Yeah, that’s not how it works. This just shows me you either haven’t been keeping track or just don’t know what you’re talking about. I and several others have posted evidence like stats, screenshots, winrates, pickrates, banrates, and the opposition (that side) has simply reesorted to saying “well the stats can be trusted” even with a sample size of over 4k.
Stats don’t lie. Saying you don’t like the stats because they don’t support your worldview is not how constructive argumentation works.
One side uses data which at best is as accurate as Hotslogs was, which was proven to be somewhat inaccurate by Blizz, stating it can be off with ±5%.
Meaning that arguing that DW needs nerfs because he’s 60% wr is dull, since there is a possibility it is actually 55% and these ppl don’t ask for nerfs for Heroes with 55% wr.
But they ignore this important detail.
And the otherside (if I can say I’m the otherside) doesn’t uses their personal experience as the trumpcard of balance, just treats it as it is somewhat close to what HeroesProfile has. A collection of anecdotes.
So saying the otherside thinks their personal experience with DW is more important is the fallacy of strawmanning, since that was never my argument but you want to make it sound like it, but sure, consider everyone you disagree with as “bad arguers” and praise everyone on your side. That proves that you’re on the right track, ay?
Because this is a “we vs them”, and not an actual discussion. You are right cuz HeroesProfile and everyone who disagrees with that are bad at debates. Gotchya.
No, I know exactly what is going on here, main problem is, you all arguing weither a bunch of data collected on a third party none affiliated blizzard website that very few people use is either useful or not, sometimes they were right, sometimes not so much…
The best part, none of this would literally matter if we actually had an API or actually a working open stats profile page like Overwatch does which is even by far its best accurate way of actually collecting data for the sites that have been doing that for the past 3 years, this thread would probably at least 50 - 100 posts instead of going back forth over “how 2 talk with someone” and “how 2 share replays none email style (free) (no virus) (2020 working)”.
If we actually had that stupid promised API already then:
Every single time we go through this that “stats don’t lie” patch notes says something completely different every time, ETC highest winrate tank? Does not go with the data, Some hero with a low winrate despite what those says has a reasonable winrate of 49% - 51% according to some dev comment? Oh yeah how unexpected.
The reason I dislike those websites is because from past experience I get some moron linking me a profile saying “hew guws this has vewy low winrate of [less than 45%] why people listen to him? uwu” only to be legitimately not the actual stats, that barely adds nothing in the slightest.
And being off by +/-5 percent is a perfectly acceptable range, especially compared to person anecdotes which can be off far greater than that.
The thread you are arguing in isn’t using ONLY winrate as evidence. It’s also using POPULARITY and BAN RATE. And yes, people have in the past asked for nerfs to 55 percent winrate over 50 percent popularity heroes. Diablo, the instance when rexxar was incredibly popular, yrel, etc.
A collection of anecdotes > a single anecdote. That is what social science is based on. Observing these anecdotes through a medium in which can dissect the truth and the falsity.
I’m not making a we vs them, I’m just pointing out that you and zenasprime have so far argued simply to argue. Not really based on anything substantiative. You are bad at argumentation because you don’t attack arguments, you attack the people making them and you attack the sources without basis.
Its kinda weird how discussion about hotslogs/heroesprofile always boils down to “its probably lower” but never “it could be higher”.
Not if you want to use it as facts.
As @Sami pointed it out, there were lot of times when ppl pointed at hotslogs/heroesprofile claiming things need to change because it shows it only for the devs to come in on the forums or the patchnotes’ dev comments and say nah-ah.
I can’t expect you to read this whole clownfest, but I also pointed it out that HeroesProfile showed DW has 180% popularity. That’s far from an acceptable error-range.
And high banrate means little.
Kael has a high banrate for at least a year and still untouched.
DW’s playrate is 9%. That’s closer to niche Heroes than the top dogs of ranked. Yet ppp consider DW’s winrate as if he would’ve been a commonly played Hero.
These ppl ignore all these points but they are the ones with good argumantation skills, sure.
Show me where I attacked someone.
Because I can show where OJ “attacked” me. They twisted this whole thread around me for quite some time, but somehow I attacked them? With what?
I debated their points and not them and it’s clear you either didn’t read this whole thread or you just forgot due to its massive size, but your accusation is mute, thanks.
