Jump to content


Photo

Arena Rewards (was "Arena Season only 2 months")


  • Please log in to reply
328 replies to this topic

#21 Tinkerfizzle

Tinkerfizzle

    Von Kaiser

  • Members
  • 84 posts

Posted 18 February 2007 - 06:18 PM

My 2v2 team is 98 and 40 right now. Our current problem is that we rarely face anyone that I suspect is above 1600 rating, so it's rare that we earn more than 5 points per match. When we do find someone near our rating, we get a decent gain of 15.

So I'm guessing that in time, we'll have a larger pool of near-rating opponents to face.

#22 aquacadet

aquacadet

    Great Tiger

  • Guild Members
  • 925 posts

Posted 19 February 2007 - 03:24 PM

You can be in a 2v2, 3v3, and 5v5 team, though.


While you can be on all 3 arena teams only the team that nets you the most points for the week will add to your arena point total. This was a recent announcement. http://blue.cardplac...us/77808755.htm

#23 Ghostz

Ghostz

    Don Flamenco

  • Members
  • 457 posts

Posted 19 February 2007 - 03:55 PM

The closest I've seen to an undefeated team is 42-1 for 5v5. They went somewhere around 38-0 before losing their first game and they went on to beat the team they lost to a few times after that. I think they're somewhere around 1850-1900 rating right now. Also, to those people saying that they're getting 4-5 rating per win and losing 15-20 per loss, this should even out a bit as time goes on. Right now they're probably the only team of that rating playing and they're being matched up with teams that are lower. As more teams play more games you'll see more teams in the upper tier and you'll be playing teams with approx. the same rating as you so the rating returns will be pretty even.

As for 2s and 3s, there always seems to be a certain mix of classes that really do wonders to counter you. My 3s team is me (priest) a rogue and a druid and anything with 2+ good frost mages seems nearly impossible to beat.

From the first few days of play I have to say I'm really impressed with the whole arena system. Is there anyone here that's found any glaring problems with it?

#24 Wodin

Wodin

    Thoroughly Inebriated

  • Moderators
  • 8,115 posts

Posted 19 February 2007 - 03:59 PM

I want to use a completely different spec for 2v2 and raiding, but other than that, no problems that I can see. I suspect we may well see some tweaking to the timers of certain abilities depending on how the metagame shakes out, as it seems that many teams are basing their strategies around having a few specific buffs.

It's been lots of fun even if the particular 2v2 team we run isn't exactly the highest rated(we have a beer icon for a reason :D ).

#25 Abaxial

Abaxial

    Piston Honda

  • Members
  • 240 posts

Posted 19 February 2007 - 04:29 PM

So I'm taking it that the previous convention of only playing ten games a week is not true?

#26 Praetorian

Praetorian

    Mike Tyson

  • ♦ Administrators
  • 27,761 posts

Posted 19 February 2007 - 04:33 PM

So I'm taking it that the previous convention of only playing ten games a week is not true?

Once people have reached a point where improving their rating is impossibly hard and they stand to lose much more from a loss than gain from a win, I think you'll see more people playing the minimum ten because each game carries much more risk than reward. Right now, the games are fun, and it may seem advantageous to play the "random walk" game and try to stop at one of the peaks -- if my team's "true" rating is 1650, over the course of 100 games, I should see streaks that bring it up over 1700, or down below 1600. In theory you'd want to keep playing until you get one of those "lucky" streaks of consecutive wins, and then stop right there while you're ahead.

Next week you'll probably drop right away since you are above your true rating, but in the meantime, you'll get more arena points for the week.

#27 Abaxial

Abaxial

    Piston Honda

  • Members
  • 240 posts

Posted 19 February 2007 - 04:51 PM

If this is the case, my team is going to have to re-evaluate our strategy for games played during a week.

Since people seem to be playing a large number of games right now, how are they handling distributing games among your teammates? With a 5v5 full roster it would seem rather difficult to keep everyone above 30% for matches played.

edit: spelling

#28 Omelet

Omelet

    Priest in Plate

  • Members
  • 120 posts

Posted 19 February 2007 - 04:56 PM

If this is the case, my team is going to have to re-evaluate our strategy for games played during a week.

Since people seem to be playing a large number of games right now, how are they handling distributing games among your teammates? With a 5v5 full roster it would seem rather difficult to keep everyone about 30% for matches played.


Well, for each ten games you play without a member, you have to play another five (4.5 actually, which means 5) with that member on the team to get them caught up. Twenty games without one members means playing nine with that member, and so on.

With a full roster, this can get a bit messy if one person is absent for a large number of your games.

