---

Q u o t e:
they put out a new system without even testing it?

---

Aside from the small problems when it was very first implemented, it really isn't horrible at all.

All they really need to do now is fix how the team rating starts out in correlation to MMR so the people on the lower end of the spectrum don't feel cheated, as well as fixing the rewards obtainable.

Dorrus:

---

Q u o t e:
The concept of advancement is there if you already have played sufficient game to hit the 50/50 mark.

---

Yes, and for some people, 50/50 is 1200, for others, it's 1800. If all classes were balanced, then skill would decide whose 50/50 was higher, and whose was lower. PvP is very dysfunctional right now, so 50/50 is more decided by your "I WIN" button than it is your skill.


Badw:

---

Q u o t e:
To me I don't see this as a problem because I know there are other factors that control what I win/lose

---

Yes, such as what class you rolled.

---

Q u o t e:
All they really need to do now is fix how the team rating starts out in correlation to MMR so the people on the lower end of the spectrum don't feel cheated, as well as fixing the rewards obtainable.

---

On this, I agree with you completely. But then that is basically returning to the old system isnt it?

---

Q u o t e:
Dorrus:

Yes, and for some people, 50/50 is 1200, for others, it's 1800. If all classes were balanced, then skill would decide whose 50/50 was higher, and whose was lower. PvP is very dysfunctional right now, so 50/50 is more decided by your "I WIN" button than it is your skill.


Badw:

Yes, such as what class you rolled.


On this, I agree with you completely. But then that is basically returning to the old system isnt it?

---

Not so.

There ARE advantages certain classes have (arcane mage, unholy DK, survival hunter, etc), however, at the moment there are still a large gap of skill between your average FOTM player in the 1800s, and a 2400 player.

well thank you Kalgan for the posts and I'm willing to assume that the math and the theory are all fine.

What I'm not seeing is how this makes the experience better for actual players. ISNT THIS A "GAME". For "FUN".

There are 100,000 of arena participants that just want to reach that 1650 or whatever so they can spend that 75K capped honor pts on a slight upgrade. They would also like to have a bit of fun with their friends, and some sense of progression and accomplishment.

- They DO NOT have 6 or 12 or 18 hours to spend on arenas, nor are they ever online together for that long (not most people already are committed to PVE raids several days a week).

- They CANNOT ENJOY playing dozens of games and seeing: We just lost vs Team X dammit 24 pts gone. OK 30 sec later Team X again and we win! 3 points.... OK how many teams have the morale (or masochism) to put up with that? Now they need a 6 game winning streak just to break even!

What an amazing example of something that's an egghead PhD's wet dream (the math! it's so beutiful!) yet manages to frustrate and enrage paying customers that are supposed to be HAVING FUN. supposed to feel in control of their progress in arenas, to see some tangible accomplishment for their 3 hour session (we won more than we lost, we beat that team that used to give us problems... WHY THE HELL IS OUR TEAM RATING DOWN 100 pts).

---

Q u o t e:
On this, I agree with you completely. But then that is basically returning to the old system isnt it?

---

Not really, one of the main reasons why they said they implemented this was people were complaining about gladiators rerolling teams and "destorying" the lower rated people. That can't happen with this system.

---

Q u o t e:
I think the biggest problem people are having with this is they don't understand why they are gaining/losing X amount of points against other teams. Why not show the teams hidden rating? You guys have clearly explained what it is and I don't think anyone could exploit it too much. By letting teams see their hidden rating and the opposing teams hidden rating, it would be much easier to understand why a team won/lost a certain amount of points.

Could we have an explanation of why the hidden rating is hidden?

Sounds like a good FAQ question to me.

---

I read most of this thread, and this seems to be the core of the issue that people have (other than the few issues that Kalgan zeroed in on).

These changes are designed to counteract some of the chief complaints about the arena SYSTEM (not class balance or anything) that arose in S3-S4. I've been reading these forums for quite a long time (mostly while getting paid for "working" lol), and the largest complaint in previous arena seasons was the presence of Gladiator level players in the 1500's with their "friends" stealing points from "actual" 1500 teams. This complaint was EXTREMELY prevalent, and there were probably 3 to 10 new threads on this issue every day.

The second major issue was that people were actually playing the "system" and not the "game". It was fairly common practice for people to win-trade with their alts and such, to gain ratings on their "main" team. They tried using the personal ratings to combat this, but that didn't really work. The players of this game use whatever information they have available to exploit it. The only real solution is to hide information from the players.

---

Q u o t e:


That's what we plan to do, along with revising rating requirements and a few other tweaks.

---

But how would that work? If there's a starting rating and you lose, you'd have to go down right? So some people are going to head down. Unless you simply make losses send you up at a much slower rate, but then anyone could get a high rating unless there's some way to cap that progress...

so what exactly are you thinking of doing?

Just start everyone at 0. There, nowhere to go but up.

---

Q u o t e:


Only according to the very flawed system blizzard forced on us.

---

It's fairly accurate. Players who lose don't like to be told they're losers, is all.

I think the bottom line is the numbers work, the psychology and rewards are flawed and most players should quit arena until next season starts.

---

Q u o t e:
well thank you Kalgan for the posts and I'm willing to assume that the math and the theory are all fine.

What I'm not seeing is how this makes the experience better for actual players. ISNT THIS A "GAME". For "FUN".

