Just use the data.
Take the average CR/MMR for a spec averaged over 2s/3s/SS/RBGs and the % at each bracket and buff/nerf accordingly until all specs are equal. Minor buffs to those beneath the mean and nerfs for those above the mean until all are equal. Every week adjust,… 1-2% changes weekly until equality is achieved, all classes played as much as one another and too similar success, no more FoTM classes.
1 Like
what data
oh. rep.
Really?
Drustvar
pvleaderboard
This is the arena forum and have to tell peps where to find PvP metrics, lol….
1 Like
the point is rep is a bottom tier metric when determining strength, and thankfully, blizzard doesn’t appear to utilize rep when making balancing decisions
but you’d prefer them to solely utilize rep to do so
CR and MMR mean or average isn’t rep,
They can take the average CR of top 5000 of each spec for each of the 4 rated brackets and try to equalize them…
would have take into account player recent activity, etc…
but RBGs are dead, SS has the vast majority, and specs like outlaw and arcane are pretty strong but would likely get buffed based on your silly way of applying buffs/nerfs
i think you think that your idea sounds good because it’s attempting to use the statistics we can all see, but it just wouldn’t at all
Rep is a good indicator too….
Most people play what is strong…. If all classes are equally represented, balance is probably good… I have a dozen friends that have level 70s of each class, guess what they are playin DK,DH,Disc and Rogue, one playin Destro.
Say you go to the ss 1800 plus page and every dps in say 5-6% and every healer 10-14% rep, that wouldn’t be a good indicator of balance?
there are so many other factors that go into why a certain spec is played that it’s not even worth using it
i feel like a lot of people would say ret is strong right now
2nd highest rep among all specs across all brackets globally
but you didn’t even mention them in the list your friends play while trying to use your friends as a way to prove that people play what’s strong
meanwhile, sub is 11th and destro is 16th
arcane and outlaw are pretty strong right now, ye? oh, wait, 2 of the bottom 3 specs rep wise
guess they need buffs
why are you using 1800+ when we are in a unique situation currently where not a single spec has more than 5000 players allowing for top 5000 on pvp leaderboards to give a complete view of the ladder from the highest rating down to the lowest?
in a different thread the other day, someone tried to use 2200+
at the time, if you looked at 2400+, however, frost DK had higher rep then half the specs in the game
would you say frost DK needs a nerf?
you can just do average win, loss, dps, burst, etc… that arenalogs site can track it, pretty sure blizz does too.
With maybe the exception of rogue, because I have no idea how else they would end up this way 
Clearly negative connotation on rep, and deservedly so.
Rep alone is bad, but I like to look at success rate: by which I mean a comparison of total rep to high rating rep.
For some simple math, let’s ignore accurate ELO distributions and say there are 3 specs in the game: A, B and C.
- A is played by 10,000 people and 1,000 of them are Gladiators (2400+).
- B is played by 1,000 people and 200 of them are Gladiators (2400+).
- C is played by 100 people and 40 of them are Gladiators (2400+).
There are 5x as many B Gladiators as C Gladiators, and there are 5x again more A Gladiators than B Gladiators (25x that of C).
Still, I would argue A deserves buffs, B is good and C needs nerfs. Because A has a 10% success rate, B has a 20% success rate and C has a 40% success rate.
In reality we’ll find that the numbers are not so skewed, but the concept, I believe, still applies.
Which is essentially the same as class average mmr/cr
A would have the lowest, c the highest, hence the buffs nerfs you stated…
Only issue would be tankers….
1 Like
You know what you’re right. That’s exactly what I proposed, or actually an even finer representation of it because it’s more granular and not so quantized.
I read the OP, didn’t get that from it, and missed your later post, and just assumed based on that other reply you were only taking rep into account.
Tired brain.
if you were sitting in the shower and not really thinking then maybe this would sound like a good idea
but you can’t take a severely unpopular class like monk and make is as popular as a class like warrior without making monk so insanely overtuned that it attracts people beyond those interested in it initially
your way of balancing would just makes specs like enhancement 6x stronger than specs like retribution simply because enhancement is naturally less played regardless of tuning
1 Like
overtuned monk is one of the worst. bonedust clones of death S2/3 Shadowlands anyone?
But as that monk and enh shaman become stronger/more popular, they would start getting nerfs and others buffs… players will always play the strongest class more often then not. The goal would be that all classes are equal on average, and people would play what they like instead of what they can obtain the highest title on.
this is the thing that seems to be confusing you
enhancement was the best it’s ever been in the history of this game in shadowlands season 1 and it didn’t even break top 15 for spec representation
If they were so good., then their average CR/MMR would be high, hence nerfs…
don’t nerf/buff based on rep, the goal is even rep and mean CR/MMR.
Buffs and nerfs come from average CR/MMR for top X amount of players per spec…say 500 , say 2000, maybe all players 1200+, whatever the formula or criteria…could even incorporate win loss ratios.
ooof yeah, wow arena logs? not a good look dude
there’s 40 specs and most popular 12 of them are 1000x more popular than the bottom 4 of them
which can’t be fixed by overtuning