Guild Wars 2

When discussing profession balance, it would make a huge difference if we had access to PvP statistics regarding each profession. How much each profession is used, what the win/death ratio is, and in which game type.

It would save time and eliminate unnecessary arguments where one party says a profession is commonly used while an other say it is not. It would also focus the discussion on professions that is either overused or underused, creating a more balanced playfield with more variance.

I 100% agree with you…In spirit.

In effect, all you would do is shift the argument sideways.

Instead of "Class X with spec Y is too powerful, I see it everywhere, that means its clearly OP,why hasn’t this been addressed yet, rabble rabble rabble! " you’d have “Look, the statistics say 40% of players play class X and with spec Y, that means its clearly OP, why hasn’t this been addressed yet, rabble rabble rabble!”

You’d end up with droves of people who have no understanding of how correlation and causation interact suddenly having their opinions “validated”, leading to different types of frustrating arguments.

If statistics say 40% of players play class X, would that not be a very bad thing? Anet made 8 profession. Having to fight the same one profession 40% of the time sounds very boring regardless of why 40% of players pick the same profession.

Would a less informed discussion have a better time fixing the 40% problem?

Belorn.2659:

If statistics say 40% of players play class X, would that not be a very bad thing? Anet made 8 profession. Having to fight the same one profession 40% of the time sounds very boring regardless of why 40% of players pick the same profession.

Would a less informed discussion have a better time fixing the 40% problem?

Thank you for proving my point so very quickly.

This is exactly the kind of pseudo-informed arguments we’d see if Anet released the numbers. It’s really no better than conjecture, but because there’s some math in there people will feel more confident in their still-just-as-weak arguments and others will be swayed due to incorrect confidence in “the numbers”.

Could you explain why a less informed discussion would be better?

Is your argument simply that a mono culture in profession choice is good, so any information to that effect would just distract by giving ammunition to those who disagree? That is how I read your comment, but I could of course be wrong.

(Please tune your passive-agressive tone down a bit. Try explain why you consider something wrong/good rather than go directly to hostility).

Belorn.2659:

Could you explain why a less informed discussion would be better?

Or is your argument simply that a mono culture in profession choice is good, so any information to that effect would just distract by giving ammunition to those who disagree?

Sigh

Because the majority of the forum denizens here (and across most of the internet, to be fair) have neither the tools nor the inclination to properly interpret that data. Rather than these enlightened discussions you envision happening, people’s biases will be further bolstered by numbers they see, but don’t properly understand. People’s arguments will seem more legitimate due to “the numbers” backing them up, when in fact they’re just as wrong as they would be without those numbers.

Rather than all this data making for better, more sound arguments, it will just be misinterpreted and and used as justification for people only interested in spreading their viewpoint rather than having discussions based around fact.

Lets take my “40% example”. People will immediately jump to “that class is broken” and defend that interpretation viciously, rather than asking themselves “What factors are involved in this class being the most popular?”, which is what those numbers should draw you to. That class being broken is certainly a possibility, but the numbers do not “prove” it, but people won’t care – that’s what they’ll say and you’ll be an idiot for questioning “the numbers”.

Belorn.2659:

If statistics say 40% of players play class X, would that not be a very bad thing? Anet made 8 profession. Having to fight the same one profession 40% of the time sounds very boring regardless of why 40% of players pick the same profession.

Would a less informed discussion have a better time fixing the 40% problem?

But a vast majority of players prefer certain game styles over others. And a good amount of them prefer simple.

What if a certain class is more likeable by a bigger segment of the player demographic. Does that make it broken?

evilapprentice.6379:

Belorn.2659:

Could you explain why a less informed discussion would be better?

Or is your argument simply that a mono culture in profession choice is good, so any information to that effect would just distract by giving ammunition to those who disagree?

Sigh

Because the majority of the forum denizens here (and across most of the internet, to be fair) have neither the tools nor the inclination to properly interpret that data. Rather than these enlightened discussions you envision happening, people’s biases will be further bolstered by numbers they see, but don’t properly understand. People’s arguments will seem more legitimate due to “the numbers” backing them up, when in fact they’re just as wrong as they would be without those numbers.

Rather than all this data making for better, more sound arguments, it will just be misinterpreted and and used as justification for people only interested in spreading their viewpoint rather than having discussions based around fact.

Lets take my “40% example”. People will immediately jump to “that class is broken” and defend that interpretation viciously, rather than asking themselves “What factors are involved in this class being the most popular?”, which is what those numbers should draw you to. That class being broken is certainly a possibility, but the numbers do not “prove” it, but people won’t care – that’s what they’ll say and you’ll be an idiot for questioning “the numbers”.

Sadly this is true. That would happen and that’s why we don’t get numbers.

A few days ago I saw people on this forum stating that if each player in a 5 man zerker party took a 10% damage nerf the entire party took a 50% damage nerf.
That’s how they understand math and they wouldn’t hear anything else. Because numbers.

Numbers, percentages, and math in general is GREAT for making people who don’t understand one iota of it feel justified and right.

Harper.4173:

Sadly this is true. That would happen and that’s why we don’t get numbers.

