Arenamates shows participation not viability.
It’s not though. The utility hasn’t changed which is why the comment they made doesn’t really make sense.
…No.
In the first situation, we’re talking about an issue pertaining to PVP.
In the second we’re talking about the game.
It’s like saying “Should we consider that this district in Wyoming is underserved?”
“Who cares? Wyoming is less than 1% of the US population!”
“Yeah but this is a State issue that the State Legislature is dealing with…”
a couple things here:
- People play what they want to play - yes - but you don’t get groups, you don’t climb as high, and you’re not seen in most games because talent and time isn’t equally distributed. The greatest arena player in the world isn’t on the charts if they have a newborn and no PVP friends.
There have been scores of things written in defense of Solo Que because “having PVP friends” is a bigger factor in rank than skill.
I don’t know how to explain basic stats here other than to say “Playing what you want for all the reasons you have doesn’t translate to that spec being 12% of the matches played.”
So the market has no bearing on anything then?
This is an affect vs. effect issue. Correct, the utility hasn’t changed. What changes is what the utility affects. If you gave someone $1,000 who’s rich, they invest it. If you give it to someone who is poor, they buy basic necessities. The $1000 is the same, the result is not.
No, we’re talking about representation.
Fury Warriors in PvP is to PvP in World of Warcraft.
I uh…already proved this entire statement wrong.
No. Just like if we look at the entire M+ scene, we’ll see that X class has Y representation, but only Z were able to achieve Keystone Master. X and Y do not equal Z. And Z is what everyone looks at.
And that goes back to viability with comps.
Know what they say OP, can’t beat’em, join’em. Nothing is stopping you too joining the druid squad.
1 Like
Just to double down on this. When I joined the game back in Wrath, Hunters were the predominant force in WoW by a large margin. Did that mean they were the greatest/strongest? No. They were just one of the easiest classes to pick up on, so they had an extremely high representation.
So market had no bearing on where they stood. Good players played them, bad players played them, everyone played them. But it didn’t have a single bearing on anything
Btw op how did the lazer chicken fry you, rare or well done ? 
2 Likes
You can’t use participation to argue viability.
Compare BM to Shadow priest. Both are very strong classes but one is easier to play
If 8 people play BM and 2 play shadow that doesn’t mean both aren’t strong.
I guarantee you those 2700 fury warriors didn’t get there by posting in lfg “2200 exp fury war lf first time glad push” in lfg like the majority of the playerbase. Those are the top 0.5% of players being supported by their equally talented friends supporting the meme dream. Literally seen a rank 1 arms warrior ask his healer on stream if he could go fury for a game and his healer left the group
Most people don’t get to play what they want to play with the success they want unless they have a skilled friend network to support it
3 Likes
Look I just don’t think we’re ever going to see eye to eye. I believe fundamental things and it seems like you don’t. No harm, no foul. I wish you the best.
This isn’t even a good comparison. Both have the same choice of what to do with the $1000.
Intervening a trap doesn’t change the break in CC for a priest or shaman or paladin.
In some libertarian thought experiment maybe. Not in reality. If you need to eat, you’re not going to find a low-fee index fund.
You’re using an extreme minor argument to validate the majority. That’s not how that works.
That’s the thing. It’s all skill. Those:
by being carried. They put in the work and mastered their spec.
People aren’t going to get the success they want without putting the time and effort in. Jumping on FoTM isn’t automatically going to make you Rank 1.
Like the saying goes: you’ll do better on a class you enjoy. Those fury warriors are playing fury because it’s what they want. If more people did this, there’d be a lot more comps. People are too worried about community perception. People need to just have fun. I mean what’s the point if you’re not having fun
Respectfully, I don’t think you know what you’re talking about.
How does skill get you through the burst window - that is currently meta - to the point where Fury actually can produce output? There are real limitations to the ideas you’re talking about that skill and passion can’t get passed.
They got there by playing with phenomenal partners who built a comp around them
Very few people have that luxury
Most of those furys are likely alts of 3k rated arms mains or arms main who logged out in fury for pve as well
Playing fury instead of arms is not a thing outside of a very niche subset of players because of how amazing arms is right now
2 Likes
Actually I do.
You’re using an extreme minority to validate an argument.
I’m sorry but I have proven you wrong on multiple occasions in this thread which is why you keep backtracking and making random arguments like $1000 for poor people is different.
Poor people are a minority? Where do you live? Switzerland?
See the problem is you believe what you want. I haven’t been proven wrong. And in fact most of the arguments made against my position have either been technical - which doesn’t drive at the spirit of the problem - or were sour grapes e.g. “Arenamates isn’t viable.”
And how did those Fury warriors do it?
The fact you even needed to use poor people as an argument as to why you’re correct is proof you’re wrong.
technically meaning based on facts. Arenamtes isn’t viable for the argument you’re making because you’re trying to argue that participation equals viability and it’s not.
Battlemaster has answered this question at least twice that I’ve seen.
That’s neither logical nor comprehensive.
Technical meaning skirting the issue at hand. No one was trying to solve for “role”
Ask any economist.
1 Like