Kissmyaxe

They changed the amount of points the lower brackets get so you get more points than before.
Although 5v5 team is harder to manage it's still the best way to get points if you have at least decent members.

 

Dendory

Here's a question. Is there any use in keeping alive a team if you're under 1500 rating, unless you're just short on money? Since there is no cooldown or restriction as far as I know, wouldn't all teams that got bad luck and fell under the starting point simply disband and recreate to get their 450 points next week?

 

Suesse

What I mean is that, while you can only build arena points from one team per character (even if you have a 5v5, 3v3, and 2v2), you can be in a different 5v5 for each one of your alts. Therefore, while your main may be able to get an arena epic every week due to his/her high standing, your alts could be getting an epic every one or two months, for a rather small price.

With the ability to disband and regroup every week, it seems that the arena can become nothing more than a vendor who sells level 110-115 epics. This is depressing.

 

Shawn

You would still need to play ten games to get arena-points.

 

• frmorrison

Assuming you did that and there is no protection in place for reforming, it would cost 5 people 40g a week; and you would get about a 1270 rating (for doing 0-10) for the week.

Assuming the reforming idea works, why do you care that someone is slowly getting epics (would have to wait about 5 weeks per epic and pay 200ish gold)?

Maybe that will be abused, but Arenas still are a great game mechanic.

Edit: With regard to getting ilevel 115 epics with time/gold, compare that example to tailoring. Any player can create enough Shadowcloth/Spellcloth solo over time (about 2 months) to create ilevel three ilevel 105 epics, likely the same player will have to spend gold on primals/netherweave/arcane dust in order to have enough mats to craft the items.

 

Avair

Blizzard can easily track the breaking and reforming of teams. I suspect that if it becomes a problem, they will take some measure to reduce the incentive to do it.

 

Keline

The only thing that needs to be added to matchmaking is a limit to how often the same teams can be matched on 1 day. It's fucking annoying to lose a ton of ranking because you're getting matched against the same powerplay team 4 times in a row.

 

Copernicus

Especially since that's the easiest way to set up collusion so two teams can keep up a high arena rank without putting any maintenance effort into it.

 

Copernicus

I made a quick graph of this for my guild.

http://i9.tinypic.com/2v9ps9z.gif

In the 1500-1800 range, the 3v3 team needs to be slightly over 100 rating higher than the 5v5 team to be more valuable. I don't know how difficult it is to get through the various rankings, but it still looks like 5v5 is the best option.

 

• Zyla

I still don't see why a team would intentionally lose for any reason. I understand collusion, but presumably the top teams are vying for the tournament bid, and therefore would want to put as much distance from their rivals as possible. Beating them is the most direct path to this.

We don't use words like that...St. Louise is listening!

 

Mosh

I still think the 2v2 penalty especially is way too harsh.

I feel way more proud about my 1900 rating in 40 games 2v2 than my 1670-something rating in roughly 40 games 5v5, but it's the 5v5 team that I'll earn points with.

 

arch

Yeah, my 2v2 team is also on 1900ish points and assuming that calculator is somewhat accurate we'll be getting around 200 pts.

A good 2v2 team shouldn't recieve that puny amount of points compared to a 5v5 team full of clowns :<

Speaking of high-rated teams, I know there's a team in my guild that has 2100 rating in the 3v3 ladder.

 

CrazyGamer

I'm not familiar with the real life ELO system, short of the basic concept, and I find that the observations from those who discuss it don't match my expectations of the system, so I'm curious if they making a mistake of applying too much of their experience with the real system to these evaluations or if I have overlooked something in this:

People are talking of how teams will find their "true rating" within a few weeks and then settle there. I consider the rating a relative thing so the top teams will hold a certain share of the points, on average. As the point input of the system increases, through the creation of new teams, better teams will feed on those and the points will travel up through the tiers till the top teams eventually increase in points because their weaker opponents have higher ratings than previously. As such, the ratings of the top teams would largely be proportional with the amount of teams playing (and particularly the amount of teams failing), which I believe is the reason why 2v2 and 3v3 teams already seem to be earning higher ratings than the 5v5 teams. Looking across the battlegroup ladders, I imagine we would on average see the top 3v3 rating be 100-200 points higher than the top 5v5 rating.

As such, while our "true rating" in 5v5 seems around 1900 at the moment (or 2000+ if not for disconnects), I expect to increase by roughly a hundred rating a week for the duration of the season and I would be surprised if we finished below 2500 if my impressions are correct.

Assuming I am correct, this would also go a great way towards evening out the perceived inconsistencies between point gain in different brackets, as the smaller brackets have a greater rating input.


On a slightly different note, I find the disconnect issue to be extremely critical and I've proposed a "fix" which would abort any game which doesn't have the intended amount of players on both sides when the countdown is over. Obviously, this would only be part of a solution (players should be able to rejoin games too etc.) but am I missing dome drawback or wouldn't this all around be a great measure to deal with the issue?

http://www.defendersofvalor.net
\"Never trust anything that a man will not set his reputation and name upon.\" - Medivh

 

• Zyla

My 5's team has lost easily over 100 points from disconnects. It needs to be fixed, now.

We don't use words like that...St. Louise is listening!

 

Keline

the 536 points my calculator http://boxspherical.com/arena/index.php puts out disagree with this

 

XI-

The problem, at the current moment is that there are no teams to "feed" on. Either there aren't nearly as many teams participating as I expected or there exists some kind of delineation that prevents new teams from playing semi-established teams.

