I’m not saying you’re wrong. Just saying to cool it on the doom. That this is not where we will be. It’ll be fine, even if we aren’t top now, we already got a bit of a buff. More will come I think.
There are… problems using Mythic 99th%ile parse as the controlling data set. For instance, there are only 154 Fury parses on that site for Mythic. So The N here for 99th%ile is… 1.5!
Whereas there are 27k Fury parses in Heroic and 160k in normal. Yes ultimately the top end of play is more important for balancing but it’s just silly to make arguments from Mythic 99th%ile data with an N of < 2 for Fury and < 15 for Arms.
9 Likes
Maybe because the 11 warrior in this thread is adhering to the idea that warriors are completely fine and need no mechanical or number adjustments? Based on mythic logs of 150 arms warriors that were able to complete the content.
1 Like
Ima get ahead of that. He’s an EU player. He knows is stuff, often provides rock solid info, and he can be a little blunt. But try not to take it personally.
8 Likes
Not really hostile if someone is disagreeing with you. I dont agree with your thread beside fury need buff. Only real hostility that i see is people going after derez
5 Likes
Derez who denies everything negative anyone posts about warriors.
Then links logs of the 150 best arms warriors in the world and claims it is what we should balance a class off of.
20 Likes
I’m not going to get into it, I’m sorry you’re frustrated, have a good day bud.
2 Likes
Okay just weird you are fleboo relentlessly defending him and show no critic of the obviously non-popular and untrue idea he is pushing.
I have great parses in normal at least. Some of those fights i was less the 2-5% from playing perfectly and still was not top 5 in the meters. I have done the content. He is posting on an alt because chances are he has not actual played in a competitive raid.
12 Likes
I really hope they do some more for warrior soon, im at 198 ilvl and do pretty mid to low tier dps vs the higher end classes and have really been struggling to get in higher level M+ and Heroic Castle fights beyond the first three because every group is looking for “pumpers” and no one is going to be able to honestly call warrior a pumper. I know some folks on here feel strongly that its not bad atm, but I would say from a DPS output potential it is just not as attractive of an option and I get why groups continually pass in favor of higher dps ranged, rogues or DKs. I feel like I am spending more time searching for groups for M+/Heroic Castle than actually playing the game. Been doing more pvp because I can at least get into RBG groups, so that’s nice at least. I am not saying it is the worst or anything, just that its not in a good enough spot to honestly be fun in the PVE scene atm.
4 Likes
Derez just call you out if what you saying is false, that pretty much it. If he does a mistake or hes wrong, he will accept it and correct it. But he do know his warrior stuff pretty well.
Well i do agree that we should balance where the top player is doing since they are those who know their class/spec the most and know how to max out the potential. But you would also want to gather all the data available to have all the info and different viewpoint to provide the best tuning needed with all specs.
1 Like
And comparing them to…the similarly skilled and exceptionally performing players of other specs?
You’re acting as though comparing high level warriors like this is putting them up against unfairly matched players. The metric is uniform.
You have not provided evidence for that.
I somehow doubt you even know how the All Percentiles function works. To be fair, it was only added a tier or two ago, so some would be unfamiliar with it.
This statement actually contradicts itself.
You imply that arms+fury were buffed due to being weaker than is ideally the case. That’s a reasonable assessment.
But your inference from that basis is that they are weak because they are buffed.
That goes against itself, as the buff was to absolve that predicament. I.E., they were buffed because they were weak, not because they are. See how that sentence follows it’s own reasoning? Try it out yourself.
At no point did I state any of this.
Not only does your sentence structure need work, and you still need to tone down your habit of exuberant exaggerations, but now you’re inferencing meaning or intention that simply is not there.
This is incorrect.
You are def going on ignore. I linked the evidence. If you choose to judge a spec off of 150 warriors who play the game 20+ hours a day then good on you.
Ill judge warriors performance off of the 10s of thousands logs of warriors that actually are trying to progress.
9 Likes
I don’t think you understand how the statistics page works.
It’s not taking direct logs from the ranking page and placing them on the graph. I.E., achieving a 3,608 dps log on shriekwing as fury would not necessarilly net you a 99. Rather, it takes the logs currently available (and does include private logs) and places them on the graph using ranges or averages, I can’t remember for the life of me which.
