Maybe I missed something, but what in the new changes will make this fight any easier? I think primarily if you changed burn to shadow damage the fight would keep its difficulty without making it so if your tank gets burn, you're screwed. It would still be harder then the previous version (LOL grounding totem), but killable. Also, get rid of his parry mechanic like they did with Mother. 23k damage in 1 sec is kind of retarded.
-P.S. If you think this is discussing the mechanics of the fight too much just delete.
No clue. Two guilds that had some dev interaction on the PTR last night were told that he pretty much wasn't currently killable and is reworked as of the forthcoming patch. We'll have to see what that entails firsthand. Personally I read about the Grounding hotfix like 30min before we were going to start raiding and just canceled for the night, since it was obvious that would make the fight impossible.
NPCs that sell flasks for very cheap, like 10 copper or somesuch. They're often spawned in PTRs so that guilds can run raids fully potted without having to do the whole alchemy thing.
The problem this is trying to solve isn't point-selling, or smurfing, or anything of that sort. It's about tanking rating to artificially get up to 1850 personal rating.
Right now, let's say you're mediocre and can't really get past 1650 playing normally, but you are not terrible enough to lose to anyone at 1350 rating. You have someone tank your team down to 1250 or so, then level it back up to 1450, then have other players tank it back down to 1250 or so, and repeat, until your personal rating eventually reaches 1850, going up a few points per game but in games that you can always win because everyone at those ratings is terrible.
Now you have a 1400-rated team and you have 1850 personal rating. You find a couple of good players who will play without you to get the team rating up to 1850 in exchange for some gold. Grats, you now have a S3 weapon.
With this change, however, someone who is at 1700 personal rating playing on a 1300 team will be playing other 1700-rating teams that can beat him, instead of slowly increasing his rating further by farming 1300-rated teams for 2 points each.
Reposting this on a new page so that people stop speculating and saying dumb things.
Of course Blizzard would never do that because thematically dual wield spec must be a combat talent....
Warrior talent adjustments show a precedence for this: Death Wish moved out of Fury (berserker) to Arms (soldier), Weapon Mastery moved to Fury from Arms; Tactical Mastery is less thematically placed since its movement to Protection.
If it's required for balance purposes, expect talents to be moved. TacMastery was a perfect example as a Tier 2 Arms talent (if memory serves) which *every* Warrior took. Since its movement to Protection, it has become something of a defining talent, along the lines of Defiance: if you have TM, you are much more flexible and effective as an off-tank, but will output less DPS due to cutting out Precision or Flurry. However, it's certainly obvious that DW spec is far more of a required talent as a raiding rogue than TM ever has been as a raiding warrior; one can adjust gearing to make up for the threat loss from TM, but there is no way to make up the lost DPS from not having DW spec.
If that's the case - and I hope it is - it's worded sufficiently ambiguously that I was on the brink of writing a long email rant about how it's such a huge mistake.
- Matchmaking: If a queued player has a personal rating higher than their team rating, the matchmaking system will now use the highest personal rating of a queued member of that team for matchmaking purposes, instead of the team rating.
What's ambiguous about it? "queued players" "that team"
Perhaps it would be easier to do away with team ratings altogether, and any time the server wants to know the team rating, it uses the average of the personal ratings. In a match, it averages the players in the match. Outside of the match, it uses the average rating of all team members, weighted by the percent of games that member has played this season. Award points based on personal rating, not team rating.
At this point, I don't understand the purpose of team ratings at all.
Perhaps it would be easier to do away with team ratings altogether, and any time the server wants to know the team rating, it uses the average of the personal ratings. In a match, it averages the players in the match. Outside of the match, it uses the average rating of all team members, weighted by the percent of games that member has played this season. Award points based on personal rating, not team rating.
At this point, I don't understand the purpose of team ratings at all.
They implemented Personal ratings thinking it would solve a lot of the issues with people exploiting ratings to get easy access to the weapons/shoulders, instead all it did was cause them to create new exploits. Suddenly now they're finding that balancing 2 variable ratings is not as easy as they probably first thought especially when you have such a large amount of folk that are perfectly willing to exploit it as much as possible to the point where something that was meant to be pretty simple is becomming more and more convoluted with each change.
What you've described there as the possible fix will probably be how it ends up next expansion, the "team rating" being an average of the actual team members.
- Matchmaking: If a queued player has a personal rating higher than their team rating, the matchmaking system will now use the highest personal rating of a queued member of that team for matchmaking purposes, instead of the team rating.
What's ambiguous about it? "queued players" "that team"
"Highest personal rating of a queued member" can easily be taken to refer to the highest personal rating a member has rather than the highest personal rating on that team among those members. In context of the particular issue it's meant to fix, as Gurg explained, it makes much more sense.
Negative. Team rating is required to be static in order for the ELO system to work.
