More on Blizzard's new Arena system

Now that it's up, players have reported winning games but losing points. In fact, some readers have written in to report extremely successful Arena records but result in low or even negative gains. If Blizzard wanted to make Arenas more accessible and enjoyable, taking points away from winning teams was certainly the wrong way to do it. In the latest chapter of this sordid saga of the new Arena system, Kalgan mentions that Blizzard "made adjustments to the ratings system" in a hotfix applied recently. Notable points after the jump.
Personal Ratings will drift towards the Team Rating, as opposed to the internal hidden matchmaking rating. This was the culprit for many discrepancies in the past weeks. Teams will now gain or lose around 12 points when faced with an opponent of similar matchmaking rating, which hopefully should eliminate the extremely odd and frustrating point losses for wins. Kalgan also says that it should be easier under the new (and I should note, "fixed") system for teams and players to get higher ratings due to scale adjustment.
He's quick to note that 'easier' does not mean 'easy', and that Achievements such as The Arena Master will not be trivialized, a term that professional Arena player Serennia used to describe what happened when the system first debuted. Some teams obtained the Achievement in a ridiculously easy fashion when Patch 3.0.8 hit (it took Serennia several weeks on his Death Knight to get the title under the old system). Achievements have supposedly since been stripped, so players working towards Arena Master should find it easier but still challenging.
One of the most interesting revelations about the new matchmaking system is that it does not take gear into account at all. This should clear up many questions from players wondering how they can bump into a team that's clad in complete Deadly Gladiator gear. Considering that the very best PvP gear can drop off the easiest raid boss in the game, it's not surprising that gear wouldn't factor into the equation. It isn't unlikely to see ordinarily 1500 scrubs running around in three pieces of Deadly Gladiator gear, after all. The new system, Kalgan says, only takes into account wins and losses.
Furthermore, teams below 1500 will gain exactly the same points as though their team rating were 1500. This is a significant change and will help reduce the number of teams made purely for points. This way, for example, teams can piddle around the 1200 rating and still gain points without the added cost and hassle of reforming a team just to get back to 1500.
On the other end of the spectrum, the system still hard caps the Personal and Team Ratings at 3000. It's highly unlikely that any team will reach those numbers, at any rate, and the last team we saw hit that level were win traders who were properly penalized. That said, the new system -- the fixed one, that is -- is extremely friendly to casual players. In many ways, the ease by which players can advance in Arenas is comparable to the ease of raiding in Wrath of the Lich King.
Is this a good thing or a bad thing? In the long run, I suspect it might be a good thing. It has been met with criticism from high ranked Arena players, particularly the lowering of Deadly Gladiator requirements by a full 100 points, but the response is expected. It's the same reaction hardcore raiders had to the arguably ez-mode raiding of Wrath. For most of the community, this turned out to be a good thing. In a way, if the new system works as intended (and it must be noted that it hasn't been until, theoretically, two nights ago), it should make Arenas more enjoyable to play for a larger player base. This is the ultimate goal.
As much as I understand the need for Arenas to be a high risk / high reward environment, accessibility to the format is critical to its survival. The past four seasons increasingly raised the barrier of entry into Arenas, so much that by Season 4, fewer players were breaking 2000 than in the seasons before it. This also resulted in lesser participation and a whole lot of criticism (you'll see a lot of that on this very site).
The way I see it, good players and teams will continue to dominate and quickly leave the rest of the pack. The new system only makes it so that other players won't be feel so penalized. We'll have to wait and see for the curve to settle into place, but if it all works out, Arenas should be a friendlier place and participation should rise. And as counter-intuitive as it sounds, friendlier Arenas is actually good for the game.
Filed under: Analysis / Opinion, Blizzard, PvP, Forums, Arena






Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
Trayel Feb 1st 2009 2:07PM
If you go to the "Shop Talk" on the main worldofwarcraft.com news page (i.e. the front page) and follow the links below each category called "Read on!" is simply links you to the blue forums posts over the last week or so where the rating system has already been explained. No new information, just a front-page link to the pertinent forum posts.
Ceipe Feb 1st 2009 2:16PM
Actually, form what I've been playing, the penalty is indeed great for those in the lower ranks. Since they are calculating as a rating of 1500, when you loose you drop 23 points and winning only awards 2 or 3, for both. So I think the ELO system has gone awire, I mean according to it, the points one team wins should be those the other looses, but its not working that way.
Firestride Feb 1st 2009 2:20PM
Hey, can anyone tell me how hard it is to get an 1800 rating? I'm hardcore not a PvPer, but the +111 Spellpower trinket looks pretty nice. If I managed to be a slightly below average player, would I get there?
Max Feb 1st 2009 2:51PM
no.
