At what rating do you consider yourself another lvl of pvper

[Ringthane]

Funny - every time I did any kind of PVP in the game, the only two kinds of people seemed to be a bunch of people running around fighting each other, and one guy who did nothing during the whole battle except scream about how bad everyone else was.

[Ulfric Trumpcloak]

1700-1800 is not average at least not in my server, in Tichondrius if you are 1800 you can be 2200+ in any other battlegroup which i consider to be pretty damn good...

[Deleted]

A high rating means, most of the time, you are playing an OP comp. Sad but true.

[Deleted]

That's why you can't have such rigid definitions. Is a 2200 thug cleave more skilled than an 1800 ele/destro team for instance? Doubtful.

[Deleted]

i never consider myself "higher lv". i consider myself a newbie all the time, and all the teams i bear must be even more "newbie" then me.

[Yvaelle]

My opinion (based on 3v3):
1500: Above average
1800: Good
2200: Very good
2700: Badass

Given that there are no 2700+ teams in the world right now, I think you can probably lower the 2700 bracket to like... 2400 and have it still be meaningful. On many battlegroups 2400 is Rank 1 right now.

Edit: Just to drive home the point about how much variation there is between seasons, in the last seasons of both WotLK and Cata, 3k was probably the "badass" cut off, and the top team was like 3300: compared to just 2400/2700 this season.

[Vathius]

All relative and depends on what class your playing.

A ret pally or enhance shaman achieving 1650 is the same skill level as a lock or hunter hitting 2.2k

[Peng]

This Russian with 4200k and 18 hk is surely a different level of pvper. ^^

So since it´s too easy to get away with wintraded rankings they aren´t worth to be talked about. You recognize an outstanding pvper if you meet one! :-)

[Noxina]

This Russian with 4200k and 18 hk is surely a different level of pvper. ^^

So since it´s too easy to get away with wintraded rankings they aren´t worth to be talked about. You recognize an outstanding pvper if you meet one! :-)

4200000 what? I assume you ment 4.2k?
And yeah, RBG rating dosnt matter at all, its a reason most RBG pugs ask about 2.2k in any arena bracket insted of 2.2k RBG achie..

[Deleted]

Quote "yogs blog"

Arena Ratings and IQ (Peak Ratings):

1-1500: Difficulty with basic motor functions.

1501-2000: Borderline retardation. Qualifies for handicapped parking.

2001-2400: Average Intelligence, realizes they are bad.

2401-2600: Above Average Intelligence. Capable of separating goods from bads.

2601-2800: Highly intelligent

2801-2999: Genius

3000+: Super Genius

[Senathor]

Given that there are no 2700+ teams in the world right now, I think you can probably lower the 2700 bracket to like... 2400 and have it still be meaningful. On many battlegroups 2400 is Rank 1 right now.

Edit: Just to drive home the point about how much variation there is between seasons, in the last seasons of both WotLK and Cata, 3k was probably the "badass" cut off, and the top team was like 3300: compared to just 2400/2700 this season.

Check the EU-Misery 3's bracket please.

---------- Post added 2013-04-29 at 09:46 AM ----------

Quote "yogs blog"

Arena Ratings and IQ (Peak Ratings):

1-1500: Difficulty with basic motor functions.

1501-2000: Borderline retardation. Qualifies for handicapped parking.

2001-2400: Average Intelligence, realizes they are bad.

2401-2600: Above Average Intelligence. Capable of separating goods from bads.

2601-2800: Highly intelligent

2801-2999: Genius

3000+: Super Genius

3000 legitimate rating is next to impossible right now. You know that he wrote that in WotLK yeah?

[Yvaelle]

Check the EU-Misery 3's bracket please.

