I love the new system.

For those of you who don't understand why there's a hidden MMR rating, let me carefully explain. Your team rating, regardless of what season it is, doesn't accurately reflect your capacity to win/lose against other people the same rating. This includes both 1200s and 2200s rerolling to 1500. The new MMR statistically calculates your odds of winning against teams -100, -50, +50, +100 points around your score and awards based on the results. This means lower queue times, more accurate matching, and more reliable play.

Look at the data provided by Kalgan's query on that guy's arena team. Can you imagine the HEADACHE involved in trying to explain why your MMR rating drops and jumps by 70 points with each loss or win? I bet Kalgan spent half his day coming up with a coherent explanation for some random guy's 10 games.

The fact is, the MMR is a complicated, recursive formula based on your history of the arena. Once you establish a solid MMR, you will truly only face people at your skill level in terms of how consistent they are when they win against other teams of your skill level. This provides you with the feedback that your skill is slowly improving and when your TR stops climbing, that's exactly how good you are.

I look forward to playing more games under the system and I can't wait to get better.

---

Q u o t e:
Kalgan, thank you for detailed explanation. This was very interesting read.

* Few issues with new (and old systems) - not all classes are born equal, and not in all brackets. How are you going to address the fact that fire mage teamed with enhance shaman that sits at 1700 are phenomenal players and arcane mage with rogue team that sits at 1900 are just average players?

* Class balance might also be different in a keyboard-turning bracket and gladiator bracket. Some classes are simpler to play than others, some classes have lower ceiling due to complex but exploitable flaws. Arcane for example - very easy to play up to fairly hard rating until people have enough skill to stop brute-force nature of its playstyle. Hunters are on other hand entirely opposite - very bad in a hands of unskilled players and overpowered in hands of a pro. How are you going to address the issue? For example arcane mage that got to 2300 is a lot better than hunter that got to 2300, yet hunter that that plays at 1300 might be a lot better player than arcane that plays at 1300?

* How are you going to address an issue of "carried" members? What is one player just legitimately better than other? What is they all play 100%?

* How are you going to stop rating selling? Might not be big deal in 2s, but in 3s or especially in 5s most gladiator teams can probably 2v3 or 3v5 all the way to 1700-1800 rating. As soon as I get my shoulders I will start selling games on my team for people who want to get deadly honor/hateful arena rating items. If previous history or current team rating is a problem, I will play 100 games and just dance naked... until I have abysmal hidden rating that system can't distinguish me from scrubs I am going to carry. How are you going to discourage me from carrying undeserving people to high ratings pushing
people I have no place playing down in then process?


Thank you for your answers.

---

Sorry mate, but there is no way to account for any of this in any system. The best that can be done is to achieve the best possible class balance that can be achieved.

-symm

resil needs buf

---

Q u o t e:
- you might note that the Furious weapon is still at a high requirement, 2k, the thinking being that most players are encouraged to get their weapon upgrade through pve, although hardcore arena competitors have an outlet to get an equivalent weapon through arenas (if you're hardcore enough for 2k, you can forego raiding for a weapon)

---

With the current ridiculous state of burst damage, the resil nerf, and gear homogenization, (which there is NO excuse for when it comes to PvP gear) the tier armor is arguably better for many classes than the actual PvP gear, and many of the PvE trinkets are undeniably better than the "battlemaster" trinkets for nearly any class.
Why would you want to give raiders even *MORE* of an advantage by making the PvP weapons more difficult to obtain when the KT25 weps (and presumably the weps from the last boss of Ulduar) are already better and relatively easier to obtain anyway? Its basically creating another "warglaive rogue" situation, except that instead of an extremely rare drop from a raid that most raiding guilds couldnt even complete, you've got items with about a 1 in 5 drop rate from a raid thats about the equivalent of Karazhan in difficulty.

Also, I noticed that the "deadly gladiator" weapons werent on the list for the S6 rating requirements- I certainly hope they aren't getting removed, as it would only worsen the gear desparity between raiders and PvP'ers.


And while its not nearly as much of a big deal as the weapons, I'm curious as to why the PvP shoulders still have the highest rating requirement. Back in S3/4 it was supposedly because they were one of the most "visually distinctive" armor pieces, but that justification kinda flew out the window when they decided to make all the PvP gear look identical.

---

Q u o t e:

And while its not nearly as much of a big deal as the weapons, I'm curious as to why the PvP shoulders still have the highest rating requirement. Back in S3/4 it was supposedly because they were one of the most "visually distinctive" armor pieces, but that justification kinda flew out the window when they decided to make all the PvP gear look identical.

