Proof that old Talents promoted more originality from players

[NineSpine]

I think there is a frozen song about this that was mildly popular that sums up the correct response to this.

I admit I think I lack the words to try and explain how if out of 4 choices one having 60% isn't a massive majority...

A hint would be the other 3 combined don't equal it...

There's a reason that I am doing actual math and you are saying "LOL 60 IS BIG NUMBER!"

The question is how many players are min maxing, which we can best analyze by looking at the percentage that break from a random distribution. The random distribution is 25/25/25/25. Can you answer this simple math question: What percentage of players need to break from the random distbdituion to get one number to 60%?

[ohwell]

and most of those sucked

common misconception.

[Celement]

There's a reason that I am doing actual math and you are saying "LOL 60 IS BIG NUMBER!"

The question is how many players are min maxing, which we can best analyze by looking at the percentage that break from a random distribution. The random distribution is 25/25/25/25. Can you answer this simple math question: What percentage of players need to break from the random distbdituion to get one number to 60%?

I'm mildly amused you believe in a system with four selections one having 35% more roughly ( most dead covenants for a class have under 10% population so it's not a perfect break down) isn't massive.

[Thestrawman]

They really don't. I've broken down the numbers on this forum multiple times, but if we look at covenant selection for example it only shows that around half of people, at most, were min maxing.

Good thing we aren't talking covenants then. But I would love to see you pull numbers out your ass and try to justify talents.

[NineSpine]

I'm mildly amused you believe in a system with four selections one having 35% more roughly ( most dead covenants for a class have under 10% population so it's not a perfect break down) isn't massive.

It's a big difference, but it in no way justifies claims like "90% of players min max" which is what it is being used to argue for. If you want to say "Probably somewhere between 40-50% of players min max" then you would be reasonably justified.

- - - Updated - - -

Good thing we aren't talking covenants then. But I would love to see you pull numbers out your ass and try to justify talents.

Covenants are the easiest way to gauge what percentage of the population min maxes.

[Skalm]

I'm mildly amused you believe in a system with four selections one having 35% more roughly ( most dead covenants for a class have under 10% population so it's not a perfect break down) isn't massive.

Maybe his plan is to dig the hole deep enough and large enough, that he might catch you in it too.

And you can't really blame him, he is most likely using common core math. Where the answer doesnt matter, as long as you show your work on how you got your answer.

[ellieg]

I'm mildly amused you believe in a system with four selections one having 35% more roughly ( most dead covenants for a class have under 10% population so it's not a perfect break down) isn't massive.

Whats even worse is the ones that have like 60% one cov, the 2nd most popular covenant is like 25-30% because that's the "pvp" covenant. Or ST. Or whatever activity.

So you got 60% playing the best m+/raid covenant, 30% playing the nest pvp covenant, and then 10% playing the one they think is cool.

Or in some cases like right now, resto druid nf is best raid, necro best dmg healing cov for m+, but kyr can technically pump a little more dmg in a coordinated group. Then like no one plays venth unless resto is their offspec for a spec that mains venth.

So the entire premise of NineSpines argument is flawed. Its not 60% picking the best. Its 60% picked the best for their content, 30% picked the best for their content, and 10% are the ppl who are either offspeccing or just picked it cause they like it or any other reason.

[Celement]

It's a big difference, but it in no way justifies claims like "90% of players min max" which is what it is being used to argue for. If you want to say "Probably somewhere between 40-50% of players min max" then you would be reasonably justified.

- - - Updated - - -



Covenants are the easiest way to gauge what percentage of the population min maxes.

Your logic only works if we agree to the fallacy that players are choosing randomly are not the outliners and even then that barely works as a theory...

You don't have a random break down in almost any spec barring the rare few that gain little advantage from covenants. You get a massive majority for the bis pve covenant followed by either the pvp covenant or the second best over covenants were the covenants bis ability is unwieldy...

Your argument needs flawed logic for its premise to even get off the ground.

[NineSpine]

Maybe his plan is to dig the hole deep enough and large enough, that he might catch you in it too.

And you can't really blame him, he is most likely using common core math. Where the answer doesnt matter, as long as you show your work on how you got your answer.

Common core teaches you how to actually understand math, so that you don't do shit like claim 60% = 90%.

- - - Updated - - -

Your logic only works if we agree to the fallacy that players are choosing randomly are not the outliners and even then that barely works as a theory...

You don't have a random break down in almost any spec barring the rare few that gain little advantage from covenants. You get a massive majority for the bis pve covenant followed by either the pvp covenant or the second best over covenants were the covenants bis ability is unwieldy...

Your argument needs flawed logic for its premise to even get off the ground.

Prove it with numbers instead of claiming 60% = 90%.

[Aydinx2]

If I invite someone and they have all the right talents they at least know what their abilities do, they at least spent the 5 seconds it takes to look up a build to do good damage. Can they still be bad? Sure. But there's at least a decent chance they have a small understanding of their class.

