Jump to content

  • Curse Sites
Help
Rate Article   - - - - -

Kalgan posted these numbers earlier and said they help guide Blizzard in their balancing decisions. "We aren't slaves to the charts, they just help inform our decisions.  =]"

All these numbers come from 2200+ arena. 100% is where they expect class representation to be.

[FONT=Courier New]Class		2v2		3v3	   5v5

Druid	  276.0%	 184.0%	 80.5%
Hunter	  43.0%	  50.2%	 43.0%
Mage		 8.7%	  96.0%	 96.0%
Paladin	 19.7%	  29.5%	147.4%
Priest	 113.3%	 164.8%	185.4%
Shaman	  37.8%	  50.4%	138.6%
Rogue	  144.2%	 175.1%	 61.8%
Warlock	149.2%	  93.2%	111.9%
Warrior	130.4%	  90.7%	 79.3%[/FONT]
All these numbers come from 1850+ arena. 100% is where they expect class representation to be.
[FONT=Courier New]
Class		2v2		3v3	   5v5

Druid	  184.0%	 138.0%	 92.0%
Hunter	  50.2%	  50.2%	 50.2%
Mage		61.1%	  87.3%	 87.3%
Paladin	 68.8%	  88.4%	137.6%
Priest	 133.9%	 133.9%	154.5%
Shaman	  75.6%	  88.2%	138.6%
Rogue	  154.5%	 154.5%	 82.4%
Warlock	121.2%	 102.5%	102.5%
Warrior	 90.7%	  85.0%	 85.0%
[/FONT]
Source: http://forums.worldo...geNo=4&sid=1#74
Posted in: News

Comments

#1 Kcolraw

Kcolraw
  • Junkies
  • Posts: 2200

Posted 06 March 2008 - 01:13 AM

warriors only 79.3% for 5v5? more warlocks than warriors for 2v2? err

hrm numbers probably inaccurate from point seller teams and shit

#2 Durids

Durids
  • Members
  • Posts: 67

Posted 06 March 2008 - 01:21 AM

No, his numbers aren't wrong.  They are just normalized by population.  Just because there are 50,000 warriors above 2k+ 5v5 doesn't mean their representation is high because there are 500,000 warriors playing wow, while there are 10,000 druids above 2k+ 2v2 and only 50,000 or something druids playing wow.  What's even worse is these numbers are of top arena representation vs. total wow population, not top arena representation vs. total arena representation.  That means the people who have never stepped into an arena are contributing to our (druids) over representation. These numbers are totally random, but it gets the point across.  Normalizing by population is the dumbest way of achieving balance.  

What it says it just because a class has 1/10th the players of a different class, there should be 1/10th of that class represented in arenas in comparison to the previous class.  Considering druids are the least played class, (or is it shamans now?) it makes sense according to blizzard that there should be very few represented in arenas.

#3 Tyveris

Tyveris
  • Premium Junkies
  • Curse Premium
  • Posts: 6889

Posted 06 March 2008 - 01:23 AM

I'm crunching numbers on our DB real quick. His seem to have some sort of weighting to them.

Raw Numbers (2200+ from our DB)

2v2:
Druid - 591
Hunter - 165
Mage - 100
Paladin - 126
Priest - 265
Rogue - 363
Shaman - 103
Warrior - 527
Warlock - 343

3v3:
Druid - 403
Hunter - 180
Mage - 290
Paladin - 159
Priest - 374
Rogue - 507
Shaman - 130
Warrior - 436
Warlock - 288

5v5:
Druid - 241
Hunter - 234
Mage - 400
Paladin - 476
Priest - 517
Rogue - 276
Shaman - 375
Warrior - 492
Warlock - 402

#4 Kcolraw

Kcolraw
  • Junkies
  • Posts: 2200

Posted 06 March 2008 - 02:01 AM

[quote]They are just normalized by population.[/quote]
looks like there are more warrior alts than any other classes then? is this what you mean

lol


edit: would also explain the rediculously low %'s of hunters on all brackets, asian farming toons are all hunters

#5 Tyveris

Tyveris
  • Premium Junkies
  • Curse Premium
  • Posts: 6889

Posted 06 March 2008 - 02:02 AM

Chances are his numbers exclude team hoppers where mine are more forgiving. Remember his within 100 PR quote?

#6 bk

bk
  • Members
  • Posts: 1947

Posted 06 March 2008 - 02:12 AM

maybe its cause kalgan has a warrior and nerfed their stats into oblivion!
5v5 warrior representation is skewed as fuck

#7 Lysander

Lysander
  • Junkies
  • Posts: 2907

Posted 06 March 2008 - 02:13 AM

I would hope/guess that Blizzard doesn't use total population for these numbers.  I'm assuming when he meant population he meant population doing arena - still a little biased, but not nearly as bad.

#8 bk

bk
  • Members
  • Posts: 1947

Posted 06 March 2008 - 02:13 AM

and shouldnt the % for 2v2 add up to 200% total? for 3v3 300% total etc?
(maybe im just a scrub idk)

#9 Tyveris

Tyveris
  • Premium Junkies
  • Curse Premium
  • Posts: 6889

Posted 06 March 2008 - 02:31 AM

Added his 1850+ numbers.

#10 Desmond

Desmond
  • Junkies
  • Posts: 274

Posted 06 March 2008 - 02:48 AM

His numbers for 1850 seem awefully suspect.  Hunters have exactly 50.2% representation of expected across all brackets?

Mages are 87.3% in both 3s and 5s?

Priests are 133.9% in 2s and 3s?

I gotta believe there are errors in this.  Statistically....it's virtually impossible.

#11 Lmkt

Lmkt
  • Members
  • Posts: 2363

Posted 06 March 2008 - 02:52 AM

WAIT ! Warriors reach 100% only once. LET'S BUFF THEM !

#12 Ascetic

Ascetic
  • Members
  • Posts: 486

Posted 06 March 2008 - 02:54 AM

The warrior numbers just seem...off. Just scratching my head at them.

#13 Windwalk

Windwalk
  • Members
  • Posts: 3023

Posted 06 March 2008 - 02:58 AM

These are adjusted for population/other secret factors.

In my opinion, they should not be adjusted at all.  Correcting for population makes no sense unless you believe that random people are rated 2200+.

#14 Speedo

Speedo
  • Members
  • Posts: 1061

Posted 06 March 2008 - 03:02 AM

i really hope blizzard doesnt think mages are 96% fine in 3v3 and 5v5.

#15 AntaresDaha

AntaresDaha
  • Members
  • Posts: 22

Posted 06 March 2008 - 03:04 AM

Maybe they just expect that 90% of the top 5on5 teams play with a warrior, so the warrior is less popular for 5on5 than they want them to be?

I can't judge for all classes but at least the paladin stats seem to represent exactly what it feels like right now, least favorable class in 3s, second least favorable class in 2s, but still pretty solid in 5s.

Hopefully they won't buff hunters based on these numbers, it would have to be a HUGE buff^^.

Still they should post how they adjusted the raw numbers.

edit:
Just wanted to point out that some of those numbers are bugged just like Iscaturday
already mentioned.

#16 Ascetic

Ascetic
  • Members
  • Posts: 486

Posted 06 March 2008 - 03:19 AM

I'm completely math retarded, but wouldn't it be more accurate to just do a statistic using raw data instead? Take the total number of players at 1850+ rating (or 2200 + rating). Then take into account class representation as a fraction of the entire population of players above said rating. Class A, B, C are at X % and are fine...class D, E, F are below X% and are in need of buffs to bring up to par. You get the idea.

I'm genuinely curious about which approach would be the most accurate method of measuring class representation above a certain bracket. I got Cs in my stats classes. :(

#17 Kahoona

Kahoona
  • Members
  • Posts: 160

Posted 06 March 2008 - 03:19 AM

If these numbers are right, lol at Druids in the future.
"We are Epochyloto, and we are here to wreak havoc on your lands and fight for Conan."

#18 Vadren

Vadren
  • Junkies
  • Posts: 1575

Posted 06 March 2008 - 04:00 AM

[quote name='Ascetic']I'm completely math retarded, but wouldn't it be more accurate to just do a statistic using raw data instead? Take the total number of players at 1850+ rating (or 2200 + rating). Then take into account class representation as a fraction of the entire population of players above said rating. Class A, B, C are at X % and are fine...class D, E, F are below X% and are in need of buffs to bring up to par. You get the idea.

I'm genuinely curious about which approach would be the most accurate method of measuring class representation above a certain bracket. I got Cs in my stats classes. :([/QUOTE]

No. Class population has to be taken into account or else the data is fubar. Active arena class population anyway. If Blizzard is including low level alts and people who don't participate in Arena at all then they're pretty stupid.

Anyway, here's why (for the people who don't seem to have a grasp on it).

Lets assume that a base % of total players are "good" say 1%, but the number doesn't matter. So 1% of all warlocks are good, 1% of all druids are good, 1% of all warriors, etc... Good players would succeed at any class. We have to make these assumptions because the skill of a player isn't measurable except when filtered through his class.

Now lets look at an example. Lets say there are 100 warriors total population and 20 druids total population. Small numbers because they're easier to work with, and extreme total imbalance to make the point more obvious. Of those 100 warriors there are 10 over 2000 rating and of those druids there are 5 over 2000 rating. If we don't account for total population it would seem that warriors are twice as viable than druids. But, accounting for total population we can see that only 10% of warriors are above 2000 rating whereas 25% of druids are above 2000 rating. This throws a totally different spin on things.

You can see that we can draw 1 of 2 conclusions from this data. Either druids are more powerful or that warriors are. However, which makes more sense? If we want to ignore total population we have to make the assumption that there are just more good druid players, which is not only absurd, it contradicts our initial assumption. So this conclusion has to be thrown out. And the only other option is that druids are more powerful than warriors based on a % representation in 2000+ rating.

Of course everything gets more complicated if you want to take into account class compositions, synergy, counter comping, etc... So much so, that I'd argue that it makes any conclusions we want to draw irrelevant. All these statistics allow people to do is misinterpret them and tweak them to support their own ignorant and biased opinion.

#19 Desmond

Desmond
  • Junkies
  • Posts: 274

Posted 06 March 2008 - 04:13 AM

Vadren, care to explain how your interpretation of the data supports a mass exodus from an underpowered class?

#20 Bustuarii

Bustuarii
  • Members
  • Posts: 112

Posted 06 March 2008 - 04:17 AM

Apparently Blizzard thinks since a lot of people play warriors, warriors need to dominate in arenas.

If only the guy in charged of balance didn't play a warrior...
-Bustuarii

<