But that’s just queuable heroics essentially.
Now, you don’t even have a timer to worry about!
you do realize locks can change pets right? we even have something to make summoning our pet instant. you can 100% get a timer for the affix and dispel properly, and still be able to interrupt you might lose some dmg but your dispel is more important than the little bit of dmg you losing for using your whole warlock kit…
I’m not assuming that at all. I never said its 100% accurate. I am claiming that DFA is more representative of the playerbase as a whole than RIO. I’m looking at achievement breakpoints and % of active players completing said achievement.
If you’re using RIO for your numbers you do realize they use characters numbers, not accounts for their statistics right? I’m always going to want to look at the data from an account-wide % perspective than character % perspective when speaking on anything End-of-Season related.
I guess we could agree to disagree on which dataset we’d prefer to use for this.
You must time it to get that score. Even so, my stance regarding RIO not valuing characters without a certain score stands. Which does, without anything else needing to be said, make RIO objectively more biased, and therefore less accurate when looking at completion rates on an the account % level.
I would agree in some cases. Unfortunately the scoring convention has changed, as has the number of characters running M+ from previous seasons. And haven’t you also stated in other posts that their data from previous seasons is corrupted?
Either way, I would concede it displays data better for day-to-day use. But I still do not believe it can be used as a means of calling out the playerbases “narrative” you mentioned in the OP I replied to.
According to what you posted, it uses the same API as RIO. Which would mean the same inaccuracies exist yes? So, assuming they are equally flawed in this manner, it would render this point moot, as we’d just have to disregard both RIO and DFA at that point?
1 Like
Okay? The point here is that using the entire player base is flawed if you are trying to determine something specific like M+. You including players that don’t do M+ at all or accounts that are shelfed and still counted skews the data. I literally copy and posted their own FAQ for you.
No you don’t. All completed runs get counted. You get score tor untimed runs unless you are 40% overtime.
Not all API is the same and DFA is trying to track achievements specifically, not the runs themselves. RIO is accurate for M+ because it logs every run. I’ve never had a run not show up with RIO.
1 Like
How exactly is it flawed in comparison to RIO? I’m using breakpoint achievements that blizzard awards for that very activity on an account-wide basis. And crucially, I’m comparing it to previous seasons using the same database, which you must also have used to get your percentages as RIO doesn’t display account based percentages for achievments.
If im going by account, thats a better statsitical starting point to establish whether or not a “narrative” exists like you said. Also it states in the FAQ, which you posted, it only uses active accounts. So what do you mean “shelved”? The API ignores inactive players and accounts.
Yes, which states they use the same API. So unless you can say with certainty that they are pulled or populated differently in any meaningful way, RIO and DFA will be just as incorrect or correct as each other. Which would only weaken your original statement that we have “datapoints” to disprove the “narrative”.
But your original statement wasn’t about runs. It was about an achievement percentage. Which RIO doesn’t track on an account level.
Indeed. Which has undoubtedly, occurred. So back to my original point on this, which still stands: RIO has a distinguishable bias. Which makes it immediately less of an objectifiable “source” than DFA. In addition, as you’ve said, corrupted data as well for DF S1. So with stated inconsistencies, DFA would be better to determine a playerbase-wide “narrative” over RIO regarding achievements.
1 Like
I’ve literally spelled it out for you. It’s flawed for the basic fact that DFA is counting all the accounts that have not ran M+ at all in addition to counting who knows how many accounts that are just inactive.
Yes and I’ve also pointed out that you don’t know when the numbers on DFA were populated. RIO updates regularly multiple times a day. Meanwhile DFA actively states that there data is skewed and inaccurate.
How is DFA going to separate accounts that were counted by the API as inactive? How long does an account have to be inactive for it to not be pulled in the API?
Edit: Just to give you an idea of how bad the data is for DFA in terms of current accuracy.
https://www.dataforazeroth.com/characters/US/Dalaran/S%C3%B4sari/account-rankingsThis is apparently the data they have on my one and only character that I play. The data was last populated a month ago (September, 9th, 2024) showing me with 587 ilvl. I am currently 625 ilvl.