Ya I checked before I posted but ignored them (they were <2700 last week), a single 2701 Thugcleave hardly should qualify as the only 3 "badasses" in WoW. Reckful is at like 2500 right now, Talbadar's at 2405 - are these players 200-300 rating below badass? If anything I'd addendum that list as "2400+: 'Badass', 2700+: 'Broken Comp'"

[Senathor]

Ya I checked before I posted but ignored them (they were <2700 last week), a single 2701 Thugcleave hardly should qualify as the only 3 "badasses" in WoW. Reckful is at like 2500 right now, Talbadar's at 2405 - are these players 200-300 rating below badass? If anything I'd addendum that list as "2400+: 'Badass', 2700+: 'Broken Comp'"

Hahaha yeah indeed

[hellomynameis]

[Uselessrouge]

i play @ 2k with my toons i dont consider myself a "good" player

2s = 2k
3s =2,1k
rbg 2,1k

but i dont seriously play evry week cause i dont like arena :X
I know i could play way better if i would be intereseted or would watch pvp streams or stuff like that

[Lulbalance]

All relative and depends on what class your playing.

A ret pally or enhance shaman achieving 1650 is the same skill level as a lock or hunter hitting 2.2k

LOL.. this is a funny joke in 5.2 ^^

..actually a pretty dumb thing to say in any expansion. most people can roll out of bed and get 1650, and most of them could do it playing enh / pally / x! if you struggle to do that there is absolutely NO way you'd reach 2200 this season with any class in the game playing any comp, sorry.

and putting locks next to hunters right now. .

---------- Post added 2013-04-29 at 05:12 PM ----------

Ya I checked before I posted but ignored them (they were <2700 last week), a single 2701 Thugcleave hardly should qualify as the only 3 "badasses" in WoW. Reckful is at like 2500 right now, Talbadar's at 2405 - are these players 200-300 rating below badass? If anything I'd addendum that list as "2400+: 'Badass', 2700+: 'Broken Comp'"

yea agreed - 2700 used to be duelist.. now its all messed up, been saying it for a while; 2400 is the new 2700.

[hellomynameis]

Before you go all "whoop-di-dooo" on your own arena rating, consider the facts. Different arena comps require different skill levels. Some comps can be played fairly well by blindly nuking, other comps require CC training, cooperation and timing, etc, etc.

-Does he play an OP comp?
-Is his class flavour of the month or OP? (e.g. hpally/dpriest are well represented in 2v2 above 2.2k, while there is no MW monks)
-Is the rating in 2v2 or 3v3/5v5 or RBG? (2.4k in 2v2 ~= 2.6k in 3v3/5v5 ~= 2.9k++ in RBG)

Most popular comps: http://www.worldofwargraphs.com/stat...0-0-0-0-0.html
Class distribution: http://www.worldofwargraphs.com/stat...0-0-0-0-0.html
Stat distribution for hpally: http://www.worldofwargraphs.com/stat...0-0-0-0-0.html
I included hpally stat distribution to show how the gear seems to get worse the higher rating people have. In other words, people get their rating up super early in the season when there is less geared competition. In season 13, these people would most likely have ilvl491++ already making it hard for players new to the scene to get any significant rating with ilvl476 gear.

When it comes to class distribution you can look at the global representation vs the 2.2k rating representation to determine if its overpowered or not. Sub rogues in RBGs have a 6% representation, while on a global level they are only represented by 1.9% of the community..which equals overpowered in RBG. Disc priests have a global representation of 3.1%, while in 2v2 above 2.2k rating they are represented by 19.4%..which equals massivly overpowered in 2v2.

Shadow priest is the most OP class/spec in both 2v2 and 3v3, the famous Reckful plays a priest these days, just saying. He also plays rogue a lot, which is the 2nd most OP class/spec in 3v3. rogue, spriest and rshammy is the most represented(read: easiest comp to get high rating with), and Reckful plays this comp these days. Skill, "fotm" or both? You decide. To get at the very top of your preferred aspect of wow, you need to take race/class/spec/comp into consideration AND you need skill to beat all the other teams with the same comp.

At what rating do I consider myself better than other players? Short answer: I dont. I play the class/spec I enjoy the most, even if it means I am underpowered in the current patch.
Long answer: E.g. a mistweaver with 2.0k in 2v2 is currently miles ahead of a disc at the same rating. Rating means nothing unless you consider the bracket+class+spec+comp+(global vs top representation). Rating is just a random number when excluding all factors.

