Did anybody else see the EU PvP Forums?

[tststst]

The difference among players at the upper end of the ladder is minuscule. It's like this for many forms of competition, even something like drag racing...where top fuel races are decided by hundredths of a second. Because arena disproportionately favors a very narrow range of team comps, especially at higher ratings, it is an inherently unfair system that should only exist as something for vanity. Game progression should NOT be linked to something that isn't equally viable for all players of all classes/specs.

this is not really true

there's a very noticeable difference between a 2600 player and a 2800+ r1 player, and the guys at the top can and do play whatever the hell they want to high ratings.

unless you're literally in the running for r1 title already, it's almost certain that it's your own ability/your teammates ability holding you back from the upper tiers, not class or comp.

in terms of competitive arena, class and comp are almost never the biggest problem until you hit the absolute upper echelon where everyone actually IS that good and countercomps etc actually matter. Great players will just outplay any perceived class/comp disadvantages up to a point that's a lot higher than 99% of folks will ever attain. If they're playing the "OP FOTM" comp or classes, that's really just icing on the cake and still doesn't mean anything except a theoretically easier grind up to the top. Those guys would still win playing a comp you didn't even know existed. That's how it's always been.

[Alydael]

why are you saying that they dont have one? btw, there is not only numbers. if every class hits the same and in the same form, it would be only a class to play.

I don't think they employ statisticians because I have never heard mention or discussion of one at all. I guess it is possible that there is one, behind the scenes that was never mentioned, talked about or quoted in all the talk about balance over the years- but I doubt it.

The whole game is based in numbers, algorithms and modifiers. A good statistician could sort this whole balance thing out no problem. Also, just because the game is based in numbers, doesn't mean all classes will play the same. Nor am I saying it is possible to get all the classes to do the exact same damage. I just think a good statistician could get the numbers close enough that it wouldn't really matter.

[shonist]

I don't think they employ statisticians because I have never heard mention or discussion of one at all. I guess it is possible that there is one, behind the scenes that was never mentioned, talked about or quoted in all the talk about balance over the years- but I doubt it.

The whole game is based in numbers, algorithms and modifiers. A good statistician could sort this whole balance thing out no problem. Also, just because the game is based in numbers, doesn't mean all classes will play the same. Nor am I saying it is possible to get all the classes to do the exact same damage. I just think a good statistician could get the numbers close enough that it wouldn't really matter.

No, you are wrong, but its too long to explain. sorry.

[Professor Expert]

Well without the goal of balance, no one would have fun. Getting it close to balanced is the best thing they can do. I wouldn't be playing if something like pre-nerf prepatch assass rogues existed as a thing because Blizz didn't care about balance.

Some people play for more than just "fun", that's my point. Some people like the feeling you get once you reach the top-end of the ladder,. get your first glad, or beat the best teams.

The word balance is tossed around but it seems to mean different things to different people. In the quest for balance, they tried the "lets give everything to everyone" model, where buffs were homogenized and given to most classes, CCs, snares, roots, etc. Instead of helping the problem it only made it worse, especially in groups where two or more members had instant long-duration CCs...and this was before such thing as DR existed. Remember S1 mace-stun warriors? For something like that to make it to live shows that blizzard's QA program is not up to snuff.

But rating does normally equal skill, I get what you're trying to say, people always try this and say "well if they played a shit comp they wouldn't be at that level!" but it doesn't really make sense in an argument, it's true, but pointless. Even if they play a "fotm"comp, they're still the best at it. The amount of mirrors you have to face as a top tier comp is proof of that. There's still RMDs stuck at 1400 rating despite being the best comp.

I didn't say that playing a FOTM comp guarantees high rank. The point was to illustrate the fact that no matter how good a player may be individually, if they are playing on a non-FOTM comp they will be stuck at the bottom with the other.

People like to think that some guy who got 2600 playing RMD is a "god", but let's say that same 2600-capable guy was on a dead server or just didn't have reliable teammates to play competitively with on a regular basis...even though he was capable of getting high up the ladder, he's stuck at low ratings because he's stuck playing with what's available, not with what's optimal.

So does that make him a 1200 noob? No...and that flows into my broader point about ratings in an inherently un-balance-able game being a TOXIC addition that does not make for a friendly and fun gaming experience.

I know you never said anything homogeneity. What I was saying was, the only way you can achieve complete balance is homogeneity.

I think balance implies an equilibrium between two or more opposing extremes...if everything is normalized and is made to be the same, the concept of balance no longer applies because there are no longer any opposing elements.

Balancing the game should be less about what they do to individual class/specs and more about what they do with the combinations of players in a group as well as things within the game environment. For example, making a random 2s pairing of something like an enhancement shaman and elemental shaman...a very bad comp with no potential...but let's imagine that instead of nit-picking the class and spec abilities, blizzard made a feature that granted some unique buff or ability enhancements when such a group enters arena.

Perhaps a group consisting of an ele and enh shaman would gain complimentary buffs to their main attack abilities...where the presence of the elemental shaman causes the enhancement's windfury to deal nature damage and proc more frequently, while the presence of the enhancement shaman provides a static 20% haste buff to the elemental as well as dual-casting, where each single cast causes the elemental to shoot an extra cast that deals 50% of normal damage.

See what I mean? Not every group would get buffs like this, but the ones that need them should. Something like RMP or turbo is already solid, so the buffs can be lesser or not at all. This paradigm would allow all players to play the spec they have FUN with in competitive pvp without being a liability.

And yes, I agree the difference at the top end of the ladder (the first few pages) is minuscule. Other than that though, no.

Game progress is always going to be linked to viability in MMORPGs. That's how they work. You want this big variety of things to do and loads of unique specs, that's the way it's going to be. You can't balance all of that. It's just the way it is. If you can't deal with that, then MMORPGs aren't really for you, I'm afraid. I've played all the big MMOs out there for a fair bit of time, and they're all the same in that regard.

I just provided you an example of a way that the problem of synergistic imbalances could be addressed and improved upon. At no point did I ever say everything should be in some perfect state of balance; I did say I want there to be imbalances so long as there are counters to them for all players, not just for a small group of "chosen ones".

this is not really true

there's a very noticeable difference between a 2600 player and a 2800+ r1 player, and the guys at the top can and do play whatever the hell they want to high ratings.

Possible, but highly unlikely. It doesn't matter how good you are if, for example, you are a fire mage and your team has no peels or effective CC. Say something like fire mage, ele shaman and prot warrior...your 2800 fire mage would not make it past the wall of FOTM comps lingering around 1600.

in terms of competitive arena, class and comp are almost never the biggest problem until you hit the absolute upper echelon where everyone actually IS that good and countercomps etc actually matter. Great players will just outplay any perceived class/comp disadvantages up to a point that's a lot higher than 99% of folks will ever attain. If they're playing the "OP FOTM" comp or classes, that's really just icing on the cake and still doesn't mean anything except a theoretically easier grind up to the top. Those guys would still win playing a comp you didn't even know existed. That's how it's always been.

You can look at the distribution of team comps at higher ratings and you'll see an ever-decreasing diversity in the comps as the rating increases. How many 3K rated ret paladins did you hear about pre patch v3.0?