Yup….And we will continue to do so as long as losers like you keep trashing the spec.
100% your fault.
Absolutely.
It doesn’t matter in the slightest.
The tired and pathetic argument of “why would you bring a feral” instantly becomes null and void the second you take any player who who doesn’t perform amongst the top of their class.
That reality is true for everyone. Even cheesey. The #1 ranked feral.
You can all pretend that ferals position on this list makes them a liability. But as we’ve proven time and time again. It’s all bull.
So long as your terrible guild continues to grey parse, That weekly list will forever be irrelevant to you (and 99% of players). You can kick and scream all you want and call this factual data anecdotes. It doesn’t change a thing.
So long as you or any other guild continues to harbor these grey parsing mouth breathers, I don’t wanna hear another god damn word about “why should I bring a feral”.
Why???
Because you’re trash and that feral is better than half your guild.
I hope your realize how asinine and insane all of that sounds.
You don’t understand how the game works. Or how interpersonal relationships work. Or really anything. I’m embarrassed to have you as a fan, personally.
I can’t believe this is still being discussed. Holy crap. You all are arguing two different things. In all the aggregate data at the 95th percentile and above, only outlaw rogues do worse than ferals. So that’s taking a subset of players who would generally perform well in many other specs so it’s a good data set to extrapolate some information from.
The fact is, a feral rotation is much more difficult than any warrior spec, ret paladins, etc… That’s not debatable. I’d go as far as saying (my opinion), that most feral players would do much better in those specs than they do with having to manage snapshots, bleed uptime, energy pooling, capped energy, etc. because it’s more to manage and leaves more room for error. I parse higher on my ret Paladin all the time because it’s a generally brainless 4 button rotation and flashing lights.
Except that the difference in getting an Apex proc or not is oftentimes the difference in sending or waiting in a cycle. The PPM is very different in both cases, so whichever situation occurred more frequently would be disproportionately affected.
Additionally, this would be creating a projection based off a sample rather than an actual representation that happened. That significantly changes how the data should be used, but it’s unlikely people would change their behavior.
Feral is bad subjectively and objectively. And small amounts of anecdotal evidence isn’t going to fix the spec or using the most top end players as “proof” that the spec is fine. If that were the case, they would be meta. Which they are not. Don’t be mad about it, no one is attacking you personally. Stooping to insults doesn’t help your argument. Only weakens your conviction in the face of pressure.
The rankings are an aggregation of the logs you’re pulling from. The are only way the aggregate data could show feral to be so low yet 90% of logs show ferals being above average is an extreme survivorship bias. The vast majority of logs don’t have a feral druid at all and if it did, the feral would be below average.
Yes technically this would make your statement true, but would significantly bolster the argument that feral is in a bad place for raid.
Feral is only shown to be bad when its put amognst an entire group of equally skilled players. Which doesnt happen. I went clear into the bottom 30% of logs for Feral, and they were beating specs supposed to be hand over fist better than them.
With UH DK so far on the top, how come there are so many being beaten by Ferals? According to your guys arguments, all top specs should ALWAYS end up towards the top. And yet they dont.
That aggregated information shows POTENTIAL of the class. All it shows is BALANCE. Its not showing individual skill.
Thats what the individual logs do. And thats why we see grabo tier Feral beating Meta Demo lock and UH DK.
Wrong again. Its already been proven that you can beat the raid with an entire set up of lower half specs and plenty of grey parses.
No one spec is bad for the raid. Its simply bad players regardless of spec. And enough with the “oh but if 2 people are trying to apply for Echo” nonsense. You take the person who is going to give you the better results.
You take the person with 20 years experience and no college degree over the person with a Bachelors degree and no experience
I’m not rehashing that argument here. You’re claiming that 90% of logs show feral druid being strong compared to others in the raid. The ONLY mathematical way for that claim to be true when the aggregate data is skewed with feral so close to the bottom, is for there to be many more logs that have no feral druid at all and if we placed the average feral druid into that log, they would be near the bottom. That’s not an opinion nor really even a raid comp thing, it’s a mathematical certainty. If not, the aggregate data would show feral being closer to the top.
