Explain Arena Ratings!

So I see people saying this or that about Arena rating and starting at 0 is bad and whatever and I never understand any of it. I’m pretty new to all this.

I assume that when anyone starts anything, they start from the bottom first. Can’t get much lower than 0, right?

I used to play Soccer and each team started with 0 and whenever a team scored, that would count as 1. By the end of the game, you’d determine the winner based on whichever team had the highest score.

Maybe I’m not understanding this right, so can someone explain to me why starting at 0 isn’t normal? How does the rating system work?

Google Elo or MMR

It’s designed around a set starting or base point.

The reward system is also based of a starting/base point.

Also in tbc teams start at 1500, in retial zero.

BUT, in retail there is no arena charter, you can hop around and play with who ever you want. In TBC if you change teams you reset to zero, or have to grind games until you are within X number of games played, and X rating without team rating to earn points for the week.

TBC wasn’t designed around teams starting at 0

MMR and win/loss/points scored are not the same thing

4 Likes

I tried. It’s gibberish to me. Can you put it in layman’s terms? I may be a Gnome, but I’m also a Gnome Warrior so me not think good. :blush:

I can’t tell if you’re serious but oh well.

MMR is match making rating, it determines who you face in arena, it is a number based off how well you perform so that you fight people around your skill level.

Okay, so if you haven’t proven yourself yet, why shouldn’t you start from the bottom? At 0, I mean.

Not saying this should be the case, but just wanted to know why it shouldn’t be.

Alright, carry on man. Enjoy your night.

Okay, but you didn’t answer the question. I’m not sure why you wouldn’t, but maybe this is more complicated than it seems.

That’s okay, he did a pretty terrible job of explaining what happens and then got annoyed and dismissed the conversation.

So in original TBC, brand new teams started at a rating of 1500. Based on your win rate, or lose rate, your rating would increase/decrease. There were some issues with this, largely with people who were ranked really high, because they had enormously long queues while waiting for players in their rating. The majority of players were in the 1600 range, so doing your ten games a week A) took a really long time, since there weren’t many players in your rating bracket and B) were extremely punishing for losing. Imagine waiting several hours to play a game, just to lose and take a huge rating hit.

So what people did to combat this, were to break up their teams, form new teams, start at 1500 rating, and then win their 10 games with relative ease, take their points and go about their business. It was a decent strategy for getting points. Good players would actually end up getting their points more easily by playing in a 1500 rated team, than a 2200 rated team, since there were so few people to match against.

That was the ELO system. The ELO system is Kindof what is used in chess to determine the ranking of a player and their likelihood of winning a match etc.

The problem with that system was that it’s really designed for single player rating. It doesn’t really take into account the likelihood of a team of three or five winning a match, because the variables are so much more intricate.

So in blizzards attempt to combat this, they created an MMR rating. The MMR rating is an individual rating applied to each member of the team. Regardless of what your teams rating is, your MMR rating is reflective of only YOUR actual success as a PvPer.

This rating was then used to match you with teams of equal skill. So if say you had a 2’s team with a player who had 2200 rating, and another with a 1100 rating, your teams average MMR rating is 1650. That means your team would be matched with other teams who had an MMR rating that averaged around 1650. So in the match you might have a 1100 and a 2200 on one team and two 1650’s on the other.

This sounds all fine and dandy up to this point, but what blizzard did; was they made it so that any time someone starts a new team, the rating of said team begins at zero. That means that your brand new team, with a 1650 MMR rating will match with other teams who have an MMR of 1650. That sounds okay, except your actual team rating is 0.

This means that assuming you win all ten games that week (unlikely since you will be against equally paired opponents) your rating will climb so slowly, because the points are based on your rating, that it’s barely worth the effort, unless you plan to be extremely committed.

Starting at zero basically means that people who planned to very casually play arena, have very little incentive to. That in turn means the people who want to take it seriously have very few people to play against. Furthermore, it makes the climb to those required rating to purchase items so far outside of reach that most people who just wanted a BiS weapon won’t bother.

It basically thinned out the herd so much that it killed arenas.

Unfortunately the zero entrance rating really killed

11 Likes

Arena is dead in TBCC. Don’t bother.

