Page 1 of 2
1
2
LastLast
  1. #1

    My idea to revolutionize PvP rankings

    I've thrown this idea out there before. Never got much of a response. Thought I'd try again. The purpose of this idea is to fix balance....or rather remove the issue of balance of the equation entirely.

    I have a simple question. Why should a rogue / shaman / hunter team be ranked against a priest / paladin / druid team?

    Why do that? Why does that make sense? It doesn't. Those are two different teams, with different abilities, and they should perform differently in random arena matches.

    My idea is a simple one.

    A team's arena rating should only compare teams of an identical composition.

    Here's an example.

    All of the rogue / shaman / hunter teams fall into their own sub-bracket. They still play all other compositions, and all of those game count. But at the end of season, the top-rated team with that comp gets gladiator. The same goes for every possible comp.

    A priest / priest / priest comp WILL get glad. Gladiator is defined as the best team using that comp in the arena system. If the best priest / priest / priest team has a rating of only 1600, they get glad.

    This change accomplishes several things:

    1. All comps are now viable.
    2. There are more glads at the end of each season.
    3. It discourages players from picking "cookie-cutter comps". You may pick the most powerful comp, but you are competing for glad (in the rankings) with everyone else picking that comp.
    4. Balance is now irrelevant. Picking priest / priest / priest may not get you a high ranking in the overall arena season, but it no longer matters. Your ranking is only compared to other priest / priest / priest teams when it comes time to hand out glad titles.

    Note: When I have brought up this idea before, I've had people get confused and think comps will only get matched into arena games against teams with the exact same comp. That is not how this works. You play all. All games count. But your ranking is only compared to other teams with the same comp.

  2. #2
    Pit Lord Malgru's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    My computer chair
    Posts
    2,466
    I don't like this idea because I want Glad to be something special. No, I haven't achieved it before, but I still want it to be something to show off. I don't want some 1600 hero to get Glad. It's stupid.

  3. #3
    A really dumb idea. Exactly what Malgru said, why should a derp 1600 player get Glad because they play a stupid comp like the one in your example (priest/priest/priest)? That is basically laughing in the face of someone who plays a comp such as Enhancement, Warrior, H-pal (a semi viable comp) who get 2300 and don't get Glad because someone else playing Enhancement, Warrior, and H-pal get 2310 and get Glad. Overall it's a really stupid idea.

  4. #4
    Quote Originally Posted by Calamaties View Post
    A really dumb idea. Exactly what Malgru said, why should a derp 1600 player get Glad because they play a stupid comp like the one in your example (priest/priest/priest)? That is basically laughing in the face of someone who plays a comp such as Enhancement, Warrior, H-pal (a semi viable comp) who get 2300 and don't get Glad because someone else playing Enhancement, Warrior, and H-pal get 2310 and get Glad. Overall it's a really stupid idea.
    Derps won't get glad under this system.

    What will happen is people will follow the path of least resistance to glad. If one comp is having an easy road to glad, players will see that and start making comps to compete there until you have a high-quality team ranked #1 for that comp.

    Remember, a 1600 rating by itself means nothing. A comp may be so underpowered that getting 1600 with it may equate to a 2600 rating with a good comp. This system balances it out quite well.
    Last edited by Grummgug; 2012-11-25 at 06:36 AM.

  5. #5
    Moderator Yvaelle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Vancouver, Canada
    Posts
    5,462
    Doesn't this mean that if I grab some guildies and play odd or broken specs, we will get gladiator by virtue of being the only say, Holy Priest / Combat Rogue / Prot Warrior that queued that season? (Three of the least represented specs this season)

    I'm totally in favour of brainstorming a major revamp to the MMR system that we could then put forward to Blizzard though! So if you guys want to use this thread to toss out ideas, I definitely want to encourage that
    Youtube ~ Yvaelle ~ Twitter

  6. #6
    Quote Originally Posted by Yvaelle View Post
    Doesn't this mean that if I grab some guildies and play odd or broken specs, we will get gladiator by virtue of being the only say, Holy Priest / Combat Rogue / Prot Warrior that queued that season? (Three of the least represented specs this season)

    I'm totally in favour of brainstorming a major revamp to the MMR system that we could then put forward to Blizzard though! So if you guys want to use this thread to toss out ideas, I definitely want to encourage that
    As I just said, other people will have the exact same idea as you. If priest / rogue / warrior looks like an unplayed comp, people will start making teams with that comp to try to get glad. Eventually, a high-quality team will be ranked at the top.

  7. #7
    At first I was skeptical, but this doesn't sound like an awful idea. The only major issue I see is that this would mean there would be less 'skilled' gladiators on less played battlegroups. The triple monk team on the smallest battlegroup might get gladiator and be absolutely awful. However, on bigger and more played battlegroups you'd find that more people would play those wonky compositions to try to get glad.

    However, that doesn't mean that this would be an absolutely perfect solution. Consider people playing semi-difficult but somewhat underplayed comps. There may be a couple of very skilled people in those comps, what about second placers that still ranked very high on the overall leaderboard? Would there be an absolute first place reward? How about the RMP that got first place overall but the other RMP scored only 2-3 points behind - still ahead of the other comps' gladiators?