[Itisamuh]

None. I know how good I am, and I don't need a number to tell me. But even if I was interested in arena, I'd still put very little stock in rating. A high rating might indicate a good player, but a low rating doesn't have to indicate a bad player.

[Yvaelle]

When it comes to class distribution you can look at the global representation vs the 2.2k rating representation to determine if its overpowered or not. Sub rogues in RBGs have a 6% representation, while on a global level they are only represented by 1.9% of the community..which equals overpowered in RBG. Disc priests have a global representation of 3.1%, while in 2v2 above 2.2k rating they are represented by 19.4%..which equals massivly overpowered in 2v2.

Shadow priest is the most OP class/spec in both 2v2 and 3v3

I like how you did the whole breakdown of relative 2200+ representation versus global representation, to show you knew how that worked - and then concluded Shadow was the most OP spec in 2v2 and 3v3, ignoring the very same metric of: 2200+ representation / global representation.

While high representation often correlates with overpowered specs, it's not always indicative. Imagine a hypothetical spec that when played well can perform feats the other specs in the game cannot, it is 'the most capable spec' in the game - but it has a problem - the skill cap is so high that only 1 person in the world can play it like that, and everyone else who tries fails miserably and can't break 1500 with it. Is the spec still overpowered if only one person plays it? When played properly, it can hard counter any other spec in the game - so it is overpowered, despite non-existent representation.

If you were to express that hypothetical specs representation as a % of all players above 2200 (as you have), it would appear to be the worst spec in the game, only a single player would be above 2200 with it - we would all consider the spec dead for high end competitive play. This has happened many times in WoW history, last expansion when all the hunters were crying about how hunters were a dead class, there was a rank 1 hunter on one of Europes most competitive battlegroups for multiple seasons (was it Braindeadly or someone else? I forget). In season 5 there was only one Shadowpriest in the world above 2200, but he (Kelberot) was rank 1 on North America Bloodlust: NA's most competitive BG.


The other way to have overpowered specs with low representation is for them to not be flashy and exciting. For example, many times in the history of WoW have tank specs become absurdly overpowered for control and support - but not burst damage. They didn't kill people, they didn't carry big swords or throw fireballs, but their representation above 2200 was WAYY out of proportion to their global representation in WoW. Everyone wants to be the one to score the kills, or the one to save the lives (healers) - but being the middle-ground guy who files the TPS reports, dispels the CCs (or applies them) and snares things without ever contributing damage to the the kills? Nobody plays WoW to be a junior accountant - but because of that, the seemingly dull occupations get away with being overpowered because otherwise they are wholly absent from arenas. By % representation they appear terrible, but functionally they can often be some of the most broken specs in the game, precisely because they do the Least damage or healing.

Conversely, flashy and exciting and fun specs attract more people even when they aren't as good. For example, last season when Warriors were overpowered - their % representation in 3's broke 33%, or 1/3rd of all 2200+ players. Warrior/X/Healer was a gladiator comp - regardless of X, a Warrior/Warrior/Healer got a rank 1 spot, and there was even a Warrior/Warrior/Warrior gladiator team (all arms spec). Were warriors so broken to warrant representation being that That high, or comps being that ridiculous? No. But they were flashy and exciting! Not only from the warriors perspective but everyone watching them, they would spend the whole match on the verge of death but never dying, and then miraculously charge across the room and one-shot someone from full health.

Not only were they capable of succeeding, flashy and exciting to watch, but they were Fun - every warrior team was premised around keeping the warrior on target as best as possible, forget your own damage or cooldowns, the support sits in every CC the full duration in case the warrior needs a dispel later. Everyone wanted to be one, so there were a lot of them. Did it take a complete class re-design to nerf them? No, because they weren't actually that overpowered - by making them kill-able and making them not randomly insta-gib people they nerfed the glamour of the spec as much as the spec itself, and representation dropped significantly: more than the nerfs alone could account.