#29 Dendory

Dendory

    Piston Honda

  • Members
  • 182 posts

Posted 19 February 2007 - 05:17 PM

My 5v5 is well.. sucking right now but that's due to the fact that none of us are big PvPers. Also out of the 10 matches we did we had the same team opponent 4 times which destroyed us. I'm only really looking for the caster dagger from arena points, I don't know how long that will take but I expect it will be several months.

#30 Edgewalker

Edgewalker

    Piston Honda

  • Members
  • 195 posts

Posted 19 February 2007 - 05:26 PM

My biggest complain about arena is that around 1920+ rating you see the same people, over and over, sometimes 10+ times in a row. While it's good practice, it's lacking on the fun side.

#31 Omelet

Omelet

    Priest in Plate

  • Members
  • 120 posts

Posted 19 February 2007 - 05:46 PM

My biggest complain about arena is that around 1920+ rating you see the same people, over and over, sometimes 10+ times in a row. While it's good practice, it's lacking on the fun side.


This also seems to happen at non-peak times even at the middle rating. Hopefully once more people get teams registered you won't see the same team as often.

After getting destroyed by a druid / rogue team three times in a row, we decided that it was probably time to take a break for the day.

#32 Elendril

Elendril

    KINDOFABIGDEAL

  • Members
  • 5,560 posts

Posted 19 February 2007 - 05:50 PM

The most frustrating thing about arenas currently is the disconnect bug. My team started last night around 1800, with the goal for the evening of pushing to 1900. Two games without our warrior later against teams that took 20+ points from us and we were in a serious hole. We managed to fight our way back and make some progress, but it certainly had me really pissed off.

As others have said, the first week is not a good reflection of the ten-games-a-week norm, because teams are fighting to establish a high rating to start racking in points - not to mention that the games are still fresh and fun. It takes quite a few games for a strong team to approach its true rating, especially if they get unlucky and play against strong teams that are highly underrated (i.e. a 1900ish team playing against a newly formed 1500 team of about the same overall skill).

edit: As for getting the same team multiple times in a row - that's one of the most interesting parts of arena "theory" to me. Evaluating your expected value (EV) against teams currently queueing is an important aspect to maximizing your rating. If there are higher rated teams queuing who you feel you have a decent chance to beat, you should be queuing. If there's a tough team who's underrated that you keep running into, you should not play. Last night we figured out a solid strategy for beating one of the good teams queueing at the same time, and we would've been happy to play against them all night. The other night we ran into another group from our guild who'd recently formed and decided to just stop playing until they were done, because our EV playing them was so low - a win was worth maybe 8 points, and a loss cost us over 20, and we certainly didn't think we had 3-1 edge.



As for what the top ratings are out there - I've heard of a number floating around 1900, but no one maintaining a 2k+ rating. The team we played right before we went to sleep last night had apparently just broken 2k, but losing to us knocked them back down. It's not easy to stay at the top.

#33 Ghostz

Ghostz

    Don Flamenco

  • Members
  • 457 posts

Posted 19 February 2007 - 06:25 PM

I definitely feel you on the disconnect bug. It hadn't happened to me in arens prior to last night, but it happened twice in a matter of ten or so games and I was pretty pissed after the second.

From the two times it happened (very limited) I noticed that my computer was running considerably slower at the time and the load times were generally about double the time they usually are. I restarted my computer and I was good for another 10-15 games when it started slowing down a bit again so I didn't take any chances and restarted it again. Again its just my simple observations and its very possible they have nothing to do with the problem, but I haven't disconnected ever since and it hadn't happened to me before (specifically in arenas, it has happened when hearthing or zoning in/out of instances before).

#34 Zagzil

Zagzil

    Don Flamenco

  • Members
  • 445 posts

Posted 19 February 2007 - 06:37 PM

As for what the top ratings are out there - I've heard of a number floating around 1900, but no one maintaining a 2k+ rating. The team we played right before we went to sleep last night had apparently just broken 2k, but losing to us knocked them back down. It's not easy to stay at the top.


The top teams in our Battlegroup are floating around 2k, but having a very difficult time getting substantially above. If this stays the case, it's going to be very tough getting that arena set finished by April.

#35 Omelet

Omelet

    Priest in Plate

  • Members
  • 120 posts

Posted 19 February 2007 - 06:39 PM

The top teams in our Battlegroup are floating around 2k, but having a very difficult time getting substantially above. If this stays the case, it's going to be very tough getting that arena set finished by April.


Is there some kind of online resource you get this information from? Or is this simply by word of mouth?

