#0 - March 5, 2008, 9:40 p.m.
Q u o t e:
1st page.
Big win if it makes it to live untouched, but I'll reserve judgement on 2.4 till it's finalized. Who knows what other nerf they might decide to toss on us to compensate for reverting back lifetap. Hell, they might even consider it a warlock buff, justifying nerfing us somewhere else.
Q u o t e:
Those numbers are very interesting. How are they normalized, exactly? A few of the data points strike me as unreasonable - for example, the core of many gladiator-level 5s teams is warrior/paladin/priest/shaman. Paladin, priest, and shaman numbers seem correct (highly overrepresented), but the data implies that warriors are underrepresented in high-end 5s. Seems unlikely.
Q u o t e:
This leads the balancing team to the conclusion that the higher concentration is an indication of some sort of class imbalance. Unfortunately, this model on it's own is completely useless as a balancing metric because it fails to take into account the effects of synergy. Some classes just "work well together".
A better metric would be to look at the partners of all of those over-represented classes and attempt to identify the point of synergy. I hate to be the harbinger of nerfs, but how many of those Warlocks, Warriors and Rogues are partnered with Druids?
Q u o t e:
it seems pretty silly to weight the participation numbers for very high end pvp by the entire population. High end teams will take the classes that work, not the classes that are popular. A 2200 team is not gonna settle on a player just because they can't find the right class.
Q u o t e:
kalgan shaman would love a heads up on if the flametongue revert with this build is intentional or not.
grats to locks on having their nerf reverted!
Q u o t e:
ouch, there went Push's theory that this was just so you guys could put a workgin version up on the PTR.
Any reason for this revert when a working version was never tested on the PTR? Seems like you guys jumped the gun here.
Q u o t e:
I think you missed his point. The normalised representation in the 2200+ bracket is significantly different to the representation in the 1850+ bracket. The latter would give a better overall picture of pvp balance since:
a) It's a much larger sample size
b) It includes non cookie-cutter team comps
Care to post an 1850 chart please?
Q u o t e:
All I'm curious of, is this:
Am I to expect this game evolving into World of 3v3craft or World of 5v5craft?
Q u o t e:
... We get the stigmata of being overpowered ...
Q u o t e:
Kalgan: do you balance PvP with specs in consideration, or merely overall representation? Or a bit of both? The whole cookie-cutter phenomenon has taken hold pretty solidly, which I'm not sure can be entirely avoided (something will always be "the most efficient"). However, it seems that in the case of some classes, the cookie cutters are more than just "most efficient"; for example, Water Elemental is seen as absolutely and without a doubt necessary for arenas.
Are factors like this taken into consideration, attempts made to look into nonviable specs and use them as a solution to fixing lowered representation in certain brackets?
Q u o t e:
You really forgot to highlight PvP changes that also effect classes in PvE as well.
Q u o t e:
How come the chains on Kalgan's Lich don't spin?