Multi Heroes Rating System

**Kolodi** · 10-28-2017, 12:44 PM

Hello. I've been thinking about current rating system and all negative aspects within it.
So here are some ideas of how to improve it:
1. Every hero should have own independent rating?
2. Your main rating is the avarege of your best 10 heroes rating (for exmple: 5 human + 5 shadows)
3. Score is calculated based on your main rating as it was before
4. What about rating reset every month? I think yes, but not the rating itself but the lambda value, so you can pick your next month and be able to say port it from 290 to 320 more easily.

Thus people will be encouraged to play many heroes in order to score better.

Any suggestions are welcomed....

**DuaMall** · 10-28-2017, 01:07 PM

Originally Posted by Kolodi

Hello. I've been thinking about current rating system and all negative aspects within it.
So I came up with new system based on multiple heroes play.
Simply put:
1. Every hero should have own independent rating.
2. Your main rating is the avarege of your best 10 heroes rating (for exmple: 5 human + 5 shadows)
3. Score is calculated based on your main rating as it was before

Thus people will be encouraged to play many heroes in order to score better.

Any suggestions and critics are wellcomed....

I like... With a good function to determine how much games you need to play and how many games per hero, it can be great to the game...

Good idea...

**Dvsklown** · 10-28-2017, 06:08 PM

I honestly don't see a problem with the new system. From what I can see high rated players have a high rating, those same players occupy the highest scores. Seems to me like the system is working just fine.

What are the negative aspects?

**Kolodi** · 10-29-2017, 06:51 AM

Originally Posted by Dvsklown

I honestly don't see a problem with the new system. From what I can see high rated players have a high rating, those same players occupy the highest scores. Seems to me like the system is working just fine.

What are the negative aspects?

1. Rating table and score table are redundant then
2. Meta is too narrow, people used to play fewer deck
3. Many, many people play stall or stalish decks

Sent from my ONE A2003 using Tapatalk

**Dvsklown** · 10-29-2017, 03:32 PM

Originally Posted by Kolodi

1. Rating table and score table are redundant then
2. Meta is too narrow, people used to play fewer deck
3. Many, many people play stall or stalish decks

Sent from my ONE A2003 using Tapatalk

1. Score has always been the only table that mattered, The fact that rating and score table were so different was the problem. No need for a rating table now, should be removed.

2. Meta always becomes stale when there are no changes or added cards.

3. I play quite a bit and don't run into stall that much. Don't know your rating but perhaps those in your range and those who play at the same time just happen to play stallish decks.

Im sorry but your suggestion is too complicated, and doesn't find the best players, it would find the best players that play your specific method. Would be able to be abused as well, just win one game with a hero and move to the next. Many many player will be able to get huge scores with just the one win. Or would there be a minimum amount of games played per hero?( bring grinding back?) Plus what about all the other games that you played with other heros? Those wins and losses would mean absolutely nothing. This is over complicated compared to current system which works great. Your rating is based on all your games, which is then used to caculate your best 50 games in a row. Each game you play matters. No grinding to win, it's based on your skill alone.

What I don't like about the new system is that, me playing for fun now effects my playing seriously later. Without a real unrated play system I'm forced to play for fun in rated. I could play unrated but it wouldn't be a random match up. The next player to see my game waiting can join it. I believe they can even see the chosen hero. Currently there is no room for fun or practice. Previously with the reset, I was able to get a fresh start every month. It allowed me to strategically choose when to play for fun or not. I would play seriously one month but then just screw around the next. Now I'm forced to mix them together, which will effect my serious play later. Not truely showing my skill level in my score.

**Kolodi** · 10-29-2017, 03:59 PM

Every hero has separate rating so in order to get higher score you have to play many games to pump up 10 heroes of your choice, only then you will have good enough average rating to farm score, best 50 games series still can be an option. This way people will play more different decks, and isn't it great. So please do not criticize if you don't get it.

Sent from my ONE A2003 using Tapatalk

**Dvsklown** · 10-29-2017, 04:07 PM

Originally Posted by Kolodi

Every hero has separate rating so in order to get higher score you have to play many games to pump up 10 heroes of your choice, only then you will have good enough average rating to farm score, best 50 games series still can be an option. This way people will play more different decks, and isn't it great. So please do not criticize if you don't get it.

Sent from my ONE A2003 using Tapatalk

Oh I get it! You want to bring grinding back. Force players to play minimum 500 games to make top scores. I think you don't get what you are asking for!

**Kolodi** · 10-29-2017, 04:32 PM

Originally Posted by Dvsklown

Oh I get it! You want to bring grinding back. Force players to play minimum 500 games to make top scores. I think you don't get what you are asking for!

How many game do you need in order to get decent raring ( from 0) for a given hero, I think about 20/30 min, so you have 30games*10heroes is already 300 games only to get good average rating, then another 50 games to get good 50 games series, so 350, that is what you want, plus people play at least 10 different decks on their road to win

Sent from my ONE A2003 using Tapatalk

**Dvsklown** · 10-29-2017, 05:17 PM

So only the best players who can spend a minimum of what 20 hours a week playing are up for consideration for best score? It is too much! Not everyone has that much time on their hands and shouldn't have to spend 20 hours a week playing to prove they are better. Your idea, while having some merit about overall game skill, doesn't account for time needed to achieve it. Not everyone is a kid with endless hours to give to a game. Most top players are adults from what I've seen, and most adults have jobs and responsibilities.

We just changed to this system, and previously the best scorers were the ones who had time one their hands. Their ratings were usually lower, they played decks that won fast or lost fast, and would surrender against stall to avoid the long match. Hundreds of matched played to achieve top score.

Average match takes what 15-20 minutes? I really have no idea, it's got to be somewhere around there. Let's say 15, 15x300/60=75 75 hours a month. You want me to dedicate 3 entire days a month about 1/10th of my life to shadow era?

**Kolodi** · 10-29-2017, 11:15 PM

Game should reward players who play more, to some extent of course - grinding as it was before was too big I agree, but still people should play more than 70 games per months if they want to be in top 100. Also people should be rewarded to explore and play more different heroes and decks. There defiantly should be reward if you play more different decks. And cone on, do not go off topic explaining that people has jobs and can't play much, I agree to find some compromise in how many time you should play per day in order to be able to be in top 100.
If you have some suggestion about, please feel free to comment, but don't tell me that current system is good, this topic is not about current system. And it's not good. Many and many people complains about it. We had really huge conversation on telegram about it, and there are many negative effects for it. That's why I have started this topic.

Sent from my ONE A2003 using Tapatalk