Rank is a very poor indicationof how good a player someone is. It is done purely on points and win loss ration is not taken into consideration at all. Basically what this means is that your rank is an indication of how much you have played not how often you win.
Let me explain why. Rank is just how many more wins you have than losses. A player with 100 wins 0 losses will have a the same rank as a player with 550 wins 450 losses of 2100(100 more wins than losses). The guy with the 100% win ratio is clearly a much better player than the guy with 55% even thought the game ranks them as the same.
Anyone can rank up as high as they want as long as they win more than they lose. All of these players that are at the top of the leaderboard are just the guys that play the most, not necessarily the best players. The title of warlord has become meaningless, I've come across so many warlords that are just average players that have played a lot to rank themselves up.
We need a new ranking system, like the elo rating system or something that takes win loss ratio into consideration. If anyone has any ideas leave them below.
Rank is a very poor indicationof how good a player someone is. It is done purely on points and win loss ration is not taken into consideration at all. Basically what this means is that your rank is an indication of how much you have played not how often you win.
Let me explain why. Rank is just how many more wins you have than losses. A player with 100 wins 0 losses will have a the same rank as a player with 550 wins 450 losses of 2100(100 more wins than losses). The guy with the 100% win ratio is clearly a much better player than the guy with 55% even thought the game ranks them as the same.
Anyone can rank up as high as they want as long as they win more than they lose. All of these players that are at the top of the leaderboard are just the guys that play the most, not necessarily the best players. The title of warlord has become meaningless, I've come across so many warlords that are just average players that have played a lot to rank themselves up.
We need a new ranking system, like the elo rating system or something that takes win loss ratio into consideration. If anyone has any ideas leave them below.
Eh, I really am not bothered by this (I'm on the boards with something like 172-101 or something like that) but honestly if they're the same rank as me with the same wins over losses then they're on the boards anyways. I don't see why this is a problem.
Eh, I really am not bothered by this (I'm on the boards with something like 172-101 or something like that) but honestly if they're the same rank as me with the same wins over losses then they're on the boards anyways. I don't see why this is a problem.
My point of view Wolf Legend
This is me..I accidentally posted this on my other account x: anyways, I also say "Noob Warlords" is a harsh statement. Even though I have like a ton of losses, I still beat people with more rank than me. Its not like rank "stands for anything" except that you might be really good considering how much rank you have. At some point it takes pure strategy. (Especially when a level 30 fights critical from Warlords).
This is me..I accidentally posted this on my other account x: anyways, I also say "Noob Warlords" is a harsh statement. Even though I have like a ton of losses, I still beat people with more rank than me. Its not like rank "stands for anything" except that you might be really good considering how much rank you have. At some point it takes pure strategy. (Especially when a level 30 fights critical from Warlords).
My extended point of view, Wolf Legend
"It's not like rank stands for anything" That is exactly the point I was trying to make on my other thread about level matching.
But I feel like it should stand for something. Like having the elo rating system. This way every ones rank will more accurately represent their skill.
"It's not like rank stands for anything" That is exactly the point I was trying to make on my other thread about level matching.
But I feel like it should stand for something. Like having the elo rating system. This way every ones rank will more accurately represent their skill.
I'm just saying its not necessarily about losses. Because even though I've had a lot of losses, they came from unlucky causes. Examples would be critical, a fizzle, a wrong card choice, disconnection, and running out of time to choose a spell. I mostly get K.O.'d by critical. I'm level 30 so once I got to the rank where I had enough to fight people with critical I lost a couple times then figured out how to get around it.
I think from now on I'm only going to PvP with my level 90 wizard. It's the only way to guarantee a fair level matching. If anything it will end up in your favour.
I think from now on I'm only going to PvP with my level 90 wizard. It's the only way to guarantee a fair level matching. If anything it will end up in your favour.
Rank is a very poor indicationof how good a player someone is. It is done purely on points and win loss ration is not taken into consideration at all. Basically what this means is that your rank is an indication of how much you have played not how often you win.
Let me explain why. Rank is just how many more wins you have than losses. A player with 100 wins 0 losses will have a the same rank as a player with 550 wins 450 losses of 2100(100 more wins than losses). The guy with the 100% win ratio is clearly a much better player than the guy with 55% even thought the game ranks them as the same.
Anyone can rank up as high as they want as long as they win more than they lose. All of these players that are at the top of the leaderboard are just the guys that play the most, not necessarily the best players. The title of warlord has become meaningless, I've come across so many warlords that are just average players that have played a lot to rank themselves up.
