Educating you is exhausting
Iâm saying ww isnât fotm. Itâs insanely durable but lacks some of the killing power it had during DF but got more utility and uptime talents
Unlike you, I donât have to clean toilets at McDonaldâs for $5 an hour. 
But I will do us both a favor and block you. Your gut feeling is, of course, more valid than a much more objective viewpoint.
WW is the opposite of fotm! As you can see, it still has 4 times more players than Enha but not enough of them can make it past 2400.
Or in a more easy language: When WW would be strong, it would be fotm! Since it isnât, its not strong enough! 
1 Like
Whatever you do certainly isnât data analysis.
bottom 5 are all melee. Nerf all ranged
If you have a small population that still hits upper cr ranges as much as other specs, while being considered an âunderperformingâ spec, then would you not expect that population to consistently hit higher cr ranges? Especially when other mid-high tier specs get tuned down?
1 Like
But your premise is flawed.
For example you mention
This is incorrect.
In slands, WW had a literal team one shot combo potential, run away all game fish for a dance proc and then turn around and smack 1 or more of the team in one attack.
Still was one of the lowest represented specs im the season.
WWs had only 2 or 3 truly bad seasons that they were held back due to weak performance from a development stand point
(one of those seasons was halfway since they had an azertie power combo that could literally one shot people that got nerfed half way through the first season of BFA)
Every other season they were top tier picks but still were grossly misrepresented.
The problem is a lot of time the gap between floor and ceiling can be ridiculously huge, but it doesnât mean theyâre weak.
What we view as being overtuned is usually the gap between floor and ceiling being smaller than itâs peers.
Can you support that claim? In DF season 2 and 3 for example, it had the 5th highest representation in shuffle out all 26 dps specs, with a large margin above the median. And right now it is 8th out of 26:
| Spec | EU | NA | both | Rep | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | MM | 4998 | 5003 | 10001 | 6,498% |
| 2 | Frost | 5002 | 4997 | 9999 | 6,497% |
| 3 | UDK | 4994 | 5000 | 9994 | 6,494% |
| 4 | Ret | 4990 | 4997 | 9987 | 6,489% |
| 5 | Fury | 4989 | 4998 | 9987 | 6,489% |
| 6 | Feral | 4994 | 4894 | 9888 | 6,425% |
| 7 | Affli | 4998 | 4841 | 9839 | 6,393% |
| 8 | WW | 4151 | 3914 | 8065 | 5,240% |
| 9 | Shadow | 4139 | 3917 | 8056 | 5,235% |
| 10 | Assa | 4193 | 3512 | 7705 | 5,006% |
| 11 | Arms | 3536 | 3534 | 7070 | 4,594% |
| 12 | BM | 3820 | 3202 | 7022 | 4,563% |
| 13 | Havoc | 3717 | 3221 | 6938 | 4,508% |
| 14 | Deva | 2750 | 2825 | 5575 | 3,622% |
| 15 | Sub | 3082 | 2395 | 5477 | 3,559% |
| 16 | Ele | 2794 | 2389 | 5183 | 3,368% |
| 17 | Destro | 1993 | 1697 | 3690 | 2,398% |
| 18 | Boomy | 1818 | 1659 | 3477 | 2,259% |
| 19 | SV | 1763 | 1594 | 3357 | 2,181% |
| 20 | FDK | 1519 | 1673 | 3192 | 2,074% |
| 21 | Enha | 1626 | 1550 | 3176 | 2,064% |
| 22 | Demo | 1197 | 1121 | 2318 | 1,506% |
| 23 | Arcane | 777 | 733 | 1510 | 0,981% |
| 24 | Fire | 587 | 531 | 1118 | 0,726% |
| 25 | Outlaw | 482 | 424 | 906 | 0,589% |
| 26 | Aug | 177 | 194 | 371 | 0,241% |
despite the fact it isnât meta. So get over it, WW is a popular spec even when it isnât meta!
And my reaction to it was:
To show that the expansion which came directly after slands, it was one of the most popular specs, so I was curious if you can support your claim somehow.
Sorry friend, when I wasnât able to show my intention more obvious.
What I see is. Buff DH.
1 Like
The point was representation doesnât equal viability or balance, similar to how assa rogue had low representation later into DF but was still a very strong spec
I compared the representation on higher ratings with the popularity of a class, based on the assumption that skill is normally distributed across all classes, which makes sense since we are talking about several of thousand players most classes have.
That is of course not a perfect measurement of how balance is, but a very good indicator of what classes are probably not good enough and still a decent indicator of what classes are probably too good.
Not perfect, but still a lot better and objective than the biased opinion that all of us have. But like I questioned someone before, where would you say the analysis is wrong? What class is on a totally wrong spot based on your opinion?
The analysis needs to be per spec for everyone. Canât have all warlocks and dkâs (for example) lumped together then compare that with just single specs of other classes.
I already talked about my intention earlier.
So in my opinion, its better to put all similar specs of a class together. When Unholy is bad but Frost is great, the Unholy probably wonât change his class and spend weeks of training, but simply play FDK and be on the same level after 2 days, because the class core like defensives, peel, etc. are often similar.
I donât think that makes sense with your Per mille (â°). The intention of that is to show how many people play a spec and what % of that reaches 2400 right? If so then you should be including all specs individually to show how many are playing it and what % are able to successfully push on it. People may switch to a different spec (as they even do with classes that have less similar specs to choose from) but that doesnât really matter. If the spec is good enough to push on it will show, and if it isnât it will also show.
1 Like
Like I said, that doesnât make as much sense, because most DPS are just swapping to what spec the strongest is, even when the other specs are also very viable.
I also said, that in my opinion, they should focus first onto giving every DPS class at least one good spec, before trying to equal out each spec of a class. When 1 out of 2-3 similar specs is viable, that is good enough to beginn with!
But when 1 out of 1 DPS spec of a class isnât viable, that is a no go because they canât just swap to a similar spec. When they want to be viable, they have to reroll to another class!
1 Like
how exactly? youâre claim is that out of a 1000 players 5 WW would have above 2400 in 3âs when there are only 4 WWâs above 2400 in both the EU and NA.
another thing you arenât account for is the overlap of who is in 3âs and RSS ladders at the top.
Your numbers in general are extremely flawed
No, I claimed that 3.45 WW out of 1000 WW reached 2400.
The analysis is based on data from more than a day ago, basically 1-2 hours before I posted it. At that moment we had 5 WW above 2400 in 3s out of 1451 WW who are 1000+ rated. So seems like one dropped rating in the past 24 hours or so.
I think you underestimate the amount of people that prefer a single spec and donât switch. Itâs honestly probably not too far off from what youâd see on hybrid classes with completely different roles. Either way to me itâs just making assumptions and withholding portions of data to present a biased end result.
When analyzing data or making comparisons I think itâs better to eliminate as many variables as possible and make the data as uniform as possible. Thatâs the baseline (i.e. all specs analyzed so itâs uniform across the board). From there I think it would be fine to make different comparisons by lumping specs together, but only after everything is laid out and the reader is given all of the data to make the determination for themselves on if messing with it further makes sense.
As an example of what could potentially happen when you lump specs together is it could be Unholy is fine and Frost DK is really bad dragging the entire metric down. So you buff DK which in turn makes unholy too strong (not saying it is, this is a hypothetical). The entire point of this analysis is to guide tuning so it would require accurate data for each spec.
This is pretty longwinded and makes it sound like I care more than I do. Iâm just bored and this was interesting to me for various reasons.
1 Like