There are 100,000 of arena participants that just want to reach that 1650 or whatever so they can spend that 75K capped honor pts on a slight upgrade. They would also like to have a bit of fun with their friends, and some sense of progression and accomplishment.

- They DO NOT have 6 or 12 or 18 hours to spend on arenas, nor are they ever online together for that long (not most people already are committed to PVE raids several days a week).

- They CANNOT ENJOY playing dozens of games and seeing: We just lost vs Team X dammit 24 pts gone. OK 30 sec later Team X again and we win! 3 points.... OK how many teams have the morale (or masochism) to put up with that? Now they need a 6 game winning streak just to break even!

What an amazing example of something that's an egghead PhD's wet dream (the math! it's so beutiful!) yet manages to frustrate and enrage paying customers that are supposed to be HAVING FUN. supposed to feel in control of their progress in arenas, to see some tangible accomplishment for their 3 hour session (we won more than we lost, we beat that team that used to give us problems... WHY THE HELL IS OUR TEAM RATING DOWN 100 pts).

---

I could not have said it better myself

It seems to me a lot of people aren't understanding the math of what Kalgan posted, so let's see if I can't help that a little bit. My conclusions are drawn based on his small data sample as well as my personal experience so I could be correct or not, but the basics I believe I have.

The biggest change to this system here is that teams shown ratings are now irrelevant to each other, instead of everything being based on it. Two teams will fight each other depending on the matchmaking rating ( MMR ) or the hidden rating, but their ratings will changed based on their current displayed team rating and the opponents MMR.

As an example, let's take a team of 1550 rating who has a 1300 MMR vs a team of 1300 rating with an MMR of 1300. They matched up against each other because of similar MMRs, which is obvious, but the part that a lot of people aren't understanding is how points will change. In one case let's say that the 1550 team wins - they would win an amount of points based on a 1550 team beating the 1300 team, probably in the realm of 5-6 ( pure guesswork because I do not have a sample large enough to draw exact numbers ) and their MMR rating would go up an currently unknown amount; I would surmise that it would change an amount based on how many games they have played with 1300 as their MMR - more games played at that same MMR, the smaller the change. Now let's say that 1550 team lost, they would lose points as if they lost to a 1300 team, which would be about -21/22. Taking the 3rd case, the 1300 team beats the 1550 team, but since the 1550's team MMR is 1300 the rating would change as if the 1300 team beat a 1300 team, +12 ( a number given to us by blizzard ). And were the 1300 team to lose to the 1550 team it would again lose 12 points, based on a team of 1300 losing to a MMR of 1300.

Restated in less wall of test :
1550 team with 1300 MMR vs 1300 team with 1300 MMR
if 1550 team wins +6 ( 1550team vs 1300MMR )
if 1550 team loses -22 ( 1550team vs 1300MMR )
if 1300 team wins +12 ( 1300team vs 1300MMR )
if 1300 team loses -12 ( 1300team vs 1300MMR )

There have been several worries of teams having to play 50 games in order to catch their shown team rating up to the MMR rating, and while this isn't far from the truth, it isn't quite correct either. In order to explain this as an example it would take too much room for a forum post that won't really be read by very many people, but there is one point that needs to be made in concern to that - This can only be the case right now because of the change to the system mid season; it cannot occur during a new season. So yes, it is inconvenient for low rated people right now because you're going to be losing a lot of games, but I think that Kalgan and the blizzard designers understand that and will remedy that problem. Though if it will be fixed before or after S5 ends no one knows. =P

The question that we as a community do not have answered are how the MMR changes, both because it is a hidden number and because it has not be around long enough as a system to be fully tested. Maybe Kalgan will respond to this post confirming or denying that this is how the system works, maybe he won't, but this is how I have interpreted the system to work and by the current evidence it appears to me to be correct.

I think the solution is pretty clear. Just make hateful gear readily accessible to lower rated players, and have a "gap" in between hateful and deadly gear.

Deadly gear belongs to the hardcore pvpers, those players willing and able to compete. Hateful gear belongs to the casual pvper who still cares enough to play seriously, but can't crack the upper echelon. Savage gear belongs to the very casual player/pve player.

For those of us lucky enough to be competing for 2200+, I think this new system is incredibly well done.

I can get from base (1500) to 2100-2200 in less than 1 session (3-4 hours), off no queue times, with no waiting, and great games all throughout (no scrub bashing). What's wrong with this? If we beat a 2200 team, should they lose 40 points just because we rerolled? Using hidden ratings instead of TR makes a lot more sense.

While Hateful gear reqs should be lowered (start the first set pieces at around 1100, 100 per piece, to 1500), the Deadly gear reqs should be RAISED. At least restore the Deadly 5-set to its former glory (+100 PR/TR) and add 100 TR/PR to the Deadly off-set. Otherwise, the flood of scrubby full 5-set Deadly wearers will make baby jesus cry.

*Edit

In the time it took me to type this post, Kalgan has owned me. Great job there.

How long can you keep this naming convention up? Season 7, the season of the really, REALLY Angry gladiator.

:P

---

Q u o t e:
2300+: Furious Tabard (purely cosmetic and awesome looking)

---

victory

Edit: What is the point of rating requirements below 1500? It's kind of a given that everyone will be above 1300 before they are below it.

---

Q u o t e:


victory

Edit: What is the point of rating requirements below 1500? It's kind of a given that everyone will be above 1300 before they are below it.

---

He said teams will be starting at a lower point value, probably having to do with people going up to meet their level rather than going down and being demoralized as he said earlier.