Graalians - View Single Post

Winter · 09-07-2011

In my opinion, both the single and guild spar ratings are terribly inaccurate. If I have 6500 points, and I win ten spars, I have about 6650. If I lose one spar, I end up with about 6400. 10-1 should not cause a net drop of 100 points.

On top of that, the ratings explain, "Your spar rating says how good you have sparred in the past few days." First of all, it should be well instead of good. Second, if I wake up Saturday with 6400 points, and I then spar pretty well all weekend and end up with 6850, it can't be right to lose 150 points in one spar, and another 100 in the next. All that hard work for nothing?

If anyone else checks their rating every once in a while, they could probably wonder the same thing. What I would like to know is why in the world do I have to win 50 consecutive spars to make up for a decent ratio the day before. Winning more than losing should not conclude in a net rating drop. Why are the ratings and top 50 so screwed up? Why are they so inaccurate? Does anyone else see this problem, or have some sort of fix for it?

09-07-2011	1
Winter & Join Date: Aug 2011 Location: napping Posts: 1,381	Inaccurate Spar Ratings In my opinion, both the single and guild spar ratings are terribly inaccurate. If I have 6500 points, and I win ten spars, I have about 6650. If I lose one spar, I end up with about 6400. 10-1 should not cause a net drop of 100 points. On top of that, the ratings explain, "Your spar rating says how good you have sparred in the past few days." First of all, it should be well instead of good. Second, if I wake up Saturday with 6400 points, and I then spar pretty well all weekend and end up with 6850, it can't be right to lose 150 points in one spar, and another 100 in the next. All that hard work for nothing? If anyone else checks their rating every once in a while, they could probably wonder the same thing. What I would like to know is why in the world do I have to win 50 consecutive spars to make up for a decent ratio the day before. Winning more than losing should not conclude in a net rating drop. Why are the ratings and top 50 so screwed up? Why are they so inaccurate? Does anyone else see this problem, or have some sort of fix for it?