This is where I’ll throw a little bit of shade on (my side) as well as (their side). If that stats support your agenda, you’ll tout them, if they don’t, you’ll say they’re irrelevant. I’m fairly confident if the situations were reversed and the stats supported (that side) they would tout them as the truth while lambasting us for refuting data.
One of the primary reasons why I find Karabar’s style of argumentation to be problematic is because he only wants to have it have both ways. He attributes motive to uploads as a reason why they can’t be trusted without acknowledging that motive can go both ways. If a bunch of people only upload wins in hopes of getting deathwing nerfed, why is it also not reasonable to assume people only upload losses in hopes of getting deathwing buffed?
Why assume motive at all? Are there not people that upload information just because they like to and don’t have an agenda?
Another example is this:
If it’s a “give or take” situation like how he phrases it to be, he only points out that in a “take” situation, we could be nerfing a hero who is balanced without acknowledging that it could also be a “give” situation (65%) where doing nothing could potentially allow a broken hero to slip through the cracks.
How can anything get done if there is always a margin of error we’re afraid to exceed either way? We work with what we’re given to make our most informed analyses.
Is it perfect? No. But it’s all we have. The sample size is large enough and every critique that Zenasprime has about the site is either anecdotal or unsubstantiated/symptomatic of paranoia.
Quite literally your first response to him, notice you didn’t attack any argument here at all. You attacked his balancing view as if that was relevant in anyway way.
I have no argument that says ppl only uploads wins.
Another strawman fallacy.
Which is extremely weird since only a few comments above did I talk about this with @Hailfall.
That’s not my first response to him.
And the reason I ended up here is because he quoted me here out of context to show my fallacy. = Attacking me instead of my arguments.
I wrote **±**5% consistently.
I acknowledge the possibility that any Hero can also have a winrate 5% higher.
Using one example only, which highlights that why the data cannot be trusted with the title of “fact” is not ignoring any possibility.
I didn’t say the DW data itself is inaccurate. I just say the data cannot be trusted, it is uncertain how close/far it is from reality and in which direction, therefore ppl shouldn’t use it as a trumpcard.
Simple. Blizz makes the changes, and since they have all the matches, their margin of error in statistics is non existent.
That shouldn’t be good enough for ppl who wants facts.
I can list a good amount of examples when the changes the devs made disagreed with that “large enough sample size”.
Notice how I never said you said people only upload wins. Either you didn’t read my post or you just skimmed it so quick that you allowed an error like this to slip through the cracks.
I only accused you of attributing motive of people uploading, not for any specific reason (though I could argue it was strongly implied).
The topics of concern tend to be due to things being ‘too strong’ or ‘too successful’, so the effect tends to be in concerns for stuff being too high, but the result can work at the other end if people are looking at stuff being 'too weak" (though in many cases, players are content for some things to remain lower)
Part of the visible issue of parsing sites is that they do skew the numbers, esp when filters are applied. Their estimation systems are prone to inflation because exposure across its spectrum is assumed, and the exposure to the playerbase tends to be wide and shallow, with select early/intentional uploads setting a benchmark of adjustment to the system.
What Reinhardt posted regarding stats is particular to populace opinion or clinic trials, so the analysis, hypothesis, skew, study and so on for the impact of the stats are different compared to game compilations. Part of the biggest issue of statistical analysis is that people tend want to apply them to a broader range or conclusion than the stats really apply.
In that regard, the stat tends to be less about the ‘analysis’ and more the conclusion at hand. So, to some degree, concerns of high/low depend on the intent of the study and the impact the ‘skew’ could have, esp in regards to standard deviation.
In regards to the topic itself, yes, its likely that any hero that is excessively overpopular will see something toned downward to either discourage the popularity, create a placebo that they have been “nerfed”, or act as a filler change to appease outcry till the meta changes regardless of that hero.
Some heroes do get ‘temporary’ nerfs, and then get buffed back to, or even above, their release levels. In that regard, from a numbers perspective the concern of being “over powered” could be offset by the reality that numbers were later increased (“buffed”) but the previous problem and outcry did not occur.
So in that regard, the labeled concern for “over powered” would be less in regards to the stats “proving” the concern is objective, but rather one of perspective and adaptability.
Blizz tends to consider some stats these sites don’t filter very well (such as premade games or exact hero level) and use that to influence if the outcry to things being “overpowered” are based on values, designs, or gameplay trends.
