Do you guys realize how easy it is to get 1500+ rating?

[Reginlief]

A friend of mine mentioned the other day that you could achieve tier 1 rating in your first 10-12 games of Ranked Warzone Arenas.

 

I was lucky enough to be able to confirm this and capture a screenshot of it right after my 10th match of solo ranked.

 

http://i.imgur.com/VpvDBwt.png

 

Did you guys (developers) realize how easy it was to achieve top tier rewards? Now I can retire after 10 games if I want to.

 

Why is so much emphasis placed on those first 10 games as opposed to any other(s) you play?

 

http://i.imgur.com/vAwKTYt.jpg

[KalElc]

2 words. Just wow.

[duigha]

Gj op!

[Jakev-]

Its easy guys, just stop being bad at the game.

 

I think I should get TWO RANCORS for having 2k+ rating.

[Zoom_VI]

So what your telling me is that its really easy to get the rancor if I have a 100% win rate.

 

Brilliant Holmes.

Edited February 25, 2014 by Zoom_VI

[Haystak]

I have noticed the more games I play the less my rating goes up after a win, got a whopping 10 as of my last game last nite, before that I had a loss for -22 elo

 

but a loss of 62.... just wow. I would of stopped playing for abit after that.

 

meanwhile Scoundreal healer 24 wins 8 losses, 1250 rating. I tink it will take a while to get to 1500 on the scoundrel but Im sure ill get there, just going to take a lot of games.

Edited February 25, 2014 by Haystak

[Reginlief]

So what your telling me is that its really easy to get the rancor if I have a 100% win rate.

 

Brilliant Holmes.

 

The problem is, you could just get really lucky in the first 10 matches. There are people with over 100 matches played with 1400~ rating that are struggling to get to 1500.

[paulsummefield]

Its easy guys, just stop being bad at the game.

 

I think I should get TWO RANCORS for having 2k+ rating.

 

Such an elitist comment that unfortunately seems to come with the territory of the mmo genre.

 

Besides there are many other factors that can affect pvp success other than the ability of the player themselves.

 

1. Internet connection- Slower internet connections will affect things massively.

2. Computer hardware- Faster computers, better gaming mice and keyboards are an advantage.

3. Class type- Not all classes are equal and some are obviously overpowered.

4. Team composition- Some combinations are hard nuts to crack.

 

Aside from all this not everyone is trying to play the game as seriously as some other people and don't put in the some commitment. Perhaps they have other priorities and want to play casually.

[cashogy_reborn]

I started 1-9. 19-0 win streak later, 20-9 overall record. B/c of the bad start, my rating was ~1230.

 

Had I started 10-0, then gone 10-9 (for the exact same overall record), my Rating would probably be in the 1400-1450 range.

 

There is a problem there, the first 10 games are worth way, way, way too much.

[cycao]

Such an elitist comment that unfortunately seems to come with the territory of the mmo genre.

 

Besides there are many other factors that can affect pvp success other than the ability of the player themselves.

 

1. Internet connection- Slower internet connections will affect things massively.

2. Computer hardware- Faster computers, better gaming mice and keyboards are an advantage.

3. Class type- Not all classes are equal and some are obviously overpowered.

4. Team composition- Some combinations are hard nuts to crack.

 

Aside from all this not everyone is trying to play the game as seriously as some other people and don't put in the some commitment. Perhaps they have other priorities and want to play casually.

 

/thread

[xTaynex]

It's not easy. Especially I have been playing for sometime and have an average record. My record for solo ranked is 18 wins 19 losses which apparently gives me a score of 1179. I think it's kind of silly to be graded on wins even though I perform at the top of my randomly made up scrub team. 1500 seems extremely far unrealistic when you only go up 10 points a game then go down 15 for losing. *shrug* guess I'll have to go 10 - 0 right? Smh

[BoushhDC]

Such an elitist comment that unfortunately seems to come with the territory of the mmo genre.

 

Besides there are many other factors that can affect pvp success other than the ability of the player themselves.

 

1. Internet connection- Slower internet connections will affect things massively.

2. Computer hardware- Faster computers, better gaming mice and keyboards are an advantage.

3. Class type- Not all classes are equal and some are obviously overpowered.

4. Team composition- Some combinations are hard nuts to crack.

 

Aside from all this not everyone is trying to play the game as seriously as some other people and don't put in the some commitment. Perhaps they have other priorities and want to play casually.

