Jump to content

Arena Ladder Overhaul Compilation


  • Please log in to reply
36 replies to this topic

#21 Ctuhlu

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

Posted 21 September 2012 - 11:00 AM

Just require a certain amount of games played (from any 3v3 team, not necessarily the one you finish the season on). Make it 300 games or something. This way you play over the course of the whole season and not the first 2 weeks or the last 2 weeks.

Rating decay won't work because it would mean the start of the season doesn't matter. The ladders would be JUST as inactive for 95% of the season. You need a system that makes a season truly a "season" in the sporting sense -- like how the NHL and NBA have 82 games over the course of a year; 162 for baseball, etc.

Fourreur said:

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

#22 Kerzen

Kerzen
  • Junkies
  • Humanclass_name
  • EU-Sylvanas
  • Rampage / Saccage
  • Posts: 172
  • Talents: Discipline 0/0/2/0/2/.

Posted 21 September 2012 - 11:14 AM

2 seasons per 1 pve patch, 1st season is equivalent to normal mode gears.

2nd season you can upgrade your gear to higher ilvl, about same as heroic mode gears.

Shorter seasons, no ilvl problem, more active ladders as you need to play constant to get the full gear in time.

#23 Zong

Zong
  • Junkies
  • Dwarfclass_name
  • US-Frostmourne
  • Bloodlust
  • Posts: 1020
  • Talents: Restoration

Posted 21 September 2012 - 12:56 PM

View PostCtuhlu, on 21 September 2012 - 11:00 AM, said:

Just require a certain amount of games played (from any 3v3 team, not necessarily the one you finish the season on). Make it 300 games or something. This way you play over the course of the whole season and not the first 2 weeks or the last 2 weeks.


What?

Then you just play 300 games at the beginning of the season and sit your team, or just play 300 games, remake and play til your high and sit the team.

Stupid idea.
Posted ImagePosted Image

#24 Ramsig

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

Posted 21 September 2012 - 02:37 PM

Season could be divided into 5 "sections". Your 2 best rating sections would then be averaged to give your season ending rating.

Example: 1700 rating, 2370 rating, 2600 rating, 2150 rating, 2750 rating.

Best 2: (2600 + 2750)/2 = 2675 rating

Instead of teams there would be personal gladiator titles.

So for example you played with 1 team to that 2600 you could play other team to 2750 and get your glad title. Or if you want you can still play in same team.

This way if you wanted you could only play 2/5 sections in season but if you wanted to you could commit playing in all 5 sections to try get your highest rating.

Last edit. This would make boosts for glad alot harder as you would need to do it twice and still it could be uncertain. +When would you get payed...? Tough shit :P

Edited by Ramsig, 21 September 2012 - 02:46 PM.


#25 Railander

Railander
  • Junkies
  • Undeadclass_name
  • US-Azralon
  • Shadowburn
  • Posts: 245
  • Talents: Demonology 1/2/0/1/0/0/0
  • 2v2: 1490
  • 3v3: 1516
  • 5v5: 1916
  • RBG: 1833

Posted 21 September 2012 - 02:58 PM

View PostCtuhlu, on 21 September 2012 - 11:00 AM, said:

Just require a certain amount of games played (from any 3v3 team, not necessarily the one you finish the season on). Make it 300 games or something. This way you play over the course of the whole season and not the first 2 weeks or the last 2 weeks.
as someone said above, that wouldnt work because you could virtually play those games in a weekend. heck, you could even fake these games just leaving before the gate opens. seasons last for at least 5 months, even if you needed 1000 games chances are people either cant achieve that much and are forced to fake games/give up, or a player with more time in his hands could still get that much in less than a month.
thing is, playing X games wouldnt work.

View PostKerzen, on 21 September 2012 - 11:14 AM, said:

2 seasons per 1 pve patch, 1st season is equivalent to normal mode gears.

2nd season you can upgrade your gear to higher ilvl, about same as heroic mode gears.

Shorter seasons, no ilvl problem, more active ladders as you need to play constant to get the full gear in time.
i think the gear idea is simple and really good, definitely like it.
2 seasons however might still not be enough, considering we've had 9-months seasons, it'd still be 4.5 months each season. dragon soul started on december and i was already blown out of boredom before february hit.

View PostRamsig, on 21 September 2012 - 02:37 PM, said:

Season could be divided into 5 "sections". Your 2 best rating sections would then be averaged to give your season ending rating.

Example: 1700 rating, 2370 rating, 2600 rating, 2150 rating, 2750 rating.

