The problem is that this system was released in the middle of a season that had (and still does have) huge class imbalances. Thus, those playing inferior classes/comps are being hurt even more, considering that their ghost rating will be trending downward, even after later buffs and nerfs. Essentially those who have the advantage now, will be able to keep the advantage longer, and those that are disadvantaged are kept down longer.
This would not be a huge problem were it not for rating requirements on gear. This compounds the problem of rich staying rich, and the poor staying poor. Yes, granted those that are more skilled will be able to overcome it, but with teams of equal skill, the better gear will generally win (outside of RNG), and the system is supposedly trying to match you with people of equal skill.
This system also discourages people who are new to the arena. They will likely be trended downward because of early losses, and have to struggle to get back to 1500 and stay above. Previously they could try out the arena, and not have to worry too much about losing while learning by being able to reset back to 1500. Yes you could do the practice arenas, but people do not want to wait in long queues for games that are not usually indicative of how the rated games would play out. It is like playing poker without real money. The game is completely different.
They really should have fixed imbalances and released the system next season, with a reset.
Yes - that is my case - but it still doesn't address the issue of team mates with the same games over the entire season having different hidden ratings. When I considered it pointless it was simply due to the fact that the problem with this system is that you're handed an arbitrary classification of "skill" by Blizzard without any explanation or means of verification, and you're stuck with that. The fact that now your whole team gets dragged down to whatever arbitrary factor Blizzard bestowed upon you is a purely cosmetic operation. You're still stuck with an arbitrary "skill" level that has - as far as I can see - nothing to do with your actual skill.
And to prove this statement I offer you the post I made earlier. My rating before the new system was 1615. My Hidden Rating post-system seems to be around 1450, because that's where my personal rating tends to over 50 games. Yes, I played one week at 1440; then I played four straight weeks at 1500-1550-1600-1615. Is that first one, that one single week, the only week they're taking into account? If so, how the hell is pushing my team's rating down towards it going to change the fact that my Hidden Rating was - seemingly - set arbitrarily and totally disregards my actual performance in arena?
The hidden rating should not be considered arbitrary. If we are to trust Blizzard, then it seems that their internal data shows that matchups made using hidden rating do a very good job at predicting the outcome of matches. (And so, it should be considered a superior method in terms of matchmaking and rewarding points). To back that point up, your first 50 games went 24-26 while the next 10 you did with a new team went 6-4, both being very close to a 50% win rate. A good matchmaking system that lines you up with appropriate competition should always keep you around a 50% win rate-- and in this case it even carried over when you made a new team.
Your other point, the post that you made earlier, is what concerns me. Even if you played 100 games at 1440 pre-patch, it should not take more than 50 games for you to start closing the distance between your Hidden Rating with that of your partner. Either his should decrease to meet yours, or yours should increase to meet his (or both). However, since the games are matched based on Team average hidden rating, and you had a 50% win rate, it should be noted that the average of your individual hidden rating produced a desirable set of match-ups.
This system also discourages people who are new to the arena. They will likely be trended downward because of early losses, and have to struggle to get back to 1500 and stay above. Previously they could try out the arena, and not have to worry too much about losing while learning by being able to reset back to 1500. Yes you could do the practice arenas, but people do not want to wait in long queues for games that are not usually indicative of how the rated games would play out. It is like playing poker without real money. The game is completely different.
Not necessarily. This system was constructed specifically so that new people would find equal matchups and not get stomped by Gladiator team re-rolls. If it works as it should, your hidden rating should gradually improve as your record improves and you continue to climb the skill ladder. However, as mentioned earlier, we have (at least from 1 person, so limited sample here) evidence that it is currently very difficult to change your Hidden Rating. Or at least, given a 2v2 team, we see a case in which the "team personal rating" (supposedly an average of the individuals queuing) is pretty accurate, but even over a large sample of games, one partner can be way ahead of the other.
The hidden rating should not be considered arbitrary. If we are to trust Blizzard, then it seems that their internal data shows that matchups made using hidden rating do a very good job at predicting the outcome of matches. (And so, it should be considered a superior method in terms of matchmaking and rewarding points). To back that point up, your first 50 games went 24-26 while the next 10 you did with a new team went 6-4, both being very close to a 50% win rate. A good matchmaking system that lines you up with appropriate competition should always keep you around a 50% win rate-- and in this case it even carried over when you made a new team.
