I am seriously at a loss. You were arguing the exact opposite 2 pages ago when I pointed out that DKs were more than 10x as common than warriors.... Why did you even bring it up?
I stated that class populus affects arena representation, which it does. I said nothing less, nothing more. We're not talking proportionality coefficients here (which is what we use here to describe general covariance), just pure representation.
If DKs have 30% representation and you increase their populus by 50% then on average their representation will increase accordingly. It may not be a 50% increase, as the relationship involves confounding factors aswell, but it WILL increase. Therefore, it AFFECTS arena representation.
That is ALL I said, and at the time you hadn't legitimately eliminated their populus size as a reason for success (note: I specifically say 'success' not representation). In other words I was saying you hadn't proven my first point, A, wrong with relation to DKs (at that point in time).
After you posted the graph, you had, but that didn't come until AFTER my post.
Err so you are saying, I proved you were incorrect, yet you knew you were incorrect, and I cannot prove there are no counfounding factors? If I could prove there were no confounding factors I'd expect to win a Field's Medal AND a Nobel considering that IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO SHOW THERE ARE NO CONFOUNDING FACTORS.
Which is exactly WHY YOU DON'T OPEN YOUR MOUTH WITH RESOUNDING ARGUMENTS OF SELF-IMPORTANCE BECAUSE YOU CAN'T ELIMINATE CONFOUNDING FACTORS - I LIKE CAPS TOO!
If you can't produce an argument without confounding factors it's usually a very, VERY good idea to be UNASSUMING and give credence to the fact that it is nothing more than a statistical SUGGESTION, which is actually the basis of any statistical 'argument' with confounding factors - it is merely a SUGGESTION.
And if you'd been reading, you would've seen I already stated that in a previous post at the top of this very page:
At most you can say the data is SUGGESTIVE of something, and that something is DKs are OP. What you CAN'T do is use it as a staple argument for an absolute statement, if you do you just look like a retard
And I'd already said as much in my ORIGINAL post aswell. If I had known you knew statistics I would've said it as within this post. However, your apparent choice to omit those factors from your argument suggested you did not.
And again if you would - you know - LEARN TO READ, you would've seen that on my very first post I listed many of the confounding factors as a REASON for not wholly believing such obstinate arguments as "DKS ARE DEFO HIGH REP COZ THEYRE INSANE OP". In the very beginning, I said that BECAUSE those confounding factors exist there is NO point attempting to draw a DIRECT and DISCRETE correlation between them.
Attempting to do so, as you did (*chuckle*), is retarded.
As best as I can parse your confused phrasing:
You have proven that I am incorrect, but you cannot prove there aren't any confounding factors, therefore :SMUG:
Since my original post was ABOUT the existence of confounding factors I don't see how you proved I am incorrect unless we're allowing paradoxical statements now. My post was like a model for the "requirements" you'd have to eliminate to produce a full-boiled argument. You eliminated one, so what? There's many more. I didn't say that particular requirement was the only one did I? Nor did I say that the populus is definitely the SOLE or DETERMINING factor.
Since you can't eliminate all of those requirements with mere data, you can't produce a full-boiled argument with mere data either. Therefore, attempting to do so, like all the people who quote SK-Gaming stats try to do (like you), is pointless.
Ok, let me go over some absolute facts:
- DKs are over-represented in Arena at high rating.
- DKs over-representation is NOT due to a population imbalance.
Let's go over opinions:
- DKs need a physical snare that cannot be removed because otherwise that leads to 'clunky' mechanics. You refused to clarify what you meant by 'clunky' beyond vague aesthetic statements.
I refused to go into depth over clunky mechanics because the current argument hasn't the capacity for it. In short, taking the time to actually discuss with you what constitutes "clunky" would probably result in a myriad of tangent arguments with you attempting to pick up every individual word you could to validate your overall argument.
Thus, I passed on it.
In a brief description: clunky means that some, or all, of the mechanics of the class don't "mesh" - they work AGAINST each other and they sometimes trivialise one another.
Example 1: TBC Spell Reflecting Offensively - trying to Spell Reflect CCs in TBC when playing offensively was essentially pointless because the time it took to weapon swap twice and regain your swing timer the effect had often already expired and/or MS had fallen off plus you'd lost several thousand damage on the target.
This is an example of clunky mechanics. Spell Reflect is trivialised here because the entire REASON for doing it is to create pressure but BY doing it you lessen pressure.
Example 2: Chains of Ice Offensively - the purpose of CoI'ing someone is to get into melee 99% of the time. Why do we get into melee? To deal damage to them, to try to kill them. What point is there in doing this, however, if CoI happens to directly reduce (and if you use 2 in succession, it completely removes...) controlled damage?
Similar example to offensive Spell Reflection, you essentially cancel out the entire point of the skill BY USING IT.
THAT is clunky. THAT is why Glyph of BB was needed and THAT is why Desecration was changed so that it would fill that role.
You were the one who insisted on 'precise' terms, then you reject mathematical descriptions because they are jargon. I am sorry if this is somehow confusing you. You thought you could score cheap points quibbling over some very minor semanthic points, then immediately retreated and insisted that you didn't want to quantify what you were saying.
I didn't use precise terms, I used precise ENGLISH.
And as I think I demonstrated, your jargon isn't confusing me it's simply boring me.
Look, this is the old 'trick' in the book. Sure, DKs are overpowered, but nerf this incredibly tiny inconsequential thing and DKs will be fine. Druids claimed that the travelform speed nerf and the cyclone range nerf were sufficient to reign them in, look at old posts if you do not believe me. I am very very sure that I understand statistics better than you.
And who measures what constitutes a "tiny inconsequential thing"? You? No thanks. We play the class, we measure that is consequential. This is significant. If it was inconsequential I wouldn't be here.
In addition, it's a bit rich to claim me admitting DKs are OP as the "old trick in the book" considering I said that in my original post (as quoted) BEFORE THIS ARGUMENT EVEN STARED. It would only be an "old trick" if the context of this argument existed, but since it didn't, I don't see how there was an agenda; unless I somehow time-travelled back to that point in time and THEN posted it of couse. It was nothing more than a genuine and honest opinion.
Class balance opinions are completely subjective, representation in arena is not. You may of course advance alternative theories as to why certain classes are over-represented that do not involve class balance (as a matter of fact you drew a completely ridiculous dichotomy between class mechanics and class balance) but unless you can offer a reason they remain just completely artificial speculations.
Good class mechanics allow higher skill cap, thus they do actually influence class balance. There's your reason. This is why TBC Warriors were traditionally considered to have a low skill cap, because much of their strength were RNG (which is also poor mechanics, arguably) and their mechanics were also clunky.
They did well, contrary to it, because the class was so powerful, it synergised perfectly with healers and best of all the most insane healer: Resto Druids.
On the flip side of the coin, Rogue mechanics were fairly pristine (sans Vanish bug) thus the class had a high skill cap. They did well down to this more so than Warriors, and thus a large gulf in skill of Rogues was found from 1700 to 2.2k+
It affects arena representation, even more so now with PvP being so fast paced classes that are "slowed down" by clunky mechanics (like Warriors) are doing badly. It takes a Warrior too long to initiate the same amount of moves as a DK does, and thus they're doing badly.
Anyway, that's enough for me, this is getting ridiculous. Night night.