What is rating

[Seraph]

the source code has not been released, what I said above just meant that in a way I completely understood the theory, with extraneous, often misleading, words added in

[Marvaddin]

Marvaddin, I fail to see what is the difference:

I give 0(constant) as rating to a new deck; +X(variable) for a win

You give X(variable) as rating to a new deck; +N(constant) for a win

Both decks start around rank 250, both decks need to have better win/loss ratio than the other decks to stay in the top 250.
The only difference is that with your system all the numbers in the rating are probably going to be positive, do you particularly hate negative numbers?

I use 0 because it is easier to spot a zero in a series of numbers.

The rating is just a number, I was actually tempted to hide it from the players, since it has almost no meaning (it just determines your rank, which is the important thing), but a few players asked me to display it because they had no idea about how far they were from, for instance, the 1st position in the league.

The point is what I was thinking about it. I thought it would be like this:

My deck gets 30-0 (imagining no losses to make it easier to understand) when the league awards 20 points / victory. So it got a score 600. Then the numbers change, and a victory is awarded 10 points. People would need 60 victories to reach my score.

But looks like (correct me if Im wrong), that when the numbers change, my score will also be recalculated to 300, it wont be 600 anymore. This way Im fine with it, both systems are then equally good (except for the fact that in your system recalculating can sometimes change deck rankings).

Thanks for replying

[inthisroom]

One thing still isn't completely clear to me, the rating only applies to one deck, not to yourself? When you change decks, is it completely reevaluated regarding rank and rating?

And wouldn't that encourage people not to use the oracle cards for new decks if they have a deck that works well?

Is there a time limit that determines how long you can keep one particular deck in the arena?

So many questions...

[Seraph]

One thing still isn't completely clear to me, the rating only applies to one deck, not to yourself? When you change decks, is it completely reevaluated regarding rank and rating?

And wouldn't that encourage people not to use the oracle cards for new decks if they have a deck that works well?

Is there a time limit that determines how long you can keep one particular deck in the arena?

So many questions...

no time limit, but after 8 days your health is 1, an easy em by any RoL Hope if they go first
2^8=256, obviously, the deck does worse and worse as its health decreases.

yes it discourages people from using oracle cards if they have a good old deck, but the deck has to change eventually, and this system works best.

[YoungSot]

Does changing leagues due to leveling up cause your current deck's rating to be recalculated using the w/l rewards of the new league?

[Donot]

One thing still isn't completely clear to me, the rating only applies to one deck, not to yourself? When you change decks, is it completely reevaluated regarding rank and rating?

And wouldn't that encourage people not to use the oracle cards for new decks if they have a deck that works well?

Is there a time limit that determines how long you can keep one particular deck in the arena?

So many questions...

no time limit, but after 8 days your health is 1, an easy em by any RoL Hope if they go first
2^8=256, obviously, the deck does worse and worse as its health decreases.

yes it discourages people from using oracle cards if they have a good old deck, but the deck has to change eventually, and this system works best.

Yes, that's the idea (as I understand it).  But I still think that having decks forced out via weakening is a bad idea - it undermines the real goal of getting interesting decks of various difficulty.  A deck with 1 hp is not interesting and not difficult.  There ARE better ways to remove stale decks (like simply limiting the number of days or games a deck participates in before getting the boot).  I think Zanz chose the weakening approach because he found it clever that decks would fall out the bottom.  It is clever, but that doesn't mean it's in keeping with the overall idea of the Arena.  I'm all for forcing decks out after awhile, but not through weakening them.

[Seraph]

One thing still isn't completely clear to me, the rating only applies to one deck, not to yourself? When you change decks, is it completely reevaluated regarding rank and rating?

And wouldn't that encourage people not to use the oracle cards for new decks if they have a deck that works well?

Is there a time limit that determines how long you can keep one particular deck in the arena?

So many questions...

no time limit, but after 8 days your health is 1, an easy em by any RoL Hope if they go first
2^8=256, obviously, the deck does worse and worse as its health decreases.

yes it discourages people from using oracle cards if they have a good old deck, but the deck has to change eventually, and this system works best.

Yes, that's the idea (as I understand it).  But I still think that having decks forced out via weakening is a bad idea - it undermines the real goal of getting interesting decks of various difficulty.  A deck with 1 hp is not interesting and not difficult.  There ARE better ways to remove stale decks (like simply limiting the number of days or games a deck participates in before getting the boot).  I think Zanz chose the weakening approach because he found it clever that decks would fall out the bottom.  It is clever, but that doesn't mean it's in keeping with the overall idea of the Arena.  I'm all for forcing decks out after awhile, but not through weakening them.

Really, losing 2,4,8,16, shouldn't hurt your deck much at all, barely any bad games where that number would've been enough for you to win, but usually, it's fine to leave it in for 4 days
At 32 damage, you start to feel the effect, and your deck does actually begin to lose a little (still not significant) more, it still matters more on the deck type: a control bow can usually gain control before this matters, where as some rushes will thwart your 5 day old deck, etc...
At 64 damage, you could still be above 100 if you started at max hp

[ggabriel2]

Yes, that's the idea (as I understand it).  But I still think that having decks forced out via weakening is a bad idea - it undermines the real goal of getting interesting decks of various difficulty.  A deck with 1 hp is not interesting and not difficult.  There ARE better ways to remove stale decks (like simply limiting the number of days or games a deck participates in before getting the boot).  I think Zanz chose the weakening approach because he found it clever that decks would fall out the bottom.  It is clever, but that doesn't mean it's in keeping with the overall idea of the Arena.  I'm all for forcing decks out after awhile, but not through weakening them.

This is only really a problem because the league distribution is lopsided. You will never ever see a 1 HP deck in Gold because the competition is so overcrowded that a deck will get forced out long before it reaches that point. From what Zanz said in the other rating thread, though, I'm not sure platinum even has enough decks for anyone to drop out of the T500. Presumably this will level out as time goes on (hopefully, depending on player turnover.)

And, sure, decks getting forced out at 168 HP or 136 HP are still weaker, but remember, each league spans decks of varying strengths to begin with. A level 40 deck is still in the same league as a level 59 deck, and that's the equivalent of 95 HP difference. So there's already precedent for the existence of lower-HP decks. You might ask what happens when a level 40 gold or a level 60 platinum deck ages and starts losing HP, but by their nature these weaker decks are usually going to get pushed out more quickly to begin with.

[inthisroom]

Ok, thank you all, didn't know that hp actually went down day after day and I'll stick to the 4-day limit.

I think I got the rating system, the explanation seems right regarding the evolution of my stats.

Last question (probably): My deck is currently rank 110 and rated 350 in the Platinum League, will I keep these stats when I put up a new deck or will the new deck enter around rank 250 with neutral rating as Zanzarino seems to have explained before?

[YoungSot]

Does changing leagues due to leveling up cause your current deck's rating to be recalculated using the w/l rewards of the new league?

Ok, I just moved out of Gold league, so I can answer my own question. If you change leagues your rating is not adjusted to correspond to the new league, but will remain the same, which is either a boon or a curse depending on how the two leagues currently compare in amounts given per win/loss.

[Terrilocks]

Oh, seems I failed to read the rest of this thread first.

Currently, a win in gold is worth +7 so there is definitely a change going on.

Also it seems gold has by far the hardest competition!
That makes me feel better if I do ok.

[Calindu]

Question:What happens if 2 players have the biggest rating,but they have the same rating?