I wanted to post in the old thread, unfortunately it got locked just a few days ago. https://www.warzone.com/Forum/697546-new-ladder-rating-system-working

Update 5.25 brought some changes to the ladder, notably this one:

– Classic: Tweaked ladder rating parameters to make ratings climb slightly faster.

Is it known, how much the parameters have changed? Are we able to figure this out?

From my experience on 3v3 ladder, ratings there change about twice as fast. I used to get ~5 points per win, now it's 10. So, on par with 1v1 ladder before the update.

I don't know how others feel about it, but I feel that there is a need for more than just a slight change. We have the new rating system for 2 months, and only 7 best people on 3v3 ladder managed to enter the bronze league, noone's close to anything higher.

I create this thread but unfortunately I don't have any answers, I only bring more questions.

If we get an average player with exactly 50% win rate, won't it take him around 100 3v3 games just to enter bronze?
Shouldn't bronze be accessible for most players?
How much real time do the average games take? Doesnt 100 ladder games translate into years?

Is the new ladder rating system working?

I don't know how others feel about it, but I feel that there is a need for more than just a slight change.

What if we petition to lower the boot timers, so that games would be faster?

Lower times per turn will allow increasing the overall ratings change over the absolute time periods by increasin the amount games played.
For example, lowering the boot times to 12 hours, might speed up ratings change by 2x (if we account for just the games) or even more (if we account for early boots). If the boot times are lowered to 8 hours, that would be a 3-4x increase.

Edited 7/11/2023 21:10:23

Matchmaking is clearly broken, look at 2v2 ladder. That being said, congrats to Kallisti to leading many different teams to

Edit: matchmaking isn’t rating but I feel rating system is broken if you can get high rating against easier opponents

Edited 7/11/2023 21:14:32

The fact Kallisti is so high rated after facing such poor opponents is confusing

Edit: yes even beating me

Edited 7/11/2023 21:12:02

I agree that Tacky sucks, thanks for making a thread about it :)

On an unrelated note the new ladder changes are bad.

I agree with everything Rento said,

I also appreciate FiveSmith mocking the new ladder boot times which are clearly ridiculous...

One day they will change back to 3 days and we will all cheer as if a great cloud has parted over the wide expansive planes of warzone. Much rejoicing and carousing will be seen and heard throughout the lands, babies will be born with a smile upon their lips, fields will give a bounty to fill the great halls with feasts of fine cuisine, the hearts of all peoples will suddenly feel light as a feather as we laugh with much mirth at the absense of this great evil. It has been proclaimed and it shall be awaited!

I have high rating, because my teammates have low rating, so average rating of our team is similar to the average rating of enemy team.

Is it known, how much the parameters have changed? Are we able to figure this out?

Well, we can trial and error our way again. And yeah, the parameters that changed were Beta and Tau,

Beta: 500 --> 250
Tau: 0,1 --> 3

Is the new ladder rating system working?

I would say, it is working twice as good as before ;-)
Not a surprising answer, since these parameter changes pretty much just double the speed of rating updates. That's about it, nothing else has changed.

So yeah, it is better, and instead of the 700 games I put to get an accurate rating, we might now be at about 350. An improvement, but the fundamentals have not been changed really.

The discouragement of new joiners in the future that I described is still a problem.
The rating gap I described that top players will get in the future towards the rest will still happen, and so on.

For the moment, 1v1 ladder feels very playable and team ladders should probably receive another double of update pace.
I'm more worried for the future, where new players will have to play way too many games to catch up to the top or even the midfield really. Imagine a top player having to play through hundreds of games/players far below their level...

Edited 7/13/2023 21:33:32

if i suck, dryclean swallows!

How high are ratings likely to go? Looks like 500 isn't even close to where it's headed.

Edit: On the rewards page it also mentions there are hidden tiers above gold.

Edited 7/14/2023 00:05:46

As I pointed out in the previous thread, the average player will have a rating of 550 in the future and top players will have 5000+. Yes, the difference is that much.

The problem IMO with the new ladders is that Fizzer turned them into an idle quest thing instead of actual ladders. He doesn't want the league rewards handed out that easily but this also means that strong players need to play an insane amount to get accurate ratings.