Jump to content

  • Curse Sites
Help

Idea to make the ladder more active


  • Please log in to reply
45 replies to this topic

#21 inhume

inhume
  • Junkies
  • Humanclass_name
  • US-Eredar
  • Vindication
  • Posts: 1012
  • Talents: Combat

Posted 18 July 2012 - 06:56 PM

the biggest flaw in the entire arena system is the fact that you cannot pick up group queues without any punishment. There is no punishment for raiding with a different group or queuing random battlegrounds with others but for some reason rated pvp is done in this fashion. Arena and rated battlegrounds suffer from queuing with lower MMR players for it hurts you as an individual. Rated BG teams are discouraged from queuing with players with low rated bg rating because it just hurts everyone on the team individually from gaining MMR. Queuing with a lower rated player such as a family member or a friend drives your MMR towards their end and you end up hurting your real teammates. The second biggest flaw aside from just queuing with other players in arena, you lose all of your team rating if you change teams to play with other players. Team rating ends up being a big deal for the lower end of arena population because why would they want to lose their x-2200 rating to play with people who might not get you back at that rating. When the low range of the population is hurt, it ends up hurting the mid range and then ultimately you have the stalest ladder ever on the high end.


most of the problems result from blizzard's attempt to stop MMR exploiters and you end up with this nasty mess of punishment for playing with other players. the players don't help by being exploiters, win-traders, boosters, and having this whatever it takes to win attitude. the only real solution is to just remove the rating requirement, the titles and the mount at the end of the season because clearly the community cannot handle doing things the right way. Then move to a ladder system like sc2 where you can have multiple teams, what division or rank doesn't really matter and it's meant to be just competitive fun.

#22 Fizion

Fizion
  • Premium Junkies
  • Curse Premium
  • Humanclass_name
  • US-Sargeras
  • Shadowburn
  • Posts: 325
  • Talents:
  • RBG: 2219

Posted 18 July 2012 - 06:57 PM

Use the same system as PVE and raids.  Give PR and team rating points per win a percentage increase in intervals throughout the season to coincide with the percentage of damage/healing/whatever that raids get (probably not the same % as rating would inflate too much).  The ballers are still going to climb to the top in the first week, just like the good guilds are still going to power through the dragons with no buffs, but at the same time keep the ladder moving throughout the rest of the season.  

And please bring back skirmishes.

#23 hirtqt

hirtqt
  • Junkies
  • Undeadclass_name
  • US-Bleeding Hollow
  • Ruin
  • Posts: 980
  • Talents: Discipline 2/0/1/1/1/1
  • RBG: 732

Posted 18 July 2012 - 07:14 PM

i remember ppl q just for tabards in WOTLK
Posted Image
Posted Image

#24 Pootius_6592477

Pootius_6592477
  • Junkies
  • Humanclass_name
  • US-Magtheridon
  • Ruin
  • Posts: 49
  • Talents: Shadow 1/0/0/1/0/2
  • RBG: 1525

Posted 18 July 2012 - 07:55 PM

Itsnel:

5v5 titles are just worthless thats why many ppl want it to be removed... its dominated by range classes just like rbg
merge more bgs would be nice &--#62; you would get more and faster invites at high ratings anything other like rating decay is bullshit...[/size]

View PostYesjuicex, on 18 July 2012 - 05:55 PM, said:

I strongly disagree I find 5v5 pretty fun and any class can be viable in the right comp. Although merging bgs would help alot blizzard needs to do something to promote arena and give out some kind of reward to people wining games/playing during the season.

Although 5v5 may be fun, you really aren't addressing the merits of his argument at all.  5v5 is clearly not as balanced or competitive as the 3v3 bracket and I believe you see a significantly higher amount of wintraders in the 5v5 bracket than you do in 3v3.  However, i do agree with you that Blizzard does need to implement some incentivized form of participation in regards to mid-season arena, especially with the current season as its clearly dragged on too long and the ladders have been dead for several months now as a result.

