Rated Battleground Class Balance Statistics, Poll, Comics

Hunters and then Druids for the lowest two spots? If WSG, TP, and AB weren't the three most boring BGs (in order), I might care about RBGs a bit more. Why can't they just give everyone personal ranks regardless of putting together a 10-man group?

The hunter problem in PVP is the same problem they have in PVE, by the way. They have plenty of tools in the toolbox for PVP, but to be blunt, they don't do enough damage and at high resil, that really shows.

Originally Posted by Primernova

So the graph tells me: all Hunters, Resto Druids and Ret Pallys are underpowered in PvP... This was known about a year ago. One whole class and two specific specs, is it really that hard to balance? I'll not go into the OP classes because it really doesn't matter at this point.

All BGs should be rated IMO, based on the individual player's prformance, this is why they failed.

Premades, never wanted to fight other premades; just like twinks never wanted to fight only other twinks. This concept is dead and it was obvious when premades completely stopped after they made the matching system. Keep it random, rated and with 5 players max to queue together per-BG.

This is such common sense...

Indeed, common sense to all but the devs.

conflating balance and representation

Nowhere on the front page does it mention representation. These are win *percentages*, independent of the absolute number of classes that play. Last I checked hunters were one of the most common classes at 85 too, so one ought to expect more hunters to be playing rated bgs, but that isn't the case either. Personal rating would be terrible to implement if it were based on win:loss ratio since it would mean increasing queue times for Horde as Alliance are matched with suitably unskilled players. I'm mediocre at best at PvP, but I collect gear from the current season, bind my abilities and turn with my mouse and I've won just over 31% of my 1736 battlegrounds played. In comparison, I've won 52% of arena matches I've played. It would probably be even worse if it were based on damage or healing done, since it would encourage players to ignore objectives, skip utility and just tunnel vision the opposing team. Absorbs still aren't counted as healing according to the battleground chart, so fewer players would join as disc too. If they were based on objectives, it'd probably penalise healers in WSG and TP at least: I've had 9 flag returns in over 100 games of WSG, it's very rare that an enemy flag carrier dies without a melee being nearer to them than I am.

I think the main issue for hunters is survivability.

Hunters on the bottom in a BG graph of any kind. Yeah, so? Tell me something I haven't experienced first hand for the past four years.

Originally Posted by Infinitus

Indeed, common sense to all but the devs.

When I first heard of Rated Battlegrounds I instantly thought that queing for a battleground would give you a rating based on how many you won, unfortunately, fail.

This is quite misleading. Hunters seem to be doing "ok" according to this chart. But if you actually look at statistics based on rating, of the top 2000 Rated BG players in the US, here is the breakdown by class.Paladin - 304Mage - 256Druid - 255Priest - 224Warrior - 214Death Knight - 190 Shaman - 175Rogue - 148Warlock - 143Hunter - 91

I think this bit of info is much more useful. Honestly the item level differentiation given on the front page is meaningless. Sadly, we can't see from the data that resto druids are not taken to rateds because they are so squishy, etc.

Truth be told, even the distinction displayed above is skewed. EVERY decent RBG team has a rogue on it. It's almost mandatory due to Smoke Bomb. Paladin is the best healer so you will have 1-2 per game. Prot is the best fc spec so you'll almost always have a warrior. Many teams have full warlock/boomkin setup. Mage for defensive peels, Hunter for resource map defense (or use your prot).I like that pvp has been featured in a news item here but we do need some more valuable data and ways to obtain that data.

Originally Posted by Flashbomba

For 370+ every class has 53-57% win rate... For 385+ every class has 54-58% win rate... For 395+ every class has 61-68% win rate... Who are they winning over? They're not paired up against ungeared teams below 370...at least not for more than a few matches after reset. But for 395+ players they win 2 out of 3 games - somone out there must then loose those games?

bottom line is that it has to be people with less gear. So while the graphs don't show it, it has to be that the lesser the gear, the more you lose. Remember, these stats are based on gear, they are not based on ratings. Teams are matched up based on average of ratings not average of gear, if not mistaken.

poor hunters

oo other classes are close to mages, time for a frost mage buff.

Wonder how did DLC censor Krom's hair in every strip efficiently.

Originally Posted by Eleveneleven

Where's mmo's stance on SOPA?

Originally Posted by Schmeebs

I think Curse has officially said their stance is that they are against it.

http://www.curse.com/news/curse/4355...stance-on-sopa

Besides, we are in fact using (datamined) propitiatory data without permission.

Originally Posted by chaud

Not likely. There is no simple way for me to determine what spec is used for PvP or PvE, if either.

What exactly does it prove?

---------- Post added 2012-02-28 at 10:26 AM ----------

Originally Posted by theturn

Because a class always wins and always losses. Basically this chart says the team with more mages wins more and the team with more hunters lose more. Byt teams with hunters will win and teams with mages will lose.

Uhhhh or it just means more people play Mages that PvP. Based on the polls a lot of people NEVER even stepped into RBG's.