If I invite someone and they have all the wrong talents that they picked at random it means they have no idea what they're doing. There's a 99% chance they're going to be literal dead weight.

Personally I wouldn't even consider doing content with someone running some troll build. They're going to be bad players, they're almost certainly going to be obnoxious players, and it's not going to be a fun experience in any way.

So you agree there is no issue with the new talent system that's coming in BF?

Because like you said, "[...] they have all the right talents they at least know what their abilities do". How would you know this without inspecting them first? Exactly the same way you would do in any system. And I guarantee you that after being removed from a group or two, they will think twice about trying that build in a random group setting.

Also, if you're not already inspecting everyone you invite to manually formed groups then you're asking for trouble.

[Celement]

Common core teaches you how to actually understand math, so that you don't do shit like claim 60% = 90%.

- - - Updated - - -



Prove it with numbers instead of claiming 60% = 90%.

I think you lost the plot so badly that you no longer really grasp the points being made...

[NineSpine]

I think you lost the plot so badly that you no longer really grasp the points being made...

Like I said, there's a reason that I have continually appealed to the actual math and breakdowns and you guys keep going "60 IS BIG NUMBER! BIG NUMBERS MEAN 90%!"

You have never, not once, gone to the covenant breakdowns and actually proven your case with math. You've just declared victory and pointed to the number 60, and equated it to the number 90, over and over and over and over again.

[Fkiolaris]

That mentality is largely another issue the game sucks. Unless something is literally the best, people don't want to play it.

I don't play WoW anymore, but I (used to) find this very true. If you tried to deviate from the "accepted" BiS spec, you got shit on regularly in all pug content. The only recent time I did not experience this was in Classic during the first few months/first year or so.

[Mokrath]

I for one am eagerly awaiting Rextroy and players like him to break the game over and over with the new talent system once it's available.

[Aedruid]

Why can't we all just have fun and play just meme specs? Like is 9k dps much more than 1k?

[Celement]

Like I said, there's a reason that I have continually appealed to the actual math and breakdowns and you guys keep going "60 IS BIG NUMBER! BIG NUMBERS MEAN 90%!"

You have never, not once, gone to the covenant breakdowns and actually proven your case with math. You've just declared victory and pointed to the number 60, and equated it to the number 90, over and over and over and over again.

Why do you assume I would bother to not simply take the win?

It's the advantageous situation I am in with the math on my side.

[gigasx]

all of that to search on icy veins a cookie cutter and ignore most of it because they werent even good (just were there)

if you do some math we have plenty of choices now, 3 each row, 7 rows, (place the math here) combinations
and still people dont do variations because the choices are there, but they are not fine tuned or the guide x says this one is better

[Aydinx2]

I for one am eagerly awaiting Rextroy and players like him to break the game over and over with the new talent system once it's available.

Assuming that Blizz would fix the issue decently quickly like they do with other Rextroy exploits, I'm fine with that. I just don't want to see it in PvP/PvE where people abuse it for guaranteed wins.

[ellieg]

Like I said, there's a reason that I have continually appealed to the actual math and breakdowns and you guys keep going "60 IS BIG NUMBER! BIG NUMBERS MEAN 90%!"

You have never, not once, gone to the covenant breakdowns and actually proven your case with math. You've just declared victory and pointed to the number 60, and equated it to the number 90, over and over and over and over again.

You can look at current frost dk covs to prove my point about how there's usually a number 1 and a number 2, based on content.

Necro sits at 60.8%. It was the best cov for pvp and pve. Now its still the best for pvp, still the best on high movement fights and pug encounters.

Nightfae sits at 26.8%. If you have an organized group that plays well, or cleave fights, this is the best and uve seen it climb up do to this.

Venth sits allt the way 7.8%. It was the best cov for blood so ull have a lot of offsets included in this number.

Bottom is kyrian at 5.1%. Best blood cov now but only under ideal conditions.

Let's look at resto druids. Best raid cov is nightfae. They are 69.2%. Best m+ cov is necro. Necro is 25.6% kyrian is 3.3 and venth 1.9.

The 3rd class I play is arcane mage. Kyrian is best in raid and m+. It is 51.9%. Nightfae is best in pvp, and is the cov the other 2 specs use the most, its 26.7%. That leaves the other 2 combining for 21.4%.

It is more often than not more than just 35% min maxing. Its 80+% of players happen to be in 1 or the other covenant thats best for their content. Then you have covs that are more flexible for offspeccing, and a million other reasons. There are many more ppl min maxing than those that aren't.

[whyabadi]

There are currently 2,187 talent builds per spec. (8,748 including covenants) If that's not enough variety for you I'm not sure what to tell you.

Far more than that since you have many trinket combinations, secondary stats, and races.