Not a fan at all

[Voskres]

..of the new score system.

I work hard to get as many pets as I can and to upgrade them all to blue.

Someone with 50 less pets than me has a higher pet score because instead of getting lots of pets and upgrading them, he is leveling his greens.

Not a fan.

[Breanni]

Can you link to the account?

Someone with 50 less pets honestly shouldn't have a higher score considering each level 25 pet is worth a single additional point, while collecting a single (poor) quality pet is worth two points. If you have rare quality pets, then you get three more points per rare pet. So the math can't possibly favor the other person (unless there's a bug, in which case we need to know about it).

We knew that not everyone would like this change, and we weighed our decision to change it very carefully. The vast majority of our community seem to appreciate getting more of a boost for their leveling efforts.

I encourage others to chime in -- do you like the new pet score? Why or why not?

[Jerebear]

The only person I could find near the description was the #9 person (42 less pets) on the OP's server leaderboard. They have 2 more points, but have all rares (doesn't fit with the "levelling greens" comment though?), nearly twice the average level of the OP, and 122 more level 25's than the OP. That actually seems to work out correctly. Only a 2 point margin for having more than double the average level of the OP and that many extra level 25's with both people having all rares.

If you back calculate it (avg_pet_level * #pets - avg_pet_level * #pets)*0.04, you get:

0.04*(13.4*590 - 24.1*548) = 212 points

42 extra rare pets = 42*5 = 210 points

Which leaves a difference of 2 points. So that checks out.

If that is the person the OP is talking about, then they can only earn 20 more points via levelling until they hit a brick wall. Once the OP hits around 14.4 average pet level, they'll eclipse the person in question and continue to gain points if they so choose.

[Voskres]

So when I level enough of my 600 pets to get another .8 levels (divide that by 600 minus the maxed ones I have dispersing it between the various pets I don't have above that yet) I'll move ahead of someone with 42 less pets.

[Jerebear]

You just need about 50 "levels" of any number to at least tie. If you use a safari hat, you can probably net enough doing 5-6 tamers if you boost a level 1 carry pet (I think they jump to 10 or 11 with just a safari hat) for each tamer. If you need another point after that (don't know off hand if that will tie you with them or move slightly ahead...didn't do the exact math), then do 2-3 more level 1 pets to level 10-11 (so another 2-3 tamers with level 1 carry pets).

Basically, every 25 levels nets you a point, so 75 levels will get you 3 points and 50 points will get you 2 points. Depending on rounding something in between would be enough.

That can be knocked out in pretty quickly (less than an hour if you have a decent stable of levelled pets).

[Voskres]

I've leleved a few pets in my day, but thanks for the sound advice on how to overcome a poorly executed update.

Maybe since you are crediting one poster with the 'fix' you should have asked the rest of the community what they thought of it before implementation. Just sayin'.

You had a threshold to strive and work for, now you have just a number to appease a few squeaky wheels.

[Mykro9]

complainers gonna complain?

This game of pet scores did move from just collecting, to collecting and battling. Hell, a good number of pets are ONLY obtainable by having leveled pets to 25, and in some cases multiple pets, so your point is moot on 'I have more pets, I am better'. It takes dedication to get hundreds of pets to level cap, and should be rewarded as much as paying IRL cash for a lot of the pets.

The OP seems to be in the minority here, in my opinion, and yet feels the need to speak for the whole WCP community.

[Voskres]

I feel the need to speak because no one else is willing to yet 3 people on my tiny low pop server told me the same thing.

Thanks for weighing in and continuing to pile on the 'OP' but you you don't know anything else about it best to keep your yap shut.

[Quintessence]

We appreciate and welcome all constructive feedback, but let's keep the discussion civil. Opinions will differ and there is no absolute "right" or "wrong" in this situation.

[Jerebear]

It's also worth noting that a discussion thread did happen on this back in February, which was also linked from the main page for a while so people could see the topic first hand (that's how I even knew this change was coming). Some did give input in both directions.

On a side note, nothing I have posted has been meant meanly at all, so I apologize if I sounded mean in my posts Voskres. It definitely wasn't intentional. Sometimes I do have a habit of being direct, but I try to curb that when I catch myself. I hope we can disagree on this topic but still be friends!

[Kpb321]

I'll just throw a link to another thread discussing the change recently as it has most of what I'd say:

http://www.warcraftpets.com/community/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=10389

Ultimately, even after the change your pet levels are still a relatively small portion of your overall score. You get 5 points for every unique rare pet and 1 additional point for it being level 25. Someone with 50 less pets than you, assuming those are all rare quality, would need to have leveled 250 more pets from level 1 to 25 than you which is no small amount of work.

[Voskres]

Regardless of all this queep, here is something to think about.

In about a week or so, I will get my other 3 RAF and after Tues I will get my last CT.

This will give me 594 pets, good enough in number to be #278 on the entire site.

Yet the way I figure by your numbers, it would move me about 20 points, to 3285ish, not even moving me up one space from my current ranking on my lowest of low pop servers.

One of the most numerous collections in the entire game and not anywhere near the Top 5 on my own nearly extinct server.

Since a snide remark was thrown as saying 'complainers gonna complain,' it is obvious that many members couldn't get more pets so they wanted a way to increase their score and the only way to do that was to encorporate levels at a higher clip. I don't see their complaining being vilified; I see it being hailed as change. I guess what they say is true - history IS written by the victors.

This was counter-productive to the rest of us who put great emphasis on the actual collection. The ire comes from the fact that you changed the scoring mid-stream and now, it is just a number and not something to try and attain. Before 3000 was like the holy grail and now we have 1000s of people over it, 15 or so on my server alone when we had one person at exactly 3000 before, and there is nothing let to aspire for when you are giving it away.

I am obviously not trying (purposefully) to be a jerk, I just don't appreciate getting dog piled on for speaking my mind. This is EXACTLY why no one else wants to come forth and say anything about it - because website lurkers have a tendancy to jump all over someone speaking their piece.

If you want to condemn me for complaining about a score on a website... isn't that how it got changed in the first place?

[Voskres]

would need to have leveled 250 more pets from level 1 to 25 than you which is no small amount of work.

Yes, especially when you can by level 25 versions of all your 'common' pets (snakes cats rabbits etc) on servers like Illidan for 1-2k to immediately inflate your numbers without doing any of the work.

[Digem]

Regardless of all this queep, here is something to think about.

In about a week or so, I will get my other 3 RAF and after Tues I will get my last CT.

This will give me 594 pets, good enough in number to be #278 on the entire site.

Yet the way I figure by your numbers, it would move me about 20 points, to 3285ish, not even moving me up one space from my current ranking on my lowest of low pop servers.

One of the most numerous collections in the entire game and not anywhere near the Top 5 on my own nearly extinct server.

Since a snide remark was thrown as saying 'complainers gonna complain,' it is obvious that many members couldn't get more pets so they wanted a way to increase their score and the only way to do that was to encorporate levels at a higher clip. I don't see their complaining being vilified; I see it being hailed as change. I guess what they say is true - history IS written by the victors.

This was counter-productive to the rest of us who put great emphasis on the actual collection. The ire comes from the fact that you changed the scoring mid-stream and now, it is just a number and not something to try and attain. Before 3000 was like the holy grail and now we have 1000s of people over it, 15 or so on my server alone when we had one person at exactly 3000 before, and there is nothing let to aspire for when you are giving it away.

I am obviously not trying (purposefully) to be a jerk, I just don't appreciate getting dog piled on for speaking my mind. This is EXACTLY why no one else wants to come forth and say anything about it - because website lurkers have a tendancy to jump all over someone speaking their piece.

If you want to condemn me for complaining about a score on a website... isn't that how it got changed in the first place?