It also shows that I have zero feats of strength because I have “account-wide achievements” disabled although anyone can go to my actual WoW armory and see the account-wide achievements.
https://worldofwarcraft.blizzard.com/en-us/character/us/dalaran/s%C3%B4sari/achievements/feats-of-strength/dungeons
It also states that it has a total overall number of characters being pulled at 3,275,115 worldwide. This is so far from an accurate representation it’s actually crazy that anyone is using this website for data comparisons. Again, 3.2 million characters, not accounts. It is pulling a total of 1,168,008 total accounts world-wide.
https://www.dataforazeroth.com/stats/summary
The API, as stated, doesn’t populate inactive accounts according to DFA. I’m going to assume those that run DFA have more experience with interfacing with the API than you or I so I’ll take their word on it.
All you’ve spelled out is that both run off the same API, which would be the same level of flawed. The API does not pull from inactive accounts, that point is moot.
It doesn’t. The API itself does. The DFA pulls may simply be placed at large intervals.
Yes. I will agree RIO updates far more frequently, so their datapoints are more current. But that does not necessarily make it more accurate when it comes to End-of-season, account-wide achievements. Which they do not track at all.
Also a flipside example of the one you gave: Raider IO has failed to update my characters between seasons unless I specifically refresh the blizzard API manually, or log into RIO. It has taken multiple days after a hiatus running multiple M+ for it to populate my new scores. And that only occured after I refreshed the API.
I’m assuming the same limitation applies to RIO as DFA in this regard. Which would make RIO just as bad in terms of accuracy.
Its just as funny that you keep referencing a site to prove a point about a “narrative” that doesn’t even track the achievements your’re using as “concrete data points” to support your argument.
DFA is the only site I’ve found (besides wowhead which I don’t think uses the API) that has actual achievement acquisitions percentages presented.
I will acquiesce that the number of characters pulled by the RIO far outstrips that of DFA. However, in order for me to say its more accurate overall. (regarding the subject at hand, which is achievements) I’d have to accept their corrupted data and previously stated bias regarding low io runs/characters. Which I really cant in regards to end-of-season achieves in good conscience.
In addition, further supporting the bias, this is from the RIO website FAQ:
Blizzard’s API will show a maximum of 500 runs for a given Realm and Dungeon. This will be the Top 500 runs for that realm/dungeon combination at that moment in time. Once a realm has had 500 runs recorded for a dungeon, then the minimum keystone level/time to rank for that dungeon will increase as new higher keystone runs are added to the leaderboard and lower keystone runs are “pushed off” of the leaderboard.
For high population runs, these numbers can become quite high by the end of the week, preventing runs by groups of people on that realm from being ranked in the Mythic+ Leaderboard/API, and therefore not be picked up by RaiderIO.
At the end of the day I believe we may just be moving goalposts at this point.
My original post stated your data-points seemed off regarding achievements. Now we
seem to have devolved into arguing about data veracity. Which I believe we have discovered (based on both our points) that it cant be proven precisely one way or the other with any degree of objective certainty regarding out arguments.
I can agree to disagree on this point until the end of the season stats come out where we can compare the end-of-season cutoffs RIO provides versus achievement competition % DFA and Wowhead provides.
Sabbatical on this debate until then?
1 Like
Again, it states it doesn’t, but what is the criteria for “inactive”?
Is that why the API data they are using has my profile from over a month ago? Is that accurate representation when trying to discuss current, present day things? No, it’s not.
No, actually I didn’t. I stated that not all API is the same and that DFA is specifically looking for achievements, pets, and mounts.
Which again, means you trying to use their achievement acquisition data is extremely flawed. It’s clear that the 5% data is from week 1 of the season.
I’m using a website that is known to be extremely up-to-date in terms of individual run data that includes every character that completed a run at least 40% over time.