Best 2: (2600 + 2750)/2 = 2675 rating

Instead of teams there would be personal gladiator titles.

So for example you played with 1 team to that 2600 you could play other team to 2750 and get your glad title. Or if you want you can still play in same team.

This way if you wanted you could only play 2/5 sections in season but if you wanted to you could commit playing in all 5 sections to try get your highest rating.
that might indeed work well, but instead of your 2 best ratings i'd say to take 4. suppose a season starts and X comp is OP beyond oblivion and the 1st rating is safe, then you get a really good rating at the 2nd season too (legit or not), the other 3 then would become pointless.

Edited by Railander, 21 September 2012 - 02:59 PM.

Posted Image


#26 Top

Top
  • Junkies
  • Undeadclass_name
  • US-Tichondrius
  • Bloodlust
  • Posts: 263
  • Talents:

Posted 21 September 2012 - 03:16 PM

You guys have got to keep in mind, all these complicated "solutions" that will add a lot of upkeep for blizzard will not be adopted.

Here's a solution:  We will dedicate a CSR to every individual arena player to discuss their playtimes, vacation schedules, real life commitments, partner selection, gear level, blah blah and tailor their arena experience to best suit their needs!   Great, this solves everything.  Except it is not even remotely close to the realm of possible solutions because they would never allocate the kind of resources needed for it.

That's an extreme example, but a lot of what you guys are suggesting simply requires too much overhead and maintenance to be a legitimate solution.

Edited by Top, 21 September 2012 - 03:16 PM.


#27 Ramsig

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

Posted 21 September 2012 - 03:16 PM

Yeah but Id say max 3/5 because it would suck not getting glad cos you didnt find a team in time or you had to go for vacation etc...

#28 Top

Top
  • Junkies
  • Undeadclass_name
  • US-Tichondrius
  • Bloodlust
  • Posts: 263
  • Talents:

Posted 21 September 2012 - 03:24 PM

I'll make it simple to analyze here which people don't seem to be doing.

No matter what system you implement, including rating decay, the beginning of the season will always have a lot of activity because people want gear, and they want a fresh start.  They are excited to play.

Start - High activity.
Middle - Activity dwindles off, but activity is still at acceptable levels until people complete their gear.  RBGs hurts this.
Late - 2 to 3 months into a season activity is sparse at high ratings.  Teams have all their gear, have their ratings secured.  Why play and jeopardize your rating?
End of season - Activity is high to push for titles.

So you need to focus on keeping the arena active during the Late period until you hit the 2 week period at the end.  The rest is not relevant with the current system.  Rating decay is OK because it won't hurt the start and middle, but will add some activity to the Late area.  I'm not saying rating decay is the answer, I think a natural inflation system like TBC is better than that.

If you try to break the season down into these mini whatevers, it will cause shifts in the above mentality of players.  Having many small seasons makes every season less significant and kills the excitement of the start of a new season.

#29 Railander

Railander
  • Junkies
  • Undeadclass_name
  • US-Azralon
  • Shadowburn
  • Posts: 245
  • Talents: Demonology 1/2/0/1/0/0/0
  • 2v2: 1490
  • 3v3: 1516
  • 5v5: 1916
  • RBG: 1833

Posted 21 September 2012 - 04:23 PM

View PostTop, on 21 September 2012 - 03:16 PM, said:

You guys have got to keep in mind, all these complicated "solutions" that will add a lot of upkeep for blizzard will not be adopted.

[...]

That's an extreme example, but a lot of what you guys are suggesting simply requires too much overhead and maintenance to be a legitimate solution.
its not a matter if they will or not, but since we're (technically) paying for the game they SHOULD do it. and no, most of the solutions would require almost no maintenance, just time to develop and deploy.

View PostTop, on 21 September 2012 - 03:24 PM, said:

I'll make it simple to analyze here which people don't seem to be doing.

No matter what system you implement, including rating decay, the beginning of the season will always have a lot of activity because people want gear, and they want a fresh start.  They are excited to play.
please read the whole thread...

Edited by Railander, 21 September 2012 - 04:23 PM.

Posted Image


#30 Top

Top
  • Junkies
  • Undeadclass_name
  • US-Tichondrius
  • Bloodlust
  • Posts: 263
  • Talents:

Posted 21 September 2012 - 06:06 PM

View PostRailander, on 21 September 2012 - 04:23 PM, said:

its not a matter if they will or not, but since we're (technically) paying for the game they SHOULD do it. and no, most of the solutions would require almost no maintenance, just time to develop and deploy.