Edited by Pootius_6592477, 18 July 2012 - 07:57 PM.


#25 Filovirus

Filovirus
  • Junkies
  • Humanclass_name
  • US-Kel'Thuzad
  • Nightfall
  • Posts: 3344
  • Talents: ./././././.
  • RBG: 2795

Posted 19 July 2012 - 01:13 AM

View PostItsnel, on 18 July 2012 - 11:10 AM, said:

5v5 titles are just worthless thats why many ppl want it to be removed... its dominated by range classes just like rbg
merge more bgs would be nice > you would get more and faster invites at high ratings anything other like rating decay is bullshit...

Why are 5v5 titles worthless? A 3v3 title is just as gimmicky, if anything it feels like you can run a lot more comps to rank 1 in 5s if you are the better team.

The only bad 5s class that I can really think of is a DK. I haven't had a chance to run DK/Spriest/Lock/x/x yet, but I think that would still be relatively strong. I really like that 5s allows some of the lesser classes (resto druids, holy paladins, etc) to compete at a high level, while they wouldn't have a fighting chance in 3s.


To summarize, I don't think 5v5 has anything to do with 3v3 being an active bracket. I think it's pretty rare that someone would be queuing 5s instead of 3s, outside of the last week or two of the season.

Edited by Filovirus, 19 July 2012 - 01:22 AM.


#26 Vengeânce1296684277

Vengeânce1296684277
  • Junkies
  • Humanclass_name
  • US-Area 52
  • Retaliation
  • Posts: 176
  • Talents: Shadow 1/1/2/1/2/1

Posted 19 July 2012 - 02:48 AM

View Postbrosearch, on 18 July 2012 - 05:00 PM, said:

-bring back the old armory system that allows us to view all the stats for each and every game any team plays.

Why did they ever remove that.......?

#27 Ensipid

Ensipid
  • Junkies
  • Humanclass_name
  • US-Sargeras
  • Shadowburn
  • Posts: 954
  • Talents: Affliction
  • RBG: 2561

Posted 19 July 2012 - 07:15 AM

5v5 titles are worthless, because there is no competition or activity there. The bracket itself last time I played it is incredibly fun ect but when the 1st team gets "rank1" 2nd team gets gladiator and the 3rd gets duelist.... I think it's obvious that it's just stupid.

Regardless I like the OP's idea or something to the extent that would motivate ppl to keep q'ing ; I don't like rating decay however. What if you just quit the game, move or go traveling.

My suggestion in season 3 when the ladders died in the 3rd month was to just split these seasons into 3 parts. Same mounts same gear no reseting gear cap... Just reseting the teams and awarding more drakes so there would be people playing. It may saturate the servers with gladiator mounts or whatever but that hardly bothers me at this point.

And since we're reminiscing the good stuff they removed for no reason :

Skirmishes!!!~! bring them back... wargames are cool but honestly who the fuck uses them as much as skirmishes were used???

And the armory stats to matches,  that was a nice thing... we like nice things?

#28 Railander

Railander
  • Junkies
  • Undeadclass_name
  • US-Azralon
  • Shadowburn
  • Posts: 222
  • Talents: Destruction 1/2/0/0/0/1
  • 2v2: 1503
  • 3v3: 1573
  • 5v5: 1227
  • RBG: 768

Posted 19 July 2012 - 11:23 AM

giving rating bonuses to idling will probably inflate the rating too much. maybe a similar but slightly different approach, like divide each season into monthly ladders. each month has its own ladder and at the end of the season they make an average of each team's monthly ranking (using ratings could turn out bad) to come to final rankings. it would fix the problem of FotM comps/specs finding something OP and rushing for r1 and sitting there because these are usually (emphasis here) rebalanced after some time, wouldnt mess with ratings at all and a month should be enough time for people to play their games in between finishing tests/work/travel etc.
ratings and MMR would be reset each month obviously.