The last significant consideration to what constitutes representation is community, and it's a big one. Sometimes certain specs garner disproportionate representation - not because the spec is temporarily overpowered or even especcially fun, but because the playerbase becomes enamoured with that spec and self-identify with it. This is exceptionally true for two specs in particular - but I predict a third one soon to rise: Ret, Shadow, and soon Windwalker. The first self-identification people make is whether they are a DPS or a Healer - or if somewhere inbetween - where on the Support spectrum they lie. If someone chooses a Warlock (as example), they may come to greatly prefer one spec over the other two - but they probably self-identify as a Warlock, not as an Affliction.

But what if you rolled a Paladin, Priest or Monk - but self-identified as DPS or Support? For PvP, all three of these classes have only one dps and/or support role - so they consistently get disproportionate global representation for that spec, because it's the only option available to them without rerolling (and they generally like their class, so that's not the answer they want). It's not a coincidence that the two biggest spec-specific communities in all WoW are the Ret community and the Shadow community, and following that trend - I predict Windwalker will build a similar following.

Going back to global representation now, look at the highest three global representations for a specific spec of any class - and you get:
1. Beast Mastery
2. Retribution
3. Shadow

BM being the top shouldn't be surprising because both MM and Survival are arguably "Dead" specs right now, for both PvP and PvE - it's in a unique position where the representation of an entire class is in a single spec, because it's the only Pure class on the list - all hunter specs perform the same DPS role - so when 2/3 specs are 'dead' then the third becomes heavily (temporarily) overpopulated. What's different about Ret and Shadow is that their global representation is always at the top, barring circumstances like the one hunters are currently in, Ret and Shadow have consistently massive followings every expansion. If a lot of people play the spec, the spec is popular - not necessarily overpowered - unless the spec is popular because it's overpowered. That's the whole point Popularity Quotient you alluded to, and if we rank those for 3v3's we get the following quotients (PQ's, for Popularity Quotients, if you will):

Subtlety Rogue: 4.89
Resto Shaman: 3.77
Disc Priest: 2.58
Unholy DK: 2.50
Shadow Priest: 2.40
Frost Mage: 2.28
Frost Mage: 2.16
BM Hunter: 1.46
Resto Druid: 1.33
Arms Warrior: 1.00
Ret Paladin: 0.55
Frost DK: 0.28
Affliction Lock: 0.13

What are we really measuring here? Is it capability, or is it popularity? Last season rogues were a completely dead class, under-represented to a degree that no other class has ever been in WoW. This season they are back - is that colossal 4.89 PQ they have a measure of actual rogue capability right now (as high as it is), or is it rather a measure of the excitement and anticipation about rogues returning to arenas? We know there were a ton of 85 rogues waiting in the rafters from the end of Cataclysm who were unplayed in MoP. Suddenly rogues get massive buffs - and a ton of high end rogues suddenly appear out of the woodwork.

Conversely, Destruction and Demonology are all the craze right now - they have the big numbers that score kills, they have the survivability (Ember Tap, Metamorphosis) to duel very effectively against anyone - they are flashy and exciting and fun: and affliction is none of these things. Except for that one Affliction lock (Blukstack) who up until two weeks ago was the highest rated team (MLD) in the world, and got there by farming Thugcleaves and God Comps, but what does he know, right? He has a stream, but nobody watches it. (They lost like a hundred points to a thugcleave over the last two weeks, but that's happening to everyone right now).

Is Affliction or Frost or Ret really that bad? No, but the perception that they are bad makes them unpopular, and decreases their representation - which is different than being overpowered. Conversely, is Subtlety twice as good as Unholy, Shadow or Frost Mages? No, but it has many of the same traits that made warriors popular last season - it can survive at very low health, it has huge and frequent burst cycles, it has a lot of movement - and therefore is fun to watch and play: popular.

Obviously, the strongest classes tend toward the top of the list - but that's because PQ is a combination of popularity (as you have just read in my novel, seriously WTF Yvaelle..) and competitiveness - but the popularity factor is far too important to allow using PQ as a measure of capability (competitiveness) or imbalance. PQ can only reliably be used as a measure of what is necessarily competitive (to make the top end of the list at all), and then sorted by current popularity: but not capability.

mod edit: please don't quote the wall of text if you're only going to reply to a section of it

[hellomynameis]

I like how you did the whole breakdown of relative 2200+ representation versus global representation, to show you knew how that worked - and then concluded Shadow was the most OP spec in 2v2 and 3v3, ignoring the very same metric of: 2200+ representation / global representation.

