Elitist Jerks
Register
Blogs
Forums


Go Back   Elitist Jerks » Public Discussion

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
Old 12/12/06, 12:25 PM   #26
marketa
Von Kaiser
 
Murloc Warlock
 
Tichondrius
Anyone with ~2100 rating in 5vs5 can fully gear out in a season. Anyone higher will gear out faster and be a better team.

Honestly the 2vs2 and 3vs3 dont even seem worth it if you plan to be the best. I think 2v2 and 3v3 will become mercy groups with the unguilded dumbass from work to help him get a few pieces of gear.

Offline
Reply With Quote
Old 12/12/06, 4:13 PM   #27
Stein
Don Flamenco
 
Worgen Rogue
 
Doomhammer
Does all this assume there will be new sets of arena gear each season?

Offline
Reply With Quote
Old 12/12/06, 4:40 PM   #28
Vema
Von Kaiser
 
Draenei Shaman
 
Moonrunner
Originally Posted by marketa
Anyone with ~2100 rating in 5vs5 can fully gear out in a season. Anyone higher will gear out faster and be a better team.

Honestly the 2vs2 and 3vs3 dont even seem worth it if you plan to be the best. I think 2v2 and 3v3 will become mercy groups with the unguilded dumbass from work to help him get a few pieces of gear.
This seems intended, with a 2man group you can essentially have groups you are unable to kill at all, and while you can form you team around being able to always draw a balanced team from 4, that’s hard without 4 hybrids. 3v3 seems to be just an longer version of 2v2, one more person to kill, one more team-mate. Unless your 3v3 or 2v2 team has 2+ healers, dps will still focus the healer down then cleanup.

5v5 is totally different, you can form a group that covers all the bases and is redundant enough that you could win against any team. Things like the standard MMORPG Trinity, and presumably a hybrid or few that can cover multiple roles will become more important. In almost every WSG custom I run with we totally stack dps, it helps us wipe PuG's quickly and unorganized / unprepared customs, but when we fight customs that have better balance then us, we have to work a lot harder and often loose. 1 Loss out of 20 games isn’t bad now, but with the arena system this loss becomes huge.

Canada Offline
Reply With Quote
Old 12/12/06, 7:06 PM   #29
Zeboim
Von Kaiser
 
Orc Hunter
 
Daggerspine
Originally Posted by Stein
Does all this assume there will be new sets of arena gear each season?
Good point. Lets assume its every 2 seasons that gets new gear and each season resets your rating.

With a true strength of 1720 you can get all the gear in 26 weeks or 260 games. 37% of all participants should have a true stregnth equal or higher than 1720.




Edit: I did a calculation of a team with a true strength of 0. Seems the minimum number of arena points you can get from playing a full season is 2700. After 17 weeks(resets after 13) you can buy a 2 hander.

Offline
Reply With Quote
Old 12/12/06, 7:29 PM   #30
Beliandra
Don Flamenco
 
Dwarf Priest
 
Daggerspine
Originally Posted by Zeboim
P(x) tells you the probability of getting x rating. With x = 2109, you get .82 which means that 18% of the teams should get 2109 rating which has the benifit of allowing them to get all the items. In other words, using the above formula, you can determine how many people are better or worse than you.
Your maths kinda flew over my head (it's been twelve years since my university maths days), but do you really think this system will enable 18% of all teams to get a full set of Gladiator gear in one season?? That sounds remarkably high?

Offline
Reply With Quote
Old 12/12/06, 9:00 PM   #31
Foeresh
Von Kaiser
 
Blood Elf Paladin
 
Suramar
First of Bel - a season is 13 weeks, those teams wouldnt get it overnight. Second Blizzard realizes that the PvP system they had in place before 2.0 was flawed and rewarded those who had the most time, rather than the most skill (sure there are plenty of skilled HWL, but time was the deciding factor) As far as the math goes - that result is misleading. 18% of the ranking scores are above the cut off, that does not mean 18% of the teams will be above that cut off. IE there could be 15% of the teams in top 18% of possible ratings.

However as far as this post goes - for a thread entitled Optimizing Reward/Work Ratio there sure is a ton of work being done in this thread :-P

Offline
Reply With Quote
Old 12/12/06, 9:21 PM   #32
Schnappi
Piston Honda
 
Orc Shaman
 
Vek'nilash (EU)
Originally Posted by Malan
Forgive a guy who hasn't been in a calc course for nearly 7 years... can someone simplify all the gibberish and tell me what the optimal point of effort reward is? :(
If I'm interpreting those graphs correctly the best point is where the first derivate is at it's peak and the second at 0. Around 2,100.

But since it's been a long time for me too confirmation would be nice ;)

Offline
Reply With Quote
Old 12/12/06, 10:08 PM   #33
Zeboim
Von Kaiser
 
Orc Hunter
 
Daggerspine
Originally Posted by Foeresh
First of Bel - a season is 13 weeks, those teams wouldnt get it overnight. Second Blizzard realizes that the PvP system they had in place before 2.0 was flawed and rewarded those who had the most time, rather than the most skill (sure there are plenty of skilled HWL, but time was the deciding factor) As far as the math goes - that result is misleading. 18% of the ranking scores are above the cut off, that does not mean 18% of the teams will be above that cut off. IE there could be 15% of the teams in top 18% of possible ratings.

However as far as this post goes - for a thread entitled Optimizing Reward/Work Ratio there sure is a ton of work being done in this thread :-P
I'm pretty sure that the derivative of the probability curve I gave shows the density curve of the expected distribution of ratings. The whole point of using a logistic curve to map out the rating distribution is that it fit the data observered in the early implementations of the ELO system. In other words, I think what I said was not misleading and infact shows the chance of getting a specific rating. The proof of it is beyond my understanding of discreet mathematics, but while reading about the ELO system, logic curves and their applications, it was mentioned.

Offline
Reply With Quote
Old 02/15/07, 12:50 PM   #34
Igni
Warrior-Poet
 
Igniferroque
Dwarf Priest
 
No WoW Account
I'm told by people much better at math than I am that there is a coefficient that will determine how widely our Arena scores will swing. I am also told that right now we don't know what that coefficient is, but we'll be able to figure it out if we have the Elo scores of the teams before the fight, who won and who lost and the resulting rating change.

Knowing how much our scores change will allow us to model how long it should take for the aggregate to reach steady state. It will also answer questions raised here and another thread as to how many games is truly ideal.

Because the final scoreboard doesn't show either team's rating, finding out the other team's score before the fight will need to be done outside of the game.

With the Arenas starting tomorrow, if you're able to do this, please post your data here so we can determine a) what the coefficient is and b) if it differs from bracket to bracket.

Ignie Ferroque translates from latin to "with fire & with sword." It is a stock phrase used to describe the results of a destructive raid into an enemy's territory, whose sole purpose is to generate fear, terror, and destruction.

Offline
Reply With Quote
Reply

Go Back   Elitist Jerks » Public Discussion

Thread Tools

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Int:Spellcrit Ratio Slake Class Mechanics 19 08/06/07 1:09 PM
Agility to Crit ratio of Warrior mydoom The Dung Heap 3 06/20/07 9:20 AM
"HC DKP" or "how we learned to reward progress" Jipakazoid Public Discussion 43 05/31/06 1:05 PM