 

True. I'll add another scenario: one team has a stealther when the other has none. The former is getting beaten so the player stealths out and stays hidden for 2 and a half minutes from the other team who's running around looking until the game goes to the poison round and the lone stealther manages to win against the other 3-4 players in that round. Yeah, that's a fugged up mechanic. I guess in their matchmaking, BW needs ensure just like having even numbers of tanks & healers, there must also be equal numbers of stealth classes? Or that the player that's stealthed when the poison hits takes damage at a higher rate? In any case, as pointed out, not all classes are created equal and have unbalanced advantages.

[DarthOvertone]

Such an elitist comment that unfortunately seems to come with the territory of the mmo genre.

 

Besides there are many other factors that can affect pvp success other than the ability of the player themselves.

 

1. Internet connection- Slower internet connections will affect things massively.

2. Computer hardware- Faster computers, better gaming mice and keyboards are an advantage.

3. Class type- Not all classes are equal and some are obviously overpowered.

4. Team composition- Some combinations are hard nuts to crack.

 

You also forgot Q-Syncing in Solo Ranked and the virtual non-existence of Matchmaking in Group Ranked where established teams could simply farm lesser opponents due to an anemic pool of teams queuing at any given time. All of these things can have an impact on Rating...both good and bad.

 

But the OP brings up an interesting point. There seems to be a pretty ridiculous emphasis on the first 10 games. Just another jacked up BW PvP system. I'm not sure we even want to open that can of worms. lol

Edited February 25, 2014 by DarthOvertone

[CaptainApop]

True. I'll add another scenario: one team has a stealther when the other has none. The former is getting beaten so the player stealths out and stays hidden for 2 and a half minutes from the other team who's running around looking until the game goes to the poison round and the lone stealther manages to win against the other 3-4 players in that round. Yeah, that's a fugged up mechanic. I guess in their matchmaking, BW needs ensure just like having even numbers of tanks & healers, there must also be equal numbers of stealth classes? Or that the player that's stealthed when the poison hits takes damage at a higher rate? In any case, as pointed out, not all classes are created equal and have unbalanced advantages.

 

Any team of 4 who lose to a lone stealther deserve to lose.

[Reginlief]

But the OP brings up an interesting point. There seems to be a pretty ridiculous emphasis on the first 10 games. Just another jacked up BW PvP system. I'm not sure we even want to open that can of worms. lol

 

^ this

[Turretboy]

11-0 1510 rating ezpz.

 

Backpacks on.

[Preston_Violent]

The problem is, you could just get really lucky in the first 10 matches. There are people with over 100 matches played with 1400~ rating that are struggling to get to 1500.

 

So you did get really lucky, you also do know that the absolute majority of people never get that lucky and you call your pure luck something that can so very easily be achieved? And you even take your trolololo far enough to present it as something so, so obvious and easy and how come people don't just get it? Simply win your first 10 matches and don't lose a single one?

Edited February 25, 2014 by Preston_Violent

[Z-ToXiN]

The problem is, you could just get really lucky in the first 10 matches. There are people with over 100 matches played with 1400~ rating that are struggling to get to 1500.

 

Thats exactly it.

 

I had 1 game where a teammate DCed (maybe it was 2 but I know 1 for sure) in my first 10.

I also had a few games as tank where the DPS on my team were less of a threat that a silver mob would have been.

 

Sometimes, you get into games/teams where even being the best player in the world would not help you win, if one of your teammates DC's or one or more of your teammates is just ungeared and plain out bad, while the other team is pretty good.

 

Get a few of these in your first 10 and you're rating just drops.

 

This is especially the case if you are a tank or healer, as if your DPS suck, then your kind of screwed especially if the opponents have a competent healer and/or tank (whereas being DPS I think you have more room to carry if you can get quick kills largely on your own).

 

On the flip side, you could have great luck with teammates or opposing teams.

 

So its not easy, its lucky.

 

If you start off 10-0 and get a 1500 rating right away, thats likely a mixture of fantastic luck and perhaps some skill.

If you start off with a low rating and get to 1500... thats a sign of skill.

 

Consistently winning and increasing your rating is a sign of skill, whether you start at 1000 and get to 1500 or start at 1500 and get to 2000 (though due to to ratings the latter would take an even higher win ratio/number of wins).