I used 2.2k+ rep vs. global rep as both a pointer to the difference and the 2.2k+/global correlation. Sry for not showing the math for both instances. I thought it was redundant to mention.

Imagine a hypothetical spec that when played well can perform feats the other specs in the game cannot, it is 'the most capable spec' in the game - but it has a problem - the skill cap is so high that only 1 person in the world can play it like that, and everyone else who tries fails miserably and can't break 1500 with it. Is the spec still overpowered if only one person plays it? When played properly, it can hard counter any other spec in the game - so it is overpowered, despite non-existent representation.

If 1 player discovers a specs overpowered-ness(is that even a word?) and no one else catches on during a whole season, then I wouldn't classify that spec as overpowered, no. Would anyone? In any case, this is not relevant to priests this patch.

If you were to express that hypothetical specs representation as a % of all players above 2200 (as you have), it would appear to be the worst spec in the game, only a single player would be above 2200 with it - we would all consider the spec dead for high end competitive play. This has happened many times in WoW history, last expansion when all the hunters were crying about how hunters were a dead class, there was a rank 1 hunter on one of Europes most competitive battlegroups for multiple seasons (was it Braindeadly or someone else? I forget). In season 5 there was only one Shadowpriest in the world above 2200, but he (Kelberot) was rank 1 on North America Bloodlust: NA's most competitive BG.

Still not relevant to priests this season / patch.

The other way to have overpowered specs with low representation is for them to not be flashy and exciting. For example, many times in the history of WoW have tank specs become absurdly overpowered for control and support - but not burst damage. They didn't kill people, they didn't carry big swords or throw fireballs, but their representation above 2200 was WAYY out of proportion to their global representation in WoW. Everyone wants to be the one to score the kills, or the one to save the lives (healers) - but being the middle-ground guy who files the TPS reports, dispels the CCs (or applies them) and snares things without ever contributing damage to the the kills? Nobody plays WoW to be a junior accountant - but because of that, the seemingly dull occupations get away with being overpowered because otherwise they are wholly absent from arenas. By % representation they appear terrible, but functionally they can often be some of the most broken specs in the game, precisely because they do the Least damage or healing.

You and I might not want to play a "dull" class/spec, but the phrase "flavour of the month" is not a figment of my imagination. It's a real thing. People do reroll to classes/specs that are overpowered to get good rating, not all people cling to their one main out of honour/loyalty. If a class/spec is under represented outside of arena, then there is a reason for it not to be under represented inside arena, consequently it may very well be overpowered as you said, I think we agree on that, and I think my previous post also touched on that subject since it is a direct consequence of the 2.2k+ / global -correlation.

Conversely, flashy and exciting and fun specs attract more people even when they aren't as good. For example, last season when Warriors were overpowered - their % representation in 3's broke 33%, or 1/3rd of all 2200+ players. Warrior/X/Healer was a gladiator comp - regardless of X, a Warrior/Warrior/Healer got a rank 1 spot, and there was even a Warrior/Warrior/Warrior gladiator team (all arms spec). Were warriors so broken to warrant representation being that That high, or comps being that ridiculous? No. But they were flashy and exciting! Not only from the warriors perspective but everyone watching them, they would spend the whole match on the verge of death but never dying, and then miraculously charge across the room and one-shot someone from full health.

Not only were they capable of succeeding, flashy and exciting to watch, but they were Fun - every warrior team was premised around keeping the warrior on target as best as possible, forget your own damage or cooldowns, the support sits in every CC the full duration in case the warrior needs a dispel later. Everyone wanted to be one, so there were a lot of them. Did it take a complete class re-design to nerf them? No, because they weren't actually that overpowered - by making them kill-able and making them not randomly insta-gib people they nerfed the glamour of the spec as much as the spec itself, and representation dropped significantly: more than the nerfs alone could account.