How are we to trust Blizzard when they won't reveal their methods? How can we trust a system that is implicitly secretive? Besides, I never questioned the matchmaking system; I questioned the outcome in terms of rewards for each player. The system itself is dubious given the differences in ratings between matchups (and yes, I know we kept to a close 50%, but we spent most of our time facing Twilight Vanquishers, Flawless Victors and teams that won 2-6 points when they beat us), and even then, how do you explain that a 24-26 rating puts my team mate at 1625? Is his hidden rating so much higher than mine? If so, why? We played all the games together, why should his be higher than mine? Which leads us to...
Originally Posted by Tzeni
Your other point, the post that you made earlier, is what concerns me. Even if you played 100 games at 1440 pre-patch, it should not take more than 50 games for you to start closing the distance between your Hidden Rating with that of your partner. Either his should decrease to meet yours, or yours should increase to meet his (or both). However, since the games are matched based on Team average hidden rating, and you had a 50% win rate, it should be noted that the average of your individual hidden rating produced a desirable set of match-ups.
That is what I question; the arbitrariness of the Hidden Rating in the sense that the only vaguely connected piece of data I have were 10 games more than a month before the new system came out. The way I see it, it cannot possibly have taken into account the remainder of my Season 5 history, for if it had, it would've given me a much higher Hidden Rating. At this point there are two possibilities; either I got saddled with a rating I got more than a month ago and then Blizzard ignored the following entire month of arena or Blizzard just assigned me a rating arbitrarily. Both possibilities are, imho, unacceptable.
As for the ~50% success rate, towards the tail end of the first run I was just pushing for games for more data. It's not exactly a feather in my cap but we didn't really care about the outcome.
On this series, the 6-4 record, we're up to 40-32 and at the moment we have:
Team Rating = 1672
Mate's Rating = 1715
My Rating = 1608
I was going to post the results at 50, but we got carried away and meh, we're 28 games away from the 100 the blues poster in my thread asked for, so we're making a run for it tomorrow. I've started to get a feel for when the system changes its estimate of my HR (can't spot it for my mate yet though) and when the system is about to clobber me with a big fat hammer, so this set is a lot more carefully played as well. Still, I have a gap of 64 points between me and the team rating and 107 between me and my team mate, which is ridiculous.
Originally Posted by Tzeni
Not necessarily. This system was constructed specifically so that new people would find equal matchups and not get stomped by Gladiator team re-rolls. If it works as it should, your hidden rating should gradually improve as your record improves and you continue to climb the skill ladder. However, as mentioned earlier, we have (at least from 1 person, so limited sample here) evidence that it is currently very difficult to change your Hidden Rating. Or at least, given a 2v2 team, we see a case in which the "team personal rating" (supposedly an average of the individuals queuing) is pretty accurate, but even over a large sample of games, one partner can be way ahead of the other.
A few tips I've gathered from my experiments:
- If you lose more than twice, call a break. The system will clobber you (well one of you at any rate) mercilessly after the third loss.
- If you want to climb the ranks, expect to maintain at least a 2:1 win:loss ratio.
- Losing streaks cost you far more than winning streaks benefit you.
- If you want to know when the system changes its estimate of your hidden rating, keep a simple log of the difference between your team's rating changes and your own. It'll be apparent after 20-30 games.
In the meantime, you know what I'd love to have? A Recount-like addon that tracked this sort of data in arena. It'd really help people keep a hold on their Hidden Rating imho. If only I had the time to put in that kind of effort =/
I see absolutely no reason why team rating and personal rating should change separate from eachother. After all, only things that PR matters for are achievements and items available to you, if you play 100% games in a team then there is no reason why your PR shouldn't be the same as team rating unless there's an objective system to take into account your individual contribution to the games(which is between impossible and completely ridiculous to achieve).
Currently it seems that when you create a team it creates matchups based on your average hidden rating(well, a combination of your hidden ratings and the amount of uncertainty the system has about your ratings). However, what happens when you play some games? Well, if you get around 50/50 win/loss ratio with evenly matched players, the system simply reduces the uncertainty of your hidden ratings and neither hidden rating actually changes. Because it simply thinks that it was correct about the ratings.
