New Hearthstone Arena Ranking System Pitch by Blizzard
In a flurry of tweets, Dean "Iksar" Ayala, one of the main designers on the Hearthstone team, laid out his idea for a new Ranking System for Hearthstone Arena. The system would look at Average Arena Wins, as well as classes played and how well you did on each class.
The system would most likely run for some 2 or 4 month intervals and provide a much needed community wide prestige system where people can compare ratings and standings more easily than is possible right now and perhaps also in a more reliable and honest way.
Dean has asked for feedback, so be sure to comment and let your opinion be heard, whether that is here or on Twitter!
Quote from BlizzardARENA PLAYERS
Been trying to brainstorm what a fun ranking system could be for arena. Goals are for it to have forward progression but still have the best players come out on top.
The Pitch:
Quote from BlizzardPitch uses 3 numbers. A rating (what is displayed to you and you are ranked on), your average wins per run, and your 'class score'.
Arena Rating = AvgWins X ClassScore
AvgWins = Your average wins per run
ClassScore = Your highest win total on each class added together
Quote from BlizzardExample 1 - Very Casual, Plays lots of classes
Player plays 10 runs. Gets 3 wins every time. Plays 1 run of each class.
AvgWins = 3
ClassScore = 30 (3X10)
Arena Rating = 90 (3X30)
Quote from BlizzardExample 2 - Average Engaged Player, Plays limited range of classes
Player plays 30 runs. Gets 4 Wins every time. Only plays 5 of 10 classes.
Avg Wins = 4
Class Score = 20 (4X5)
Arena Rating = 80 (4X20)
Quote from BlizzardEXAMPLE 3 - Hardcore and Skilled Player
Player plays 60 Runs. Gets 7 Wins every time. Only plays 8 of 10 classes.
Avg Wins = 7
Class Score = 56
Arena Rating = 392
Quote from BlizzardEXAMPLE 4 - The best players
Player plays 100 runs with an average of 8 wins per run. Gets 12 wins on 5 classes but has a best run of 10 on the other 5.
Avg Wins = 8
Class Score = 110
Arena Rating = 880
Quote from BlizzardOne of the reasons I like this system is that it encourages class diversity, has mostly forward progression, but the best players will still ultimately have the best ratings so long as they choose a diverse subset of classes.
We'd probably give you 10 points per win so ratings are in the 1000's rather than the hundreds. This way they'd look more similar to BG/Merc numbers.
I'd also consider giving 'bonus points' for 12-win runs. Meaning your score for an individual class could go higher than 12. This way there is still minor incentive to play classes you've gone 12 with.
We'd find a way to display your score with each class in the client so you can track it. A benefit is that if we just use a rating that lives in our DB, we can do live updated rankings like we do with constructed/bg.
Reset time is probably 2 or 4 months. Less important to figure out those details now.
The reason I don't like using a traditional rating system is that there is no skill matchmaking in arena. This means that players would go 5-3 in a run and lose rating sometimes, or go 1-3 and gain rating. Can get confusing.
I like having a rating that is more like a score because it's very clear what you need to do to increase your rating.
"Oh I need to play these classes to a higher class score!"
"I need to increase my average wins per run, right now it's 5.1 so getting 6 will help me!" Let me know what you think or tag an arena player to get their opinion.
Also open to other suggestions, another way to rank players or the opinion that ranking is unwanted.
I have no idea what people are talking about re: matchmaking as this is never mentioned in Iksar's post. It sounds like this is just a system for players who like stats to measure their skill within a cycle of play.
As someone who enjoys stats like this, I think it's a great idea. People who enjoy Arena for it's nonprogression can simply ignore it (because it doesn't impact their matchmaking at all) and it will push players who are motivated by the score to diversify their tactics and try out classes that are more difficult to have success with. I'd be all about it.
If it is only for show, so you can brag about your arena e-peen then I am fine with it. If it affects matchmaking, so that it is no longer the clean slate it is every new run like it is now, then I hate Hate HATE it.
[EDITED] Arena represents the American Dream of Hearthstone - everyone gets an "equal(ly random) start" and gets to progress (earn value) based on performance. Randomness is exciting but imperfectly weighed, and classes perceived to offer more consistency in their results get picked more.
Q: Who will benefit from a trend of playing all classes?
A: Those who choose not to.
I imagine it's tough to balance power without data, so maybe that's why we're being floated this Arena Rating - to make more classes playED (even if they objectively shouldn't be, if stats mean anything to you).
Non-hardcore players (examples #1 & 2 in Iksar's post) will try to play all classes and see a dip in avg. wins when playing vs pros (#3&4), who will stick with their honed tactics and focused classes.
If you say, #1&2 will never face #3&4 in the early rounds, I say good idea, but also easy to exploit, for if a pro is deemed such only by their *Arena Rank* then all they need to do to stay in green noob-farming pastures, and avoid stiffer (true pro) competition is to play as non-diverse as possible, yielding a middling Rank, easier games, and higher rewards (on average) than those who commit to the playing wide variety. I can even see people opting to Retire runs where they aren't offered one of their top 5 or 6 classes.
If you want to push class diversity, this should be done through more relevant and timely information, such as weekly stat-dumps, drop- and pick- rates for all cards, win-loss breakdowns by class/archetype, 12-win deck samples for each class, sponsored tutorial videos, better deck-tracking features, and why not a synergy-assistant for deckbuilding, even on mobile! That way you're building up the weak, while also feeding the keen minds of pro players relevant meta- information.