Example:
Team has 10 Players, 5 of which at 2000 Personal Rating and 5 at 1000 Personal Rating. So the 'average' rating is 1500. 5 players play a match (composition independent) - and they lose 16 points. So 5 members lose 16 personal rating, but the team average is only reduced by 8 points. If all players on the team lost personal rating based on any of the team's performance, then yes, the average rating would be accurate, but that would hardly be fair to players that didnt even participate in the game.
Negative. Team rating is required to be static in order for the ELO system to work.
Example:
Team has 10 Players, 5 of which at 2000 Personal Rating and 5 at 1000 Personal Rating. So the 'average' rating is 1500. 5 players play a match (composition independent) - and they lose 16 points. So 5 members lose 16 personal rating, but the team average is only reduced by 8 points. If all players on the team lost personal rating based on any of the team's performance, then yes, the average rating would be accurate, but that would hardly be fair to players that didnt even participate in the game.
Or they can determine the team rating by averaging the players that are queued up for a match. Using your example, if the top 5 of the team queues up, it's counted as a 2000 rating team and the 5 competing players gain/lose points accordingly.
Negative. Team rating is required to be static in order for the ELO system to work.
Example:
Team has 10 Players, 5 of which at 2000 Personal Rating and 5 at 1000 Personal Rating. So the 'average' rating is 1500. 5 players play a match (composition independent) - and they lose 16 points. So 5 members lose 16 personal rating, but the team average is only reduced by 8 points. If all players on the team lost personal rating based on any of the team's performance, then yes, the average rating would be accurate, but that would hardly be fair to players that didnt even participate in the game.
This would only be true if all ten members had played exactly the same amount of games or if it wasn't weighted by % participation. The more games the 2000 people play, the closer their team would be to losing the full value of points.
Keep in mind the other team would only be winning "half as many" points as well. I don't see why this would make the system break.
EDIT: Though I could see it as problematic in that it would encourage teams to kick their lower-pointed members right before the end of the season.
Negative. Team rating is required to be static in order for the ELO system to work.
Example:
Team has 10 Players, 5 of which at 2000 Personal Rating and 5 at 1000 Personal Rating. So the 'average' rating is 1500. 5 players play a match (composition independent) - and they lose 16 points. So 5 members lose 16 personal rating, but the team average is only reduced by 8 points. If all players on the team lost personal rating based on any of the team's performance, then yes, the average rating would be accurate, but that would hardly be fair to players that didnt even participate in the game.
So why not do away with team ratings altogether? Lets say 5 players with ratings 1980, 1990, 2000, 2010, 2020 play another team with average rating 2000. If they win, the 1980 gains points based on the 1980 vs 2000 matchup, the 2020 gains based on the 2020 vs 2000 matchup, and so on. The scrubs with ~1000 rating don't have their rating change at all. I fail to see how this could be exploited.
Or they can determine the team rating by averaging the players that are queued up for a match. Using your example, if the top 5 of the team queues up, it's counted as a 2000 rating team and the 5 competing players gain/lose points accordingly.
True, but the problem remains that even if players all gain / lose based on the queue'd participants, the actual average rating is increased or lowered by half of what you should have gotten. All that is accomplished is halving the numbers involved.
This is even in addition to the "start state" - the less members you have on a team, the more actual team rating is gained versus a team with more members for wins.
True, but the problem remains that even if players all gain / lose based on the queue'd participants, the actual average rating is increased or lowered by half of what you should have gotten. All that is accomplished is halving the numbers involved.
This is even in addition to the "start state" - the less members you have on a team, the more actual team rating is gained versus a team with more members for wins.
I might have been a bit short in my previous post, but what i meant is not dissimilar to what was posted just above: dispose of a teamrating variable completely. The teams average rating is calculated on the fly once a group queues up and players have their personal ratings adjusted at the end of the game. The teamrating requirement on weapons/shoulders is removed and a players weekly point-reward is based on his personal rating.
Couple this with Blizzards new change of having the matchmaking algorithm use the highest personal rating as the determining factor and i think that you can get rid of some of the issues with the current rating system.
edit: With the new matchmaking system, matchups are done based on the highest rated player in the queue and point gain/loss is determined individually for each player, based on their personal rating versus the opposing teams average rating.
Last edited by Rannasha : 02/20/08 at 1:07 PM.
Reason: extra clarification
It seems with the recently patched mage changes they are trying to get more mages to go the pom/pyro route. Icey Veins+Heroism was a real nice counter to tongues spam when facing 2346. I really don't understand why they seem so intent on nerfing mages in arena when they are already a very under-represented class.
If they add the no pushback on Icy Veins and through talents it will help a lot but I still see pom/pyro getting a huge advantage if the blink changes come true from the rumored/leaked patch notes.
Last edited by Kyrillian : 02/20/08 at 1:08 PM.
Reason: Grammar
The new matchmaking system for arena games opens another possible can of worms in terms of rating assasination:
You have 2 players who are great at pvp, they start a new team and power it up to 2100. Then, invite two alts to the team who promptly tank it down to 1400.