There’s really nothing to agree or disagree. RIO might have limitations, but the data is significantly more up to date and clearly captures the M+ player base better. The sheer fact that DFA is only pulling 1.1 million accounts world wide and 3.2 million characters world wide should show you that it’s not even worth using when trying to do comparisons anymore.
This is on top of me even showing you my own DFA “profile” that was pulled a month ago at 587 ilvl and shows none of my achievements.
RIO might not track achievements, but it does track individual player’s score itself which means they obtained the achievement as a byproduct.
As I sated before, were losing the forest for the trees here and the goalposts are shifting towards the horizon with each new reply. It’s becoming increasingly tiresome.
In the OP I replied to, you said you had concrete datapoints, I disagreed based on numbers I’d found. I would now say you and I have come to a consensus on neither of us really having that accurate of data at this point.
Either because RIO has inherently biased and corrupted data, or because DFA has a smaller sample size/slower data turnover rates leading to out of date info. The list of things decrying poor accuracy for both databases goes on, but it would just be rehashing points already made.
I will therefore amend my original statement, which was:
To simply this: You don’t have concrete data points to prove or disprove the player base “narrative” you perceive.
And you never will.
“inherently biased and corrupted” is highly disingenuous. One is updated multiple times a day, even if the very bottom keys are not logged due to Blizzard’s leaderboard limitations while the other is outdated by over a month and is clearly missing a large chunk of the population.
It’s hilarious you are trying to put DFA’s data on the same standing as RIO after I demonstrated to you how terrible their data points are. They are nowhere near equal. Yes RIO has limitations, but you can’t be serious when trying to say they are both equally flawed.
Massively understated.
You’ve posted in other threads the entirety of DF S1 is corrupted. So either you were lying, or you’ve proven my point.
Still amusing how you want to use RIO to create datapoints on things they don’t track. And you just ignored my entire personal experience with RIO having almost the exact same issue as you had with DFA. Equally flawed.
Understatement and the correctness of my argument are not mutually exclusive. My points still stand.
There is nothing “concrete” about your data when it crumbles under bias and corruption.
You found the flaws in my points, which I admitted. Time to suck it up and acknowledge the deficiencies in yours.
2 Likes
No I didn’t. There’s one specific stat that is corrupted which is the cutoff scores. The data for the runs themselves are not. Way to take something I said and completely twist it.
They are not nearly the same. You either ran a key so low that it was not counted in your servers top 500 keys for that particular dungeon or you were overtime by over 40%.
DFA hasn’t updated my toon since September 9th, still, while this is a toon that is highly active and in the top ~2%.
Again, they haven’t updated this toon since before M+ started and you are using their data to try and formulate arguments specifically for M+. They are logging a world-wide total of 3.3 million characters. Characters. World Wide.
RIO has logged more unique Paladins + Shamans alone than the entirety of DFA.
Maybe with all the mental gymnastics you need to do.
Flaws? More like sink holes.
Yeah its completely fried dude. My dinky 1550 resto shaman is rated higher than half of the other resto shamans on NA. At this point several weeks into the season, I feel that’s a fair bit lower than normal.
Nobody’s playing either. I can’t get the boys to do keys cuz nobody wants to lock in just to play a 20 year old video game together. Unless you have a group that’s farming 9’s and above for crests you’re stuck getting decline walled for 5’s being broke and sad and bored.
1 Like
So your saying that RIO is displaying incorrect data. Glad you agree.
Didn’t twist it. Just pointed it out.
Also, in that post you said the “number of characters displayed is wrong.”
So…are you saying the cutoff pops were wrong? Or the total runs completed were wrong? Do you even know?
Either way, not sure how much clearer it needs to get. RIO has corrupted data. It displays incorrect data=>Flawed=>NOT CONCRETE. End of story.
Incorrect. Score was above 1000k in game before I went to refresh API and it finally appeared the next day. Point stands. You obviously have no greater understanding of how the API function than I do which means were both howling at the moon at this point.
