There are a couple of things about the leader that could be better. It doesn't accurately represent the best wizards in PvP. The first of these is the levels of the wizards, everyone knows that a level 5 warlord will get smoked by a level 90 nobody. But they will never face in the arena due to level matching. I think this is a good thing but I don't think it's right to put low level wizards above obviously better wizards on the leaderboard. When I first looked at the leaderboard I was expecting to see all level 90's, I was like what!
A better way it could be done is to split PvP into level tiers. So when entering the arena you will only be able to face of against other wizards in your tier and there will be a separate leaderboard section for each tier. The tiers can be split a number of ways,( up to level 30,60,90) or if you want more it can be split into nine (up to level 10,20,30,40,50,60,70,80,90). If your wizard levels up into a higher tier your wins and losses will be reset to zero but you can keep a badge saying what you were for that tier kind of like 1st age PvP badges. What do you think?
The second problem is the way the best wizard is decided. it is done on a points system +16 if you win -16 if you lose. The thing that is wrong with this is it doesn't show how often someone wins just how often someone plays. For example a player with 110 wins 10 losses is clearly better than a player with 300 wins 200 losses even though they both have the same ranking of 2100. A players win loss ratio is not taken into consideration when it is really relevant.
There are a couple of ways this could be improved. One of these is by ranking on win loss ratio. For this to work there will need to be a minimum number of duels completed for each rank and minimum win percentage. The table will look something like this:
Private: starting rank Corporal: minimum of 5 duels completed and minimum wins of 20% taken from 5 most recent duels Sergeant: 10 duels,win ratio of 40% taken from 10 most recent duels Veteran: 20 duels, win ratio 50% from 20 most recent duels Knight: 40 duels, win ratio 60% from 40 most recent duels Captain: 60 duels, win ratio 70% from 60 most recent duels Commander: 80 duels, win ratio 80% from 80 most recent duels Warlord: 100 duels, win ratio 90% from 100 most recent duels
You will also need to do one duel per week to maintain your rank or one loss by default will be added as your most recent fight. This will be to prevent players from camping on their good ratio and keep the leader board moving. If two players on the leader board have the same win ratio from the most recent 100 duels then overall ratio's will decide who is above on the leaderboard. If they are still the same then it will be whoever has completed the most duels. win loss ratios will be second priority to rank, eg a corporal with 5/5 100% win ratio(6 fights completed) will not be above warlord 91wins of100.
What do you think? Does anyone have any better ideas?
There are a couple of things about the leader that could be better. It doesn't accurately represent the best wizards in PvP. The first of these is the levels of the wizards, everyone knows that a level 5 warlord will get smoked by a level 90 nobody. But they will never face in the arena due to level matching. I think this is a good thing but I don't think it's right to put low level wizards above obviously better wizards on the leaderboard. When I first looked at the leaderboard I was expecting to see all level 90's, I was like what!
A better way it could be done is to split PvP into level tiers. So when entering the arena you will only be able to face of against other wizards in your tier and there will be a separate leaderboard section for each tier. The tiers can be split a number of ways,( up to level 30,60,90) or if you want more it can be split into nine (up to level 10,20,30,40,50,60,70,80,90). If your wizard levels up into a higher tier your wins and losses will be reset to zero but you can keep a badge saying what you were for that tier kind of like 1st age PvP badges. What do you think?
The second problem is the way the best wizard is decided. it is done on a points system +16 if you win -16 if you lose. The thing that is wrong with this is it doesn't show how often someone wins just how often someone plays. For example a player with 110 wins 10 losses is clearly better than a player with 300 wins 200 losses even though they both have the same ranking of 2100. A players win loss ratio is not taken into consideration when it is really relevant.
There are a couple of ways this could be improved. One of these is by ranking on win loss ratio. For this to work there will need to be a minimum number of duels completed for each rank and minimum win percentage. The table will look something like this:
Private: starting rank Corporal: minimum of 5 duels completed and minimum wins of 20% taken from 5 most recent duels Sergeant: 10 duels,win ratio of 40% taken from 10 most recent duels Veteran: 20 duels, win ratio 50% from 20 most recent duels Knight: 40 duels, win ratio 60% from 40 most recent duels Captain: 60 duels, win ratio 70% from 60 most recent duels Commander: 80 duels, win ratio 80% from 80 most recent duels Warlord: 100 duels, win ratio 90% from 100 most recent duels
You will also need to do one duel per week to maintain your rank or one loss by default will be added as your most recent fight. This will be to prevent players from camping on their good ratio and keep the leader board moving. If two players on the leader board have the same win ratio from the most recent 100 duels then overall ratio's will decide who is above on the leaderboard. If they are still the same then it will be whoever has completed the most duels. win loss ratios will be second priority to rank, eg a corporal with 5/5 100% win ratio(6 fights completed) will not be above warlord 91wins of100.
What do you think? Does anyone have any better ideas?
No thanks. Not interested in a new PvP system. Sorry.
Is it really this simplistic? I thought they used a modified Elo rating system with rank points gained depending on your rank and record, vs. your opponents' aggregate rank and record.
Is it really this simplistic? I thought they used a modified Elo rating system with rank points gained depending on your rank and record, vs. your opponents' aggregate rank and record.
Yes it really is that simple. The Elo rating system would definitely be a good way to do it.
I checked the leader board. There are only two level 90 wizards in the Top !00.
And probably 85 wizards that are around level 50. That seems to be the new 1v1 PvP level.
Yeah I really don't think that is right, because my level 90 could beat almost any level 50. I have only had 1 loss in 40 matches which puts me at warlord. I could be at the top of the leaderboard if I put in the time to do 200 or so duels and gain the points, in fact anyone could. But I don't play as much as others do and when I get close to the top they will be twice as high on points. As I said before the leaderboard does not show how good a player is only how much they play. As long as you win more than you lose anyone can be at the top of the leader board, but that does not mean you are the best player just because you play a lot.
I checked the leader board. There are only two level 90 wizards in the Top !00.
And probably 85 wizards that are around level 50. That seems to be the new 1v1 PvP level.
Actually, its even more annoying than 50 being the 1v1 level. Most of those people are actually in 2v2. Whenever I try and play matches at legend to transcendent level contemporaneously with one of near that level, we usually get a 2v2 team where one person has the 3000 rank or so, and the other person has 0; however, the puppet still has on warlord gear, giving them a TREMENDOUS advantage. I have the luxury of many great pets and tactics that work well, but for a few innocent privates this would be devastating. If you ever see Alexis Wild, Brahm Frostshard, or Cole Soulbreaker in the arena (actually probably all of the level 50 warlords, but these the ones I've fought) just keep in mind that all these warlords are getting high rank by more or less puppeting.
