I'm trying to think about how that makes sense mathematically but it really doesn't. The only way start players at 1300 but keep the average at 1500 is to award more to the winner than is taken from the loser, which makes win trading feasible. The rating system is fine, win to loss ratio doesn't matter. You can lose rating just as fast as you can gain it, I don't see the issue.
Welcome to our Forums!
Type /register while in-game to register for a forum account.
Rated Arena Battles
- Thread starter Cryptite
- Start date
Champion titles will be evaluated at the end of the season based on how many players are overall tracked having played games. It's most likely the number (of top arena players) who earn titles or something will be between 10 and 20 (out of, I'd predict, over 100). There's no real way to get to a highest rating without playing a pretty decent amount of games. The good thing about elo is that it not only "measures skill (sort of)", but more importantly it creates a sort of "jockeying for first" kind of situation. There's no way anybody who earns a title is going to be #1 and only have played 10 games or something silly. There will be enough players who are fighting for first that they will inevitably have to fight each other to gain/lose high rankings, so the system balances itself out. The beginning of a season is always flighty because everybody is playing each other at the same rating, so sprees of getting to 1650 are common. But over time, the elo system starts to spread out the stronger and weaker players, ensuring that nobody will easily glide to #1 without having to fight some players of their own skill several times.
If I recall, Thief had a score of 1800 or so in our longest-running beta period before it was wiped, and he had played at least 70 or 80 games. I don't think we're going to run in to any problems where we need to force a minimum games played, but if we do, we can certainly address it then. Also any titles will be rating based only, not KDR. Perhaps rewards for KDR or caps could be awarded to players of VotA, but that, again, will just be something we look at when the end of the season rolls around.
And no, you really can't play a few games and amass a large score. If you're talking about farming people, then by the very virtue of having an increasing elo rating as you play someone repeatedly, you earn less and less rating as you play them. It's been said that the highest ratings won't hit 2000, but I predict they probably will. Two months is a long time, and when there are rare, unique rewards at stake, people will play an awful lot of games to get to that. I know I sure will anyway.
Finally, once the bugs are ironed out and the website 'finished' up, I still mean to post to reddit about our server in some way to attract attention. That alone will draw a pretty big PvP crowd, I wager, but I'd like to get the hosting situation settled with asy before we consider something like that.
If I recall, Thief had a score of 1800 or so in our longest-running beta period before it was wiped, and he had played at least 70 or 80 games. I don't think we're going to run in to any problems where we need to force a minimum games played, but if we do, we can certainly address it then. Also any titles will be rating based only, not KDR. Perhaps rewards for KDR or caps could be awarded to players of VotA, but that, again, will just be something we look at when the end of the season rolls around.
And no, you really can't play a few games and amass a large score. If you're talking about farming people, then by the very virtue of having an increasing elo rating as you play someone repeatedly, you earn less and less rating as you play them. It's been said that the highest ratings won't hit 2000, but I predict they probably will. Two months is a long time, and when there are rare, unique rewards at stake, people will play an awful lot of games to get to that. I know I sure will anyway.
Finally, once the bugs are ironed out and the website 'finished' up, I still mean to post to reddit about our server in some way to attract attention. That alone will draw a pretty big PvP crowd, I wager, but I'd like to get the hosting situation settled with asy before we consider something like that.
I guess part of my point is that pvp tables are very misleading as a player who has played 1 game and won then not played ever again gets put fairly high on the table and stays there. Naturally far more players end up bellow the 1500 mark than above it. Hence why players who play few games (under 20) can end up out of place in the table.
I'm also guilty in that regard...Zor95 said: