lordofzedance

On my server there are many teams with ratings of 1200 and even lower for 2v2 yet nothing with a rating below 1506 is shown on armory.com

For the bloodlust battlegroup in the 2v2 bracket only 4986 teams are shown yet there are alot more than that in existence.

My question is this: Is this group of 4986 teams the actual group in which the 0.5% is calculated from? Or are there simply too many teams for armory to show up, and the 0.5% will be calculated from ALL teams within a battlegroup, shown or not shown?

asking this because my 2v2 and 3v3 are hovering at 2000 points each, meaning we have a good shot at getting netherdrake + title

 

Vazu

I donno, but if people are getting Netherdrakes with a 2k rating, that's pretty sad. The top .5% of rated teams should be some of the "best of the best" for that bracket, not just barely meeting the standard for a decent team.

They need to make it say:

1. Teams don't count toward the total in a BG unless they are rated at MINIMUM 1500.
2. Teams who satisfy 1 must meet a minimum quota of total games played over the season. This prevents people who want Drakes from spam creating 2v2s to flood the total teams in a BG. Think about how easy it's going to be for people to make their level 70 ALTs and buddies join arena teams.

It doesn't take tons of talent to break 2k as a Warrior/Paladin team for example. But say 2200? There's a huge, huge difference between 2k and 2200.

 

Quixotic

Speaking as a reroll who started the season about 8 weeks in, the difference from 2000 and 2200 is really dependant on what time you queue, and which class makeups you face in 2's and 3's. My shadow priest/warlock 2's easily shot up to 2100 the first week we played, when we both had zero arena/hwl gear, then fought rogue/priest teams down to 1900. We then queued the next week and got a lot of paladin/warrior teams and got back up to 2200 quite easily. It really depends on who is queueing at that particular time.

 

Starbucks

The Armory is beta and I do not think it counts in the internal workings that they intend to use for end of season calculations

 

Vitae

Too true Quixotic. I'm on a 2400+ rated paladin/warrior team, and while I'd like to think we're both very skilled players, I know bloody well that at least a hundred of our rating comes from the fact that I check for every single known shadow priest/warlock team on a second computer/account before I hit that queue button - and that if we run up into a new one, we make sure not to requeue. Or of course if we find a double stealther team, we sync up our queues with theirs, and so on - it's just a silly system in 2v2.

Edit: In regards to the original question, it's a pretty huge difference on Stormstrike too. According to the armory it'll be the top 25 teams, but according to other sources (there's one team on my server with a rating of _1000_, and they're ranked something like 11000th) it'll be the top 55. Quite the gap.

 

Grailyn

Clearly the Season 1 qualifiers prove the existence of this 'hidden' data Blizzard can pull from....

On another note 2200 is not the same on every battle group. Some BG's #1 is 2600+, on others it's not even 2100. Both teams could be just as good but have a fairly massive rating difference due to the size of the system they are in.

Overall Rankings may be a bit better but still do not account for the variance in actual strength of the teams in each BG. Like in any sport it's difficult to determine the relative strength of various teams when they never play each other.

It's likely (but not assured) that a 2600 #1 team is better than a 2100 #1 team. But the 2100 team could be stronger than say a 2400 rated #8 team on the bigger BG.

http://armory.worldofwarcraft.com/ch...ther&n=Grailyn

 

Yes

No, no, no! The RP/PvE battlegroups have absolutely no pvp tradition, competition, etc.
The good pvp teams both started with an immense amount of experience and knowledge of the game that was only increased as they played creative team setups and strategies. The RP/PVE server battlegroups simply fall behind so much that it is quite impossible for them to be as good as the other battlegroup's top teams simply because of experience. Perhaps they have the potential to beat those teams if they practiced a lot, but cutting the talent pool by 5 and making it selected from servers with absolutely no pvp tradition, inclination AND honeypots for non pvpers is not going to yield good teams!

My other main | My PvP Blog

 

• Maestroquark

Where did that come from? I just checked the battlegroups on wowwiki, and only one battleground in the US (Frenzy) can be called a "PvE" battlegroup. Every other one is a mix of PvE, PvP, and/or RP.

 

Yes

Cataclysm is also a battlegroup which is made up of new servers. Their 10th best team is 1,845. Possibly their top team is made from transfers.

Emberstorm is another big battlegroup with only pve/rp servers, their 10th team is 1,770.

Fenzy has their 10th team at 1,826 rating.

Every other Battlegroup is so significantly ahead of these three (in terms of say, average rating of the top 10 teams).