---

I would imagine the Furious Arena sets will have a new look and that it's just the initial 3 PvP sets that are identical. Just a guess though.

So is there any chance we will see pvp weapons make a comeback. Cause have the only weapons avaiable at 2000+ ratings kinda sucks for those of us who hate raiding

I dont care how they do it, but I just want the good gear for pvp in a way that isnt forcing me into arena.

---

Q u o t e:
What about the other end of the spectrum? I'm pretty much the opposite of the OP, with two teams in Gladiator range at the moment. You are investing a lot of resources in making sure the bottom rungs of the ladder are having fun; this is a good thing no doubt. But you talk about the need for gear rewards for the people playing at 1200 and 1300 ratings. Where does that leave the players who are actually good at arena? You seem to be saying to the low ranked players "we understand that playing the game alone isn't enough, and that you need a reward structure of worth to feel you've accomplished something." But if you start giving things of value out at 1200-1300 or whatever, can you leave things of value for the 1800-1900? More likely, you've shifted the "fun for funs sake" role from the bad players to the good players.

Is it simply an issue of scale? There are a lot more bad players to appease than good players to appease, so thats where you need to focus? Or are you also aware that through this, there needs to be a worthwhile reason to compete at the high end as well, and not just for competition's sake? WoW, to me, is about personal progression first and foremost; be it in professions, raiding, farming, or PVP. Are you prepared to devalue the achievements of the top end to appease the masses at the low end?

I've got Deadly Shoulders. This, to me, was an accomplishment. It sounds like you now view that structure as a failure. I personally find it rewarding. I know others do as well. Is this no longer a legititmate feeling in the eyes of Blizzard?

WotLK has been fun, but I keep feeling like I'm losing out because I'm a good player. I actually had the thought the other day "if only I were worse at WoW, I'd enjoy it a lot more." I can't imagine that's a feeling you want to cultivate, but this latest series of posts is starting to reinforce it.

Please tell me if you still have plans for the upper end of Arena other than hoping you can queue when teams even remotely close to your rating are, and you won't have to farm 2-4 points all night long. Please tell me good players still rate in World of Warcraft.

---

This just sounds like an ego problem, if you cant have fun in a video game unless you're top dog, then you should probably evaluate why you play the game. I can understand the joy being top dog brings, but if thats your only focus, there are other games that cultivate that much better than an MMO. FPS's come to mind. Arena was a tacked on thing in BC. Its been getting tweaked and played around with since, and will continue to do so.

If you feel your toes are getting stepped on because Blizzard wants more people to play other aspects of THEIR MMO (Not yours) then somethings wrong on your end, not theirs.

How is this possible?

http://www.wowarmory.com/character-sheet.xml?r=Skullcrusher&n=Jingyjuice

TR: 85
PR: 2931

Best ever warlock playing on the worst ever team? Also why is there no bottom to how low your TR can go? What happens when it reaches 0? Divide by 0?

Kalgan I like your explanation here and it makes sense. My main question (and i think this is one of the main reasons why so many ppl are so unhappy with this system right now) is WHY THIS RATING IS HIDDEN?
I admit i have not scrolled though and read every post so if addressed this earlier i am sorry but i really dont understand why this rating which is the determining factor in who you are matched up with and ultimately where your team and personal ratings are heading why cant we see what it is? You showed a very nice lay out of all these ratings and it is fairly easy to see why the team is loesing so many points and winning so few BUT when you are actually playing the games you DONT know what these numbers are so all you see is hey we lost and our team when down 20 points, ya we won but only got 3 points??? I think most ppl would be much more acceptiing of this new rating system if....

1. They actually understood how it works (granted that is what this entire post is about)

BUT MOSTLY

2. They could see these numbers and could have some sort of expectations as to how the points were going to be assinged

If i knew that my 'hidden rating' was at 1250 and my team rating was at 1500 then i would expect to lose 20 points and only win 5 because I would KNOW my 'hidden rating' was much lower, as it is now it feels like a guessing game half the time. i know personally this is the most annoying thing about the new rating system not the big point changes or the general decrease in average rating its the fact that i go into an arean match having no idea what the outcome is going to do to my rating or the team rating.

Again sry if this was a little long but in short, WHY IS THE NEW RATING HIDDEN?

Please Itemize the Furious weapons to be on par with Ulduar weapons. Right now Kel'Thuzad weapons are significantly better than deadly weapons (13 item levels, ~10% higher damage range).

