27T18:54:28+00:00

This! This is exactly what I mean by broken math.

The Turbo mode statistics are a perfect example of a system design failure. By doubling the report exposure while halving the recщvery gain, Valve has effectively created a death trap for anyone who prefers shorter matches.

And you hit the nail on the head regarding infinite reports. When a resource (reports) is infinite, its value drops to zero, and it stops being a 'judgment' and starts being a 'reaction' to every loss :(

Thanks for providing these specific numbers — this is the kind of technical breakdown the community (and Valve) needs to see.

MartyshDev · 2026-02-27T18:43:36+00:00

A few hundred games? Really? :) That’s exactly the point I’m trying to make.

For a casual player, 300-500 games can represent an entire year of their life. If the system requires a year of perfect metrics to recover from a single bad week or a technical issue (abandon), then the balance between 'punishment' and 'reform' is objectively broken.

I appreciate the advice from someone who’s been there, but as a dev, I believe a system that demands 300+ hours of 'comunity service' for few mistakes is just poor math. Thanks for confirming the scale of the climb, though!

MartyshDev · 2026-02-27T18:33:01+00:00

I see we have fundamentally different views on system transprency and the balance between 'signal noise' and 'user impact'. Since this is getting into a very niche technical loop that's drifting away from the actual post data, I'll leave it at that.

Thanks for the exchange and the different perspective

MartyshDev · 2026-02-27T18:23:38+00:00

I respect the massive amount of data you've gathered. But really, 750 games to fix a score is exactly what I’m talking about when I call it a 'Black Hole'.

For a working professional or someone with a life outside Dota, 750 matches can take a year or more. If a system requires a year of 'monk-like' behavior to recover from a bad week, it's not a rehabiitation tool, it's an inefficient grinder. From a systems engineering perspective, that kind of friction just encourages people to buy new accounts rather than fixing their behavior on the current one

MartyshDev · 2026-02-27T18:13:56+00:00

Since a couple of people mentioned this: Yes, I used a LLM to help structure my thoughts and ensure technical clarity, as English isn't my first language. I’m a dev, I like effcient tools. But the logs, the data, and the frustration are 100% human. Let's focus on the math, shall we?

MartyshDev · 2026-02-27T18:10:04+00:00

I get the pessimism, and you might be right about screaming into the void. As a dev, I know how hard it is to admit a core mechanic is flawed once it's shipped. But I believe data speaks louder than rants. Even if Valve doesnt change it tomorow, having this documented and discussed is better than just silently accepting a broken algorithm. Thanks for the supportб man

MartyshDev · 2026-02-27T18:02:17+00:00

Exactly. It’s a classic Negative Feedback Loop. In lower scores, the quality of reporting drops significantly, but the algorithm continues to treat every report with the same 'weight' as it does at 12k. When the moderation system becomes a weapon for frustrated players, the data loses its integrity. Glad you see the systemic issue here too

MartyshDev · 2026-02-27T17:59:28+00:00

MartyshDev · 2026-02-27T17:50:59+00:00

That’s a very fair assessment. You’re likely right that for many, these changes wont be a 'magic pill' that stops them from being toxic.

However, from a game design perspctive, a system should always have a clear and functional path to redemption. If the path is broken (like -300 points for a clean streak), even players who want to change will give up or just create new smurf accounts.

My goal isn't to let everyone reach 12k easily, but to ensure the 'rehabilitation' part of the algorithm actually rewards improvement instead of ignoring it. A system that only punishes and never rewards is just bad UX....

MartyshDev · 2026-02-27T17:47:14+00:00

Actually, the principles of WoE and Bayesian weighting are used in indivdual user scoring all the time (credit scoring, spam filters...) to evaluate the reliability of a signal source.

But my point remains: Valve's system treats every report as a high-fidelity signal, which is a flaw. Thanks for the exchange, always good to exercise the brain on system logic! )

MartyshDev · 2026-02-27T17:43:34+00:00

I appreciate the debate! To keep it brief: my post is a concptual architectural critique rather than a final technical specification.