I don’t believe those warriors all play for that extreme an amount of time. In fact, as far as I’m aware, nearly no one actually does. Even those in the world first race don’t reach that extreme degree.
What do you think the people killing mythic bosses are doing right now, ballet?
Those tens of thousands are, by in large, rather poor players for the most part. Why would you care to look at their data.
Why would you care to look at the .000001 % of arms players and use them to balance a spec?
Who is being more reasonable here?
Yeah, and im being the toxic one. Their data matters a lot more then 150 arms warriors parses.
I can see why you are on the forums so much my man. Good luck.
9 Likes
Ok, no I don’t really understand that. The question is does the “parses” number, showing 154 mythic parses for across all %iles of Fury, reflect the sample size of the data or not? And if not, what is the sample size here?
It doesn’t really matter how 99thile is determined unless we know the answer to the above. Which seems to be… that the sample size is very low. I take it you are saying the 99thile number is protected somehow from the 154 logs rather than taken as a raw data point. IE the 154 furies we looked at do X, which we project to mean a 99thile performance of Y. But if that’s so it’s almost even less persuasive than just pointing to the literal top 1% raw score.
I don’t do that.
Again, you have this terrible habit of massively exaggerating.
I’m currently looking at the top 1-2%. When more data becomes available, and more logs are about parsing/abusing mechanics, and less about progression and kills, I’ll lower the threshold to the top 5-10%.
That’s not toxic, it’s a statement of fact. Really anyone below 90% is typically making severe mistakes in their play and are rapidly more and more suboptimal.
I believe you’re once again inferencing something that is not there.
lol? source?
Dying on a logged kill or getting targeted by a raid mechanic or even a latency spike does not make you sub optimal.
What if you are assigned to the latern on shriek wing.
or to bust bubbles on hungering.
or to do valves in inverna
or run out seeds on xyl
or soaking on stone legion
or targeted with the chain on sludge
raid leaders have smaller parses a lot because they are calling for the group. Darn suboptimal raid leaders.
Guess you are suboptimal. People have to rotate who is going to parse on a lot of these fights
Do you even raid ? You have a very convoluted idea of what class balance should be and based on your responses to clear evidence people provide.
4 Likes
I’ve argued, and often used this resource, that the earlier stages of the tier, specifically when everyone, or at least near everyone, is still progressing, is exactly when those top metrics are actually valid. As the statistics page pulls data from private logs (which the rankings do not do, obviously) and everyone is progressing, not focusing/worrying about parsing/cheesing/etc, the top end is simply more directly that. Optimal output and performance.
Later on, when hundreds of guilds are cleared or clearing, the data will be far more skewed at the top end, and to avoid extreme uses of cheese or simply ludicrous rng, you’d rather look to the 90-95% ranges for more controlled data.
I actually do not believe the parses number includes private logs, although that is a rather small figure regardless. It is worth stating that, for the next week or two, that difference does matter, albeit only relative to later on, when it becomes such a small % as to lose major relevance on the data.
Precisely, yes.
I understand why you view it in that way, and concur that it’s a valid view. I don’t necessarily agree, but it’s not really a debatable point. It’s just interpretation of data and what it means at that point.
Well, that would depend on the spec, just to be thorough in answering.
Some specs will obviously be more skewed comparing that parse number to the actual graph, as they will have far more private loggers. And then it’s a question of, the relative number of private logs to the public logs, which can (but, and this would surprise many I imagine, often do not) follow the same patterns.
I stated typically, instead of something more definite or final, to avoid this, and you still say this.
I really don’t think you’re actually reading, you’re just reacting. It’s more emotional than anything. You are boring me.
I’m really growing rather tired of this.
One of us has cleared mythic before the bosses are all nerfed into oblivion.
The other is you.
2 Likes
okay then my man link the logs on your MAIN so i can learn off such an elite player. and on the TINY TINY TINY chance you actual have cleared multiple mythic bosses the week. You still wrong about warriors not needing buffs.
One of us is lying about our progression!
3 Likes