Agree.
Although, Druids (in general) aren’t really that great, in Vanilla Classic. We don’t even have an Out of Combat Rez, just the BR which requires a reagent and a CD LOL
Well considering you can’t attack the idea, and instead attack me, I think I’ve already won.
If the following is true:
Then why is sPriest showing a higher match representation than BM?
Edit:
sPriest is 8th most seen
BM is 13th
I have already dismantled the idea.
Telling someone that has a 42% win rate they have a 42% win rate isnt attacking them.
You havent won anything.
I was using my example that you continue to ignore or not understand.
The sooner you realize representation is the only thing those lists show the sooner you can work on learning to improve your play.
Whatever you need to tell yourself.
So you said I have a 42% winrate positively?
You don’t understand basic mathetmatical concepts.
I dont need to tell myself anything. I am not the one complaining about xyz because of a list made you are not understanding
I stated it as a fact. How you take it is on you. Class viability isnt keeping you sub 2k though.
You are the one that cant understand anything.
if 100 people play X
and 1000 people play y
Neither affect how viable X or Y is or how over or undertuned they are.
Top 100 or top xyz lists mean literally nothing but the amount of people playing
Why don’t you understand that there isn’t a 1-to-1 exchange between real world applications and theoretical examples?
Because your lists aren’t real world applications.
I can tell you why shadow has more representation than BM.
Shadow has more viable comps
God Comp (Mage/Priest/Healer)
Heroic RLS (Rogue/Priest/Healer)
Warrior/Priest/Healer
Shadowplay (Lock/Priest/Healer)
Hunters have Jungle
Cupid is kind of viable
Because priests have more composition options that means there are likely going to be more people playing priest.
To say balance druids were “just ok” in nathria is a reach, a big one. Ps it still needs a nerf across the board, not just venthyr… considering the systems getting implemented in 9.2.
If this is true:
Then why would representation reflect the fact that more comps are viable?
Also, to clarify:
Here you say Shadow
But then you go on to say the whole class here:
Are you mixing these two up?
You can be sure someone higher up there plays a druid 
But ya I agree, they are pretty up there in what they offer… it’s like batman who comes in with any and every gadget lol
2 Likes
No I am not. Every single Comp I just listed is with a Shadow Priest.
OK but you’re not explaining why you think comps isn’t reflected in representation.
I am saying classes with more comps to play could be a reason as to why they have a higher representation and that representation isnt a determination of viability.
If I can paraphrase: “Class X might not need nerfs, they just look amazing because they have a lot of utility.” Yes?
That’s fair insofar as it’s true. But I guess I’d say the utility you bring to comps should be part of the power budget consideration. I mentioned above - I don’t think it was in our exchange - that Warriors increased vaibility when other classes got buffed because they still enhanced the top classes.
Obviously, why a class gets buffed/nerfed is a matter of perspective. But if the Warrior is always this good and is currently in the No. 1 spot by 5% - !!! - then the utility should be factored in to their power. And because of their dominance it doesn’t seem like they are.
I still think % reflects balance. But you’re right, comp is a strange variable and isn’t a clean number. It’s more of a modifer.
Don’t forget feral at the start of BFA.
1 Like
Everything you see as an unfair advantage is still only partial reparations for what druid was in vanilla.
1 Like
Dont get me wrong warriors are very strong right now but their viable comps list is insane.
War Mage
War Priest
War Lock
War Ele
War Ret
War DK
War Monk
It’s been a while since guardian has been on the list of viable comps, and they nerfed that hard and fast.
They were viable in BFA…
Briefly. And briefly in Legion, too.