Jun 26th 2011 2:06PM I was thinking the same thing. Seems a little low to me?!
Feb 10th 2009 1:09PM @Fiztaru: If you would learn how to read fully, you would see that I apologized, get off your high horse.
Feb 10th 2009 11:16AM Yeah, I assumed it would be. My apologies on the comment, after I posted and read it, it seemed quite rude. /Fail on my part, sorry!
Feb 10th 2009 11:05AM Another pointless topic that I was hoping would be the walkthrough for this event...
Feb 4th 2009 2:15PM I agree that it was probably not the best analogy. The bottom line though, is that if you win games, your rating will go up. Which is exactly the point of ratings. There are several posts I agree with however on the flip side. There should be an equal amount of points that are distributed, you definitely don't want an abundance of negative or positive points in the 'bank' so to speak. What I'm saying, is that if a team plays another equal team, it should be a +x for the winning team and a -x for the losing team, where x is the same amount. Two 1400 rating teams should not receive separate values for winning and losing, this created a surplus of either positive or negative points that can never be evened out. That being said, if a 1400 team plays a 1800 team, the ratings should be equal as well. It makes perfect sense that if the lower rating teams wins, a bigger number should be used to adjust the ratings, and vise-versa. In the end, I think the important part is not allowing a different coefficient for each team. Each game should put out a specific ratings adjustment based on the two levels that are playing, be it +/- 10 or +/- 100.
Feb 4th 2009 1:23PM I couldn't agree with you more. If anything, this layout makes me want to go see what Arenas are all about now.
Feb 4th 2009 1:20PM I haven't played an arena game in my WoW career, so flame me all you want. From an outsider's perspective, the blue post seems extremely logical and fair. You guys pick your own team mates, so if your rating drops because of a bad teammate, and you switch teams, your damn right your rating should stick with you to the new team. I think they should do a reset after every season (in my ignorance, they very well might) to keep it fair. But just because the Lakers trade Kobe to the Clippers doesn't mean that all of a sudden the Clippers are the best team in the league. They still have to WIN games in order to be ranked higher. Now, if the issue is that people are winning arena games, but are accumlating a loss stat for actually winning, then that is a problem. However, the way I interpreted the blues post, was that the ratings will average out over what the player has done record wise in the past. Assuming that is collectively to one season, I think that's as fair as it gets.
Jan 22nd 2009 9:44AM Actually, by your theory, the drake is a reward for people who researched achievements before they were implemented. You had to KNOW about the brewfest acheivement BEFORE they implemented them in order to get the drake in a year's time. The drake is a 'two-year' award for people who do the world events, it's a 'one-year' award for people who were either lucky enough to get the BOTM club because of dumb luck or for people who researched the achievements before they were implemented.
Jan 15th 2009 9:56AM I'm currently specd at 57/14/0 Disc build, and I LOVE it. My guild is currently working through Naxx, and our MT (who happens to be the GM) insists that I heal him on every raid. Disc priests are the single-best damage prevention/single target healers in the game. I can heal 12k Hps in 3 seconds!? Disc priests IMHO are a must for MT heals in a raid. Sure we can't AOE heal as great as others, but that's not what we do best. I personally have received more compliments on my healing in Heroic 5ms from tanks as Disc spec'd than I ever did as Holy.
Dec 22nd 2008 8:17AM Unfortunately, I wasn't on the WOW Insider boards (or any of them for that matter) at the time. Believe it or not, I was one of those 'casual' WoW players that has been playing since pre-BC and didn't know about the achievements until AFTER they came out.
Regardless, this has been beaten to death. There are many reasonable arguments for and against, I just find that as it pertains to me, it basically sucks.