This is when you know there is a problem with arena.

[baele]

Today I played 50 matches of arena in the 1500 or so ratings. We fought:

25 Priests
15 Druids
15 Death Knights
15 Warriors
15 Rogues
....
3 Shamans
1 Hunter
1 Mage
1 Warlock
...
0 Spriests, Boomkins, Protection warriors or paladins, frost or blood dks, enhancement shamans, etc.
...

there are 10 classes in World of Warcraft with 30 different specs not including hybrids. Yet we have to play the same 5-6 specs over and over and over. This is not enjoyable. If Blizzard doesn't do something to address the fact that half of the classes are not viable and melee completely dominating, Arena will die out.

[Mezz]

There are always weird things happening at those ratings.

Better check aj/armory.

[YigiBareTank]

How did you manage to face 0 paladins?
This info is rigged!

[Maradar]

0 prot pala's he meant.

[bujaberry]

0 prot pala's he meant.

0 pala's in his list.

oh and to the op, yeah 50 games is like super srs.

omgomg, i flipped a coin 4 times and it was head EVERY TIME, this coin must be broken!

[Nightseye]

They should balance the existing comps in the arenas before making more viable.

The last thing I wanna do is to play a 3-hour game of cat and mice in BEA with a druid and a prot warrior.

[brokenmirror]

You know there's a problem with arena when one melee can kill a resto shaman by itself.

[bujaberry]

You know there's a problem with arena when one melee can kill a resto shaman by itself.

So you'd want healers killing ppl?

Go go 2 healer teams, now that'd be fun.

Ofc 1 melee should be able to kill any healer, but thats what your partner is there for, thus the essence of 2vs2 arena and workign together.

[Calamar]

You know there's a problem with arena when one melee can kill a resto shaman by itself.

As a shaman I do feel your pain with melee on you, but you have to see it from the melee side too - would it be unfair if we were actually unkillable and they would never win? Hardly, the problem is the speed at which we die.

On another note, are you really from Glenrothes? Just across the river from moi!

[Suikiele]

omgomg, i flipped a coin 4 times and it was head EVERY TIME, this coin must be broken!

You must have thought you were making a clever comment of some caliber, but you failed pretty hard.

[bujaberry]

You must have thought you were making a clever comment of some caliber, but you failed pretty hard.

comparing classes he met in a 50-game representation in 1 bracket on 1 rating level. seems pretty good comparison to me.

[Scogan]

0 pala's in his list.

oh and to the op, yeah 50 games is like super srs.

omgomg, i flipped a coin 4 times and it was head EVERY TIME, this coin must be broken!

lolol

[rathok]

Blizzard balances classes, not specs. They have already said that melees are too good in 2s. They have also said that do indeed need help. Now the problem is getting them to do something about it...

[spaas420]

How did you manage to face 0 paladins?
This info is rigged!

Because there is no such thing as a 1500 rated pally, they either just started or have facerolled to 2k+ by now.

[Suikiele]

comparing classes he met in a 50-game representation in 1 bracket on 1 rating level. seems pretty good comparison to me.

First level of fail: A sampling of 4 =//= a sampling of 50. You have the incremental increase of probability going against your case.

Second level of fail: Your argument implies that these numbers will change in higher brackets. That they could somehow be dominated by hunters, mages and warlocks. If this ISN'T the case, then his reasoning was correct. (Keep in mind I'm not implying that they stay 100% correct, as his results represent a curve, and curves are predictable in what directions they end up heading down the road.)

Third level of fail: His point was that of all the permutations of classes and specs, it seemed there was severe over-representation of specific ones. While this isn't new to arena, it does imply that they are wholly dominated by melee dps with priest healers. You seem to think this isn't the case somehow, so the burden of proof is on you.

So, in the future, base your argument on facts, instead of trying to disprove probability itself. Might work out better for you.

[Gahno]

you faced 91 other players in 50 matches? that´s like winning the lottery. Gz!

[annomander999]

you faced 91 other players in 50 matches? that´s like winning the lottery. Gz!

I was wondering about that too... ???

[Beaavis]

They should balance the existing comps in the arenas before making more viable.

The last thing I wanna do is to play a 3-hour game of cat and mice in BEA with a druid and a prot warrior.

Get used to it. The new fotm is going to be resto druids, or rather the old one is back again :'( They won't be staying in tree form eating snares and cc's any longer, now that they are being encouraged to kite, heal, and pillar.

[Elronhubbard]

First level of fail: A sampling of 4 =//= a sampling of 50. You have the incremental increase of probability going against your case.

Second level of fail: Your argument implies that these numbers will change in higher brackets. That they could somehow be dominated by hunters, mages and warlocks. If this ISN'T the case, then his reasoning was correct. (Keep in mind I'm not implying that they stay 100% correct, as his results represent a curve, and curves are predictable in what directions they end up heading down the road.)

Third level of fail: His point was that of all the permutations of classes and specs, it seemed there was severe over-representation of specific ones. While this isn't new to arena, it does imply that they are wholly dominated by melee dps with priest healers. You seem to think this isn't the case somehow, so the burden of proof is on you.

So, in the future, base your argument on facts, instead of trying to disprove probability itself. Might work out better for you.

[Logabas]

First level of fail: A sampling of 4 =//= a sampling of 50. You have the incremental increase of probability going against your case.

Second level of fail: Your argument implies that these numbers will change in higher brackets. That they could somehow be dominated by hunters, mages and warlocks. If this ISN'T the case, then his reasoning was correct. (Keep in mind I'm not implying that they stay 100% correct, as his results represent a curve, and curves are predictable in what directions they end up heading down the road.)

Third level of fail: His point was that of all the permutations of classes and specs, it seemed there was severe over-representation of specific ones. While this isn't new to arena, it does imply that they are wholly dominated by melee dps with priest healers. You seem to think this isn't the case somehow, so the burden of proof is on you.

So, in the future, base your argument on facts, instead of trying to disprove probability itself. Might work out better for you.

My suggestion is that you yourself need to understand probability better, as well as sarcasm.

50 =/= 4, but this example is a simplification of the problem with the OP's data, saying that 50 trials during the same time period in the same bracket in the same battlegroup around the same rating is not an accurate representation of the whole. He uses the 4 flips of a coin to demonstrate the folly of the OP's assumption using terms that those of us not familiar with stats can understand better.