Some Ranked Statistics

[wonshot]

While some of the 1loss statistics probably could be ironed out of this, I do think it speaks a little volume if one or several careers have a bunch of 1loss players on their leaderboard.
Yes some of it might simply be from when people queue ranked on accident, but there is probably also a portion of them who go into ranked with correct specs and then end up lossing.

But because of the way they loose, they just dont come back. Because it seems rather hopeless.

I've said my piece previously what i think of BW in ranked, there are simply too many layers you need to win in the matchmaking for even getting close to a 50% winrate, just based on matchmaking of classes not only on the enemy team, but also on your own team! There are some exelent Singletarget rr80+ BWs on the leaderboard who are like 0-4 and didnt touch the gamemode again, because of the layers of RNG in the matchmaking and the way you can get shutdown and its out of your own hands. Unless you cheese the system and queue when you know who you will face on the enemy team/own team.

Also there is some decent data for how 4 RDPS classes are bottom on one of those statistics, and 3 of them are int users. Could it be that we have been able to softcap int since Conq era and have no aternative build paths apart from int+crit. And endgame with more statpoints available from city sets have just made phyicaldmg dealers the meta. Kinda predictable just following the Live trends and issues.

This server has pretty much always been majority casual nostalgia from the overall playerbase, releasing ranked after 90% of the 6mans had already left seemed odd.
Releasing Season2 of ranked when WoW Classic TBC with their Arena released at the same time, is just.... mindblowing.
The original Warhammer online was not balanced, and I honestly dont think it was meant to be. Two realms having different methods and tools of winning was the madness.
Trying to make this some wierd E-sports arena unmirrored unballanced gamemode is quite litterally splitting the gamepopulation in two camps, but only time can tell if this damage done can be corrected if the vision of the server gets put back on track. Hope ranked experiment was an eye opening reality check.

[BluIzLucky]

that some biased statistics u are showing, irrevelant and out of contexte

This is just data , in no way biased towards anything. If you wish to make this claim, make a proper argument as to why you believe these numbers to be biased.

It is also not taken out of context, because I did not even provide a narrative to go along with these numbers. I just showed them for people to draw their own conclusions.

Just because you do not like the data that is being shown, does not make it faulty.

Here's some biases:
a) saying they are "statistics" implies you've gone through more rigorous and used actual statistical methods, I assume you've not.

b) same with saying there's a "strong correlation" (I assume between class and having won a game), doubt you've calculated the actual r values and the sample set is not big enough to make it meaningful. Also correlation is fairly meaningless (https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/kj ... rrelations), you need to prove causation.

c) Myself and others already post long list of data quality issues, and no the variables don't apply equally to every class, so pushing for "proper arguments" with all the glaring issues or at least without acknowledging them is not great.

d) presenting data, even if you don't provide commentary, will still show to people who do not think twice about it or understand it a certain message, in this case that Order is generally stronger/easier in ranked and gives the impression that you believe the data is good and what it is showing is correct (i.e. you believe Order is stronger).

e) People will take it out of context, because you've not sufficiently clarified or highlighted the pitfalls with just looking at the data.

f) setting parameters, this will have an inherent bias regardless of whatever was decided. And since you've not declared what you think the data means and so the intention of picking your parameters, others might look at this as trying to show Order as being stronger when they are not.

So you can't really claim to be fully neutral or that the data is good and speaks for itself.

Anyway, nothing personal and really appreciate the effort you put in, I do this for a living and don't get to talk about it a lot.. so you just got my mojo to gogo
And I am interested in what you (and others) think what the data shows, even with all that said

[oilpourer]

I'm not sure what a "positive" mmr means when you can't go below 0. 50% and above winrate?
Its also not too surprising about the classes at the bottom other than SH but I guess its stats got freebootaz'd.

[Kabuco]

Let's be honest here.
We all knew from the very beginning that the leaderboard will look like this with small surprises tho.

RDPS at the bottom because of being matched against 2 MDPS and with higher player skill requiered to make them shine in 6vs6.
Order only tied to a pretty much small setup because less synergies over various classes.

And the biggest problem TOO LESS PLAYERS who could even out flaws of the system itself and the above mentioned.