Of course it matters.  They won't allocate resources for this in that magnitude as their track records indicate.  It's pointless to ask for something that you have no legitimate chance of getting.  Should ask for something within the realm of possibility.

I like how you omit the word overhead and go for maintenance instead.  They will not commit to the "overhead AND maintenance".  It doesn't matter if after the fact, the maintenance is what you consider low.  You never get to that point if the process suggested takes too much to develop.

#31 Zong

Zong
  • Junkies
  • Dwarfclass_name
  • US-Frostmourne
  • Bloodlust
  • Posts: 1020
  • Talents: Restoration

Posted 22 September 2012 - 02:35 AM

View PostTop, on 21 September 2012 - 06:06 PM, said:

Of course it matters.  They won't allocate resources for this in that magnitude as their track records indicate.  It's pointless to ask for something that you have no legitimate chance of getting.  Should ask for something within the realm of possibility.

I like how you omit the word overhead and go for maintenance instead.  They will not commit to the "overhead AND maintenance".  It doesn't matter if after the fact, the maintenance is what you consider low.  You never get to that point if the process suggested takes too much to develop.

How could you possibly know, Blizzard's motives? Going purely on past behaviors is just foolish, that is the exact problem we are talking about here, complacency for the sake of complacency is ridiculous. We are discussing the kinds of big changes Blizzard needs to be making to the ladder and for the tournament scene, and why wouldn't they want to? The revenue and exposure for the game is nothing but good. With the exception of GW/GW2 no MMO has come close to breaking into the professional scene like WoW has, but then Blizzard just gave up on it.

The point is that just because they haven't allocated the same amount of efforts and resources as they do towards PvE content, doesn't mean that is right, in fact in my eyes its stupidity.

Edited by Zong, 22 September 2012 - 02:38 AM.

Posted ImagePosted Image

#32 Railander

Railander
  • Junkies
  • Undeadclass_name
  • US-Azralon
  • Shadowburn
  • Posts: 245
  • Talents: Demonology 1/2/0/1/0/0/0
  • 2v2: 1490
  • 3v3: 1516
  • 5v5: 1916
  • RBG: 1833

Posted 22 September 2012 - 07:49 PM

View PostTop, on 21 September 2012 - 06:06 PM, said:

Of course it matters.  They won't allocate resources for this in that magnitude as their track records indicate.  It's pointless to ask for something that you have no legitimate chance of getting.  Should ask for something within the realm of possibility.

I like how you omit the word overhead and go for maintenance instead.  They will not commit to the "overhead AND maintenance".  It doesn't matter if after the fact, the maintenance is what you consider low.  You never get to that point if the process suggested takes too much to develop.

lol what?? ok first of all, i did NOT overhead anything. "would require almost no maintenance, just time to develop and deploy".
secondly, i have absolutely no idea what makes you think everything being talked here is "too much work". god, LFR was a freaking big project, not to mention it requires updating at every major patch, yet they still did it. i dont think i can even begin to express how many big projects they took in for the sake of making the game more complete and meaningfull, many of which required a lot more work than a ladder revamp.

Edited by Railander, 22 September 2012 - 07:50 PM.

Posted Image


#33 Domesauce

Domesauce
  • Junkies
  • Undeadclass_name
  • US-Tichondrius
  • Bloodlust
  • Posts: 873
  • Talents: Affliction 0/0/1/0/2/1
  • RBG: 2098

Posted 22 September 2012 - 08:20 PM

A more complicated system isn't even a good thing for participation so I dunno why you're so caught up on this

#34 Kelberot

Kelberot
  • Junkies
  • Undeadclass_name
  • US-Tichondrius
  • Bloodlust
  • Posts: 1409
  • Talents: Shadow 1/1/1/1/2/1
  • 2v2: 1663
  • 3v3: 1992
  • 5v5: 959
  • RBG: 576
  • LocationRio de Janeiro

Posted 24 September 2012 - 03:04 PM

View PostTop, on 21 September 2012 - 03:24 PM, said:

I'll make it simple to analyze here which people don't seem to be doing.

No matter what system you implement, including rating decay, the beginning of the season will always have a lot of activity because people want gear, and they want a fresh start.  They are excited to play.

Start - High activity.
Middle - Activity dwindles off, but activity is still at acceptable levels until people complete their gear.  RBGs hurts this.
Late - 2 to 3 months into a season activity is sparse at high ratings.  Teams have all their gear, have their ratings secured.  Why play and jeopardize your rating?
End of season - Activity is high to push for titles.