For example, yesterday we played the top team in our battlegroup probably 4 out of 5 games. Their rating at the time was approximately 2000, while our was around 1700. Yet at the same time I very, very rarely see teams where I don't immediately recognize who they are. If the system behaves as expected you would think I would face more teams the starting 1500 points, as the point spread is smaller and there should be more of them. In 30 games last week I played one game that could be classified as this, and it was after we'd somehow tanked our rating down to 1650, before pulling it up to end the week at 1800.

Anyway, the problem in all of this is it seems right now it will be virtually impossible for teams to get any movement. For example one of the top teams queued today, got 5 games, went 5-0 and gained 10 total points. One loss could easily wipe them out, and expecting teams to maintain 15 wins for every loss is exceeding unrealistic.

Given the amount of points generated at this rating, it seems pretty unreasonable to have teams in the 10 games quandary this early in the season.

 

LuckyAC

The number of teams alone shouldn't really affect your true strength rating. There is a a bell curve distribution centered at 1500. The more teams there are, the farther that distribution will extend, to a small degree, but, in general, being in the same %ile should put you at the same rating. Being 1800 means you need to be able to beat a 1600 75% of the time to maintain your rating (since you lose 24 for a loss and gain 8 for a win), no matter how many teams there are in the system. Similarly, a 2100 will need to be able to beat that 1800 87.5% of the time (28 for a loss, 4 for a win) etc. forming a chain all the way to the top (or bottom). Thus there is essentially a constant win % basis of comparison to the average player, to which the number of teams is irrelevant.

However, if this average moves, there can indeed be an upward trend. Unlike in most permanent systems, there is in fact an obvious mechanism for inflation - teams can disband and reform. Every time a team tank down to 1300 and then quits, they have injected 200 points into the system as a whole, and the average rises marginally, shifting the whole distribution upwards.

However, I should say that top people aren't currently at their true rating, even if they have stabilized. since it does take time for the distribution to reach its equilibrium. Right now, they are playing against lots of other underrated players who started much too low at 1500.

 

• Maels

Each full set costs 8250 points, a two hander, or one hander + off hand costs 3750, totaling 12,000 points. Add in 5,000 points to save for the next season, and divide by 13 weeks.

To get one full set + weapon(s) + 5,000 points, an average of 1308 points per week is required.
At a 5v5 team rating of 2146, starting from week 1 and keeping that consistent throughout the assumed 13 week season, you will acquire a full set + weapons + 5,000 points for next season.

Realistically, a 5v5 team should aim to get to a minimum ~2250 rating during weeks 1-3, and maintain it throughout the rest of the season.

Using the same logic and goals;
2v2: 2670, 2800 realistically
3v3: 2327, 2450 realistically
5v5: 2146, 2250 realistically

Anything more is just e-peen and Netherdrakes.

Keep in mind, my realistic values are nowhere near 100% accurate, they are what I think teams should aim to reach at the start of week 3 to be safe. The longer it takes you to reach the "realistic" goal (if your rating is less than suggested by week 3), the higher the goal you should maintain becomes for every week you are late.

Season rewards after the first become much, much easier to acquire since you already have the 5,000 points that will carry on throughout each and every season after the first. The required team rating to obtain a full set + weapon is considerably less without having to acquire 5,000 points as an in-between season point buffer.
It has been noted before, and I'm sure most everyone will do so anyway, but check your rating at weeks 7-8 and figure out when you need to stop spending so you can save 5,000 points for the next season. It's better to save even if the rewards stay the same next season.

Edit: Maaatttthhhhh

 

• Wodin

It's not accurate - our drunken 2v2 team went 81-83 for the week and had a sub-1500 rating, but ended up with 245 arena points, so there's no way in hell a 1900 rated team would be getting only 223.

 

syeren

Hello, sorry if I didn't catch this earlier in the thread (Math does get boring in my eyes sorry,) but can anyone confirm or deny my idea...

I recently made my 5v5 team and it ended up 7 out of the 10 players simply don't like the arena, or cannot be bothered collecting equipment for it, which has put me and 2 players under a rather sticky situation, so are we able to leave the 5v5 team I made and make a new one?

I know Blizzard said they would impose some form of cool down or lock, but I haven't actually seen anyone complain yet, and I am sure there are a few people in my situation.

 

Copernicus

They changed the points from their original announcement, from 40% and 60% to 60% and 80% for 2v2 and 3v3 respectively.

For the quick math...

 

Kissmyaxe

This confusion is caused by the fact that blizzard changed the points earned in each bracket. Some people use the old formula while others use the new one.

Edit: Was a bit slow on the reply, Copernicus beat me to it...

 

Azael

Blizzard changed the amount of points you get from 2s, it used to be something like ~30% of what you get from 5s, and now it's ~60% I believe.

I had a 2154 rating for 2s first week and it got me 794 arena points, so it's really not that bad. The people saying 2s are kinda right however, because the only reason I didn't get more for 5s was because we had just started playing on it. The other people on my 5s team got like 715 or something arena points for that, and it was a lot less games played.

The really dumb thing about having a high rating this early is how little you get from some of the other teams. Some of the 2s games get you like 1 rating increase from a win, and if you d/c and lose to a bad team you can lose like 40 points, which happened to us once =/

Besides, it's not even supposed to be easy to get the full arena set, so I don't have any problem with it taking a while considering there won't be more good pvp content for quite some time i'm sure.

 

XI-

That's the problem. If you read the title of the thread the arena season is only 2 months or 8 weeks.

 

Brissa

Is there any reason (apart from getting loot fast) that you absolutely must have the entire set and 2 weapons in the first season?
I mean I dont expect blizzard to add higher ilvl loot until there is new raidcontent (which seems unlikely in only 2 months considering the slow progress in the current raids)