While they aren’t ‘perfect’ or whatever for the game, they are the ones making the changes, so some things influence their choice and actions more than others; the capacity for another site to post numbers that defer from their own may only influence them to do superficial changes per the placebo, or similarly, they may look to offset the “frustration”, but keep a similar power level to the hero (to keep the feel/balance the same) and do a side-grade adjustment instead.
Deathwing was going to be popular regardless; he’s been a high demand hero and a heavily requested “game breaking” addition that has has needed for awhile, while then released at a vacation period were lots of new players come back to the game to experience the hero… and potentially make divergent results that end up as noise to third party parsing that can’t filter it out.
So yea, per popularity and outcry, changes will likely continue to be made; the previous dev notes on his last balance hinted as such to be expected. However, some of the extent by which people argue the case to be more pronounced than may be the case could find themselves disappointed when said tuning comes.
What [they] use to form their opinion may not be the same material that blizz uses to conclude what sort of change they’ll make to the numbers/design/etc. Some posters tend to get so caught up in arguing with others that they forget that Kara or Oj or Zenas or whomever aren’t the ones that actually change the game.
Ok.
I did not.
There’s no slip. I just used the “uploads wins” example since regarding DW that could be the only way to discredit the stats if we would want to discredit it with these motives.
Which I don’t do.
I’m not saying these sites are inaccurate because ppl uploads certain matches or in certain ways.
I discredit it, because Blizz stated it doesn’t reflect reality.
Then why bring it up? If people upload wins for nerfs and loses for buffs, would these two not offset? Are you implying that one side has more numbers than the other? That would be impossible to quantify. Why is motive even relevant to a discussion about facts? It’s pure hearsay.
Yet you only mentioned the negative effects of nerfing a hero that could potentially be 55% without giving any credence to it also being true that 65% is too much and is problematic.
In an “either or” type situation, you focus on the one that suits your claim (that being 55%) hoping your opponents will ignore that you’re deliberately leaving out the possibility of your logic swinging the other way.
Why?
It’s not.
I’m not talking about motives.
You got it wrong.
I’m not talking about HP having inaccurate data and “innocent” Heroes still getting nerfed. Or “guilty” ones getting buffed.
Blizz doesn’t use HP, so we shouldn’t use it as a “trumpcard” either.
This thread is all about “end all discussions, HP has spoken”. Which is ridiculous.
Why I used a negative 5% example?
Because if I use a positive one ppl won’t care about how inaccurate HP is, DW is still “op”, so everything is “fine”. But I want to point out that that site can give false perceptions and enforce bias without actually being a fact.
According to heroes profile Deathwing has a 59% winrate in storm league yes but then you have Rexxar who has 57,2% winrate and he does not feel op to me, if nerfed it will need to be a really small nerf in order to not throw him into oblivion.
Popularity of a hero is not about his power, Deathwing is the biggest fanservice hero to have ever come it was even a meme before being truly released, of course he has a 99% popularity for now, he is the latest hero and was wanted by many.
Let’s say tomorrow they release Grommash who would be 50 % winrate and well balanced, it’s a fanservice as well and his popularity would be almost at 100% as well yet it wouldn’t mean he would need a nerf.
Also according to heroes profiles Diablo has 46% winrate wich means he would need a buff yet he is a quite powerfull meatbag.
I Don’t really think that website is a reliable source especially when you switch to storm league and look at the winrate I mean Butcher has 58% winrate in these two ranks when he has so many counters, it seems far from the truth
I never claimed HP ends all discussions. I even acknowledged it wasn’t perfect. I did however acknowledge that it is credible enough to give us a better view of a picture that is otherwise obscured to us.
Even Blizzard didn’t use Hotslogs, they have their own internal statistics, yet Hotslogs was considered “close enough” to give us an internal perspective on where they might potentially take the game.
You’ll see the same thing with Probius, TLV, and Xul. High winrate with abysmal pick and banrate usually indicates niche but highly effective in said niche. In his hayday, Diablo’s winrate was decent (55%) but he had the highest pick and banrate in the game, meaning he was good in just about every situation, against every comp, and on every map.
Heroes with abnormally high banrate or pickrate are typically heroes that excel in every situation and are a constant thread no matter what factor is thrown into the mix of a game.