At what rating do you consider yourself another lvl of pvper

[Lordpete]

Good morning, Title is self explanatory but I'll add something.
For example, if I play arena everyday and I can't get pass 1800, I'll probably be a average pvper
But on the other hand, If I play 5-6 hour a week and I can get to 1800, I'll probably be a more than average pvper.
I Just want your thoughts about arena rating and skills in pvp...

[MrWolly]

I've never really tried when it comes to arena, but I can wipe the floor with people who do. I don't think rating really matters as much as understanding your class and how to utilize every ability you have against specific classes. Know what other classes hate the most, and utilize it, while finding ways to get out of situations you disdain to the highest degree.

[glowzone]

It depends on how you look at it, most people never break 1500, so simply being above that means that you're "above average"
But that's not really what you mean is it?

I do think since the rating scales diffrently each season the numbers have gotten kinda pointless unless you look at it from season to season basis, 2.2 one season can't be compared to 2.2 in other seasons, what is glad in one season is only basic entry rating in another.

I think people can't really be judged unless you actually see em perform, there's no rating barrier at wich you transform.

[Mican17]

I do think since the rating scales diffrently each season the numbers have gotten kinda pointless unless you look at it from season to season basis, 2.2 one season can't be compared to 2.2 in other seasons, what is glad in one season is only basic entry rating in another.

This is a good point. I've also found that rating scales different within a season too, as a higher rating is usually tougher to obtain early on.

[Deleted]

You have to look at season, CLASS BALANCE, what class the person plays what COMP the person plays, how much TIME player spends playing, how long has he played particular class, etc. soo many factors. Also BATTLEGROUP is huge factor, also language skill possibly, if you are foreign you have hard time communicating in english with your teammates. And nevertheless the GEAR is important. And now with RATING SCALING, it's even harder to say, as we don't even have full understanding of the system, and how quick it scales and to how much... so many factors.

But above average could be 1.8-2k in 2s, 2-2.2k in 3s or so. But you can get boosted, or carried or whatever so... not really point.

[Pipostylor]

Well, rating doesn't really say anything for one specific case. Depends on what comp you play, which bracket you play, which season you play etc. (e.g. I don't even have the 2200 rating achievement in 5on5 but I got one of my gladi titles in 5on5). And then there are of course the huge number of players who got pushed. So in general you can say players with higher rating are better players, but for like a single case it doesn't really say anything.

[wassonator]

My opinion (based on 3v3):
1500: Above average
1800: Good
2200: Very good
2700: Badass

[lolpve]

These days ratings are too inflated and most classes require no skill so the ratings are largely meaningless.

In TBC and WotLK, 2200 was "good", 2400+ very good.

These days I see streams of people playing at 2500 who play like 1800 rating in TBC, the game is such a joke. Especially DKs and Monks wtf kind of braindead disney shit is that??

[Sarix]

9001 .

[Snuggli]

Agree with what has already been said.

A couple of seasons rating has been pretty massively inflated, meaning going off rating by itself is pretty hard. Also, a lot of people earn rating that they arguably shouldn't have by playing FOTM comps or 'easy' comps.

All in all, i'd say 2200 is the only real noticeable difference. The 2200-2400 bracket is FAR different to the 2000-2200.

[Terahertz]

I've never really tried when it comes to arena, but I can wipe the floor with people who do. I don't think rating really matters as much as understanding your class and how to utilize every ability you have against specific classes. Know what other classes hate the most, and utilize it, while finding ways to get out of situations you disdain to the highest degree.

Arena is different though. Arena involves all that, while also being a team player, monitoring your environment etc.

I have never played enough arena for me to know when I'm a better player arena-wise. But I do notice improvements in my own gameplay when doing a lot of PvP in general.

[Merite]

My opinion is probably different..I've never been in the lower brackets, S1 Glad.

Rating isn't much to stand by; I've gotten gladiator with ratings ranging from ~2100 to 2850. Gladiator definitely isn't a tell all, and even R1 is often very deceiving as well, most R1s I know get it with little to no competition, just repetition, you can carry 1-2 people on a 5s team fairly easily on most battlegrounds to R1.