"hardcore arena competitors have an outlet to get an equivalent weapon through arenas (if you're hardcore enough for 2k, you can forego raiding for a weapon) "

Right now I have well over 2k ratings but do not feel that I have an equivalent weapon. Deadly Shanker vs Sinister Revenge is a huge disadvantage.

---

Q u o t e:


How about money as well? I've said this before. PvP'ers are sorely lacking cash (because we're busy PvPing rather than farming...on account of one is much more fun than the other).

Both are time and effort invested, in fact it could be said that it takes MUCH more effort to pvp well than to farm mindlessly.

Yet, I continually find myself having to PvE to afford all of the things listed by my friend above.

I continually find myself spending time in raids in the hopes of getting better gear FOR PvP how asinine is that?...I do not want to be pigeonholed into raiding (which is currently the only choice I feel I have...I cannot possibly purchase any better PvP gear at this point unless my team's rating somehow miraculously improves...I like my team. They are fun and great people and we would have SOOOOO much more fun in this game if the system responded in equivalent fashion the way PvE does via its reward system), I want to spend more time PvP'ing and having fun, not doing what you're forcing us to. What happened to the Customer is always right?

Blizzard, it is obvious you have always favored PvE'ers. Are we PvP's not deserving of your love and splendor? I must believe we are intended to or the PvP system, BG's, and Arenas would not exist, but at least 68% of all PvPer's must feel inferior to the rest of the community.

Please, help us and we'll love you for it. You've frustrated us for far too long with your rewards system...to the point that we do not feel appreciated.

---

Im sorry to somewhat flame but honestly your arena ratiung negates your arguement instantly. Lord knows I don't judge people on arena ratings because I know number of good players with subpar ratings but to claim to need money at this point in the game when it flows so freely I swear it pours out of every crack in the game because you are some hardcore pvper is garbage. I always a fan of the idea of a monetary reward being given out for top end players who dedicated there wow playing experience to pure pvp but I just find it to hard to believe that you are a dedicated pvper with a 1500 and 1300 rated team and not to mention the fact your a DK one of the more powerful arena classes currently.


From looking your character over I can safely say it is more of a lazy factor than it is about wanting to be a hardcore pvper. Most of the best players in the world you will most often find pve as well because a well balanced char with gear and experience from both the pvp and pve aspects of the game combined with patience you learn from farming make a complete player.


Until you can offer a fair and balanced way to play arena without the constant flavor of the month changes that last for months instead of weeks though ratings for gear should be removed in favor of price increase allowing good teams to aquire gear faster while lesser skilled players can still aquire the same gear but over a longer period. Currently there is no incentive for probably about 80 percent of the player base to even step into arena

You can explain things til your blue text turns black. If I win a game, I should get points. If I loose a game, I should loose points.

Like arenas weren't hosed enough with class imbalance, you had to go jacking with the entire ratings system, and make the entire thing undesirable for casuals. Nice job.

---

Q u o t e:
You can explain things til your blue text turns black. If I win a game, I should get points. If I loose a game, I should loose points.

Like arenas weren't hosed enough with class imbalance, you had to go jacking with the entire ratings system, and make the entire thing undesirable for casuals. Nice job.

---

Play enough games until your TR is close to your MMR then. Either that or just don't play until they change how TR starts in correlation to MMR. (Hopefully next patch?)

---

Q u o t e:
To quickly answer a few common questions that aren't already answered...

Q: How good will the furious weapons be? Why would I want one if the PvE weapons are better?

A: In the case of the current deadly gladiator weapons, we simply botched the ilvls since at the time of their design we didn't account properly for the fact that Kel'Thuzad weapons would be as accessible as they are. Had we anticipated this better, the KT weapons wouldn't have been a full tier ahead of pre-KT weapons, and the deadly weapons would have been equivalent in ilvl. We expect that the best season 6 pvp weapons obtainable will be equal in level/quality to the best Ulduar weapons, even if that means we need more than one tier of pvp weapon to do it (ie: a 1750 weapon and a 2200 weapon). Note: the whole trick here is reasonably balancing what percentage of players get raid weapons of X quality versus what percentage of arena players also get a weapon of X quality.


Q: Why is the hidden rating hidden?

A: At some point, we'll probably expose the hidden rating and the calculations behind the MMR and such (although possibly only on the website rather than in game). We didn't expose the hidden rating in game because we felt it would be too confusing to see a 3rd rating, particularly considering players don't need to make any decisions based on it. You play the same opponents you would play whether you see the rating or not, and it isn't necessary to know the rating to be able to get points, buy gear, etc. However, I'm certainly open to at the very least showing the MMR of a team you just played against on the scoreboard, so that you can make more sense of why you gained/lost as much rating as you did, and at the very least showing your team's MMR on the armory. Exactly what patch/timeframe that might happen in, I'm not entirely sure.

---

Good to hear.

This all seems very interesting and I enjoy using good math to try and assist the arena functionality.

You quoted something to the fact that, "1500 is still the place where 1/2 the teams are below and 1/2 the teams are above" that rating. However, this seems to be a useless comparison in that the TR is no longer used for anything except a temporary and arbitrary place holder until you find your "real" level. If the system is not balancing to the MMR being in the middle at 1500 then the whole system will be screwed up. Looking at the numbers you posted from the parse and seeing teams with MMR of 800's, I would want to make sure that MMR of 1500 is dead center of your bell curve. If your balancing to TR, especially with new teams forming all the time, then you have made a serious mathematical error.

In addition, the one thing that would be absolutely necessary is a "statistical force" to make sure you actually have a bell curve of MMR after some period of time. What I mean is you have to keep forcing the team MMRS to balance at 1500. This would be based on the WHOLE POPULATION of arena in a battlegroup. If the current MMR rating changes (which will 100% of the time eventually determine your team rating) are not balanced across the battlegroup then your math is screwed up and you will not achieve the goals that you are trying to achieve (and that look very reasonable). Don't let a small thing like this screw up a big thing. Please check the math and confirm that the average battlegroup MMR of teams that have played at least 25+ games is 1500.

All I am saying is CHECK the math. I am sure whoever the head stats guy who designed it will naturally say "it is right" but if you run a simple query against a whole battlegroup of MMRs and then average them, if it isn't =/- a few points from 1500 then your system won't work correctly.

Also, if you are not using a statistical force and you have substantial outliers (which take away your bell curve) like only 20 teams at 2200 and 50 teams at 800, then you are probably better off to use the median as the "statistical balancer" to determine match ups and point changes.

---

Q u o t e:
This all seems very interesting and I enjoy using good math to try and assist the arena functionality.

You quoted something to the fact that, "1500 is still the place where 1/2 the teams are below and 1/2 the teams are above" that rating. However, this seems to be a useless comparison in that the TR is no longer used for anything except a temporary and arbitrary place holder until you find your "real" level. If the system is not balancing to the MMR being in the middle at 1500 then the whole system will be screwed up. Looking at the numbers you posted from the parse and seeing teams with MMR of 800's, I would want to make sure that MMR of 1500 is dead center of your bell curve. If your balancing to TR, especially with new teams forming all the time, then you have made a serious mathematical error.

In addition, the one thing that would be absolutely necessary is a "statistical force" to make sure you actually have a bell curve of MMR after some period of time. What I mean is you have to keep forcing the team MMRS to balance at 1500. This would be based on the WHOLE POPULATION of arena in a battlegroup. If the current MMR rating changes (which will 100% of the time eventually determine your team rating) are not balanced across the battlegroup then your math is screwed up and you will not achieve the goals that you are trying to achieve (and that look very reasonable). Don't let a small thing like this screw up a big thing. Please check the math and confirm that the average battlegroup MMR of teams that have played at least 25+ games is 1500.

All I am saying is CHECK the math. I am sure whoever the head stats guy who designed it will naturally say "it is right" but if you run a simple query against a whole battlegroup of MMRs and then average them, if it isn't =/- a few points from 1500 then your system won't work correctly.

---

The system operates on a bell curve with a range of 200 - 3000, someone posted a chart in a thread, that is most likely lost at this point. The system is also designed to push people in one direction or another, or at leas this is what it feels like, so the bell curve will exist evenly.

Should I reroll rogue? Paladin? DK? If not, must I find a paladin or a druid partner? I'd like to play with one of my friends.

Can you mark classes at character creation with that classes representation in the top 1000 pvp players on that server?

I think I'm actually fairly decent at pvp. I also think I may have picked the wrong class when I rolled my character. Arena is fun to me, but I don't know that any amount of skill will make a difference when playing against melee dps classes. Sure, I can do almost 5k dps on patchwerk, but when I'm dying (with a healer) before I can come out of stun.... well, it loses some of the fun. Are you planning on making other classes viable?