New PTR Build - Class/professions changes

[Pyrostemplar]

"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.

Actually, it is more meaningful than an absolute number - it is a "power index". Yes, it would be interesting to have more data, namely regarding populational basis and how the adjustment was made (a straight %, a deflating factor, log values...). If it follows a straight % (as it is simpler and the wording leads to believe), it means that each class has a Pc% of the total population (being each Pc% = (number of [lvl 70] chars of class "c" / total number of [lvl 70] chars) and the sum of all the 9 Pc% = 100%) and a percentage of the arena population above a certain bracket (Ac% = number of chars of class "c" with arena rating at or above X/ total number of chars with arena rating at or above X). Dividing Ac by Pc you get the index.

The main question is that how should population adjustment be taken into account for this, besides the "catch 22" already described. A better solution would probably [as sugested once by a poster and more or less included in one of the blogues that computes arena standings] be to take into account the actual distribution of a class - namely which % of the class has a rating above X and how that compares to other classes.

Btw, sorry for the dense post ^^

[Balbaroy]

Thats ok dude i didnt read it. And it's about time prot pallies got some pvp love

[Windywoo]

I have big doubts about how much class population has to do with its respresentation in arena. The number of people rolling classes or rerolling just to play them in arena must be small compared to the number of people who think "I wanna smash faces me roll warrior". I really don't think warriors need buffs in order to give them more representation in arena. Or Hunters.

lol at all the changes to cc breaks. Whats next? AoE no longer removes cc effects?

[Yurok]

How can he talk about locks when the chart shows 276% druid activity. Also, the 8% mage might be reason for concern.

[Derathor]

super sad face for the spell hit change in alchemist stone. I was looking forward to only needing 4 pieces of hit gear to cap my lock thats close 70. Now I gotta farm hit gear again.... *sigh* Guess it was too good to be true

[Azain]

How can he talk about locks when the chart shows 276% druid activity. Also, the 8% mage might be reason for concern.

perhaps some of the mana reduction costs in spells or a fire/arcane build will bring them back in 2s. who knows...

i could see a slow mage having some fun with warrior/druid in 2v2.

[enno]

lol, a low number for hunters? I'm sure that has nothing to do with everybody that wants easy farmign (including the famouse chinese) ALL make hunters that more then likely don't ever do arena?

And warriors.. who hasn't started a warior by now since they seem to get more powerfull the longer the games takes closing in on a new reset (expansion)? So again pretty logical that their representation seems pretty 'low'. I wonder, does my lvl 18 warrior get counted too for the class popularity?

These umbers MIGHT mean something, but with the info we get from that blue post, we can't know that.

[Azain]

These umbers MIGHT mean something, but with the info we get from that blue post, we can't know that.

agreed more details would be appropriate. but to assume anything outside of level 70 would be wrong on blizzard's part. i also find it hard to believe that blizzard would say, we want 50% to be warriors and 10% to be paladins, so the representation numbers we want would be changed in that sense.

however you also have to take into account classes with multiple specs. warriors are arms as locks are mostly sl/sl, but shamans can be used in all 3 (hence over-rep in 5v5) or disc + shadow for priests, all 3 trees for rogues. the popularity of certain cookie cutter combos will definitely affect these numbers. the now removed but formerly proposed shaman changes probably would have increased their numbers in 2s and 3s, and i suspect holy shock changes will help paladins as well.

[Miranger]

Those class % charts show exactly why blizzards balancing is so broken...
They look at them by class not by spect... They dont tell you that
%90 of those Priests in the 2v2s are Holy and the %10 of S.priests
Preety much are decked out along with their partners.
%276 of druids in 2v2's Yah.... i doubt HALF or even a third of that are
Ferals or zoomkins....
Seriously this doesnt fix anything trowing stats out there that arent
accurate or specific enough to help

[wizzdom]

Surely they could normalise this a bit by only including characters that have played a minimum number of arena games. This way they remove any characters which are purely rolled for PvE and never set foot in an arena game.

[Rokh]

I don't think it's possible for Blizzard to look at specs in arenas, in general. What I mean is, I think it's damn near impossible to balance every spec to be good at each bracket, or even any bracket. I don't think that's they're goal or intention. If you want to do well in arenas, they're setup so that you can respec, use your PvP gear, and do well, then spec back to your PvE spec and do BG's or instances in your PvE gear. Lots of people do this, and I think it's fine.

[Kor0su]

Those class % charts show exactly why blizzards balancing is so broken...
They look at them by class not by spect... They dont tell you that
%90 of those Priests in the 2v2s are Holy and the %10 of S.priests
Preety much are decked out along with their partners.
%276 of druids in 2v2's Yah.... i doubt HALF or even a third of that are
Ferals or zoomkins....
Seriously this doesnt fix anything trowing stats out there that arent
accurate or specific enough to help

