Monday, July 23, 2007

Lies, Damn Lies, and Statistics

While there are countless forum posts, blog entries, and debates that talk about how to fix various class imbalances, it is pretty rare that I find many discussions with which I agree. I've played mage almost exclusively for about as long as possible and I think my class bias is transparent in everything I write. I think my perspective is similar to Ming's on class balance in many ways, and this perspective includes:

  • Balance is when every class can succeed with similar probability in every arena bracket and has a "reasonable" chance against any other class 1v1.
  • Every spec of every class need not be viable in every bracket, but classes should have multiple balanced specs that are effective in various arena brackets.
  • Balance should scale up from 1v1 and 2v2 up to 5v5.

I'd like to briefly address the point made concerning how the previous "weighting" methodology was being calculated incorrectly. While the weighing is naive, I disagree with it being less valid than some of the other proposed solutions. By dividing by team size, you basically normalize each arena bracket size into being a synthetic one man team; while there are certainly issues and assumptions implicit in doing this, simple taking a simple average of the three brackets isn't mathematically robust...at all. Weighing the brackets as blizzard weights points is illogical to me since most of the serious competitive play (CGS and WSVG) are in the smaller arena brackets. The point has also been made that there are many more viable combinations in 5s as opposed to the small brackets -- this is somewhat supported by data. Adapting the class weights based on total number of people who actually play the class is reasonable, but I have some concerns as to how valid the warcraftrealms data really is and how relevant data really is. The data certainly isn't necessarily representative of the arena PvP class breakdown.

I think if someone wants to extend this sort of thing into a real statistical analysis they should develop a compromise method of normalizing the arena brackets and discuss the class percentages relative to different arena "tiers." Compare the class makeup of top 20 teams vs top 500 teams, what classes seem to fall out? I doubt you'll ever get a ton of agreement on how best to collect and analyze numbers like this as everyone is extremely anxious to draw conclusions from them to support their own agendas. In the future, I'll provide a few different "normalizations" when I try to define a single metric for arena class composition, but recognize that this sort of thing is as much art as science.

Regardless of how you feel about the normalization, the individual bracket data to some degree speaks for itself. I'll briefly discuss EXTREMELY GENERALLY what I take away from looking at numbers like these as I'd like to later talk about more specific solutions:

Hunters and Mages both are extremely powerful, well-balanced classes...in open fields. There have been a million billion discussions on why LoS is unfair to either class blah blah /emo whine whine blah. The problem is not in either class, but is simply an issue of environment design. If there was a fourth arena that was largely open where it was impossible to escape hunter's range, hunters would become somewhat more prevalent simply to their power in this one locale. (Or picture a map with a single bridge and an open area on each side) Including a map with less LoS 'abuse' would shift the class composition perhaps better than trying to buff or nerf various abilities -- I picture something like the STV arena when I think of "open" arena environments.

The relative melee class balance is a significant concern. Warrior/paladin fusion is simply too strong and it creates problems for warriors, paladins, and rogues. While so much emphasis is always placed on buffing rogues to make them more viable in the larger arena brackets, I think the lopsided nature of warriors is at least as big an issue. The whole "warriors are horrible 1v1 but great in group PvP" is not acceptable. Warriors need greater independent strength at the cost of their scaling in group PvP situations. Some sort of self-freedom mechanic at the cost of chain mace stuns and a reduction in the scaling damage through group buffs is needed to compensate. Paladins are in the same boat. Trainable repentance, a better non-direct healing option, and a reduction in the potency of their group abilities would yield a class that performs more evenly from 1v1 to 5v5 and paladins might be finally liberated from simply freedom+spam healing their warrior buddies. As for rogues, I'm more of a fan of the "Expose armor reduces target's resilience to zero" type of change than trying to tweak the potency and duration of the many cooldowns. And mana burn poisons? =P

The druid/shaman relationship is also hard to deny. Druids are prominent in the small arenas and absent in 5s, while the opposite holds for shamans. This is difficult to address; ever since BC rumors first leaked, I thought the idea of elemental summoning totems that had no use in arena was a stupid idea. Perhaps scaling the potency on the totems such that one could be used in arena would elevate their status in the smaller brackets. Their prevalence in 5s comes from their place on both 4DPS caster teams and "2345" teams, but it isn't like shamans are particularly overrepresented dramatically in 5s. Druids are extremely rare in 5s as its hard to include a healer into the lineup that does not bring a defensive dispel. I don't really have a nonspecific improvement to this problem (and if you haven't noticed, I've been avoiding specific class changes as much as possible for the sake of general discussion), but I'm not really convinced yet that druids really need any sweeping changes to be powerful in 5s.