    It's not a bad idea - it needs more clauses, rules, and specifics though.

  8. #8
    Where this format really might shine is the 2s bracket. Blizzard has abandoned the 2s bracket, claiming its just not able to be balanced. So, keep the current system for 3s and 5s, and give this idea a shot for the 2s.

  9. #9
    Quote Originally Posted by Grummgug View Post
    Where this format really might shine is the 2s bracket. Blizzard has abandoned the 2s bracket, claiming its just not able to be balanced. So, keep the current system for 3s and 5s, and give this idea a shot for the 2s.
    As long as they aren't giving major titles to 2s, I'd be okay with that. A trial like this would spawn a lot of gladiators out of the 2s bracket if titles were left in. I feel that new titles would have to be introduced in order to not devalue Gladiator.

  10. #10
    When I queue 3s I only ever see about 2-3 different teams over several hours of queuing, so I'm pretty sure there's not even enough people playing for this to be workable.

  11. #11
    mmr needs to decay over time.
    .......and they need to actually reset it like they say they will.
    " I need a sec, my wrists hurt from spamming slam so hard. Playing cleave vs cleave is tough stuff guys"

  12. #12
    If Im reading this right, and I remembered my math concepts at bit better, I would be able to find out how many possible 3v3 comps there could be. Times that number by 3 and add in the 5v5 bracket im guessing, and I think everyone in a battlegroup even remotely interested in pvp could find a way to get glad.

  13. #13
    Field Marshal Spikebebop's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    The Bebop
    Posts
    66
    Might work better as class specific comparisons, rather than specialization specific (like Hpriest = Spriest = Dpriest); it would probably be too hard to identify which spec was played or if there was any switching.

    Or maybe that's what you meant already.

    Also, 2nd testing this on 2s with different titles.
    WoW is a game of information; the more you know, the better you are.

  14. #14
    Quote Originally Posted by Spikebebop View Post
    Might work better as class specific comparisons, rather than specialization specific (like Hpriest = Spriest = Dpriest); it would probably be too hard to identify which spec was played or if there was any switching.

    Or maybe that's what you meant already.

    Also, 2nd testing this on 2s with different titles.
    Correct and that is how it is intended. It doesn't distinguish between specs. It only checks class comp.

  15. #15
    I actually really like the idea.

    Ive always hated the spec over the player mentality of arena..

    I turn down friends constantly because their specs wont match up with mine etc

  16. #16
    Quote Originally Posted by Deoxysprime View Post
    As long as they aren't giving major titles to 2s, I'd be okay with that. A trial like this would spawn a lot of gladiators out of the 2s bracket if titles were left in. I feel that new titles would have to be introduced in order to not devalue Gladiator.
    http://www.mathsisfun.com/combinator...alculator.html

    n is set to 11 (number of classes)
    r is set to 2 (how many to choose per group)
    is order important? no
    is repetition allowed? yes

    66 gladiator groups per season. This would be over ALL battlegroups. But I'm not really interested in the dilution issue. If more glads are created than what were previously, that's an ok tradeoff to eliminate other issues like balance concerns, cookie-cutter specs, and lack of innovation.

  17. #17
    It would be cool if it took specs into account as well, would be cool being the only ele shaman who got glad on your battlegroup a season. This system could be interesting if it had rules and restrictions. Like 2200 minimum rating to get glad or something.. It would get more people into PvP for sure

  18. #18
    Elemental Lord Polarthief's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    8,056
    2 things to fix it: 1. You have to get at LEAST 2k rating to get glad. 2. You cannot pick the same class for more than 50% of the comp (meaning you cannot pick the same class twice/thrice in 3v3, and no more than 2 of the same in 5v5).

    This makes it so you can't just be a derp team to get easy glad.

    Progression pre-nerfed: [T17] 6/7H; 0/10N

  19. #19
    Quote Originally Posted by Deoxysprime View Post
    As long as they aren't giving major titles to 2s, I'd be okay with that. A trial like this would spawn a lot of gladiators out of the 2s bracket if titles were left in. I feel that new titles would have to be introduced in order to not devalue Gladiator.
    I think that would be a good idea I didn't think of. Make these titles different than glad.

    ---------- Post added 2012-11-25 at 09:02 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Dragon9870 View Post
    2 things to fix it: 1. You have to get at LEAST 2k rating to get glad. 2. You cannot pick the same class for more than 50% of the comp (meaning you cannot pick the same class twice/thrice in 3v3, and no more than 2 of the same in 5v5).

    This makes it so you can't just be a derp team to get easy glad.
    That's another good idea. Make a minimum rating requirement.

  20. #20
    The Lightbringer
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Copenhagen
    Posts
    3,258
    I'd much rather have a system where you can exclude 1 or 2 different classes you dont want to queue against, just like the random BG system. Having fotm rerollers only face themselves would be a great addition to the current system.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •