Jump to content

Rate Article   - - - - -

Well Kalgan posted his numbers, so I figured I would post the numbers from our database. Here is what population is included:

1) This only counts a player once even if they are on two 2200+ teams.
2) The player must have a winning record on the team to prevent team selling members from counting.
3) Players are counted from all across the world.

Legend:
First Number - Total number of players in that class.
Second Number - Percentage of total for the bracket/cutoff.

I'll leave you to make your own interpretations of the numbers.

AJ Numbers: Players on 2200+ Teams
Class			 2v2			  3v3			  5v5 
Druid		  729 (24.5%)	  502 (15.9%)	  285  (7.5%)
Hunter		 177  (6.0%)	  189  (6.0%)	  276  (7.2%)
Mage		   109  (3.7%)	  317 (10.0%)	  435 (11.4%)
Paladin		112  (3.8%)	  170  (5.4%)	  516 (13.5%)
Priest:		298 (10.0%)	  433 (13.7%)	  604 (15.8%)
Rogue:		 456 (15.4%)	  604 (19.1%)	  315  (8.2%)
Shaman:		100  (3.4%)	  125  (4.0%)	  396 (10.4%)
Warlock:	   400 (13.5%)	  312  (9.9%)	  462 (12.1%)
Warrior:	   589 (19.8%)	  506 (16.0%)	  535 (14.0%)
AJ Numbers: Players on 1850+ Teams
Class			 2v2			  3v3			  5v5  
Druid		 7322 (17.0%)	 4841 (12.3%)	 2209  (7.0%)
Hunter		2674  (6.2%)	 2522  (6.4%)	 2237  (7.1%)
Mage		  2424  (5.6%)	 3997 (10.1%)	 3434 (10.9%)
Paladin	   2669  (6.2%)	 3439  (8.7%)	 4595 (14.6%)
Priest		5173 (12.0%)	 5375 (13.6%)	 4644 (14.7%)
Rogue		 6903 (16.1%)	 6733 (17.0%)	 2551  (8.1%)
Shaman		2102  (4.9%)	 2624  (6.6%)	 3483 (11.1%)
Warlock	   5934 (13.8%)	 3998 (10.1%)	 3381 (10.7%)
Warrior	   7772 (18.1%)	 5963 (15.1%)	 4966 (15.8%)
Kalgan's Percentages: 2200+ where 100% is expected (Believed to be normalized based on class population)
http://forums.worldo...geNo=4&sid=1#74
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%
Kalgan's Percentages: 1850+ where 100% is expected (Believed to be normalized based on class population)
http://forums.worldo...1&pageNo=13#254
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%
Posted in: News

Comments

#1 Vexo

Vexo
  • Moderators
  • Posts: 6154

Posted 12 March 2008 - 10:11 PM

post what his #'s were again, i dont wanna go through a million pages to find it

#2 Tyveris

Tyveris
  • Premium Junkies
  • Curse Premium
  • Posts: 6889

Posted 12 March 2008 - 10:16 PM

Updated the original post.

#3 Kaligo

Kaligo
  • Members
  • Posts: 33

Posted 12 March 2008 - 10:18 PM

Wow you nub tyveris :) Add up the %'s for 1850+ 5's teams. It only comes to 80%.

#4 Tyveris

Tyveris
  • Premium Junkies
  • Curse Premium
  • Posts: 6889

Posted 12 March 2008 - 10:23 PM

Kaligo said:

Wow you nub tyveris :) Add up the %'s for 1850+ 5's teams. It only comes to 80%.
Thanks, fixed. Accidentally was dividing by the 3v3 total in my script :(

#5 Escabar

Escabar
  • Members
  • Posts: 1397

Posted 12 March 2008 - 11:54 PM

he did it to hide the fact that warriors dominate all brackets with druids LOL and that casters get the shaft

#6 blackwater

blackwater
  • Members
  • Posts: 74

Posted 12 March 2008 - 11:59 PM

Have you seen this site they do a worldwide breakdown
http://www.realmhist...-breakdown.html

#7 Tyveris

Tyveris
  • Premium Junkies
  • Curse Premium
  • Posts: 6889

Posted 13 March 2008 - 12:03 AM

blackwater said:

Have you seen this site they do a worldwide breakdown
http://www.realmhist...-breakdown.html
And those numbers appear to have a much smaller sample size. I'll trust my data as I gathered it and posted the method used to obtain it.

#8 Escabar

Escabar
  • Members
  • Posts: 1397

Posted 13 March 2008 - 12:12 AM

regardless both yours tyv and realmhistory are very similar.

they show that

warriors are #1 or 2 in all brackets
Druids are #1/2 in 2v2 and 3v3 and quite high in 5v5
rogues sit up damn high around 3-4 depending on bracket

then come in slight diffs to bracket. in 2s/3s its locks/mages next, where as in 5s its priest/pallies next then shamans then lock then mage

#9 Tyveris

Tyveris
  • Premium Junkies
  • Curse Premium
  • Posts: 6889

Posted 13 March 2008 - 01:07 AM

Updated with Expected being Percentage away from 11.1% (1/9)

#10 Anarexea

Anarexea
  • Members
  • Posts: 97

Posted 13 March 2008 - 02:20 AM

just checking, but kalgan's numbers divide by the population of a class as well, right?

was that an intentional difference between these stats and kalgans?  or is tyveris saying that it doesnt make sense to normalize by class population?

just making sure...

#11 Tyveris

Tyveris
  • Premium Junkies
  • Curse Premium
  • Posts: 6889

Posted 13 March 2008 - 02:23 AM

I'm just posting numbers from data gathered from the armory. I did normalization based on number of classes, not entire population. I just did that because in a "balanced world", every class would be represented equally.

A few people asked for some numbers, so I figured I could post them. It looks like there is a discrepancy in balance of some classes compared to the figures he posted.

#12 Agonizer

Agonizer
  • Members
  • Posts: 9

Posted 13 March 2008 - 02:25 AM

There should be a disclaimer saying that you're using a different method to get those numbers and that you can't compare your charts and his charts side by side for inaccuracies. As it is, it's quite misleading.

Kalgan specifically stated that his expected percentage was based off class population, meaning you'd have to divide the numbers in the 2nd column by ~16% if it was warriors, 16% for rogues, 7% for druids, etc...

You're dividing all of them by 11.1%

Not saying which way the numbers should be interpreted, just pointing out the inconsistency.

#13 Tyveris

Tyveris
  • Premium Junkies
  • Curse Premium
  • Posts: 6889

Posted 13 March 2008 - 02:37 AM

I just added some information to how his were calculated, but in reality, no one knows how he normalized them.

There have been a few posts comparing them to wow census data and its still not even close. He magically tweaked the numbers somehow which is why I posted the raw data so people can compare them. the Expected %s were added by request via PM just so they could see how similarly they lined up to Kalgans.

#14 Augnon

Augnon
  • Members
  • Posts: 202

Posted 13 March 2008 - 02:41 AM

Glad that u made ur own calculations.I was looking at kalagans data and there is no way in hell warlocks outnumbers warrs in 2v2

Drmoo said:

Got a "specialist" (by specialist I think a kid with a helmet) to look at my ticket and they basically said they know shit is wrong and will look into fixing it shortly.

Keiret said:

Okay, you killed the death knight, good job. NIGHTMARE MODE UNLOCKED, KILL HIM AGAIN, YOU HAVE 20% LIFE THIS TIME AND NO COOLDOWNS.

Axolotl said:

Priests do their best healing in spirit of redemption form.

#15 Agonizer

Agonizer
  • Members
  • Posts: 9

Posted 13 March 2008 - 02:56 AM

Tyveris said:

I just added some information to how his were calculated, but in reality, no one knows how he normalized them.

There have been a few posts comparing them to wow census data and its still not even close. He magically tweaked the numbers somehow which is why I posted the raw data so people can compare them. the Expected %s were added by request via PM just so they could see how similarly they lined up to Kalgans.
If you're not trying to replicate Kalgan's numbers and claim that nobody knows how Kalgan got his, then you shouldn't line up yours and his side by side.

If you're trying to replicate Kalgan's numbers, you should realize that Kalgan said "normalized for class popularity." Your numbers are normalized for equal popularity. That is a big difference.

Your explanation for Kalgan's numbers: "Kalgan's Percentages: 2200+ where 100% is expected (normalized based on total population)" is quite wrong.

#16 Tyveris

Tyveris
  • Premium Junkies
  • Curse Premium
  • Posts: 6889

Posted 13 March 2008 - 03:05 AM

Agonizer said:

If you're not trying to replicate Kalgan's numbers and claim that nobody knows how Kalgan got his, then you shouldn't line up yours and his side by side.

If you're trying to replicate Kalgan's numbers, you should realize that Kalgan said "normalized for class popularity." Your numbers are normalized for equal popularity. That is a big difference.

Your explanation for Kalgan's numbers: "Kalgan's Percentages: 2200+ where 100% is expected (normalized based on total population)" is quite wrong.
Kalgan's numbers can't be replicated so trying to replicate them is pointless. I added his numbers so people can look at all the data available considering class balance and make up their own opinions.

Why is that quite wrong? I mean total class population, I'll rephrase it as that sounds more clear.

#17 Jellygoose

Jellygoose
  • Junkies
  • Posts: 47

Posted 13 March 2008 - 03:16 AM

kalgan clearly stated that his stats are normalized by actual population, your numbers are normalized based on the assumption that all classes have an equal number of players - thus making these charts even more meaningless than kalgans...

#18 Tyveris

Tyveris
  • Premium Junkies
  • Curse Premium
  • Posts: 6889

Posted 13 March 2008 - 03:20 AM

Daseman said:

kalgan clearly stated that his stats are normalized by actual population, your numbers are normalized based on the assumption that all classes have an equal number of players - thus making these charts even more meaningless than kalgans...
I give you the exact numbers of all classes. Then I show what % that is, then I normalize them. That gives you every type of information I can give you.

I could just as easily remove those percentages if that somehow makes it more useful. /shrug

#19 blackfoot

blackfoot
  • Members
  • Posts: 565

Posted 13 March 2008 - 03:23 AM

Tyveris said:

Kalgan's numbers can't be replicated so trying to replicate them is pointless. I added his numbers so people can look at all the data available considering class balance and make up their own opinions.

Why is that quite wrong? I mean total class population, I'll rephrase it as that sounds more clear.

rather than divide each by 11.11%, since the populations are not equal I would be more interested if you divide it by the actual % of players of that class, because it would be more relevent.

For example, imagine there are 100 players, lets say 20 are warriors and 80 are druids

lets say 1/2 of each of those classes don't even arena, while the rest do and have 1700+ rating.

If there are only 10 warriors doing arena and 5 of them get to 2200+ that would mean warriors had a great chance to be high level. Furthermore if  you had 40 druids and 10 of them got to 2200, that would mean druids don't have as good as a chance to hit 2200+ as a warrior, since only 1/4 druids made it that far, while 1/2 the warriors did.

If you divided both the 5 warriors and 10 druids by the 11.11% then you would be thinking, oh man druids are way overrepresented and thus OP, which would be false.

Since so many players play warriors, you must account for this.
It is hard to stay mad when there is so much beauty in the world.
Posted Image

#20 Tyveris

Tyveris
  • Premium Junkies
  • Curse Premium
  • Posts: 6889

Posted 13 March 2008 - 03:31 AM

I took the normalization out so that no one will think I'm trying to mislead anyone. I'm just posting the raw stats so that people have other numbers to look at and ti was requested quite a few times in the other thread about Kalgan's numbers.

As for normalizing the top end based on the total population, does that even make sense? There were quite a few good arguments in the other thread of why that should not be done. People reroll classes in order to be competitive.

Anyways, its up to you to infer what you want from either set of stats, I just figure the more information people have, the better it is.

<