Yes, they were that broken. Did they remove flashy moves and/or big swords? No. Did they nerf their survivability? Yes. Why did the warrior representation go down? Because they were no longer overpowered. It had nothing to do with flashy or exciting, it was because they enjoyed the feeling of winning and never dying, and the big swords were just a bonus. I dont know why you even bother trying to argue warriors weren't OP, it's common knowledge that they were just that. You say they weren't THAT overpowered, yet you say they made them killable. In other words before the nerf they were unkillable, also known as overpowered.

The last significant consideration to what constitutes representation is community, and it's a big one. Sometimes certain specs garner disproportionate representation - not because the spec is temporarily overpowered or even especcially fun, but because the playerbase becomes enamoured with that spec and self-identify with it. This is exceptionally true for two specs in particular - but I predict a third one soon to rise: Ret, Shadow, and soon Windwalker. The first self-identification people make is whether they are a DPS or a Healer - or if somewhere inbetween - where on the Support spectrum they lie. If someone chooses a Warlock (as example), they may come to greatly prefer one spec over the other two - but they probably self-identify as a Warlock, not as an Affliction

Of course. Some only have one main, some has multiple "mains". I for one have hpally/mwmonk/rdruid as mains. If my favourite healing class is nerfed to the ground one patch/season, I do choose the 2nd favourite class that are not horribly underpowered. I don't need to be overpowered, I just dont feel like being less capable of healing than the majority of newly dinged players. Class loyality is a factor, yes. But statisticly on average the main class people feel a connection to is evenly spread out. Not every player has priest/rogue as their mains, but some do, and if all of them chose rogue over priest one season, that would cause the priest population to go down alot IF all who had a rogue also had a priest as the second main. But the fact of the matter is that on average all who has a rogue as main also has any or all of the other classes as a "backup main", making the overpowered-ness(there we go again with that word, cool ey?) of one class insignificant in correlation to other classes in regards to an individuals favourite char.

Going back to global representation now (...)

Obviously, the strongest classes tend toward the top of the list - but that's because PQ is a combination of popularity (as you have just read in my novel, seriously WTF Yvaelle..) and competitiveness - but the popularity factor is far too important to allow using PQ as a measure of capability (competitiveness) or imbalance. PQ can only reliably be used as a measure of what is necessarily competitive (to make the top end of the list at all), and then sorted by current popularity: but not capability.

I kinda agree, the PQ as you chose to call it doesn't messure how overpowered a spec is unless you also take into consideration how popular that class is.

If I understand you correctly, you use 3v3 in these numbers. I singled out priests in 2v2 especially because of the insane representation of both disc and shadow priests in that bracket. Popularity is messured by the global representation, overpowered-ness(omg! I really enjoy that word now!) messures capability of a certain spec/class doing well in 2.2k+. A spec does not get well represented above 2.2k just because its flashy and new, if so there would be a massive amount of monks represented, and it's not.
When you reduce it to a quotient like you did now, the numbers look so insignificant when compared. But in reality 6.26 PQ of the disc priest in 2v2 is actually 20 out of 100 players above 2.2k rating in 2v2 is a shadowpriest at the moment, and 13% plays shadow priest, That's a ~33% representation above 2.2k rating, 1 of 3 people with high rating is a priest at the moment of writing this.. We can argue semantics all week, but that fact can't be disputed.
In 3v3 priests are represented by ~20% at high rating, 1 of 5 is a priest in 3v3 at high rating.

How are priest represented globally? 7.8% as mentioned earlier was not correct, I forgot to take into consideration holy priests which are not represented at all above 2.2k, its actually 9.9% represented globally. If we take 100% and divide it among all classes(11), the average representation should be ~9% if it were evenly distributed. So globally priests are 0.8% above what the theoreticly average should be, and they are massivly overrepresented in 2v2/3v3. However, if we exclude the ~6% monk population, 94/10 = 9.4% average population between the remaining 10 classes, and priests come in even close to average there. I don't know how else to tell you this, but priests are overpowered at the moment(disclaimer: in 2v2 and 3v3), and average popular globally.