An individual log doesn’t show skill. In any given fight there are a lot of factors that can result in better or worse performance that is unrelated to skill. To really measure skill, you need to consider performance across multiple pulls of the same fight to insulate against any singular encounter being an outlier due to random events going for or against each player.
To be clear, the trend may still hold up in the guilds you’ve found across multiple pulls. I haven’t done that analysis. But the statement that any singular log is enough to demonstrate player skill is just not correct.
Wrong again. It just means youve got bad players on “good specs”.
Aggregated is just a collection of logs. And with logs being put into a standardized form as we discussed earlier, the rankings list compares Feral in raid #256 who did a 50% parse to that UH DK in raid #712 who also did 50% parse instead of comparing the Feral in raid 256 to the DK in the same raid who only parsed at 40%
And youre not understanding that. Which is why i make the claim you guys dont understand the data thats represented. Yes, at EQUAL SKILL LEVELS, a feral is going to be worse off than most other specs. No argument there.
But as 99.999% of the logs show, you’re not going to have a group of equally skilled players. Thats why youve got Ferals on top, DK and locks on bottom and not a single log that even slightly reflects the aggregated data model. All that shows is the rankings in accordance to Balance. Not how well the perspn can plau the spec
Is it not also skill in how you handle those factors and keep in the fight? The thing you dont understand, is these mythic logs we pull from, arent usually one and dones. Theres multiple pulls and each one seemingly getting better and better until its on farm and they shoot up through the ranks thanks to overgearing and familiarity (which is why i dont post things like the OP in mythic level gear in Heroic kills in 3 minute fights).
That doesnt represent skill. That represents an adult playing t-ball at that point.
Ah yes, what are the chances that out of the hundreds of logs posted, we combed through every single one where Ferals didnt have to deal with mechanics and everyone else who did worse than them had to deal with every single one. Good argument!
This has absolutely nothing to do with what I said. If 90% of feral logs are above average for their group like you claim, yet they are near the bottom when aggregated across all the data, then the only explanation is what I’ve described. The 90% of “good” feral logs are included in that aggregation as well, which should pull up the aggregate quite a bit. Yet those good logs aren’t enough to make the aggregate positive for ferals. How can you explain that?
Nowhere did I say skill didn’t influence how well you adapt to the random occurrences. Even minimizing the impact they have on your DPS, your DPS will be lower with a higher proportion of negative effects than not. If I get targeted by mechanics requiring me to run out of melee 7 times, my DPS will be lower than a pull where I never got chosen for those mechanics, regardless how good of a player I am.
Do you even read? It shows potential. The aggregated shows balance. Its all at set points too.
90% of 110 will always be better than 90% of 100
Thats all that the aggregated data shows. Its also why those charts show high and low ends of the specs too.
And theres no way to guarantee that pulling multiple logs from the same person from the same fight will reflect that. 3 pulls may show minimal mechanic engagement for all 3. Which makes one log just as good. Which is also why pulling random logs from the SAME boss across multiple data points and multiple people is just as effective as the chances of coming across what you describe to “represent” player skill will be the same
The aggregated data shows the average and max performance across all public logs. The max is potential, but the average is the mean of all the data sets.
If 90% of logs with a feral are above average, how can the aggregated average be near the bottom of all specs if not for what I described?
This shows such a fundamental misunderstanding of the law of averages it’s not even funny. Yes, 3 logs do not guarantee that skill differences will smooth out randomness, but it’s certainly better than 1 log. 5 logs would be better still, and 10 better still.
Whoever said that Feral was above average?? The average of a lower set of highs and lows will be lower than the averages of a set of highs and lows. Good lord. Let me show you where i covered this.
The higher the high end, the higher the average. Or do you not undestand how averages work either?
Which is why weve posted 30-40 different logs. Every time post a new log, its a different one.
Show us where we’ve only stuck to 1 log this entire discussion???