[Caduceus]

a) saying they are "statistics" implies you've gone through more rigorous and used actual statistical methods, I assume you've not.

b) same with saying there's a "strong correlation" (I assume between class and having won a game), doubt you've calculated the actual r values and the sample set is not big enough to make it meaningful. Also correlation is fairly meaningless (https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/kj ... rrelations), you need to prove causation.

I am not a professional statistician, nor do I claim to be, nor do I wish to be.

This is what you're getting, and if you want more or have it done better, you'll have to provide it yourself.

c) Myself and others already post long list of data quality issues, and no the variables don't apply equally to every class, so pushing for "proper arguments" with all the glaring issues or at least without acknowledging them is not great.

There are no "glaring issues" with my data at all, though no data or statistics are perfect and you can always poke holes in them.

It is just data. There is nothing faulty about its quality. Anyone can do the same measurements of the leaderboard. You would maybe have a point if I were drawing conclusions or pushing a certain narrative: I am not.

I already responded to Kabocu's suggestion to include only characters with 10 games or more played: it showed much the same picture.

d) presenting data, even if you don't provide commentary, will still show to people who do not think twice about it or understand it a certain message, in this case that Order is generally stronger/easier in ranked and gives the impression that you believe the data is good and what it is showing is correct (i.e. you believe Order is stronger).

e) People will take it out of context, because you've not sufficiently clarified or highlighted the pitfalls with just looking at the data.

Let people interpret the data themselves, discuss and share their opinions on it. I have no fear of such discussions and open debate. Do you?

And I am interested in what you (and others) think what the data shows, even with all that said

I have shared my thoughts about it. The parameters I have picked show, in my view, a measure of how well classes are able to participate and I find the lower parts of the list worrying in that regard.

[Kabuco]

I already responded to Kabocu's suggestion to include only characters with 10 games or more played: it showed much the same picture.

Well, you only removed it from one side of the equation and not both, so only those players remain who really want to play the game mode longer.

What you did is like counting every ever created account to show how many players played a game, including those who gave up after a month.

[Caduceus]

Well, you only removed it from one side of the equation and not both, so only those players remain who really want to play the game mode longer.

What you did is like counting every ever created account to show how many players played a game, including those who gave up after a month.

Seems relevant, considering you stated this earlier:

And the biggest problem TOO LESS PLAYERS who could even out flaws of the system itself and the above mentioned.

[Kabuco]

The underlined part refers only to its sentence, not the original topic.

[Rapzel]

Well that's exactly what the data is showing:

Slayer+WL with KotBS/SM/IB with WP/RP are basically the setup with the highest win rate. This means that to the surprise of absolutely nobody these classes are overperforming. AM just happens to not be a popular pick for a healer, but we can also see that is the next choice for a healer if there's no WP or RP available. As for the rest of order DPS they're at the bottom, which is not a surprise either.

And Caduceous is correct, this is not an opinion, it's a clear statistic, you can pull all the mental gimnastics and anecdotal situations you want, at the end of the day this is how ranked looks, and nothing that you want to make us believe changes this. It's not only ranked either, it's also the same in cities. This is clearly the elephant in the room, but let's keep ignoring it; Everything is fine with Slayer and their henchmen.
Just as everything is fine with the rest of underperforming classes. Want to win ranked in order? Make a slayer. Want to have damage as KotBS to add pressure? Just roll an IB. Want to add pressure as a tank on destro? Just roll a DPS. Everything is fine.

What mental gymnastics did you do this morning to get the "data" to provide anything closely resembling win rate?

The "data" consists of every played character that's won at least one game over the total amount of characters of that career that's participated in solo ranked. I.E if 100 Slayers have won 1 game but lost 100 games they would have 100% here while if 4 DoK out of 10 won all their games and the rest lost their games we would get 40%.

[Caduceus]

The underlined part refers only to its sentence, not the original topic.

Do you not understand my meaning, or pretending not to understand? I guess I shall err on the side of caution:

If you conclude that Ranked died because of a lack of players, wouldn't you want to know why:
A. a significant number of players is quiting Ranked after only a few games played
B. why certain classes are scoring much higher in this regard than others

Much like, in your example, if you had a game and 50% of your playerbase was quitting before beating the first level, it would probably also be a good moment to scratch behind one's ears to think about what is going wrong.