Curse

Fender · Mar 30, 2007, 11:44 PM // 23:44

Introduce ELO type rating for all PvP, including RA and TA. Keep in mind I originally wrote this w/ GW2 in mind. With the current PvP titles being entrenched for a long time now, this might not be viable for GW1, but should still be considered for GW2.

Don't read this and think "it is RA/AB, who cares?" This is a chance to make RA matter, as well as make PvP based titles (glads/rank/champ) ability based and non-grindable.
edit: bah.... list doesn't work here
For RA:
1. Every player starts with 1000 arena rating.
2. Your team's rating is the average of all your teammate's arena rating.
3. The enemy team's rating is the average of all their player's arena rating.
4. Use ELO with a reasonable (20?) K value to award points based on the two team's average ratings.
5. Award a glad point if your team's rating is +1200 and you beat a team with rating +1200. No title for glad points per se, but it does show on the revamped gladiator title described below.
6. Award a glad point if your team beats a team who's arena rating is 400 higher than your team's arena rating.
7. Current ELO rating is based on 6 months of history, so that a crappy player can shed their poor history as they get better and an inactive player gradually decays back to 1000. Peak ELO rating would display on the title as described below.
8. 1st quitter loses the same amount of ELO points as if their team had lost. 2nd/3rd/4th quitters receive no penalty for leaving and lose no ELO points if they lose, and receive extra ELO points if they stay and win. For example: if one player leaves and the 3 remaining players win, they get 4/3rds of the ELO points that they would have gotten with a full team.
9. Change the gladiator title to make it meaningful. It should show ability and experience. If your account's arena rating is in the top 40%, you can display the level 1 gladiator title. top 20% = level 2. top 10%, level 3. top 10%, level 5. top 1% level 5. Since this can go up and down dynamically, also show the highest ELO rating this account has reached (or maybe average of the past 6 months), and the total number of glad points the account has earned, something like "Fierce Gladiator (top 22%, 1050 peak ELO, 10 glad points)" or "Conquering Gladiator (top 3%, 1337 peak ELO, 25 glad points)". Different levels could have different emotes, like HA rank does now.

Rating example: (k=20)
team 1: player 1 has 1300 rating, player 2 = 1200, player 3 = 1100, player 4 = 1000. Team rating = 1150.
team 2: player 1 has 1200 rating, player 2 = 1100, player 3 = 1000, player 4 = 900. Team rating = 1050.
If team 1 wins: results in a +7 for all players on team 1 and -7 for all players on team 2. 1307/1207/1107/1007 vs 1193/1093/993/893.
If team 2 wins: results in a -13 for team 1 and a +13 for team 2. 1287/1187/1087/987 vs 1213/1113/1013/913.

I'm not sure if it would be a good idea to scale the gain/loss based on individual rating compared to team rating. From the above example: team 1 wins, player 1 would gain 1300/1150*7 = 8, and Player 4 would gain 1000/1150*7 = 6. If team 1 loses, player 1 would lose 1300/1150*13 = 15 and player 4 would lose 1000/1150*13 = 11. I'm undecided on this point. If you have a higher rating you should get more credit for the win and take more responsibility for the loss, and vice versa, right? There's something about this I don't like, but I'm not really sure what.

I think these changes would discourage leavers and actually show how good you are at RA, not just how lucky you got with groups to get 10 wins for a glad point.

Here's the big question for RA. Should winning teams be kept together, or disbanded and automatically put in the next round with new teammates? I'm thinking new teammates each round. That discourages guild/alliance members spike entering as well as gets rid of the steamroll effect. Currently, once a half-way decent team gets together, they steamroll their way to TA. Random teammates each round would get rid of the luck factor on getting a good team composition. Individual skill and teamwork would count more than getting lucky with a monk teammate and going 10 wins.

TA would be similar, except that guilds would have a persistent rating and teams of 3 or 4 guildmates would count as a guild team and affect the guild's TA rating as well as their individual arena ratings. Have another title, with the same tiers as RA, for TA guild rating. This title would display something like title (top X%, current guild arena ELO rating, win-loss record of last 6 months).

HA would be a combination of the two, but use hero rating instead of arena rating. Players start at 1000 hero rating and gain based on team averages, just like above. Gain a hero point if your +1200 team beats a +1200 team or if you beat a team with more than 400 rating than your team. Also keep track of total wins in HoH. Guilds would also have a persistent rating and there would be a HA based title on this stat with the same tiers as above. Have both an account based title (like RA) and a guild based title, like TA. Have an emote attached to the account based title. Again, this should bring meaning to the HA titles, showing both ability and experience.

Use the same ideas for Alliance Battles and move them to the Battle Isles.

GvG could use a similar title system so that champ points don't contribute to a grindable title, it would have meaning.

HawkofStorms · Mar 31, 2007, 01:21 AM // 01:21

/signed

A valid system to measure skill would be appricated.

Not A Fifty Five · Mar 31, 2007, 03:55 AM // 03:55

/signed x 10^10^10

Especially the part about RA teams changing every round.

And definately add it to H v H tho I think anet already decided upon this (wasn't it promised two months ago? o.o)

I think champion is fine though. If you're playing in a 1200+ rating guild then you are probably very good. And since people don't just guild hop every month... I don't think there would be much point since everyone would have the same title in their guild o.O Sure there's guest battling and all but I'm guessing players in higher up guilds only use their alliance for guests.

Fender · Apr 01, 2007, 02:20 AM // 02:20

2 replies... awesome

LuckyGiant · Apr 01, 2007, 02:56 AM // 02:56

Firstly if it ain't broke don't fix it, streaks of 10 are fine (GW1)

Secondly (not meaning to sound like an asshole), but you have no idea how GW2 is going to work and its like 2 years away so forget that.

Third, people arent going to want to play certain ranked people when theres no benefit to them.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fender

Introduce ELO type rating for all PvP, including RA and TA. Keep in mind I originally wrote this w/ GW2 in mind. With the current PvP titles being entrenched for a long time now, this might not be viable for GW1, but should still be considered for GW2.