There were some great comments on the last post, and I do plan on putting out similar data in the future to which I'll certainly credit those who've contributed to improving the methodology -- for now, you know who you are. I'd like to talk again about specific class improvements so I'm anxious to read what sorts of tweaks everyone thinks would improve overall arena gameplay. Think of how changes don't just make a particular class better or worse in a single bracket, but how they affect the class from dueling all the way up to 5s.

37 comments:

Shaan said...

Nice post. LOS is a bitch for mages and hunters. I do think (resto) druids are very powerful in 2v2 due to the uninteruptable HOTS. (Which outheals me <.<.) and Travelform for fleeing, roots and cyclone is also very potent tools. I do think rogues should get some kind of group buff. (Mana draining poisons seems slightly imbalanced to me atleast.)

Shaan.

klassick said...

Tell blizzard to port over de_inferno and we can all LOS the boxes in banana bombsite.

Goretongue said...

I feel like a broken record with this, but as far as rogue changes and 5v5 go -- I think the only major one needs to be making combo points self-buffed.

icky said...

Hi Raddy,

Nice post.

I was wondering what you mean when you say '2345' teams? What exactly are these?

Thanks

Owen said...

2345 is Warrior/Mage/Elemental Shaman/Priest/Paladin. It's named that because they put the warrior on the priest, have the shaman and mage clean off buffs and CC for a while as the warrior does dps. Then when the priest hits 60% or so they have the shaman and mage pull a "2345" and NS-CL-trinket macro and blow the priest up. The opposition being down their most valuable cog, the team wins.

el tren said...

would be good enough if blizz would implement different arenas for 2s and maybe 3s with no or minimal LOS objects.

LOS abuse is prolly also a good reasons for the lack of shamans in the 2v2 brackets. while ele shamans are quite powerful in the usual 5v5 setups, they have the same problems as mages or hunters in the smaller ones.

Anonymous said...

Still don't understand why it is called a 2345 though :(

Kzn said...

I have numerous issues with this post, unfortunately:

1. The weighting of points reflects Blizzard's opinion of the balance in the brackets - and in a 2v2/3v3 favorable way. If there were a way to quantify 'balance' and award points in a bracket based on how balanced said bracket was, 2v2 would practically take points away from those who competed in it, and 3v3 wouldn't be far behind. They are terrible, terrible brackets for actual competition as it stands now, and the only reason CGS picked up 2v2 is so they dont have to pay as many players.

2. Hunters and Mages both need to put the fuck up and learn to abuse LOS as much as it is abused against them. Every time people suggest open arenas I wince, because I know full well what happens when open arenas show up - and no, it is not ranged classes reigning supreme, despite what you might think. In practice, no LOS means warriors and rogues reign over everything.

I'm actually quite happy with 5v5 balance as it is now, the only thing this game needs is a toning down of damage above and beyond what has already occurred.

Ryan said...

The main thing rogues want is a CLEAR reason for a 5v5 team to bring them over a warrior. While having Expose Armor decrease resilience is nice, is that enough for a team to really bring a warrior over a rogue?

I ran a 4dps team with my rogue (2+ years played) and have recently rerolled mage for the team, we run with a warrior with a mace and there's no way I could be convinced to bring a rogue over him. Commanding Shout is a tremendous buff, Mortal Strike is instantly applied, AE fear, durability, instant snare. Who cares if a rogue can reduce resilience dramatically. For it to be useful enough to tip the scales, it would have to be overpowered.

Combo point change should be standard, it is a dreadfully archaic system that has no place in the WoW meta-game.

The poison system is flawed too, a rogue HAS to have crippling applied to his offhand, for snare application. So he has a choice of mana drain poison or wound poison? It's still going to be wound poison in 5v5, as it doubles as a proactive mana drain (healer efficiency), and if your team brought you instead of a warrior, you're going to need that debuff.

My thoughts:
We need something that is unique to bring to 5v5, that is only powerful with more team members present, diminishing its power in 2v2 and 3v3.
Combo point change for all targets.
Evasion doubles resilience for it's duration, or have dodge somehow effect your resilience %.
A talent that much like the paladin Imp Conc aura reduces severity and duration of snares, instead of flat out resists. Intercept is a warrior talent, rogues should be "fleet footed" and not shut down after hamstring(sprint)-hamstring(trinket)-hamstring(vanish).

Going from rogue to mage is night and day. People complain of the LOS game, but the snare/latency game is worse. Consistenly chasing a target that is too far away is drastically different than positioning yourself and your team for offense and defensive casting.

B.R. Brainerd said...

Comparing the top 50 to the top 500 is a great idea. I hayen't tried to spider the armory site myself, but if/when you get that data, could you forward it to me? I'm eager to take a crack at it.

Definately on your side about balance being equal competence in all brackets. Good fucking luck accomplishing it though; I think for now I'd settle for a change in the class complexity being directly inyersely proportional to their a class's yalue in groups effect.