The first 2 players can now queue up against 2100ish teams, with the possibility of taking large chunks of points from them. A particularly crafty team could wait until particular rivals or players they don't like are queueing, and have the opportunity to really ruin their rating and evening.
It's the opposite of win trading in a way, and could be used to ruin other teams ratings or even to push other teams out of the queue when they realize how much they stand to lose vs. gain in what should be a relatively even match up.
Someone from Numen/EU-Silvermoon said in /1 yesterday evening that they killed him just before I left the channel due to excessive spam and idocity. I can't say wheter that was already v4 nor if it is actually correct.
Nah, we haven't. If someone said that, they were messing around. Inner Sanctum however killed Brutallus yesterday, 10 mins before the hotfix. So neither of us have killed v4.0 at least.
Fire and Arcane mages sems to be much more viable now in arenas depedning on the mana reduction. Still not sold on an extra couple hundred armor from the arcane talent buff but 1-3% armor reduction against a rogue or warrior is well worth taking it.
Last edited by flyinfungi : 02/20/08 at 1:19 PM.
Reason: Shoulda looked more then just 3 pages back
It seems with the recently patched mage changes they are trying to get more mages to go the pom/pyro route. Icey Veins+Heroism was a real nice counter to tongues spam when facing 2346. I really don't understand why they seem so intent on nerfing mages in arena when they are already a very under-represented class.
If they add the no pushback on Icy Veins and through talents it will help a lot but I still see pom/pyro getting a huge advantage if the blink changes come true from the rumored/leaked patch notes.
Really though it was the molten armor damage reduction that made pom/pyro look so awesome in the "fake" notes. We've seen what they have decided to do with MA, and obviously the damage reduction didn't make it so I'm not sure if it will be worth it even if the other blink changes make it in.
Inform your dealers and whores of my credit, and pour me a goddamned drink!
Nah, we haven't. If someone said that, they were messing around. Inner Sanctum however killed Brutallus yesterday, 10 mins before the hotfix. So neither of us have killed v4.0 at least.
I verified that it was indeed someone in <Numen> who said it. Then I went ahead and tried to find a Warlock in Numen which should have transferred to you from our guild ~2 months ago. His name was Margoz when he was with us, but I didn't find him online so I didn't talk to anyone to confirm it. I just remember it because it made me list your online players to find Margoz and chat a bit with him if he was there. Looking up warcraftrealms, he must be named differently as that name appears to be taken by a level 20 Horde char on Silvermoon.
Nevermind then, let's await the next changes on him (for us it means getting Kalecgos properly first, although the v3.0 would have been an extreme challenge for us already)
The new matchmaking system for arena games opens another possible can of worms in terms of rating assasination:
You have 2 players who are great at pvp, they start a new team and power it up to 2100. Then, invite two alts to the team who promptly tank it down to 1400.
The first 2 players can now queue up against 2100ish teams, with the possibility of taking large chunks of points from them. A particularly crafty team could wait until particular rivals or players they don't like are queueing, and have the opportunity to really ruin their rating and evening.
It's the opposite of win trading in a way, and could be used to ruin other teams ratings or even to push other teams out of the queue when they realize how much they stand to lose vs. gain in what should be a relatively even match up.
Well, I'm always thinking that taking time to ruin other people's game should not come to the mind of players, but experience has proven me pretty wrong here, so I assume what you describe could actually happen.
In fact, I still don't understand why, when they introduced the personal rating, Blizzard didn't finished the job by removing the team rating completely. As seneku said, they surely will end up with this, but we know that's is not for this patch... strange they're eager to keep this complex and exploitable system, maybe they think people like the team rating. Personally, I just think that people like the system of teams, and would just be as happy with a personal rating on the side.
In fact, I still don't understand why, when they introduced the personal rating, Blizzard didn't finished the job by removing the team rating completely. As seneku said, they surely will end up with this, but we know that's is not for this patch... strange they're eager to keep this complex and exploitable system, maybe they think people like the team rating. Personally, I just think that people like the system of teams, and would just be as happy with a personal rating on the side.
Another benefit of getting rid of team ratings is that you wouldn't need to reset personal rating when you change teams. In fact each player would have their own 2v2, 3v3, and 5v5 ratings regardless of whether they were even on a team. If you quit a team at 1800 and join another, you are still 1800 on the new team.
Honestly the only way to increase your rating with a system like this is to pay someone to play with you and boost your rating, something that happens now for people who really want 1850 rating. But even that "exploit" would be more difficult if players retained ratings when switching teams. When a 1400 and a 2000 skilled person join a 2v2 team, under blizzard's proposed system they would have 1500 rating and start out playing other 1500 teams. But if your personal ratings don't reset, they would get matched against 2000 rated opponents, so the 1400 skill person would still lose. The 2000 skilled person would have to tank his personal rating low enough that the 1400 skill person could win the matchups they got.
02/20/08, 12:11 PM
Similar Threads