View PostVengeânce1296684277, on 19 July 2012 - 02:48 AM, said:

Why did they ever remove that.......?
i've no idea either.

Quote

& Also, you should be able to join 2 or 3 teams in every bracket and only make the highest rated team count for pts every week and titles at the end of the season

i've always wanted something like that but considering blizzard's philosophy on this i doubt it'll change any time soon, if at all.

Quote

Skirmishes!!!~! bring them back... wargames are cool but honestly who the fuck uses them as much as skirmishes were used???

i always hated skirmishes. their only purpose ever was to test addons inside arenas.
if you solo queue chances are you'll be partner with an idiot. even if you queue with a friend, chances are you will still be matched up against idiots, or even idiots who solo queue'd.

Edited by Railander, 19 July 2012 - 11:47 AM.

Posted Image


#29 Durial

Durial
  • Junkies
  • Blood Elfclass_name
  • EU-Talnivarr
  • Reckoning / Abrechnung
  • Posts: 885
  • Talents:
  • RBG: 576
  • LocationEngland, London

Posted 19 July 2012 - 11:37 AM

All in favor of super-BG's say I

I

Oh yes, bring back skirmish as well. Why would they remove such an entertaining part of the game which was used amongst thousands of people. Apparently, War Games show more activity than skirmish - and we know thats the biggest bullshit ever.

Blizzard wind me the fuck up. I don't get why they can have all these shitty features in the game and not spend a little time to add skirmish back to the game. Really. Whos' the idiot behind the reason why they don't want to implement it again??

Edited by Durial, 19 July 2012 - 11:41 AM.


#30 phunk

phunk
  • Junkies
  • Dwarfclass_name
  • EU-Outland
  • Misery
  • Posts: 685
  • Talents: Restoration 0/2/2/1/0/0

Posted 19 July 2012 - 12:31 PM

What I want to see:

*Being able to join multiple 3v3 teams, the highest team you are in which you are in range of title is the team that should count for you. That said if one of your teamates are in a higher team with someone else, that team is what counts for him.

*Cross realm arena teams and one big battlegroup.

*3v3 Gives you the chance to win the preaches Gladiator titel and a GROUND MOUNT. 5v5 Gives another titel and the boring flying mount....

*Rating Decay, lets say -50 rating if you don't play at all during one month. This makes it possible to go away for a while. Shouldn't be necessary to play every week thou. How many games necessary every month would have to put in a lot of thought.

*Transmog pvp/arena archievements. Lets say being rank 1 at the end of the month could give a cool transmog? maybe give gladiators cool transmogs as well? just an idea...lots of things could award this. I just want people to have a reason to play actively. one set a month shouldn't be to hard for blizzard to plan out ahead. different coloured sets maybe...I dunno.

http://eu.battle.net...ic/4940467082#1

#31 Railander

Railander
  • Junkies
  • Undeadclass_name
  • US-Azralon
  • Shadowburn
  • Posts: 222
  • Talents: Destruction 1/2/0/0/0/1
  • 2v2: 1503
  • 3v3: 1573
  • 5v5: 1227
  • RBG: 768

Posted 19 July 2012 - 01:01 PM

View Postphunk, on 19 July 2012 - 12:31 PM, said:

*Rating Decay, lets say -50 rating if you don't play at all during one month. This makes it possible to go away for a while. Shouldn't be necessary to play every week thou. How many games necessary every month would have to put in a lot of thought.
rating decay doesnt work and could turn out really frustrating to both ends. suppose i get r1 with 50 rating above r2. eventually i'd be forced to play a match but since im already too far from the competition all i need is 1 match. however given how much time i've been away chances are i'll lose, so i'll feel forced to queue at like 5 AM so my opponents arent that strong. the r2 team will be frustrated because they still cant face against the r1 and the r1 team will be angry because they're forced to stay up too late just to maintain their rating.