"Weighing the brackets as blizzard weights points is illogical to me since most of the serious competitive play (CGS and WSVG) are in the smaller arena brackets."

I think Blizzard's weighting system is as much a part of class balance as any ability, since a lot of a character strength is determined by gear these days. It's not just the gear; it also shows that Blizard "yalues" one form of combat oyer another.

B.R. Brainerd said...

Heh, forgot to leaye my e-mail:

lumah@relentless-horde.com

Peace.

Anonymous said...

Lumah,

If you can modify your email above or have the moderate change it, I don't want you getting spam mail because of this last post.

Just change the @ to AT or at.

NiceGuyTom said...

Oh... And plays a mage.

NiceGuyTom said...

LOL KZN's on one of the top US 5v5 teams. Top 3 atm I believe.

NiceGuyTom said...

FYI he also has a valid LOS position. Fighting double warrior teams w/ BoF and no way to LOS charges etc would suck balls.

Anonymous said...

According to your own statistics and pretty much no matter how you look at it, I found your statement that shamans are bad at 2v2/3v3 to be hilarious. They beat out rogues in 3v3 and tie with them in 2v2, when rogues can only participate in these brackets.

=[ BG9's GC is top 1-5, perhaps it's just that people need to realize if they want to compete, pick a damn lock, and spec something that's meant for 2v2/3v3? Resto? Not saying they are perfect or don't need a buff. But lol, they aren't exactly the worse. In fact, shamans are pretty well off -.-

Oozo said...

"I'm more of a fan of the "Expose armor reduces target's resilience to zero" type of change "

Easy enough to say when your class has multiple active and passive ways of gaining seperation from a rogue.

Anonymous said...

For mages to deal damage to losing healers they have to be very mana inefficient and do shit dps, while a rogue or warrior can simply run around the pillar, doing the same damage as before. Explain please, mr. kzn, how mages and hunters would be worse off compared to rogues and warriors in an open arena where they can do their full dps to anyone in range.

Anonymous said...

In a group setting, with a warrior stuck to a caster and a shaman/priest dispelling the warrior and his target (a very common situation in 2345 setups), the caster is in an awful situation, unable to cast nor peel the warrior off him. Often the only way to shake the warrior off is to pull the warrior out of LoS of his support and either poly/root him followed by a call for BoF from the pally, or have teammates quickly switch some dps on the warrior and force him to think twice about following out of LoS.

In a completely open area, yes the caster can dps unhindered by LoS issues, but that is moot if the warrior can get on the caster, shutting him down. Without LoS the caster would be completely without options; any CC on the warrior would be quickly removed and BoFs on the caster purged.

kzn said...

pretty much what he said.

thank you, anonymous

Anonymous said...

Ok so kzn was only talking about 5vs5 when he said that? Alright sure, I'll give you that, the pillars are fine in 5vs5. They still suck for hunters and mages on dps/healer teams in 2vs2 and sometimes in 3vs3, though.

Voodoo Chile said...

By dividing by team size, you basically normalize each arena bracket size into being a synthetic one man team;

Sure, it does get normalized this way. However, this is the important point you miss. It normalizes it to a synthetic one man team but factors in all of the beneficial synergies. So for example, the benefits of windfury and blessing of freedom get factored into the warrior class.

This is still a great way to do it, because you really bring out what classes benefit from interclass synergies the most (warriors), and which do not (rogues).

Weighing the brackets as blizzard weights points is illogical to me since most of the serious competitive play (CGS and WSVG) are in the smaller arena brackets.

It really just matters what the target audience is. If it's spectators, then they'll probably weight 3v3 more than anyone.

Just remember though, there are probably a million people doing arenas just to improve their characters through gear. Shit, my girlfriend started doing it on her paladin because she wanted a healing mace. So the purchasing power of each class, while maybe not relevant to you as a high-end player and a spectator, is important to millions of other people.

Anonymous said...

What druids need:

400%ac in ToL and free Shapeshifting, thats it.

As for general balancing; yeah changes would be nice, but i think people are going the wrong way with them.

Paladins for example. They dont need a HoT, they need some sort of way to keep the opponents busy so they dont get into the "oh noes i got silenced someone is gonna die now"-situation. Giving them HoT's will just make them look more and more like all the other healers. With balancing like that we're end up with a pretty boring game sooner or later.

Tzatziki said...

I'm not on a good enough team (1750s) to say this with authority, but I have seen higher-ranked hunters say the same thing: LoS isn't the true problem with hunters.

If you take out the ability to LoS, all you're doing is allowing hunters to dps a target that is outside their deadzone without impediment. You're opening up all sorts of possiblities for people attacking the hunter, though, and hunter survivability is pretty low compared to other classes. You might say "blah blah you're the best kiting class", but kiting casters, especially, is a hell of a lot easier when we have LoS of our own to abuse.