1 Like

They’ve been doing similar things in other games recently. Off the top of my head, I know Dota 2 has taken up banning accounts for what they’ve referred to as “smurfing.”

Basically, veteran players would sign up for new accounts so that they can pretend to be less experienced. The online matchmaking system then pairs them with legitimate newcomers, and the experienced players use their wealth of knowledge to dominate the match.

Is that similar to what’s going on here?

A popular game seeks to serve up appropriate matches between players of comparable skill levels. If any player in a match is out of place, they or others might feel that the game is too frustrating or boring.

How many people were going to receive their BiS and just quit Arenas altogether? Was wondering this with regard to Blizzard giving folks an incentive to actually play the game longer. In other words, artificially lengthen the time it took for players to get their gear, right?

You start at 0 because you need to start somewhere. Play at least 10 games a week. The more games you win, the better your rating.

Bam. Explained.

Once upon a time, everyone started at 1500 rating, which was intended to be roughly the median rating of all teams. It makes more sense than starting at 0, because the intent of rating is to ensure proper matchmaking, so people play against other people of similar skill, and not against vastly inferior opponents. You don’t start off at 0 skill, so you shouldn’t start off at 0 rating.

Then, after every game you played, you would gain or lose a number of points based on the rating of the team you played. You gain more points for beating a team high above you, and lose more points for losing to a team far below you. The winning team would always gain as many points as the losing team lost. It was a very intuitive system, easy to understand after playing just a few games. The median rating (of teams with actual players on them) ended up being a bit over 1500, because any time you find yourself too far below 1500 rating, it was trivial to go start a new team and fix your rating.

The new rating system is an absolute $#!tshow. There’s three separate ratings (team, personal, and MMR), you can’t even know what one of them is at, you have no idea how winning a game will affect the three ratings (you can beat a team 100 TR above yours and not gain any TR if someone on your team has PR too low), and the game can randomly decide that you’re terrible and only match you against teams 100-200 TR below yours so you only gain 1-4 rating per win, and lose 70+ rating if someone DCs or you get memed by a troll comp like triple pompyro mage.

7 Likes

Not so much here because that system doesn’t exist in TBCC. Here, you basically have two options: stick with a single time for the long haul, build your rating, accept that the queues are super long and just grit your teeth and bear it. Or your team dissolves (which is common, especially in the 5’s bracket, which also happens to be the best source of points) and you start out all over again at zero rating. Which, best case scenario will net you an almost not-worth-it amount of points.

1 Like

The issue some people have with starting at 0 vs starting at 1500 is that starting at zero requires you to win some games before you can get any arena points for the week. Back in TBC you could make a new team each week, afk for 10 games and get points.

1 Like

I’m going to keep this simple here.

Arena points are rewarded based on team rating. The higher you rating, the more points you get. By starting at 0 instead of 1500, the entry level arena points you earned was significantly less until they fixed it a few weeks ago.

Additionally, starting at 0 also drastically expands the brackets. When weapon is 1850, starting at 1500 puts you much closer to your goal. Starting at 0 potentially gets you hard stuck at 1000, 800, 1300, etc. It’s discouraging for a new, casual player to try to rank up the ladder when you start so low.

There’s also a bug at the moment where all teams below 1000 aren’t even being counted towards end of season rewards. This puts those casuals even further out of reach of getting rewards.

2 Likes

I keep seeing this tired argument being made over and over again. Literally NOBODY did this! People back in original TBC actually tried and did not afk 10 games per week. Maybe they played 10 games per week, but winning games = more points = closer to your goal of getting what you want from Arena vendor.

Please stop spreading this like its a fact. It just didn’t happen, and if it did, its something I never saw or was in small insignificant numbers.

4 Likes

I LITERALLY did this. LMFAO. Tons of people did this for points every single week.

Yep, people advertised in trade chat weekly before the reset.

There’s a reason that both 2/3 team points were nerfed and ratings added in TBC.

maybe some did that, but what are you gonna get for points maybe 350? Thats like 10 weeks or more to a weapon. Thats a very very long way to a single weapon thats suboptimal at best.

I personally don’t care because its factually easier and faster to just do some raids for armor and weapons.

Are you sure? They’re both referred to as “MMR” so I assumed something similar was going on.

I guess I thought a rating was like earning points. Is it performance-based?