Azhariel Feb 1st 2009 4:49PM
Cold, but true. You have to be quite above average to reach 1800.. Or roll a cookie cutter comp.
www.arenajunkies.com
Firestride Feb 1st 2009 6:21PM
Thanks guys. Don't worry, I'm not offended. I know so little about PvP that I just didn't even know how good of a rating this was.
brittwilson Feb 1st 2009 2:37PM
I wish people would stop talking about what Serennia says, thinks or does. Not only is that individual a rude, stuck up person, its pretty easy to do well in PvP when you play a druid, warrior, and DK.
bigdaddyjay Feb 1st 2009 2:56PM
I don't see anyone mentioning this person your tired of hearing about, except you. As they say at the St. James Gate... Brilliant!
brittwilson Feb 1st 2009 3:14PM
"a term that professional Arena player Serennia used to describe what happened when the system first debuted. Some teams obtained the Achievement in a ridiculously easy fashion when Patch 3.0.8 hit (it took Serennia several weeks on his Death Knight to get the title under the old system). "
Read before you make fun of people, or you will look like a retard.
Zach Feb 1st 2009 7:15PM
@Brittwilson - Serennia's attitude aside, he is extremely knowledgeable about the game. Dismissing his ability to PvP is simply way off base. Not only has he performed well, he has done so consistently. I challenge anyone who dismisses his accomplishments to replicate them, which is to reach #1 in your Battlegroup over the course over several seasons.
You're free to dislike the man. He was never known for being humble or friendly. But to downplay his understanding of the game or his ability to play it is just plain ignorant.
brittwilson Feb 2nd 2009 4:21AM
@ Zach
I understand what you are saying, and he may have legitimate skill as well, but it cannot be ignored that all of his skills come in the form of the 3 most Overpowered classes in PvP during BC and now into Wrath. Its like saying your really good at clearing a forest.....with missiles when others have axes. Of course you are. Sure, you may do it with less death and more accuracy, but you still held the advantage from the start.
The main point is that I don't like fueling the egos of jerks and elitists, and every time someone mentions his name, it does just that. People don't like hes an asshole, but yet they continue to praise him. Its not hard to figure out why he continues to act this way.
Zach Feb 2nd 2009 4:28AM
I see a lot of Death Knights, but I don't see everyone running around taking #1 in every bracket in his Battlegroup. You point out the class he uses to discredit his skill, and that's just not fair. Give credit where credit is due.
If the man has an ego, then he has an ego. You can despise him all you want for it. A lot of professional athletes -- to make an analogy -- have big egos, trash talk, etc., but you can't deny their skill at their game. You can hate them for their attitude, but don't downplay their ability or knowledge.
Max Feb 1st 2009 2:51PM
I don't see how this can be a bad thing. Us hardcore pvpers are still duking it out in the 2ks and no casuals are intruding. Why not let them enjoy the arena experience too?
I hated the new system when it first came out, but everything seems to be evening out now
Ilnara Feb 1st 2009 2:52PM
I like it, It's not simply that you win, it's the quality of the wins as well.
I hope they keep refining it this way.
With the inherent disparity that occurs in this game
in regards to balance, this was needed.
If your group dominates because any other group comp is inferior balance wise..then what is the reason for your success?
Quiz : Which victory is worth more?
1: A 2000 rated team beats a 1500 rated team.
2: A 1500 rated team beats a 2000 rated team.
Choose wisely.
shankked Feb 1st 2009 3:12PM
me and my buddy ret. pally went for a 6-4 last week, but lost 100 arena rating. Im horrible at pvp, but even still, this new rating system sucks for me
Patrick Feb 1st 2009 3:21PM
Can anyone explain what the point of Personal Rating is? In one of the blue posts on the subject Aratil said
"When personal rating gets close enough to team rating, we judge it is likely the player deserves the benefits of the team."
Does that mean that you don't get points unless your PR is close to the TR? What exactly are these "benefits"?
Malkeior Feb 1st 2009 3:36PM
If your personal rating is more than 150 rating away from your teams rating, you gain arena points based on your personal rating. This is so a low skill player can't just soak points from a high rated team or use their rating to obtain gear.
Nikkadaem Feb 1st 2009 3:45PM
Sounds to me like Blizzard has gone to more of an ELO, chess ranking type of system (http://www.chessrankings.com/theory.aspx).
In this type of system if a high ranking player or team competes against a lower ranked player or team it is highly feasible that the higher team will lose points if the rank difference is too great. Basically, the higher ranked team is expected to win. So if an underdog wins, they accrue a huge number of points. However, the underdog could still lose and still make more points than the winner in this type of system as well.
Now the balance comes in the fact that the "W" factor/value is the average of all other teams. So, lets say every tuesday as part of maintenance Blizzard recalculates all the rankings. Part of that calculation is "W" which is based on the average of all team rankings.
It can be kinda confusing, but once you read up on the ELO a bit it starts to make sense. I could actually write a whole article on it.
The final benefit being that you have rankings that are closer together numerically and they are not based on a winning record, but on comparable performance. So, yes a casual team that has played fewer matches could mathematically outrank a highly active and winning team. Furthermore, yes a high ranking team could, in fact, lose points based on massacre differences in rank and based on the global average.
Zach Feb 1st 2009 7:17PM
The old system pre-3.0.8 was using the ELO system. They've tweaked it from there.
Turtlefish Feb 1st 2009 4:03PM
According to a blue post, losses and gains were supposedly capped at 24, and most wins should result in gains of ~12 points. I got pretty excited when I read that it was "fixed", so yesterday I restarted my 2v2 team at 1500.
Our first loss? -28 points. Our first win? +1 point. We decided to just ride it out and see what would happen, and the trend continued, with wins resulting in