#36 Elendril

Elendril

    KINDOFABIGDEAL

  • Members
  • 5,560 posts

Posted 19 February 2007 - 06:57 PM

The top teams in our Battlegroup are floating around 2k, but having a very difficult time getting substantially above. If this stays the case, it's going to be very tough getting that arena set finished by April.


The rating-to-points conversion is based around acquiring the full set in a 13 week season - it's not clear to me that the arena tournament qualification cutoff date is actually the end of the season.

I edited my original post but it strangely didn't go through - one thing I find very interesting is the theory of managing your rating with respect to when you queue. Maintaining a high - or at least neutral - expected value (EV) for your games is crucial. Last night we found a team with a rating comparable to ours and devised a strategy that had us winning every game, and it was clearly in our best interests to just keep queuing and hope they did the same. Similarly, the other night we ran into another team from our guild who was drastically underrated because they'd just formed that night, and we stopped queuing until they quit - even if we had an edge, it wasn't a 3-1 edge to justify risking 24 points to win 8. Especially with the disconnect bugs, it seems like it's generally in your best interests to play when the top rated teams are playing rather than trying to dodge them - you stand to win much more and lose much less.

#37 Suesse

Suesse

    Don Flamenco

  • Members
  • 378 posts

Posted 19 February 2007 - 07:21 PM

The Arena system seems rather alt friendly. If you were able to pug each of your alts into a 5-man team (of alts) that was able to maintain an even win/loss record wouldn't you have 1500*.206+99=408 points each week? And if so, it would take 1875/408=4.6 weeks to get a gladiator 1h weapon, shield, or chest (all item level 115). Even in a 2-man team, it would only take 7.6 weeks to get one of these items.

This assumes that you could maintain 1500, not sure how hard that is yet.... Also, unless the queue times are very quick, it would probably not be very practical.

These gladiator items are pretty awesome. Certainly, giving a dps warrior or rogue a level 115 weapon would dramatically increase their pve performance over a blue level 115 weapon. However, the items are not just amazing for dps classes. Compare the shield to the "Crest of the Sha'tar," the gladiator shield has more block value even though it doesn't spend any itemization points in it 122 vs 117, and it has the same stamina as if you had socketed the rep shield with 2 solid stars of elune. The trade off is 814 armor and 27 resilience vs 11 defense rating.

I know this thread is mainly focusing on getting a full set as quickly as possible, but the possibility of getting *one* of these level 115 epics even if you're not very good at PvP is sort of interesting.

#38 frmorrison

frmorrison

    Protector

  • Allied Members
  • 11,427 posts

Posted 19 February 2007 - 08:53 PM

The Arena system seems rather alt friendly.


I tried to invite an alt of one of the main players to the team and it would not work.

#39 LuckyAC

LuckyAC

    Von Kaiser

  • Members
  • 88 posts

Posted 19 February 2007 - 09:03 PM

So I'm taking it that the previous convention of only playing ten games a week is not true?

The convention that the advantage to playing more than 10 games is minimal once you have reached your true strength is as true as ever.When that point can realistically be reached has always been in doubt (and obviously depends on your strength). The thread starter seems to think top teams won't be able to reach it before the season ends, which I really doubt. I, and others thought it might be possible during the first couple of weeks, which may be too optimistic, as the range seems to be spreading quite slowly.

Unless they changed it in the last few weeks I am pretty sure arena points never expire, and the max you can accumulate is 5000. The most expensive items, the 2h weaps, cost 3750 so there's no real reason to hoard points beyond 3750.
.

Well, you should always hoard 5000 at the end of the season. Points are always more valuable the next season.

#40 Elerion

Elerion

    Great Tiger

  • Members
  • 861 posts

Posted 20 February 2007 - 12:13 AM

Two things have been the only true annoyances so far, but they are pretty bad.

First off, the disconnect bug. I would say that on average, we would get one disconnect every 10 games. That's basically a guaranteed loss against any decent team. At around the 1800 mark on sunday night, we would lose 15-20 points on average for each loss, and gain on average 5-10 points per win. That means we needed roughly a 7:3 win ratio to remain stable on points. With one guaranteed loss every 10 games, that's a required 7:2 ratio just to not lose points. I'm sure this will get better with more teams up there on rankings, but as it was, moving further up seemed extremely hard.

The other insanely annoying thing was: Heroism/Bloodlust. We were regularly faced with a rog/war/enhsham/priest/pal team that we just couldn't figure out how to beat. The ridiculous dps output of Heroism/WF plus MS meant healing their target was impossible, and BoP made sure we couldn't race them for dps either. CC? Tremor/Grounding. It was absolutely disgusting to see the amount of dps incoming on one character from only 3 dps'ers, due to heroism. It easily surpassed what 4-dps teams had been throwing at us all night.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users