My other main | My PvP Blog

 

Vazu

Wow, this is sad.. Normally I would preface that by saying "no offense" but wow.. Grab some shadow resist gear from the AH. Just stuff like rings, cloak, neck, etc etc. There is no excuse for a Warrior/Paladin team to not be able to beat every single 2v2 matchup that exists. I don't care what anyone says. That combo is one of the best in this game. Is there some reason why you're padding your rating? Are the extra 100-200 pts/week worth knowing that you're avoiding difficult matchups? I don't buy that they're impossible. Not with your setup anyway. I'll agree that 2v2s are kinda gimmicky, but I've never heard of anyone with a 2nd account, actually checking on shadow Priest/Warlock teams who "might be queing"..

 

Emeraude

Umm no, Warlock Priest teams dominate, regardless of what you may think you know about the "awesomeness" of Pally/Warrior.

http://www.megaupload.com/?d=CX81UJZ8
For the lurking Phoenix Wright faithful.
What is the most important thing to you? Won't you grant me the pleasure of taking it away.

 

• sadris

Netherdrakes don't just look different, they are *faster*. And essentially PVP is the only way to increase your mount speed (lol 1% drop from TK boss doesn't count). If there was a way to guarantee myself a speed increase, I would sure as hell take the necessary steps. The season reward isn't just some retarded title, its a tangible reward which makes the game less tedious (farming herbs, mining, traveling).

'[The main argument against gay-marriage] always revolves around ... "the gay agenda"... Apparently all these gays only want to get married so they can adopt children, turn the children gay (probably using their mystic gay voodoo, passed gayly down from one gay generation to the next), and perpetuate their gayness.'
-- rantingkitten

 

• Maestroquark

I see 2 PvP servers, and 16 of the top 20 in 5v5 are from the PvP servers. This would correlate to PvP > PvE in general (note in general, as the #1 is from a PvE server), except it obviously doesn't matter very much since it only helps players in one battlegroup out of 14.

If the best team in the world only had one opponent to fight, they'd cap out long before 1700. All you've shown is that battlegroups with a smaller amount of teams has lower ratings at the top.

 

Corfius

A 3v3 team on my server (Cyclone battlegroup) was stuck with a rating of 2060-2090 (around 70th) and they transfered to some backwater server and they are now 2nd. The difference between some battlegroups is huge.

Anyway on our 3v3 we might start to monitor when the lock/spriest/paladin combo play simply because there's no way we can beat them unless they suck. We hover between 15th-35th place and everytime it's because we hit a wall against those teams (we are holy priest/ms warrior and warlock). Once fear ward is on cooldown I just get chain feared and there's no way I can stop them from killing someone. Add CoT, death coil, silence and spell lock and I can barely cast anything that isn't instant. If you have any advice against those teams feel free to share

As for the drakes I don't see how the top 50 teams or so in every competitive battlegroup doesn't deserve one. 50 teams out of 10 000. I wouldn't call them "scrub". While the top 5 is usually clearly superior to the rest of the battlegroup there's not much difference between the 10th place and the 30th place. It's all relative to who they played during the week. I also think it's even more true for 2v2 and 3v3 where class balance is a major factor. An awesome spriest/lock team will always win against an awesome pally/warrior team. That's just how it is.

 

obsolete

There has been a blue post on official forums stating that the limitations of the number of teams shown on the armory has no bearing on the 0.5% calculation, i.e. the calculation is done over ALL the teams in the battlegroup for the given bracket.

dont have time to look for a link, someone else can if they want.

 

Aphyrax

There is a huge gap everywhere. My 5v5 team played late last night and due to the low number of people queueing Wednesday at 1am we played a wide range of teams. We are 1800 (somewhat undergeared and not very experienced playing together) and we got absolutely stomped by the 1950+ teams we faced. Conversely, we totally crushed all the 1700- teams. The highest number of points that changed hands was 17. So, other than some short term fluctuations, I think the arena system does an amazing job at putting people where they belong. Therefore you can make the cutoff pretty much anywhere percentage wise and get a good representation of that percentile of the player base.

 

Shadowed

Not really, all you have to do is spend a week and do a large push playing at either obscure hours or specifically checking and queueing when good teams are offline and you could still make the 0.5% needed to get your netherdrake even if you didn't earn it.

 

obsolete

I find it funny how people say how easy it is... however the simple fact remains:
For every person that does win a netherdrake, 199 others will not.

 

Vazu

My point is that between say 1800-2000 and 2000-2200, the "skill curve" is dramatically different. Another person above wrote that you could simply que late at night and pickup points that way. Which is somewhat true. If you wanna play a TON of games. Playing tons of games = greater risk. Because the reality is, you may draw a 1700 rated team at 2000, but they're only gunna give you like 5 pts.

