07-24-2007, 09:16 PM
Quote:I thought you had read this post.
http://www.lurkerlounge.com/forums/index.p...ndpost&p=131170
This is the data I'm using. It's the same data that underlied the post you linked to, but I don't agree with rebalancing according to the general population. The reason is that these are top 20 teams, presumably with players who spend a lot of time on this game. As such they are going to be able to reroll to the classes they want, and their population relative to the general warcraft population I don't find to be relevant. The general population is influenced by many things which aren't relevant to PvP balance. For example, bloodlust makes Shaman a solid 4th member of a 5v5 arena team. However, much of the alliance general population has not rerolled a Shaman so they are the lowest in the general population. Using the population adjusted numbers make Shaman look really overpopulated, when in reality they are in the middle.
Ok, according to those numbers the top 3 classes in 5v5 make up 54% of the top teams, and in 2v2 they make up 53%. The bottom 3 classes are 10% in 5v5 and 8% in 2v2. I don't see a big difference. If you want to balance the arena numbers according to population, you have to cast a bigger net then the top 20 teams, people who would find rerolling a relatively trivial task.
Regarding handicapping - eventually you will find a point where points in ~ points out. Using the hypothetical 4:1 ratio, is it really more fun to go up 50 points so that you are losing 4 games for every game you win? Also, there are substantial further complications to the system. What about the poor MT, who just goofs off after raids. Does he deserve 1/4 the points because half the population is sporting Deep Thunder? 4 of the top 5 2v2 in the US feature a druid. Do they deserve even MORE points because the class is underplayed?