Edited by Railander, 19 July 2012 - 02:15 PM.

Posted Image


#32 phunk

phunk
  • Junkies
  • Dwarfclass_name
  • EU-Outland
  • Misery
  • Posts: 685
  • Talents: Restoration 0/2/2/1/0/0

Posted 19 July 2012 - 01:03 PM

wouldn't it still be better than it is now when no one plays at all?

#33 Railander

Railander
  • Junkies
  • Undeadclass_name
  • US-Azralon
  • Shadowburn
  • Posts: 222
  • Talents: Destruction 1/2/0/0/0/1
  • 2v2: 1503
  • 3v3: 1573
  • 5v5: 1227
  • RBG: 768

Posted 19 July 2012 - 01:19 PM

View Postphunk, on 19 July 2012 - 01:03 PM, said:

wouldn't it still be better than it is now when no one plays at all?
depends. would you rather not play and not get frustrated, or the other way around? i'd personally pick the first.

Posted Image


#34 Chromix

Chromix
  • Junkies
  • Humanclass_name
  • EU-Outland
  • Misery
  • Posts: 517
  • Talents: Shadow 2/2/2/1/1/1
  • RBG: 2520

Posted 19 July 2012 - 01:49 PM

View PostRailander, on 19 July 2012 - 01:01 PM, said:

rating decay doesnt work

Obviously you'd say that since you've been on 2551 rating since February 19th.

http://www.arenajunk...etting-trained/

Edited by Chromix, 19 July 2012 - 01:49 PM.


#35 Railander

Railander
  • Junkies
  • Undeadclass_name
  • US-Azralon
  • Shadowburn
  • Posts: 222
  • Talents: Destruction 1/2/0/0/0/1
  • 2v2: 1503
  • 3v3: 1573
  • 5v5: 1227
  • RBG: 768

Posted 19 July 2012 - 02:09 PM

View PostChromix, on 19 July 2012 - 01:49 PM, said:

Obviously you'd say that since you've been on 2551 rating since February 19th.

http://www.arenajunk...etting-trained/
i dont think i can get r1 and this expansion bores me to no end already. but anyway, who cares? would you take the time to actually read the post until the end?

Edited by Railander, 19 July 2012 - 02:10 PM.

Posted Image


#36 cochonhalal

cochonhalal
  • Turnedlife
  • Premium Junkies
  • Curse Premium
  • Humanclass_name
  • EU-Aegwynn
  • Blutdurst
  • Posts: 1030
  • Talents: Assassination 1/0/0/0/2/.

Posted 19 July 2012 - 02:10 PM

View Posthirtqt, on 18 July 2012 - 07:14 PM, said:

i remember ppl q just for tabards in WOTLK

yeah, should of been vicious gladiator/ruthless gladiator/cataclysmic gladiator's tabard. that would bring peoples attention!

not joking

#37 Ramsig

Ramsig
  • Members
  • Night Elfclass_name
  • EU-Outland
  • Misery
  • Posts: 151
  • Talents: Windwalker 2/0/0/2/2/1
  • RBG: 1829

Posted 19 July 2012 - 02:11 PM

Food for thought... What about adding something like this:

1. 300 (or 500) games required at (lets say) 2500 rating as total on the bg to "open" the higher ratings. Meaning you will be capped at 2500 rating until the games have been played. Until that you will be rewarded gold (100-200g) for winning.

2. While the cap remains only games against teams above 2400 rating contribute towards opening the rating cap. You also need to be at the 2500 rating cap for it to count.

3. After reaching the cap team gets into a "safe zone". 1-2 points are lost per loss (enemy wins 5 and loses 5 point against "safe" team) while still getting awarded 8-10 points per win if you have dropped below 2500. If you were at the 2500 rating and won you would get the gold reward. Safe zone is removed if youre able to drop below 2450 rating.

