Some Ranked Statistics

[Caduceus]

Nope. SH is 17 and 21 in your statistic. Top1 mmr is SH
IB 1/1 in your statistic. Top 17 from all class.

You've probably played Ranked. I think you know as well as I do how questionable it is to look at the top of the leaderboard for information about class balance.

The fact that individual players are able to be successful in Ranked, even when they play classes which are considered weak, is in my opinion not a confirmation that things are all fine. Ranked needs more than just a handful of successful individuals to live. That much is certain.

[Mergrim]

Nope. SH is 17 and 21 in your statistic. Top1 mmr is SH
IB 1/1 in your statistic. Top 17 from all class.

You've probably played Ranked. I think you know as well as I do how questionable it is to look at the top of the leaderboard for information about class balance.

The fact that individual players are able to be successful in Ranked, even when they play classes which are considered weak, is in my opinion not a confirmation that things are all fine. Ranked needs more than just a handful of successful individuals to live. That much is certain.

Ofc...for me 95% ppl playing this game are casuals. What you want? If there is SH on 1st place thats mean all those weak players can improve and be good to. I played all class in this game. There is only huge gap bettween choppa and slayer. Nothing else.
People join ranked not prepaded, all want free win. I have game with skrimish sw vanq set no pots 4times in a row...have many games with aoe bw/sorc.

Want win? bring correct spec/use pots and be smart.

[Caduceus]

Ofc...for me 95% ppl playing this game are casuals.

Ok, but this attitude certainly hasn't made Ranked into a success.

If there is SH on 1st place thats mean all those weak players can improve and be good to.

I see where you're going with this, but I don't necessarily agree. You will probably agree with me that in its current form it is easy to "play the system". And what I mean by that is collecting outside information on things that will influence your win chances in Ranked. That is: avoiding difficult competition, avoiding weak players on one's own team, looking for weak players on the other team, queueing with a group of friends to essentially turn your random Solo Ranked group into a premade, etc.

In my opinion, it is entirely unclear how much the aforementioned factors into the success of the top players, and therefore I don't agree that it can simply be taken as an accurate representation of class balance.

People join ranked not prepaded, all want free win. I have game with skrimish sw vanq set no pots 4times in a row...have many games with aoe bw/sorc.

Want win? bring correct spec/use pots and be smart.

Well, yes. Some players are simply not good enough to be successful in Ranked. But the question is why certain classes seem to have a lot more "weak players" than others. Because that is what my measurements seem to show: that certain classes have a much harder time participating in Ranked than others. Because wouldn't it be logical for every other class to suffer from these weak players also? So why don't they to the same degree?

[Mergrim]

Ofc...for me 95% ppl playing this game are casuals.

Ok, but this attitude certainly hasn't made Ranked into a success.

The truth that changes nothing

If there is SH on 1st place thats mean all those weak players can improve and be good to.

I see where you're going with this, but I don't necessarily agree. You will probably agree with me that in its current form it is easy to "play the system". And what I mean by that is collecting outside information on things that will influence your win chances in Ranked. That is: avoiding difficult competition, avoiding weak players on one's own team, looking for weak players on the other team, queueing with a group of friends to essentially turn your random Solo Ranked group into a premade, etc.

In my opinion, it is entirely unclear how much the aforementioned factors into the success of the top players, and therefore I don't agree that it can simply be taken as an accurate representation of class balance.

Like i write there is only huge gap between choppa and slayer. Ofc i don't like currently system. You can check everyone on ranking leaderboards...his renown rank, win/lost ratio, also you can abuse system and stack only winning side.

People join ranked not prepaded, all want free win. I have game with skrimish sw vanq set no pots 4times in a row...have many games with aoe bw/sorc.

Want win? bring correct spec/use pots and be smart.