We need a new ranking system, like the elo rating system or something that takes win loss ratio into consideration. If anyone has any ideas leave them below.
The elo system on league is a single level system and it would be extremely hard to transfer to wizard101.
Noob warlords earned it exactly the same as you did. They even can fight HARDER fights, Example: My level 35 ice was going against level 80's with decent rank......
Quite a bit of people still rank down in the arena anyways, so the people you talk to could be people who are still exploiting the current system.
The elo system on league is a single level system and it would be extremely hard to transfer to wizard101.
Noob warlords earned it exactly the same as you did. They even can fight HARDER fights, Example: My level 35 ice was going against level 80's with decent rank......
Quite a bit of people still rank down in the arena anyways, so the people you talk to could be people who are still exploiting the current system.
I agree with what you are saying about the lower level PvP and having to fight higher levels as you rank up. That is kind of like a different elo system. But what happens when you are at max level. If you are already at the top and a warlord then you cannot face anyone of a higher level than you. The matches do not get harder as you rank up.
Well someone with a record of 550-450 has surely worked a lot longer than you.
Sure but that doesn't indicate that they are a better player, just look at how may losses they have. If anything it just indicates to me how average of a player they are.
Sure but that doesn't indicate that they are a better player, just look at how may losses they have. If anything it just indicates to me how average of a player they are.
As much as i could honestly say the 100 - 0 is better, i would favor the other for experience. I know some people still rank down for tickets, so as of now loss records mean nothing.
I'm saying this from experience. At 1700 rank i was undefeated, and i got shut down by someone with a close win loss rate.
While this current ranking system may not be perfect, it is about 3000% better than it was in Age One of PvP.
If you were a warlord in age one and you won against a private, you would get between 0-3 points for the win. Losing to that same private would cost you 25-30 points. I can't express how frustrating it was to spend an hour or more defeating a private 30 levels higher than you, only to get one point for the win.
I agree the new scoring system isn't perfect, but it's so much better than it was that I'm just grateful that I get the same amount of points for a win, regardless of my opponent's rank.
Ghost Stone and what rank are you if you think warlords are noobs?
Wolf Star Warlord Rank 2397 496-378 record
Wolf Legend and Wolf Skullslinger we should do a 3v3 sometime the balance beasts
We will probably get like prometheans xD
I'm assuming you are level 50? Rank at lower levels is relevant because you start fighting higher levels as you rank up. You end up facing opponents that might not match you in skill but have gear when no amount of skill can make up for. So This kind of like an elo rating system but it only applies to lower levels. I think it is unrealistic to think you can win every fight at level 50 when you are facing level 90's, it is expected that you will loose some fights and your rank will find a balance somewhere depending on how good you are.
I should have been more specific in my original post. I was refering to level 90 PvP. The true most powerful characters in the game. At level 90 there is no higher levels so as your rank goes up the levels you fights stay same as you.
If your balance is a level 50 then you are a really good player. But if level 90 then that would make you pretty average because you have almost as much losses as you do wins.
My level 90 has a rank of 1348 55-2 If for example your balance was a level 90 (I don't think you are) then I would clearly be a better player than you even though my rank is lower. This is the point I was trying to make when I said rank was a bad indication of how good someone is.
I have stopped playing Level 90 PvP since the Aquila gear came out because the matches came more down to chance rather than strategy (that is where one of my losses came from). I don't like the way the game play has changed.
I really liked how Level 50 PvP used to be and I recently gave a topic on how we could have it back if you want to go check it out."Level 50 PvP" I used to have a level 50 myth character that I PvPed with but I leveled him up.
Ghost stone my balance is level 36 .I face prometheans all the time!!!!Also I face legendary warlords.And niece job on your storm.I just think lvl90pvp is too long and boring like you said.Jade gear is so overpowered.If a jade goes first it is nearly impossible to beat them(especially life).They can use a pixie and it heals 800 with 1 power pip.So yes I am level 36.You can check me out in leaderboards I am like the best magus in the ranking.Thanks dude and good luck.Storm is very hard to promethean pvp with.
Warlord Rank 2397 496-378 record
the balance beasts
has a rank of 1348 55-2
.I face prometheans all the time!!!!Also I face legendary warlords.And niece job on your storm.I just think lvl90pvp is too long and boring like you said.Jade gear is so overpowered.If a jade goes first it is nearly impossible to beat them(especially life).They can use a pixie and it heals 800 with 1 power pip.So yes I am level 36.You can check me out in leaderboards I am like the best magus in the ranking.Thanks dude and good luck.Storm is very hard to promethean pvp with.