Let's say you have a player with 1300 hidden rating and a player with 1700 hidden rating playing together, for simplicity's sake, let's say the uncertainty about these ratings is quite low so the players have already played quite a lot of games. They get matched for 100 games in a row against 2 players with 1500 hidden rating and go 50/50 with them. The system now can simply assume that it was right about the player ratings and it isn't necessary to change any of them. So after 100 games, currently, the player with 1300 hidden rating should have around 1300 personal rating and the one with 1700 should have around 1700 PR while the team rating is still exactly 1500.
Even if you win or lose the majority of your games, your personal ratings will still keep the distance between themselves. This is completely fine for matchmaking, however making PR converge towards the matchmaking rating was quite a large mistake and I hope the personal ratings are retroactively recalculated when they change the interaction.
Disclaimer: this is all just guessing and assumes you don't swap teams and always play with the same teammate(s). With teamswapping and player rotation within the team the hidden rating would probably act a bit more interesting. Also, this is guessing that the hidden rating is basically TrueSkill or something very similar to it(rating is composed of skill value and how certain the system is about that).
You know, there's one thing that's been bothering me for a while now...
... for God knows how long Blizzard have been adamantly refusing to balance PVP around 1v1, and yet this new system - which is NOT balanced around individual performance - distributes rewards based on an individual stat.
Taking sulliwan's example a little bit up the scale, if your Hidden Rating is, say, 1500, your team mate's is 1900, your Team Rating should hover around 1700. Let's suppose you do a month or two of Arena like this. At the end of it, your 1900-rated team mate will have all sorts of goodies both Hateful and Deadly, thus raising his potential rating even further. You, on the other hand, despite being an integral part of the team's 1700 rating, will get zilch for your efforts, because Blizzard - while refusing to balance PVP around 1v1 skill - is doling out rewards based on an individual "Hidden Rating" that no one really knows how to calculate.
But I can hear the complaints now; "the 1900 dude is boosting the 1500 dude! Serves the 1500 dude right!". That would be an acceptable argument if we knew how the Hidden Ratings were chosen; thus far my data indicates either complete arbitrariness or utter systemic failure, meaning Blizzard is either deciding player's Hidden Ratings simply of its own accord or its system is so bad it should be scrapped anyway.
As a sort of simpler, less painful example, I offer my own team; I'm rated 1608. My team mate 1715. The team is at 1672. Three more points and he can buy the Hateful chest; three more points and I'll be 64 points away from the same reward. We've played every single game together from 1500. Brilliant.
As a sort of simpler, less painful example, I offer my own team; I'm rated 1608. My team mate 1715. The team is at 1672. Three more points and he can buy the Hateful chest; three more points and I'll be 64 points away from the same reward. We've played every single game together from 1500. Brilliant.
And after the change, your PR will be 1672, your teammate will be at 1672, and your team will be at 1672. Which is how it should be.
I think the poster above had the right idea: in your first 50 games, based on your performance against certain teams, the game thought it was right about each of your hidden ratings and kept it the same. You were losing against teams you probably should lose against (according to your rating), and you were winning against teams you should win against. And thus you ended up at 24-26, and stayed where you were.
In the next batch of games, you admittedly stepped up your game and stopped more or less pushing games to produce more data. Now both of your ratings have gone up, but since your teammate has had a better history WITHOUT you than you do without HIM, he continues to have a higher Hidden Rating.
To illustrate:
Player X does the following:
- Plays 10 games week 1, goes 0-10, finishes at 1400.
- Patch hits, then Plays 30 games in week 2 with Player Y (new team), goes 30-0, finishes at 1900.
Player Y:
- Plays 10 games week 1, goes 10-0, finishes at 1600.
- Patch hits, then plays 30 games in week 2 with Player X (new team), goes 30-0, finishes at 1900.
Now Blizzard uses Guassian Desity Filtering, a much more complex mathematically rigorous approach, to figure out how good each player is. But to save ourselves the headache, lets use simple algebra to try and figure it out our own way:
Player X average rating= (1400*10+1900*30)/40=1775
Player Y average rating= (1600*10+1900*30)/40=1825
So as far as the game is concerned, you are still 50 points worse than your teammate despite sharing the same team rating, because he did better without you than you did without him. Also, with this method the gap will close so long as these two players continue to play each other. If these two players layed 50 games at a 1900 level, their rating difference will be only ~33 points. 70 games would close it to a 25 point gap. No matter what, Player Y's hidden rating will always be ahead of Player X, based on the information that your history provides, but the more games you play together, the closer your ratings will converge. I'm not sure that GDF works like this (in fact, I'm almost certain it doesn't), but there are some similarities in terms of the discrepancy between teammate's ratings.