A few days ago I saw people on this forum stating that if each player in a 5 man zerker party took a 10% damage nerf the entire party took a 50% damage nerf.
That’s how they understand math and they wouldn’t hear anything else. Because numbers.

Numbers, percentages, and math in general is GREAT for making people who don’t understand one iota of it feel justified and right.

Lol I saw that thread I think it was in the guardian forums or the same thing was stated in a thread there.

It’s a double edged sword. Most internet trolls will use the numbers to confirm inaccurate accusations and false assumptions. On the other hand what about the more informed players and forum goers? It could prove to be a useful tool to not prove but reinforce their suggestions and arguments.

I.e what most people are fearing is that the polls or statistics will show warriors/necros/thieves/decapengi/meta/etc are overplayed and lead to arguments about them proven broken from it.

But what about for classes that are suffering like ranger (outside of spirit/cond bunker) and ele? It could show which classes are in desperate need of attention.

Alongside those stats they would need much more detail to make informed decisions such as traits/gear/etc. It could also lead to positive constructive suggestions.

There will always be trolls that you’ll have to wade through but that info direct from Anet could possibly help spur something significantly positive.

Reeses does have a very good point, I really could care less about classes played it probably is still ranger at the top to go along with elementalist. That doesn’t really tell us anything.

I would care more about build numbers even then I think you have some sifting to do because lets say mesmers pop up with 80% using 20/20/30 in WvW you have power builds and condi builds running that setup. You then have 20/20/30 lockdown builds or interrupt builds.

Obviously using that example what would need to be identified is how many use PU for example but it is a GM trait. GM traits are suppose to have a big impact on your build. We could us the data to identify how many are going 30 Dom which would probably not be many. On the other hand do we really need data to know that?

Most people that play enough and hit the forums enough are the ones discussing/arguing on the forums. I feel most regular forum goers know what the meta builds are for the modes of play they enjoy. I guess data could speed up discussions past proving if something is overplayed or the “goto spec” and move toward more “why” discussions.

ReesesPBC.4603:

It’s a double edged sword. Most internet trolls will use the numbers to confirm inaccurate accusations and false assumptions. On the other hand what about the more informed players and forum goers? It could prove to be a useful tool to not prove but reinforce their suggestions and arguments.

I.e what most people are fearing is that the polls or statistics will show warriors/necros/thieves/decapengi/meta/etc are overplayed and lead to arguments about them proven broken from it.

But what about for classes that are suffering like ranger (outside of spirit/cond bunker) and ele? It could show which classes are in desperate need of attention.

Alongside those stats they would need much more detail to make informed decisions such as traits/gear/etc. It could also lead to positive constructive suggestions.

There will always be trolls that you’ll have to wade through but that info direct from Anet could possibly help spur something significantly positive.

According to stats, ranger is the second most played profession, so it would not be considered as suffering, even if players know they are hardly welcomed most places… (lol)

(just to say stats are not what we, as players, should be analysing… Anet has a dedicated team for looking at them and interpret them. Player feedback is valuable mostly because it gives another point of view than the one of numbers)

http://www.blogcdn.com/massively.joystiq.com/media/2013/08/gw2annivinfographic2.jpg

Slightly surprising results but I can say from experience that I was drawn to ranger from beta, as many new players might also be, because of the promise of ranged superiority which we now know is lol status. Those are good statistics but what I was suggesting would be further detailed into what those people are using for those classes. As far as we could know that 14% Ranger population could be 90% bearbow and like wise the 16% war population would be 90% hambow/gs&s/x but we won’t know without more info provided.

Those result should be taken with a large grain of salt since they do not actually say what that data is based on. Most likely, it is created characters which include storage alts.

As I see it, the statistics can not show that a profession is broken but rather that the design of 6 equal played professions is broken. I would personally prefer having as wide variance possible in fights, if the other choice is 40% of the players choose the same profession out of 6 perfect balanced professions. That would be fun vs balance discussion, which we can only have if we know what the statistics are.

Out of fairness and academic interest, it would also be interesting to know which classes has the highest win ratio in PvP.

ReesesPBC.4603:

Slightly surprising results but I can say from experience that I was drawn to ranger from beta, as many new players might also be, because of the promise of ranged superiority which we now know is lol status. Those are good statistics but what I was suggesting would be further detailed into what those people are using for those classes. As far as we could know that 14% Ranger population could be 90% bearbow and like wise the 16% war population would be 90% hambow/gs&s/x but we won’t know without more info provided.

Knowing is not gonna do anything.
I know half war I meet roaming is hambow. Might be on my server, might be everyone, but this knowledge is not helping in any way, as forum users to really give feedback. The feedback we give is, and should be, based on what we feel at that point, not having to go get some stats, in order to make our point…
If you say: warrior are overpowered because there have been an increase in their numbers, with reference to stats, anyone could come and state “rangers are the second overpowered proffessions, and mesmers are in serious need of a boost”

It’s not the place of players to interpret numbers; their place is to give their “random” opinion, no matter how they might look (like the person who posted in the rangers subforum asking for a 5% nerf to rangers longbow because he/she’s been hit for 9 k while wearing no armor. That person would obviously state rangers are overpowered since they are second most played).

Don’t give more numbers to people who believe a 10% nerf means a 50% nerf of the party… that wouldn’t end well…