Nope. Just with what my literal eyes can see.
Roughly the same API sized holes as yours. But there is little difference in how incorrect something is when the premise is one side being lauded as “concrete” while the other is not.
Sheesh this is tiring. Goalposts, trees, missed points.
I thought you might have been one to have a reasonable debate, but it seems you just want to argue in circles. Enjoy your forums. I’ll let you get back to the easier arguments.
You did twist it. I said their cut off page for specifically DF S1 and S2 became corrupted. You twisted it by saying the “entirety of DS S1 is corrupted”. The literal definition of twisting.
Yes, when you mouse over the cutoff values it displays how many characters it is counting. You clearly have no idea what I’m referencing.
- Score doesn’t matter.
- So your run did count and your argument is moot. Did you ever try to press the “refresh” character button and see that there’s 10s of thousands of people ahead of you in queue? Yes, sometimes it takes a day. It doesn’t change the fact that it updates multiple times a day.
LOL. Mental gymnastics.
DFA: Populated 3.3 million characters world-wide.
RIO: Populated 3.3+ million Paladins and Shamans alone.
DFA: Characters are over a month out-of-date.
RIO: “One time it took a whole day for my run to show up”
“roughly the same” lmao.
They troll every M+ thread its fine
3 Likes
My point was that you, yourself stated RIO data displayed was incorrect. Which is true. Point stands. Wrong data, is wrong data, is wrong data = Not Concrete. So you’re entire argument is impossible to prove.
If one value of a source is deemed incorrect or flawed I can no longer consider it “concrete.”
I know exactly what you’re talking about. They pull those numbers from somewhere don’t they? Which would mean they pulled the incorrect values, or its been compiled incorrectly. Come on, don’t make me spell it out for you. You know what I implied. And if you didn’t, maybe you should do some more mental gymnastics to keep up with me.
RIO is flawed. Don’t worry, you’ll be able to swallow this pill one day.
FAQ says scores over 200 are required. We’ve already hashed this out, in detail. So yes, by definition it does. Keep up now if you can.
Uh. No. Was referencing the in-game WoW score. Not RIO obviously. Point stands.
LOL. Yeah, to keep your picture-perfect view of RIO being the end-all-be-all of data on high.
I’m done with you Sosari. Go back under the bridge from whence you came.
One day I believe you wont reference a website for achievement values they don’t actually record. But until that day…(blows kiss)
1 Like
I specifically pointed out which data was corrupted as to not use it. So in fact, I am not using wrong data specifically for excluding the wrong data.
Which is like 2 keys. Wow.
Yes, your in-game score is immediate. The RIO score can take a day to update. Are you okay?
I’m the one who pointed out that DF S1 and S2 are corrupted. Obviously I am aware of flaws and understand that it’s not “picture-perfect”. In terms of M+ discussions, it is the gold standard. That’s just a fact. This entire thing started because you continued to use DFA when discussing M+ even though I proved to you beyond a reasonable doubt that it is so flawed that it isn’t even worth bringing up. RIO has some limitations, but it is very accurate and regularly updated.
DFA:
- 3.2 million world-wide characters while RIO shows 3.2 million Paladins and Shamans alone. How many classes are there?
- Data for active characters have been demonstrated to be over a month old.
- Achievements are not being gathered correctly. I proved to you that my Feats of Strength are publicly accessible while DFA shows that I have zero.
You are trying to use DFA’s KSM data when we are less than 2 months into the season and their data is populated over a month old.
You’re right it is really tiresome. It’s absolutely wild that you are still trying to defend your data from some utterly useless source. Just give the forums a break chief.
2 Likes
I’m not defending the DFA data anymore. I recognized there were issues with it after its deficienices were pointed out.
What ive changed my stance to is: No one has apporpriately accurate data to prove or disprove a narrative outside of blizzard themselves.
If you read the whole conversation youd see my shift in position.
Thats why I said were losing the forest for the trees.