However, blizzard has recognized that basing your PR off this hidden rating is flawed because your PR should reflect how much you contributed towards your team rating, not how good you are. HR (hidden rating) should only be used to calculate what teams you should face, not what rewards you receive. So this is getting fixed. It's a good fix. And as long as HR continues to give teams good matchups, none of this should matter.
We made some adjustments to the rating system last night that are now in effect.
1. Personal Ratings will now always trend toward Team Ratings (instead of the internal matchmaking rating). This should eliminate the odd behavior players noticed of seeing their PR change in ways that seemed bizzare. It also eliminates the possibility that you can play every game with your team, yet be ineligible to get items when the team qualifies for them (or ineligible to receive full points).
2. You will now gain or lose around 12 points when winning or losing to teams of roughly equivalent matchmaking rating to your own team (previously this number was 8).
3. The rating scale has been extended to a range of 240 to about 2800 to more accurately reflect what was possible under the old system. This means that most players over 1500 will experience some slightly easier than expected rating gain as their team adjusts upward to the new scale.
4. Players with less than 1500 rating will still get the same number of points as players at 1500.
I hope this helps someone figure out how things work.
I am on a 2vs2 team. There's only been 2 people on this team ever: Me and my brother.
We have not played on anyone elses 2vs2 team nor have we played on any 3vs3, 5vs5 ours or anyone elses.
Our gear is not exactly the same.
Our Team rating is identical.
Our Personal ratings are identical.
Ofcourse our hidden ghost rating is unknown.. but I'm gonna say it's identical as well.
Since our gear is different we can safely say gear does not effect any or the 3 ratings whatsoever.
I started 2v2 arena with a druid.. We created a team to practice on so that we could get used to eachothers playstyle.. Went well so we decided to create a proper team to get a high rating..
We played 27 games..
Won 20 & lost 7...
That is a 74% win ratio...
Our team rating : 1480..
Im not sure how that worked out but every match we lost we were losing 24 rating and each one we won we got like 5-7..
I started 2v2 arena with a druid.. We created a team to practice on so that we could get used to eachothers playstyle.. Went well so we decided to create a proper team to get a high rating..
We played 27 games..
Won 20 & lost 7...
That is a 74% win ratio...
Our team rating : 1480..
Im not sure how that worked out but every match we lost we were losing 24 rating and each one we won we got like 5-7..
Anyone have any explanation to this?
Most of the arena system functionality is now well understood and fairly transparent. In general, if you're running the same team, making a new arena team won't do anything. Your hidden rating will still be the same, and your team rating will quickly move towards reflecting that.
Essentially, although you started a new team at 1500, your hidden rating carried over from your former team (and indeed, any 2v2 you've done this entire season). You're getting matched up against teams with ratings around 1400 (or whatever your hidden rating is), so when you win it doesn't move you up much. But losing against these terrible teams will hit your team rating hard until you get down to the same level as your opponents.
Once your hidden rating and your team rating are approximately equal, you should see your team rating increase and decrease in a predictable fashion. The exception to this is if not many people are queuing at the time and the system is forced to match you up with someone not in your rating range.
This latter event happened to my 5v5 team when we got to 1680. All of a sudden we were forced to play against the #2 team in the Battlegroup, who beat us 7 times in a row. They gained 7 points for the series and we lost 7.
Thank you for the quick reply Tzeni.. I think i see more how the system works now.. So basically if I keep playing until i start beating all these teams and grind into the 1600 bracket then i should see a more steady growth in my rating?
Also does gear affect your rating increase/decrease at the end of a match in any way?
Thank you for the quick reply Tzeni.. I think i see more how the system works now.. So basically if I keep playing until i start beating all these teams and grind into the 1600 bracket then i should see a more steady growth in my rating?
Also does gear affect your rating increase/decrease at the end of a match in any way?
As for the first point, not really. Right now, even though you have a 1500 team, you're still getting matched up against 1400 teams because that's what your past 2v2 record has said you are. And when you lose to a 1400 team as a 1500 team, you will lose more points than you would have won if you were to win.