I totally agree with you there, to say that they didn't take spec into account but still thought the numbers to be accurate and helpful is silly, granted i understand why they most likely did not take the spec into account, since people respec, a warrior that is MS in arena will probably be prot when he PVE's. So the ability to generate spec numbers would have been much more difficult since you would have to take the numbers while the teams are actually in the arena's to get accurate counts of spec's. Even pvp only players will swap spec to try things out. Yes this does give them a vague outline of the actual people going into arena's but they should be able to understand how some people can be like "WTF i can't believe that our numbers are that high" mostly because they are a certain spec that is under represented in arena and forget about their other spec's. (enhance vs resto shaman's in 5's is a good example) (and feral/oomkin vs resto in 2's as Miranger mentioned) The problem is that when you look at a glossed over percentage you have to essentially assign a role for that class to play which blizzard has been doing for most classes in pvp lately. Either your Spec A or you're less effective that someone who is. They give people the choice to be able to customize their characters to be unique in what they choose to specialize in, but then make changes to bottleneck those choices into "ok you might be a good player, but if you want to actually go anywhere in the long run, you better respec to build X or similar geared players that might not be as good as you will start to beat you since they have chosen to go with Build X (aka frost for mages, mace for rogues, resto for druids) MS warriors and SL/SL locks are pretty much the last surviving viable hybrid builds that have a major representation, but still defines them so that if you don't go the set hybrid build you're probably going to lose. Regaurdless of a class's situation, it's all the same problem, making changes that almost seem to force classes into playing a certain specific way just to accomplish something to the point that it almost feels like you're being punished if you try to deviate from those builds to find a more unique way to play.

[Mahtamori]

Just for interest here is an average accross all three brackets ordered by highest to lowest:

Druid  180.1%
Priest  154.5%
Rogue  127.0%
Warlock 118.1%
Warrior 100.1%
Shaman  75.6%
Mage   66.3%
Paladin  65.5%
Hunter  45.4%

So the two most overpowered classes: Druid and Priest
The two least powerful classes: Hunter and Paladin (with mage a close third).

Other points that go against the popular perception:

Rogues are more powerful than Warriors.
Shamans are more powerful than Paladins.
Warriors are pretty much perfectly balanced if you average the three brackets and the second most balanced class is the Warlock followed by the Shaman.

First of all, excuse my truncation of the quote.

Now, Kalgan's post was weighted by class popularity. What those numbers mean is that only 8.7% of the expected number of mages made it into the 2200+ rated teams in 2v2.

Additionally, the numbers do not really say anything about class power, because there are so many factors involved. It can say SOMETHING about power with regards to the lower popularity classes, since often they are less popular due to powergamers and class-of-the-month followers avoiding them - so if fewer than expected make it into the 2200+...

In either case, something needs to be done about the classes with the least representation. Especially for the detailed data where hidden information regarding how many of the top rated Paladins or Shamen are spec X and then target the other specs which just aren't represented.
For Mages it is a bit different. Mostly because they aren't over-represented in their other two brackets.

[Pyrostemplar]

Those class % charts show exactly why blizzards balancing is so broken...
They look at them by class not by spect... They dont tell you that
%90 of those Priests in the 2v2s are Holy and the %10 of S.priests
Preety much are decked out along with their partners.
%276 of druids in 2v2's Yah.... i doubt HALF or even a third of that are
Ferals or zoomkins....
Seriously this doesnt fix anything trowing stats out there that arent
accurate or specific enough to help

That is increasing the complexity of the analysis, which doesn't make the balancing effort easier and presupposes that every spec should perform equaly in the arena (something that is not a given).

But do you know what is funny? That those 8,7% of the mage representation in 2v2 2.2k+ are probably 100% frost.

[Pyrostemplar]

super sad face for the spell hit change in alchemist stone. I was looking forward to only needing 4 pieces of hit gear to cap my lock thats close 70. Now I gotta farm hit gear again.... *sigh* Guess it was too good to be true

I also liked the previous stone better :S. It would be great for gear switching for bosses - when you need more hit.

[Xombo]

Nobody has replied to the fact that raiding/instances just became more scrub? Weird.

I find it kinda stupid that aoe affects no longer break cc. This was an idiot check in pve and I have no clue why they would implement it at all. The epics for badges thing people point out is a huge opportunity to the casual player...but this is just a huge opportunity for the *bad* player.

This game is becoming far too fluffy and cute.

[Psykhe]

Nobody has replied to the fact that raiding/instances just became more scrub? Weird.

I find it kinda stupid that aoe affects no longer break cc. This was an idiot check in pve and I have no clue why they would implement it at all.

I can kinda understand it for the Avenger’s Shield of tankadins since that ability is their primary puller. It makes it really awkward for them to pull a group where one mob has been sapped, since they can only do a proximity pull then.

But for the other stuff, yes, it is definately an unneeded simplification.

[jizzyburnizzy]

do you think this change was directed more towards pve or pvp?

[gnoop]

Shiny Glass hu? Well I'll buy that for a dollar. More soulbound jewelcrafting items are just fine with me. Although I feel bad for other professions now, JC get so much love. I'll spread my prosperity!

I'm sorry if it was a disappointment to all about the ms on ft...maybe they'll find another way to "balance" your class. *holds breath...*

Looking at those new Alchemy trinkets, I wouldn't say JC's get ALL the love, especially when noticing that we don't have a +heal trinket (other than the dmg/heal on-use from the Serpent trinket). I am happy, however, in my decision a while back to start a Resto Shammy with Herb/Alch. Looks like that may be a fun combination.

[Bahramyew]

You're missing Equilibrium Epaulets on your Eredar Twins loot table.