If you're in the 2000+ range and you LOSE to a 1700 team, that's a 25 pt. loss suddenly. Now it takes 5 wins vs. that team to make up rating. See what I mean? The risk vs. reward for queing late isn't there. Setups like we run in 5v5 are really scary for 1st page 2200+ rated teams. Generally speaking we lose, but that first match is a huge loss for them. They come back fired up and figure out what we're doing, but the risk of trying exploit the system can backfire. What if we stop queing after the 25 pt. win? They may figure out our little strategy, but what's stopping us from walking away? We've done it before.

Two things are at work here.

1. You don't get better at PVP by dodging teams and "dipsticking" by playing at odd hours. We've lost 100+ rating by queing in one day vs. (in my 3v3) better teams simply because we needed the practice.

2. There is a MUCH bigger upside to getting better as a team and playing equally rated matches. Conversely we actually STOP queing when the wait time is > 3-4 mins or we get some ridiculous blow-up team that nets us < 10 pts. We'd rather lose 5-10 pts. to a GOOD team, get better ourselves, and have that opportunity to steal 20-25 points from somebody.

 

Corfius

I agree with Vazu. Even if you lose 100 points one week it doesn't mean much. If you want that netherdrake all you have to do is be more careful for the last 2 weeks of the season.

You'll find that your team is going to hover in a range of 100-150 points. When you get at the bottom of your range you play weaker teams giving 10-20 points and you climb up fast. The reverse is also true when you get at the top of your range. You play good teams giving 3-4 points so you are at risk of being suprised by one of them and giving up 25 points and the teams giving 15-20 points are at least as good as you (so balance issues come into play) I suppose it's possible to get higher than your "deserved" rating by monitoring who's queueing at any given time so you can avoid your arch nemesis team but that's just cheap and against the base principle of the arena.

 

arkael

From the point of view of a warrior/paladin, I'm sure they do. My priest/warlock team would beat most war/pal teams 9 out of 10 times. Up against a priest/rogue or even paladin/rogue however, we lose 9 out of 10 times. Maybe for a human warlock it wouldn't be so hard, but for a troll/undead team it isn't possible to win. 2v2 is random. I'll just repeat what's already been said - it all depends what teams are playing when you decide to queue. Just dumb luck.

Back on topic, I'm really annoyed at the lack of information being given. I shouldn't have to hunt down a GM to find out what the hell is going on with arena. Why can't they just answer questions like this so I stop wondering how high I need to be. My team has been going from 2200-2000 from week to week trying to push as high as possible, not knowing exactly how many teams are getting netherdrakes.

 

Dinadass

I agree that Blizzard really should add something to the arena ladder site that just shows how many teams there are in any given bracket. In the Nightfall 2v2 armory, the lowest displayed rating is 1486, because the armory only shows the top 5k teams in any bracket. I'd like to know just how many teams are under that 1486 rating though... that could be the difference between having to rank in the top 30 vs the top 50.

And for those of you who say warrior/paladin will never beat warlock/spriest, I just want to tell you that yes, it can happen. There are a handful of war/pal teams in my bracket that have an itemrack set up just for dealing with shadow teams. Try bringing down a 12k hp warrior with 375 shadow resistance, while his paladin healer resists fear literally 7 times. It doesn't completely turn the tables, but there are times where I go an entire match and don't see a single DOT tick for more than half damage.

 

monkorn

I ended up checking the last of the 5v5 teams to find someone who has less than 1k rating in 2v2 to base my .5% prediction off of. Surprisingly it worked on the very first team I checked, ~13000 teams on Ruin 2v2.

 

sp00n

Well, I just checked as well.

Doing so I noticed that *every single* server of my battlegroup has ~5000 teams listed on 3v3.
The armory caps at around 5000 teams, so there are certainly more. Also most of the time these teams have a ranking of ~1200, so they are not the bottom line so far.

We have 13 servers in the battlegroup, 0.5% out of 13*5000=65000 would be 325. Awful many. A ranking of exactly 1800 would be enough at the moment to be top 325.

On the other hand, many of the low ranked teams don't bother playing arena anymore, so eventually they will fall out of the calculation due to too less games played over the season.
How many ranked weeks (%) is the requirement to be included?

I just wish Blizzard would offer a "real" ranking. :/

 

Vazu

I'm sticking to what I wrote above.

Teams shouldn't count toward the total for .5% unless they are 1500 rated or better, and meet a minimum quote of games played for the season. Blizzard would decide how many total games would be enough. But something like 100-150 seems fair.