Well, yes. Some players are simply not good enough to be successful in Ranked. But the question is why certain classes seem to have a lot more "weak players" than others. Because that is what my measurements seem to show: that certain classes have a much harder time participating in Ranked than others. Because wouldn't it be logical for every other class to suffer from these weak players also? So why don't they to the same degree?

Have you seen all engi/sw/sorc/bw playing rvr/city? It's all about players not about weak class. Most of them trying to do ranked same way as they play rvr...engi/magius camping on walls/sw spam BHA/aoe bw/aoe sorc.
Look at this viewtopic.php?f=76&t=46102. Someone just create thread about sw. Broken class in right hands.
It is not my goal to teach people how play this game.

[NSKaneda]

But the question is why certain classes seem to have a lot more "weak players" than others. Because that is what my measurements seem to show: that certain classes have a much harder time participating in Ranked than others. Because wouldn't it be logical for every other class to suffer from these weak players also? So why don't they to the same degree?

There are factors like certain classes are not balanced for small scale vs some classes have overperforming small scale builds (which are balanced in large scale but shine in 6v6), class synergies that force group composition around certain classes/builds and last but not least you could compare ranked statistics with class popularity vs class difficulty to master, I'm sure there's a correlation.

[Arbich]

I see where you're going with this, but I don't necessarily agree. You will probably agree with me that in its current form it is easy to "play the system". And what I mean by that is collecting outside information on things that will influence your win chances in Ranked. That is: avoiding difficult competition, avoiding weak players on one's own team, looking for weak players on the other team, queueing with a group of friends to essentially turn your random Solo Ranked group into a premade, etc.

In my opinion, it is entirely unclear how much the aforementioned factors into the success of the top players, and therefore I don't agree that it can simply be taken as an accurate representation of class balance.

No way to prove this. I did play plenty of games, also with and against the ppl on top of the leaderboard. Only anecdotal evidence, but I would say your assumption is wrong at least for ppl with 1000+mmr. What you described might happen (I would say its likely) in the bracket where you can matched with 0mmr player, because some of these have the stigma (justified or not...) to drag down their entire team. Thats why the mmr system with the brackets is a good thing in general, which only might need some adjustments.

In the end what you described is a conspiracy theory.

[Caduceus]

There are factors like certain classes are not balanced for small scale vs some classes have overperforming small scale builds (which are balanced in large scale but shine in 6v6), class synergies that force group composition around certain classes/builds and last but not least you could compare ranked statistics with class popularity vs class difficulty to master, I'm sure there's a correlation.

I feel the same way, but if the conclusion is that the game isn't balanced around Ranked, how can we justify to gate BiS gear behind a 1k+ MMR barrier?

[NSKaneda]

Spoiler:

There are factors like certain classes are not balanced for small scale vs some classes have overperforming small scale builds (which are balanced in large scale but shine in 6v6), class synergies that force group composition around certain classes/builds and last but not least you could compare ranked statistics with class popularity vs class difficulty to master, I'm sure there's a correlation.

I feel the same way, but if the conclusion is that the game isn't balanced around Ranked, how can we justify to gate BiS gear behind a 1k+ MMR barrier?

Dangling carrot to make players que

[Caduceus]

Have you seen all engi/sw/sorc/bw playing rvr/city? It's all about players not about weak class. Most of them trying to do ranked same way as they play rvr...engi/magius camping on walls/sw spam BHA/aoe bw/aoe sorc.
Look at this viewtopic.php?f=76&t=46102. Someone just create thread about sw. Broken class in right hands.
It is not my goal to teach people how play this game.

Ok, but this still doesn't explain why these classes would be over-represented in terms of having more weak players compared to other classes. I would expect roughly the same amount of comparatively bad players on every class. Maybe classes that have a reputation for being hard to play could see a higher percentage of unsuccessful players, but we actually see the opposite with IB and BG having the highest amount of participation for Order and Destruction respectively!

So what is going on here?

[Caduceus]

Dangling carrot to make players que

Haha. It seems to have had the opposite effect.