Edited February 25, 2014 by Z-ToXiN

[ryuzo]

So you did get really lucky, you also do know that the absolute majority of people never get that lucky and you call your pure luck something that can so very easily be achieved? And you even take your trolololo far enough to present it as something so, so obvious and easy and how come people don't just get it? Simply win your first 10 matches and don't lose a single one?

I think you're missing the point. The point is that there is way too much value placed on the first 10 games, such that those first 10 games easily dictate your rating and it's exponentially more difficult to change where you end up after the first 10 games vs. how easy it is to move your rating in the first 10 games.

 

Just as you can get lucky and go 10-0 and get 1500 immediately, you can get unlucky and lose a lot in your first 10, get ~1000 rating and then would have to win about 30-40+ straight to get up to a 1500.

 

The 1500 rating line for tier 1 is a joke and SWTOR's ELO system is a joke.

[Z-ToXiN]

I think you're missing the point. The point is that there is way too much value placed on the first 10 games, such that those first 10 games easily dictate your rating and it's exponentially more difficult to change where you end up after the first 10 games vs. how easy it is to move your rating in the first 10 games.

 

Just as you can get lucky and go 10-0 and get 1500 immediately, you can get unlucky and lose a lot in your first 10, get ~1000 rating and then would have to win about 30-40+ straight to get up to a 1500.

 

The 1500 rating line for tier 1 is a joke and SWTOR's ELO system is a joke.

 

It does seem abnormally high. By my calculations, each game in the first will result in an "invisible" change of around 35 points, whereas games afterward will usually result in 5-15 points.

 

I can understand the first 10 games being weighted more to give a starting position that is meaningfully different from the baseline, but 3-4 times as much as games afterwards is too much.

 

I would think around 15-20 points per game in the first 10 would be more appropriate. So you would end up with a possible range of 1000-1400.

 

As for 1500... apparently that gets you in the top 2.5% of players...

Edited February 26, 2014 by Z-ToXiN

[Luckeyduckey]

It does seem abnormally high. By my calculations, each game in the first will result in an "invisible" change of around 35 points, whereas games afterward will usually result in 5-15 points.

 

I can understand the first 10 games being weighted more to give a starting position that is meaningfully different from the baseline, but 3-4 times as much as games afterwards is too much.

 

I would think around 15-20 points per game in the first 10 would be more appropriate. So you would end up with a possible range of 1000-1400.

 

As for 1500... apparently that gets you in the top 2.5% of players...

3.2%, based on statistics. But I think that's based on current rating, not active rating.

[Z-ToXiN]

3.2%, based on statistics. But I think that's based on current rating, not active rating.

 

Even if its 5% in terms of highest rating gained (as opposed to current rating), is that really that high a cutoff to have 5% of arena players getting the top tier rewards?

 

Its essentially arbitrary as to what % to set the top tier at, whether you think its 1% or 2.5% or 5% or top 10 per class per server.

[Anyakaschala]

While semi-impressive to go 10-0, doesn't really mean much. It means you had good teams, and went against some not so good opponents, if in fact they actually were opponents. It wouldn't surprise me if their wasn't some inside win-trading going on here.

 

I would add that to get 1500 rating with 10 games is also total b.^^^s**t. You'd have to average essentially over 30 points per win, that's just not right. As it is right now, I only get 10-15 points a win.

 

Lost due to people dc'ing. Having bads around me. Having people cheat, hack, etc....

 

Hell, it seems I lose more point when I lose than when I win, 15-20 on loses,

[chaindramon]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elo_rating_system

 

Gotta learn how the system is supposed to work.

[countpopeula]

Yeah Rejin I agree. They took the lazy man's way out, again, who saw that coming, owait, everyone, by making the rating return negatively linear in nature rather than proportionally scalar to your opponents rating. If that doesn't make sense to anyone, rather than have it be a scoring system where beating players with a higher rank increased yours more than beating lower players and vice versa, they made it less and less effective to do matches at all after a certain games played point. It took me 4 hours of ranked to get my second rancor on my Assassin, because I won 9/10 of the prelims, went 16-3 overall and was done. Now that the games are worth less overall, I don't see nearly as drastic a rating change even though I'm at 36-12, a considerably lower W/L ratio.

 

This needs to get changed to be reflective of a total collective rating from each team being added up and then factored against each individual's rating at completion for a +/- to their own rating. That way, there isn't this arbitrary "You won 1, you lost one, -2 rating" crap we have going on right now.

Edited February 26, 2014 by countpopeula