It's more about skill, the ability to communicate properly, foresee things, and have a very good understanding of what's happening around you and thinking ahead, not putting yourself into bad situations. That being said, you could be stuck in the 1800 brackets and be far better than a lot of R1s I know, your teammates matter far more than the comp, gear, and even skill in some situations...


Quite frankly if you're struggling, I would look at your communication and positioning, those are probably the main things. If you feel they're ok and your gear and comp are good, you could probably use much better teammates. No matter what, you can always learn a lot, maybe not in terms of strategy or memorizing what skills do, but how to immediately react to things, often by knowing they will already happen.

[Nyaldee]

It really depends on many factors. When i see mage at 2.2K this season i consider him above average, at the same time ench shaman at 2K is pretty good imo becouse he've to strugle through setups involving much more powerfull classes. Also it depends on the way season is going - for example tBC 2300 raiting was enough to pick me a glad, in woltk 2450 wasn't even close.

Tbh recently i picked DK and going against top setups at 1800 raiting (like mage/sp/druid or disc/hunt/rog) it's obvious to me how bad they're - overlapping cc, not doing cross-cc, generally putting healable preassure. Then later at night i'm getting queued into 2.3K disc/hunt/rog and die in opener 2 times, kinda day and night difference.

Even though i bitched a lot on oneshots in WolTK (often globaling ppls myself on destro lock hehe), i think expansion was overall the best arena content becouse of amount of classes/specs that were viable - enchs, retris, holys, ferals, restos, destro, afli, frost, unholy, arms, prot, mm etc. and so on. Honestly never though that i would say this about woltk, but amount of different compositions i've been queuing into at 2.4K was astonishing compared to late cata where you've been getting rls 6 games of 10 and now that all but 5-6 specs are almost extinct even at 2K braket.

[Deleted]

Around 1700-1800 rating I would consider another level of PvP'er I suppose, points wise anyway. I mean, there are serious players out there that only just started doing PvP and are still looking about for a good team, so they could be laying around 1500-1600 rating while finding a team with the same goals.

[Baracuda]

I don't think rating equals skill. Pride perhaps.

[PaladinBash]

If you play an easy class or a healer, you're never really good at the game. It's just a fact. Some things are so mindlessly easy and auto-win that they can't be taken seriously. Same with Arenas in general really...just running behind a pillar over and over or chain CCing people. That's not skill at all.

[Mican17]

I don't think rating equals skill. Pride perhaps.

A higher rating in arena = higher skill in arena and pvp in general. To think otherwise is delusional.

If you play an easy class or a healer, you're never really good at the game. It's just a fact. Some things are so mindlessly easy and auto-win that they can't be taken seriously. Same with Arenas in general really...just running behind a pillar over and over or chain CCing people. That's not skill at all.

I chuckled.

[pld]

A higher rating in arena = higher skill in arena and pvp in general. To think otherwise is delusional.

A high rating in arena COULD mean:

1. High skill level
2. Average players playing "FoTM" classes in a "FoTM" comp
3. Average players getting carried by an above average player
4. Average players playing on a low population battlegroup with fewer skilled teams

One of my friends hit 2600 in 3s a few seasons ago. While he's a very skilled player, he noted that his battlegroup was fairly inactive and there were only a handful of teams who were active gladiator-level pvpers.

Someone at 2200+ rating (in any battlegroup) is probably skilled to some degree at PvP, but if they moved over to a highly active battlegroup, they may find themselves struggling to break 2000+. Rating is a good initial 30,000 ft snapshot, but that doesn't necessarily mean there's a direct correlation to skill.

[Snuggli]

One of my friends hit 2600 in 3s a few seasons ago. While he's a very skilled player, he noted that his battlegroup was fairly inactive and there were only a handful of teams who were active gladiator-level pvpers.

Rating is normally harder to achieve on low-pop battlegroups because the rating isn't as inflated.

Compare these BGs for example: Misery-EU ~ Vengeance-EU.

Which one of those would it be easier to get 2.2k on? On Misery, 2.2k is hardly even Rival. If you get 2.2k on Vengeance you're looking at a glad spot.

[Frozenbeef]

I'm new to arena...what's the point of rating? from what i understand it tries to match you based on rating..why would i want a higher rating when i can get free conquest at the lower levels? 0o