You'll stop seeing the -24/+7 results once your team rating matches your hidden rating, which is determined as I previously explained. If you were 1400 on your prior team, you won't start seeing those +12/-12 kind of results until you get back to 1400 (or rather, 1440 or whatever your hidden rating will be with your increased winning percentage). Until then, it'll keep trying to put your team rating where it properly belongs.
As for the second point, please read the rest of the thread where it is mentioned multiple times that gear does not factor into rating calculation.
My impression of the system is it requires 100-200 games to be played before you even get anywhere in the system. What I am finding is since the system was put into place, more quality teams and pvpers are seen throughout the entire bracket.
My problem with the system, which is many, is the fact that it was put into place in the middle of the season, like every other season prior, getting to 1800-1900 in 20 games was easy, it wasn't until about the 1900s before you started seeing any real competition. Factor in people reaching this rating along with a new system, what you got is people getting 2200+ who really do not belong past 2000. My server which is a PVE server has about as many good pvpers on it as fingers on my hand. What I see is several teams (about 20 I guess might be more) up in the 2000+, 90% of these pvpers are not too good either, but its the same bunch who could not break 1900 in the previous system over the course of 4 seasons.
In S1-S4 you could go 20-0 and be at 1850 with no problem, but now it seems as soon you start out, you are facing about half the teams you would of normally saw at 1900 prior to the change. I know this due to style of play, pillar humping, and gear, I even ran into a Flawless Victor mage in the 1500s.
What does not make a whole lot of sense with the system is why have a team rating? Why does the hidden rating start out at 1300 if team rating starts out at 1500? But it gets far more complicated then that also, I looked over the armory since they made changes to it to view match history and all, what I find is the system tends to pair you up with teams anywhere from 50-100 team rating points higher then you. Which has me asking the question, how does teams win and gain 5 pts, lose then lose 20 if the match pairing is like it is?
One of the biggest jokes for pvpers I see going on in the blizz pvp forums is people telling each other, they are bad, they should not to lose to baddies, its the biggest bunch of crap I ever heard, but its the blizz forums, but at the same times, these people saying this, is the same people who probably do not even belong where they are atm anyway. I honestly cannot wait till S6 for a few simple reasons.
#1 I want to see anyone who got 1900+ before the changes actually climb to 1900 in S6 ( I truly believe 2/3 of the crowd will not reach that pinnacle)
#2 The rating system should be more balanced to where everyone starts at 1500 TR, 1300 HR, none of this system changing in the middle of the season that is putting bad players at the top.
Quite frankly I have had more trouble with teams in the 1500-1600s then with teams in the 1700+.
I mean heck if I can by pass all of these double DPS teams that rape my shammy partner, we going to destroy all the DK/Paladins that is up there, we beat that comp all the time easily.
Matchmaking rating being displayed means it will be possible to understand how much long past / recent results influence it.
As casual arena player, I am really happy with the changes. Matchmaking rating means I shouldn't be opposed to newly reformed glad teams as was the case in S2-S4 (my 2v2 team tried to stay in 1450-1550 when we played, once every 3 weeks). As I guess my pve talented 3v3 team is now worth between 1200 and 1300, starting from 0 means I no longer have any incentive to disband and recreate team each time we play, just to maximize arena points (I never did, but I hate knowing I would have add better gear doing it).
Right now the real reason not to reform, is that if you can't reach 1850 at a minimum there's little point to earning arena points. Even the hateful gear in the 1600s area is much easier to attain through VoA and 25-man pugs (when compared to the difficulty and time investment in actually reaching ~1600 when your gear is lower quality than hateful). I think this may actually be a cause for a lot of "average" teams being ranked a lot lower than they were in previous seasons - teams that can't reach a high rating simply stop playing completely, and the skill threshold for 1500 goes up significantly, in addition to the fact that a 1200 player will stay at 1200 even if he starts a new team so they don't keep the ratings flowing into the system.
Right now the real reason not to reform, is that if you can't reach 1850 at a minimum there's little point to earning arena points. Even the hateful gear in the 1600s area is much easier to attain through VoA and 25-man pugs (when compared to the difficulty and time investment in actually reaching ~1600 when your gear is lower quality than hateful). I think this may actually be a cause for a lot of "average" teams being ranked a lot lower than they were in previous seasons - teams that can't reach a high rating simply stop playing completely, and the skill threshold for 1500 goes up significantly, in addition to the fact that a 1200 player will stay at 1200 even if he starts a new team so they don't keep the ratings flowing into the system.
This is exactly what was brought up by myself and others back when they first implemented rating requirements on gear. It is what you would expect - if you cease to reward people who are below a certain threshold, they stop participating the moment they realize they will not cross the threshold and the next group up becomes the one that is cannibalized for points - until they stop playing and the cycle repeats. Discouraging team reforms, as you say, only exacerabtes this by removing one of the few supports the system had left.
It's the same dynamic that has burned anyone who took a curve-graded honors only course in college. Suddenly you have to work damn hard for a B because there are no more scrubs.
While less from ideal, the situation described is in my opinion a whole lot better than the sillyness we had in S2 and S3 where people could basically lose 10 games a week for 3 or 4 weeks and pick up gear (especially weapons) far beyond anything they could acquire in their raid progression.
In my opinion the whole problem comes down to 1 thing: people are driven by the ability to acquire gear. This is *especially* true for PvP, where there are no e-peen rewards for anyone but the top 1%. The reason why Wintergrasp is so popular is because it awards a lot of honor for little time spend. The reason why the amount of arena teams has dropped by 65% is (among others) because there is no real reward for a lot of effort.
The S6 rating requirements combined with the hidden rating queueing system looks like a middle-ground between the two, as long as it still takes a reasonable amount of time to actually get to 1200-1300 if your actual 'skill' is at that rating. New teams starting at 1000 after the first half of the season makes me think it won't be the case.
My concern at the moment is that any team rated below 1500 is getting points as if they were 1500. With the prices of the items as they are, that means the average 10-losses-a-week team will have all the toys they can acquire with their 1200 rating in 6 or 7 weeks and then will leave the arena's again because there's nothing to gain for them, putting us back at the situation of today.
Another consideration is that with Naxx as it is, people can easily get the best PvE gear available by just joining random pugs in the weekends or being in one of the dozens of new "casual guild we have 2 bank tabs, a tabbard and Naxx on farm" guilds that sprung into existance since WotLK. If Ulduar normal-mode is at the very least out of range for the majority of the guilds that now take 3-4 nights to clear Naxx and Malygos, more people will revert back to arena's to get their epics. If Ulduar normal mode turns out to be the pushover it has been on PTR, I'm afraid arena will slowly bleed to death.
With how bad PvP gear is when used for PvE purposes, nobody will "come back to arena" just to get gear they can't get in Ulduar - because even the S6 gear will most likely not be nearly as good as naxx-25 gear for PvE purposes.
In PvE the more PvE you do the more gear you get and it takes forever to actually have everything. In PvP it only takes a while to get everything if you actually have high enough ratings for it, and if you don't you'll simply never have everything no matter how much you play, at which point people stop playing.
I don't really see the point in having (high) rating requirements on all the gear. It's already going to take a long time to get decked with 1000 points a week, with 200-400 points a week you're probably not going to have everything by the end of the season even if none of it had rating requirements. I only had a good partner for the last ~3 weeks and only missed about 2-3 weeks of getting points for the whole season, and earned in total 6682 arena points this season. This isn't nearly enough to even buy 1/2 of the gear, rating requirements or not. Worse players than me would have an even much harder time to earn enough points to buy everything, so I really don't see the point in not allowing them to use the small amount of arena points they did earn. Rating requirements on very few pieces (say, T2 weapons and 1-2 of the top set pieces) would make sense, but not an absurd "only a couple hundred teams per battlegroup" kind of limitation, considering the massive amount of players in an entire battlegroup. Gear should be something everyone that don't suck should be able to get eventually, with the good players getting it faster/easier. Otherwise, you'd have the bad players have no chance to retaliate even if they actually learn to play, because their gear just isn't good enough to get up there.
As for the actual rating/matching system, it seems to be overall doing its job, however I don't like how long it takes for your personal rating to reach your team rating when you join a new team - playing 10 games while keeping the team at the same rating should be enough to at least get you very close to the team rating, as if you're a 1500 skilled player playing in a 2k rated team, I doubt you'd be capable of keeping the team at 2k after playing 10 games. Also it's still not clear to me how hidden ratings are supposed to work when 2 players of different hidden ratings team up - will the higher one stay high forever as he's supposedly "carrying the team" and thus the other one never reaches the team rating? Do they slowly drift over time to the team's rating regardless of differences? Is it as slow of a drift as the personal rating one?
01/29/09, 3:18 PM
Similar Threads