Edit. 3.1 "safe team" vs normal team: like above, "safe team" vs "safe team": Team losing the game loses 1-2 points and winning team gets (if below 2.5k) 8-10 points or the gold reward.

4. If not reached, the cap will be removed when the season hits half way. (prevents tactics of not opening the rating cap)


Additional suggestion: Add arena achievements for 1000, 1100, 1200,... up to 2400 and then the 2.7k

Edit. Add the "safe zone" achievement. Can be achieved if the cap remains when you get to 2.5k

Edited by Ramsig, 19 July 2012 - 02:25 PM.


#38 Railander

Railander
  • Junkies
  • Undeadclass_name
  • US-Azralon
  • Shadowburn
  • Posts: 222
  • Talents: Destruction 1/2/0/0/0/1
  • 2v2: 1503
  • 3v3: 1573
  • 5v5: 1227
  • RBG: 768

Posted 19 July 2012 - 02:23 PM

View PostRamsig, on 19 July 2012 - 02:11 PM, said:

Food for thought... What about adding something like this:

1. 300 (or 500) games required at (lets say) 2500 rating as total on the bg to "open" the higher ratings. Meaning you will be capped at 2500 rating until the games have been played. Until that you will be rewarded gold (100-200g) for winning.

2. While the cap remains only games against teams above 2400 rating contribute towards opening the rating cap. You also need to be at the 2500 rating cap for it to count.

3. After reaching the cap team gets into a "safe zone". 1-2 points are lost per loss (enemy wins 5 and loses 5 point against "safe" team) while still getting awarded 8-10 points per win if you have dropped below 2500. If you were at the 2500 rating and won you would get the gold reward.

4. If not reached, the cap will be removed when the season hits half way. (prevents tactics of not opening the rating cap)


Additional suggestion: Add arena achievements for 1000, 1100, 1200,... up to 2400 and then the 2.7k

Edit. Add the "safe zone" achievement. Can be achieved if the cap remains when you get to 2.5k
i didnt fully understand it but seems interesting and actually better than the normal rating system, but it does not cover the main issue which is few teams queuing. also 100g per victory is way too much.

View Postcochonhalal, on 19 July 2012 - 02:10 PM, said:

yeah, should of been vicious gladiator/ruthless gladiator/cataclysmic gladiator's tabard. that would bring peoples attention!

not joking
i dont know why they removed the tabards. it was deffinitely something to incentive mid-teams to get better and queue.

Edited by Railander, 19 July 2012 - 02:26 PM.

Posted Image


#39 Ctuhlu

Ctuhlu
  • Junkies
  • Draeneiclass_name
  • US-Sargeras
  • Shadowburn
  • Posts: 2730
  • Talents: Restoration

Posted 19 July 2012 - 03:27 PM

Seriously just use a sports team model and make every season require a certain number of games played. Anywhere from 150-200 sounds fair. It would be retarded for a basketball team to play 24 games and get 1st place when everyone else has to play 82. Then just allow multiple 3v3 teams and you're good to go. You don't have to play all 200 games in a week; you have six to eight months to do that, It's less than the old 10-games-a-week that you needed for points.

It might even discourage wintrading/selling since it would take more time, but the scumbags that sell rating are pretty determined to shit all over the ladder so maybe it still wouldn't change a thing. Regardless, it would get people to consistently play.

Fourreur said:

we have to switch to them making the decision to pop reck or not to pop reck

#40 Ramsig

Ramsig
  • Members
  • Night Elfclass_name
  • EU-Outland
  • Misery
  • Posts: 151
  • Talents: Windwalker 2/0/0/2/2/1
  • RBG: 1829

Posted 19 July 2012 - 03:28 PM

View PostRailander, on 19 July 2012 - 02:23 PM, said:

i didnt fully understand it but seems interesting and actually better than the normal rating system, but it does not cover the main issue which is few teams queuing.

If "forces" + "inspire"/support people to play more games and to half season atleast. Or atleast thats something I was going for with it




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

<