I’ve read your post about methodology. I’m aware of:
However, I’m OK with that as it doesn’t change anything regarding my argument, though.
It’s also a pretty decent heuristic to take into account.
I’m also aware of this:
But I guess they’re as objective as it gets, considering they have no access to actual data and have to rely on tracker data.
Still, nothing changes the fact that sooner or later in your calculation you have to divide some numbers to get to a percentage. A percentage is literally defined as a fraction of something multiplied by 100, and you can’t get a fraction of something without dividing a part of that something with that something.
This was very rude and untruthful.
That number is apparently a number of games tracked in top 1k for Rainbow shaman, which means that the actual number of games played isn’t much different, as most of the players in top 1k use a tracker.
Either way, it doesn’t make much of a difference in the grand scheme of things.
1,5% played or 2% played, doesn’t change the fact that to calculate a winrate you have to divide with a number of games, as that’s what fraction, a percentage means, and the higher that number of games, the lower the resulting winrate will be.