fixed it nowOriginally Posted by vexis58
fixed it nowOriginally Posted by vexis58
no, it is not a typo. As % are adjusted for population and mages are one of the more popular classes and, at the same time the one with less representation on the 2v2 (along with shammies/palas), that is what you get. Nothing surprisingOriginally Posted by Nevoron
Regarding warriors remember that they are the one of the most popular classes (second only to hunters I think). So while one see lots of warriors on top, as they have high pop, when normalized the representation is not as "excessive".
An interesting thought.
In theory the best way to promote balance is to buff the least popular classes in ways that work specifically against the most powerful classes with the strength of the buff specifically relative to the imbalance.
So give hunters a large buff vs druids, give paladins a moderate buff vs priest, and give shaman and mage small buffs vs warlock and rogue respectively.
This should, in theory make the buffs be of benefit in an appropriate amount of situations. So with that in mind here are some suggestions:
Hunter: Increase range of Scare Beast to 20 or 30 yards. Make Serpent Sting reduce healing over time affects on the target by 50%.
Paladin: Give righteous fury a 30% chance to reflect mana drain affects while active.
Mage V Rogue, nothing springs to mind.
Shaman: Make Earth Shield remove up to 2 negative magic affects from the target when it fades or is dispelled.
About Flametongue change:
Yes the flametongue revert was intentional. After putting it through its paces we felt like we'd gone too far on that one.
I can't believe they still havent reversed the lifebloom nerf.
It has been proved in countless threads how this will be a PVE nerf and that is unwarrented. Resto druids arent OP in PVE.
I'm a force of nature..... with lazorz ... PEW PEW !!
I like how JC has something better(endgame wise) to use those greens o.O
Can see the price of them green gems rocketing in the AH ><
I doubt it will make any difference. Right now those gems go for about 2g each on most servers, with the new recipe you can use 18 of them to make a blue gem which is probably worth in or around the 36g of mats it would take to make one. The profit margins would be very small for doing the change, depending on the gem you would make or lose a couple of gold probably breaking even over time but the hassle factor involved in buying 18 small gems is high enough that I doubt many people would even be bothered.Originally Posted by whitesprit
I suppose if they are really common on your server they might go from about 1g now to 2-2.5g each but beyond that there is no profit margin in using the recipe.
And I can see the price of blue gems plummeting now that every raider under the sun will have access to epic gems.Originally Posted by whitesprit
Demand for blue gems goes down, supply goes up, price goes down. These changes affect miners, and JC. The only thing the JC will have that will keep them profitable is cutting epic gems, aka people who can raid Hyjal.
omg our survival hunter farmed his alchemist stone and now they change the trinket to 108 ap....
Sorry, but whats this kinda shit.
Why they remove the healing debuff of the shaman? i thought that shaman should be buffed and not nerfed. Where is the shaman buff for the class.
Unbelievable... what blizz makes.
Pissed in the morning off.
I like the fact that they admit that they balance Arena from a statistical point of view in terms of the numbers of classes playing it not in terms of class abilities. Wonder what Starcraft players would say if blizzard nerfed tarran just because it became the most popular race.
And I wonder how they correct for activity of the different classes. Hunter seems underrepresented, but I know quite a number of people who have hunters as alts (farm machine) and why should that influence arena nerfs/buffs.
2200+ bracket: Mage 8.7%
LOL! That's the lowest number for any class in any bracket.
Hunters are still doing pretty badly overall too. 40-50% for all brackets is pretty bad.
Actually on the actualized post there is one interesting data about hunters - their representation doesn't vary much when you lower the "filter" from 2200+ to 1850+. It seems that their underrepresentation does not comes from underperformance but from relatively few hunters (compared to the hunter population) engage in the arena. That or they have a weird class skill&gear distribution.Originally Posted by MrSimtang
The question has to be asked though, with stats like that why the hell are they buffing priests?
So basically my LB is getting the nerf bat because of those many people with druid alts for the sole purpose of doing arena.
warriors underrepresented above 1850, lol, buff me pls! i'm surprised that note about breaking CC only applies to cleave and not WW.
on a serious note, the gem thing is really nice, prospecting will become worthwhile again, hopefully driving the price of ore up (i'm a miner ) but the price of rare gems will most likely decrease as more of them flood the market and people move on up to epic gems (i'm a JC'er )
Adjusting for population has two catch 22s, though.Originally Posted by Skulver
Firstly, arenas have been here for a long time. This means the players already adjusted to it. An example:
Lets say we have only 2 classes, with one being vastely better in arena than the other. This remains like this for 2 years, then you see how much a % adjusted for population is in arenas. And you will get for both classes relatively similar values.
Why? Because if people see that one class is bad in what they want to do and one class is good they will in most cases obviously roll the better classes. And as result increase its population. The same reason why people who want to solo PvE/farm do not roll holy priests, but hunters.
Which brings us to, secondly, what most people of a class are doing. If one class does averagely in arenas, but is very good in PvE it will have a less than average percentage of it in arenas if you adjust for population, even if its performance is not sub-average. Because the high amount of it in PvE is skewing the numbers.
- if a class is above (below) average performance in arenas its imbalance, if it is nothing recent, will make it appear less (more) overpopulated in arenas if adjusted for population.
- if a class is above (below) average performance in PvE its imbalance, if it is nothing recent, will make it appear more (less) underpopulated in arenas if adjusted for population.
Of cource these two factors can cancel each other out. But just because they *can* does not mean they *do*. That will be a relatively rare occurance.
"In this particular chart, a value of 100% means the class is represented as we'd expect, a value over 100% means the class is represented that much more often than we'd expect, a value below 100% means they're represented less than we'd want"
Does this actually mean something? I mean what are their solid values on how many supposed to be represented in each class? 38% of a uknown number could be anything really. It dont even provide any information how they are compared to the other individual classes in this case.