So you need to focus on keeping the arena active during the Late period until you hit the 2 week period at the end.  The rest is not relevant with the current system.  Rating decay is OK because it won't hurt the start and middle, but will add some activity to the Late area.  I'm not saying rating decay is the answer, I think a natural inflation system like TBC is better than that.

If you try to break the season down into these mini whatevers, it will cause shifts in the above mentality of players.  Having many small seasons makes every season less significant and kills the excitement of the start of a new season.
Spot on. I even forgot about the natural inflation from TBC, if the rating obtainable at the start of the season doesn't translate into titles at at the end, then why even bother with decaying rating? People who want to have a lead would continue playing, and people who are confident in last minute pushes won't bother with anything that was suggested regardless.

I like you.
Posted Image

#35 Railander

Railander
  • Junkies
  • Undeadclass_name
  • US-Azralon
  • Shadowburn
  • Posts: 245
  • Talents: Demonology 1/2/0/1/0/0/0
  • 2v2: 1490
  • 3v3: 1516
  • 5v5: 1916
  • RBG: 1833

Posted 24 September 2012 - 05:02 PM

View PostKelberot, on 24 September 2012 - 03:04 PM, said:

Spot on. I even forgot about the natural inflation from TBC, if the rating obtainable at the start of the season doesn't translate into titles at at the end, then why even bother with decaying rating? People who want to have a lead would continue playing, and people who are confident in last minute pushes won't bother with anything that was suggested regardless.

I like you.
im assuming you also didnt read the whole thread.

Posted Image


#36 Kelberot

Kelberot
  • Junkies
  • Undeadclass_name
  • US-Tichondrius
  • Bloodlust
  • Posts: 1409
  • Talents: Shadow 1/1/1/1/2/1
  • 2v2: 1663
  • 3v3: 1992
  • 5v5: 959
  • RBG: 576
  • LocationRio de Janeiro

Posted 24 September 2012 - 05:39 PM

nope, not really into pointless walls of text. Lots of complicated imaginary answers that are never coming true, why bother?

Changing back to the TBC model not only is simple but it also makes sense, can't see what's so bad about it, feel free to enlighten me.

Edited by Kelberot, 24 September 2012 - 05:39 PM.

Posted Image

#37 kea

kea
  • Junkies
  • Night Elfclass_name
  • US-Sargeras
  • Shadowburn
  • Posts: 61
  • Talents: Assassination

Posted 24 September 2012 - 07:51 PM

View PostKelberot, on 24 September 2012 - 05:39 PM, said:

nope, not really into pointless walls of text. Lots of complicated imaginary answers that are never coming true, why bother?

Changing back to the TBC model not only is simple but it also makes sense, can't see what's so bad about it, feel free to enlighten me.

Let me begin with I totally think the TBC model is where I would like to be playing. If I remember correctly that model was changed because of the "casual players of WoW" who just want to enjoy every aspect of the game with minimal time spent are going against people who are infinitely better than them who remake a team lets say.

So now when you remake a team you arent matched against other players with similar team ratings you are matched against players who are supposed to be around your "skill level."

I dont really remember how the arena season activity was throughout the entirety of seasons 1-4 but maybe someone could drop some knowledge.

Oh and on the argument that "we pay for this game and therefore they should fix the system/services" and the "secondly, i have absolutely no idea what makes you think everything being talked here is "too much work". god, LFR was a freaking big project, not to mention it requires updating at every major patch, yet they still did it. i dont think i can even begin to express how many big projects they took in for the sake of making the game more complete and meaningfull, many of which required a lot more work than a ladder revamp. "

- Although I totally get what you mean and you are right.... the problem is kind of like.... think about how many people that system (LFR - the way Dungeons were revamped - and even the new scenarios) effects and also think about how many people arena effects. Ok so there is a pretty solid community here on this site and plenty more people who play arenas but Im sure its no where near as big as the dungeon humping one. It's about whether the time\resources spent are worth it to them - or could they use those people and that money doing something that could potentially effect more people in a similarly positive way. Don't be naive. Is the juice worth the squeeze to them? Like someone said... historically it hasnt been. But tournaments like NAO and Yaspresents and all of that outside effort is the kind of thing that can change the amount of their resources Blizzard decides to invest in this aspect of a very, very large game.

Edit: I love how I quote someone who is talking about a wall of text and then I go ahead and create one xD.

Edited by kea, 24 September 2012 - 07:54 PM.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

<