IMO, the hunter imbalance is due to two interrelated problems: lack of effective instant casts, and to a degree lack of utility. On the first, why do hunters complain about being losed and not warlocks? Because an enormous amount of damage locks put out is instant cast. I'm not suggesting that we change mage/hunter mechanics to favor all instant-casts, but hunters need a way to hurt classes that are trying to kite us - every other class in the game has this (at least mage has frost nova/sheep). Right now the most we can do is throw pet/viper.

As for utility, what do hunters bring to the table? Pretty much scattershot, silencing shot, and frost trap. Lots of dps, yes, but not when we're being losed, and not really burst dps. There really isn't a reason to take a hunter over a shaman in fotm comp - earthshock > silencing shot, totems + frostshock more than make up for scatter+frost, and they bring enormous burst potential. And oh yeah, they can heal too. And pop heroism.

So many posts talk about how powerful the pally/war/shaman synergy is, and how it should, or shouldn't be nerfed, etc. etc. Here's an idea: give hunters synergy with something. The only thing you could possibly argue hunters have synergy with, imo, is holy priests, but mana burn/viper synergy doesn't get a focus down in a windfury proc. Most teams are either built around spriest/afflock or pally/war/(sham), add/change abilities to make a viable composition buildable around the classes you say need buffs.

Tzatziki (Gorgonnash)

Oh, and just for fun/flamesparking, here's a suggestion for fixing hunters: Bump imp. conc shot down the tree, bump the proc rate way the hell up. Change the c/d if its too op, but it really fixes both los and utility problems. You can near-reliably stun people trying to los you, opening up more dps opportunity, and you bring powerful interrupt to the team when you're not going after someone that's cced. Still too OP, you say? Hmm, earth shock = interrupt every 6, 3 every 18, conc + silencing would be, max, 3 every 20.

Raddy said...

Excellent point by voodoo chile. I hadn't really thought about this; this can certainly be "factored out" but it would be substantially more time consuming. ^^

Perhaps removing the synergies is undesirable in some contexts as well.

The more I think about this topic, the more I think my discussion about it months back was perhaps more intelligent. Predictive markets are better tools for this sort of study than statistics. (of course, I'm perhaps bias on that topic ^^)

Raddy said...

I talk a lot of shit and think I am the best mage in WoW.

Ryan said...

To the hunter above:
If you're going to ask for class balancing, you'd best not ask for more stuns to be introduced in the game, with Imp Conc. that is.

Tzatziki said...

I'm not really asking for more stuns, I made the caveat that the cooldown could be adjusted to compensate. If anything, I'm just going along the same path that people who are asking for the windfury nerfs are, the same reason blizz changed the cs resist to % less silence. The stun is already in the game. We'd just make it less random.

Hell, if you're opposed to too many stuns, how about taking out conc stuns entirely, and making the talent give x% to interrupt casting, while keeping its same slowing effect? This wouldn't help hunters be useful against targets that are losing, though.

Anonymous said...

You should probably take down the pics of your gf on your other blog before spies gay you rad.

-Canta

teki said...

Another great post Raddy.

And to the guy with "raddy" like 3 posts up, you can tell the name isn't blue you moron.

gablo said...

< /sarcasm>

gablo said...

wait, so, raddy doesn't think he's the best mage in all of wow?

Tut said...

Open flat arena would be death for casters...

Anything that reduces targets resilience is bad change, completely bad. It may not be as bad for you (mage) as for other classes, but it would completely kill some of other classes. Teams made of warrior, mage, ele shamy, rogue and pala would be pretty much unstopable if rogues would get that -resilience buff...

Gremlock said...

Rogues need more battlefield mobility and abilities that directly help group mates, without making them OP in 1v1. Therefore new lvl 70 ability...

Master Disguise
Instant Cast
20 Energy
2min. cool down
40yrd range
Instantly switch locations with target group member.

Imagine the hax plays...

Druids should be able to cast cyclone on themselves and in tree form.

Hunters need the resilience debuff, but make it 20% not 50% like MS

Shamans are fine imo.

Ryan said...

Your idea of mobility is linked to a 2m cooldown? I won't go into the details of the ability itself, but rogues don't need more +30s cooldowns.

Rosier said...

The most obvious solution would be to give hunter+rogue some serious synergy through either poisons or stuns. There's a few ways to do this, have some of the hunter debuff stings apply a penalty to hit that synergizes well with rogue's generally high evasion chance in PvP, have a hunter sting make other poisons stronger or harder to remove, or let aimed shot hit harder against stunned targets.

I'd probably lean towards Scorpid Sting adding -10% to hit, a talent to make Serpent Sting act like a UA for poisons, and a talent to give aimed shot +15% damage against stunned targets?

Mana draining poisons would be singularly useful, even if they drained less mana than IP does damage.

Animastryfe said...

Great suggestion Rosier, about hunter+rogue synergy.