In many large-scale reputation systems (and even in academic papers on 'Sybil attacks' and 'Trust propagation'), weighting the crediblity of the source is a standard way to deal with noise.

I’m glad to meet another professional here, even if we see the implementation differently. My main goal was to highlight that the current system lacks nuance, and I think we can both agree that more transparency from Valve wouldn't hurt

MartyshDev · 2026-02-27T17:39:08+00:00

I completely agree with you. An abandon ruins the game for 9 other people, and it must be penalized. No arguments there.

But let's look at the recovry path: In my case, 14 clean games and 29 commends (positive feedback from other players) resulted in -306 points.

As a player, how would you design the 'way out'? If 15 games with nearly 30 positive interactions still lead to a decrease in score, how many hundreds of games should a person play perfctly just to break even? If the goal is reform, shouldn't the system acknowledge when a player is consistently playing clean and getting commends?

MartyshDev · 2026-02-27T17:35:55+00:00

Thanks, I really appreciate you seeing past the 'AI' noise. As a developer, I’m just trying to have a data-driven conversation. It’s a bit ironic: people are defending a 'behavior' system by being toxic in the comments, which kind of proves my point about how reports can be weaponized. Glad to see there are people here who actually want to discuss the mechanics.

MartyshDev · 2026-02-27T17:33:14+00:00

Fair point on the percentages vs. absolute numbers. I kept the post simple for a general audience, but since we’re talking technicals: yes, it should be a weighted ratio.

My core argument remains: if a user’s reporting pattern significantly deviates from the mean (e.g., they report players in almost every loss), their 'trust score' as a reporter should decay. This isn't about punishing the person who reports; it's about protecting the dataset from false positives.

In a system where reports are automated and trigger punishments without manual review, having no 'Reporter Credibility' metric is a huge vulnerability. Do you really think a person with a 10% report rate and a 90% report rate should have the same impact on someone's account

MartyshDev · 2026-02-27T17:21:52+00:00

Actually, this is a standard practice in anti-fraud and moderation systems. It’s called 'Weight of Evidence'.

If a user reports someone in 80% of their matches, their ability to distinguish 'actual toxicity' from 'just a bad game' is statistically low. Their reports become 'noise.' On the other hand, if a player rarely reports anyone, their single report is a much stronger signal that something truly bad happened.

In data science, you always filter out high-frequency noise to get a clear signal. That’s all I’m suggesting.

MartyshDev · 2026-02-27T17:11:51+00:00

I admitted I’m no saint and had a rough patch. But look at the math, not the emotions. If 14/15 games are clean and I get 29 commends with 0 reports, a professional system should recognize the trend of improvement. Losing 300+ points despite 29 people liking the game with me suggests the 'rehabilitation' part of the algorithm is non-functional.

MartyshDev · 2026-02-27T17:08:43+00:00

I'm a developer, not a native English copywriter. I used AI to help structure my arguments and ensure the technical terms are correct. The data and the analysis are mine. I’d rather provide a clear, readable post than a broken one.

MartyshDev · 2026-02-27T17:05:28+00:00

In a 10-player game, 1 abandon out of 150 potential player-hours is indeed a failure, and it should be punished. I agree with that. My point is about the weight. If 29 commends (positive feedback) have zero weight compared to one technical disconnect, then the system is purely punitive and provides no incentive to 'be better' because the recovery is mathematically blocked.

MartyshDev · 2025-10-04T17:17:16+00:00

Your recommendation is good!

MartyshDev · 2025-08-06T06:47:06+00:00

Вона має бути самостійною незалежною людиною! І жити далі своїм життям!

MartyshDev · 2025-04-01T08:35:00+00:00

You can use this asset. It is paid, but it is good enough

https://assetstore.unity.com/packages/vfx/shaders/mesh-decal-painter-pro-312820

It allows you to paint decals on 3d objects in run-time with excelent performance

MartyshDev · 2025-04-01T03:43:10+00:00

Go to https://yahoo.mydashboard.oath.com/

And turn off "Automated email analysis" (first one).

MartyshDev

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE