mmm

Sounds like a good system to me.

First rating for the whole team.
Personal rating for your rating with said team and how well you perform with them.
Hidden rating for how you generally perform with anybody, which should get more accurate the more you play.

What about the personal rating problems? For example, a fresh 3s team with everyone playing 100% of the games. We have one person who is closing in on 150 below the team rating and given their current PR trend they will. It can't be that person is 'less skilled' or 'performs worse'...they're probably the best player on the team and a gladiator (not me by the way). Also this team was made and games played after last week's hotfix.

Also there are reported screenshots of BOTH teams losing points from a won game (I think the famous screenshot is one team loses -1 point for winning and the losing team loses -11 points). I realize some players had problems with the old system but the old system was consistent and worked. I disdain the fact that a new system was implemented in the middle of a season with some rather nasty flaws.

Its good to know its still being tweaked and looked at. However, you really didnt offer much more actual information other than that.

I know before they said it goings to take a bit for everything to smooth out, but i havent seen any of what you said actually happen yet. We were the #2 3v3 team and we played the #4 3v3 team (about 20 TR behind us), they had restarted a new team and we were losing 15 points a game, which appears to be a pretty loss in this system.

I haven't restarted a team yet or anything, but it seems like its pretty hard to move up in this system unless you have a really strong winning percentage. Seems like this would cater towards the more OP comps overall, idk tho, we'll see how it goes.

only took like 10 years to tell us this

---

Q u o t e:
Wouldn't it be possible for a team to, deliberately play crap to 1000 rating, get a bad score, then vs the same crap teams on a new team charter and work their way up the ladder? Or is there a way to prevent it? =]

---

Just what I love about the Arena. People already looking for ways to abuse the system.

As happy as I am that we're actually hearing anything at all from Blizzard, I've never read so much that said so little. I mean, the fact that you get fewer points for a win or loss is apparent just by playing some games, and we understand that the intention is to match teams that are closer in "skill" because it is what the last Blue post said. Why are teammates' PRs going in opposite directions, and what can we do to fix it?

Still, thanks for actually talking to us for once.

Change back to the old system please.. This new one is annoyin and I have yet to see anyone who enjoys it.

---

Q u o t e:
Change back to the old system please.. This new one is annoyin and I have yet to see anyone who enjoys it.

---

Instead, let's go back to where we can have 2200 rated players playing my brand new team while power leveling a paying customer's ratings.

Yeah, got to love it.


I'm willing to give Blizzard a chance to fix this problem. You people had 4 seasons to ra pe the old system. Let's get some fair competition this time around. If you have to suffer until the system is tweaked properly, then too bad for you.

Ummmm, isn't this the first time Aratil has posted in like....months?

This sounds like a very good idea, but begs the question: how do you calculate players' skill?

What's the point of team rating and personal rating now?

Why not just have a permanent rating? This is the ghost rating in its current form.

please explain how you quantify skill

if my enjoyment of the game and its systems are very important us, you'd fix the bs pr rating system so players on the same team receive the same PR if they have been on the team the same time and have the same number of games. Or go back to the old system that rewarded players based on talent and skill.

So we now have three different rating systems in place: the Elo system for team rating, a personal rating and finally a hidden skill rating.

Whilst I do agree that there needs to be a quantitative maximum likelihood measure, I fail to see how having three rating systems does anything but add to the overall complexity of the arena system.

This is altogether similar to another rating system that uses hidden rankings: BCS. While the BCS obviously operates differently, it still relies on hidden formulae. I can cite at least one published peer-reviewed mathematical article which came to the conclusion that the opacity and obscurity of a hidden ranking system was its largest drawback.

Furthermore, skill is only measurable vis-a-vis the players you are playing with and against. I find it somewhat dubious that you can minimize a measured skill difference functional among so many factors. Assuming that each class can be specced by majority into three trees (ie, neglecting hybrid specs) then your probability space will have a dimensionality of 30^6 for a 3v3 match. Sure, you can obviously have vast dimensionality reduction based on what teams are presently queued, but that skill rating is only meaningful when conditions are identical. It's like building a fence that stands up perfectly when the wind is easterly at exactly 5 knots, but falls down whenever that changes.

As a professional mathematician, I find the mathematics behind the system to be doubtful at best. I'd be willing to review them, under NDA of course, but I doubt you'd be willing to pay for those such services. What's readily apparent is that the arena system is strongly entropic, and is in desperate need of external review.

---

Q u o t e:
if my enjoyment of the game and its systems are very important us, you'd fix the bs pr rating system so players on the same team receive the same PR if they have been on the team the same time and have the same number of games. Or go back to the old system that rewarded players based on talent and skill.

---

The old system rewarded on comp and gear, "talent and skill" were way down on the list.

Hilarious. I'd like tio give Blizzard a chance on this one. IF they can fix the bs of 2200 rated players slumming in my bracket selling points and PR then that's a good thing.

Sorry you can't make your gold this way anymore.