In conclusion, if this is to be implemented, I believe it should take only the best-performing 6,7 or 8 (not all 10!) of a player's arena classes, as having a perfectly balanced meta where every class is viable has historically never happened, and I wager you won't make it happen on the first try when implementing this change, so, even your most loyal and talented players could feel tortured if they were forced to play the most inferior 1 or 2 classes to stay on top. And you better believe they won't shut up about it. "Top 8" already has a competitive ring to it, don't push it with 10, please.
why don't u implement any new system into the hot mess of duels first? then if it's successful IMPLEMENT IT to arena AFTER don't mess up heaps of hot messes for no reason cuz you haven't figured out a system that's called clowny :)
I don't think class should be a determining factor. This is one of the hard numbers that is purely random, and has nothing to do with the rewards. You're only given a choice of 3 classes, and I tend to mainly only use classes that I know are good. So there will be classes I never, ever play, giving me an advantage over my opponent, as I had effectively made my rating lower by selectively ensuring I use the least amount of classes as possible. (Example, I have NEVER EVER used Shaman and maybe Rogue and Warrior twice with maybe 1-2 wins on each)
The main goal for the arena is to get to 12 wins, REGARDLESS OF CLASS, so finding ways to make my rating lower, I could cheat the system in giving me less experienced players. Besides, class identity isn't really a test of skill. Like, there are some factors on card knowledge, but when it comes down to it, a players intuitive use of the cards is what really decides games, not the class.
Realistically, rating should just strictly be based off Avg Wins. When matching players in Arena, players should be matched up with those with the same Avg Win, as their skill level is identical. Meaning, if I'm getting my first or second ever 12 win, I should be matched up with the closes person in Avg Wins. This is what makes the most sense. And once I do beat that run, my Avg Score just went up, promoting me against higher rated opponents.
That being said, if this was a RANKED mode of Arena, I'd be all for that, so long as the current reward system isn't nerfed or removed. I personally do not care about my rating whatsoever. I play Arena as a fun way to blow off steam from playing against solitaire decks on standard ranked. A true test of skill in drafting, and effectively using the board and cards that you have drafted.
If you want to pair everyone with opponents of the same caliber, you need to adjust the rewards so that a 4-3 gives you infinite runs. There is a certain charm to arena where everyone is equal. Yes, some more experienced players can prey on newer ones, but there are already some measures in place against that. 7-3 for infinite is fair at the moment, if you are a good player. I peaked at 8 win average in my best season. Even at 5 wins per run, if you are half decent, you can kinda go infinite with the money you get from the rewards track. But I don't think that them changing every match in the arena to be challenging is a good idea. People will still farm on their alts, if they only care about arena. And boy, are they gonna have a good time.
Not ideal for people who don't play certain classes. Wouldn't it be harder to maintain a higher rating playing less than all classes due to the limitations on picking classes with higher win rates? If so, does it still make sense to reward diversity?
People are reading the kind of stuff Iksar posted in his tweets - including "there is no skill matchmaking in arena."
Nothing is mentioned about introducing "a new system to find equally skilled opponents." Iksar mentions introducing "a fun ranking system for arena." It isn't used for matchmaking - "wins-in-the-current-run" are used for matchmaking.
FWIW - "ranking" and "matchmaking" don't mean the same thing.
This system forces players to play lots of games, to ensure class diversity. Similarly, an average player would be stuck in a certain score interval after a higher number of games, which is going to be frustrating (considering to amount of randomness that goes into an arena run).
So i'd just leave the idea of an arena ranking alone. The mode requires payment/gold to play and it's going to be even more frustrating once a ranking system is in place ("hey, f this game, i can't seem to do anything right in this mode to increase my score").
If you want to provide proper rankings for this, fix the matchmaking first to account for the strenght of your deck and not place you against overpowered decks when you can barely scrape by some wins.
Average win/run would be interesting to have. I think it varies a lot with the season, so something worth having around. A rank/score? Hmmmm why not I suppose... Maybe it's nice to have some summed up evaluation of your performance. I don't play THAT much arena anymore. Maybe this will spice up the experience just a little :)
EDIT: nevermind
My feedback is that you are losing resources in things not relevant. How many people are playing arena?
1) You should adjust before the ladder - standard and wild - which is the real Hearthstone
2) You should provide what you promised for mercenaries - you developed a new mode and you left it abandoned
Then if BG players are happy with the current meta (I don't, I am not playing bg, but bg is like now a huge part of Hearthstone) you can think about the arena situation.
arena would be more fun if it had a casual mode like duels, spend nothing, but have all the fun
Agreed, now Blizz just needs to fix Arena in general. Sad they waste time on developing prestige for a mode that really just wants some decent balancing.
Prestige is not going to fix a broken mode.
Guys this is NOT matchmaking.
what kind of stuff are you reading? it is a new system to find equally skilled opponents. So in the end: matchmaking.
if its delaying anything like MMR... sure but Thats a Wrap when MMR arrives
If they wanted MMR, they would not invent new ranking system for no skill matchmaking and just took the one from Duels.
I don't care about ranking. So please clarify the rules of the game. We have no way of knowing which cards will be offered at what exact percentage. This is the worst flaw for a card game.
No.
Arena is the most pure game mode. Every run is fresh. You're 0-0. There should be no rankings, no secret MMR, no "progression", no complicated matchmaking formula.
Achievements should be as far as it goes.