So you are better for having more pets which might be just due to the fact you played the game longer, have more money than others to buy pets with real money or in game or got lucky on tcg card.
But people who put in the work to level and to catch or make rare all their pets shouldn't count for a thing?
Which I might add you could do yourself and pass these people with less pets or pay for someone to do for you.
Some pets I will never get like Asian only, CE pets before I played game(see the price for these lately pretty high) or like vampiric bating or spirit of competition wasn't playing game yet.
But I have gotten 594 pets and have leveled every one to 25 and made rare I think this should count too.
Alas I will never be top one but I can pretty high up the pet score board and I can deal with it.
You can fix your ranking if you choose to do so I don't see the problem here.

[Bwana]

The way I like to think of the ranking system is that it rewards one's efforts improving their pet collection.
Everything that makes up a great pet collection is a function of time and focused effort.
Amassing a large quantity of pets takes time. Time to capture all of the available wild pets, time raiding to get those rare drops, or time working at a job, making real cash to buy the pets you can't or won't get otherwise.
Getting all of these collected pets in a rare quality is also a function of time. Either finding the rare version of the pet or amassing stones to change the ones you already have.

The scoring system was always set up to recognize the efforts of those who spent time leveling their pets. This update did not change that. What it did was fix a problem where that effort was less and less valuable as more pets are added to the game. Had this change been made when there were only 100 pets in the game, there would have been no effect on anyone's score.

I respect your position that your score has been negatively impacted by a metric that you don't consider as important as others. I personally like to see all of my hours of effort rewarded whether collecting, leveling, finding rares, or earning gold or cash to buy TCG pets, etc.

As many have stated, the fix is simple, a little time and effort. We're all on the same playing field. While many may not have put time into leveling their pets while it wasn't as big of a factor in the score. Many others (like me) wouldn't have put in so many hours improving their collections in other ways if it weren't for this site and its excellent ranking system.

[Guest]

I went from server position #4 to #12 due to the change. With an average pet level of 16+ I felt cheated too (considering I have 600 pets).

The old pet scoring system used the average pet level, which puts people with more pets at a general disadvantage (more pets = more pet levels required to keep the average the same)

Looking back, I think the change was good. It gives me something else to work toward (knowing I could be server position #2 if I bothered to level my collection).

[Tataluibob]

I vote to the new system, anyone can sort by "score" or by "pets". The argue about number of pets vs number of level 25 pets is not relevant because always will be 2 side. In my opinion anyone who want to improve the system is more than welcome but with real solution.

[Breanni]

So far, the bulk of the comments I'm seeing (both in this thread and elsewhere) are positive. More than 1 in 10 people who've shared their opinion seem to appreciate the change to the scoring system. We'll keep watching the feedback, but so far it looks like it was a good decision.

Keep the feedback coming. We take your comments very seriously -- it was the feedback of MANY people that prompted the scoring change. Just keep it civil, please.

[Chibimage]

Honestly the true test of any of this is what the pets actually do - i.e. Battle.

If we have nearly all the PvP achievements, that should count for *something.* It's harder, by far, to be good at PvP pet battling than just collect and level. If you really want to pick and choose, give extra points for the CT pets. Those were earned by PvE work as well.

Just my two cents.

This new system is arbitrary, at best, and relates nothing worthwhile anymore. And *of course* most people are going to like the new system. Leveling pets is so dead dumb easy.

[Zenon]

This s why I am leery of any ultimately arbitrary scoring system. When it comes down to it, any system someone will come up will be arbitrary. It is also worth noting that (to the best of my knowledge) WarcraftPets does not actively scrap armoury data, which means participation in this website and its "scoring" system is entirely voluntary, not to mention the counts can get out of date if people do not refresh it regularly. It also means any statement like "I am number #XXX on my server/world" has to be qualified with "among the people who actively use this website"

In the end, is it really that important what algorithm, if any, it uses? I like pet collection because it was just a thing you do on your time, I personally, not a fan of the battling pets, just have enough to comfortably win Celestial Tourney. I did not think it was meant to be competitive. Makes me a little bit sad seeing people get their knickers twisted up over completely made up number. Just sort the list by number of pets!