POST STUFF
|
 by Vhairi, Level 21
Last updated at February 28, 2009, 7:25 am
|
|
[edit: images appearing in preview but not in posted]
While I finish re-writing the stats presentation part of my code, I thought I would put up some data that people may find interesting. (I am also fed up of people claiming that far more players are at 2k+ due to the new system without ANY evidence whatsoever)
I have pulled together the data from 7 EU BGs using a mix of 2s and 3s to plot a rating distribution, the reason the sample size is relatively small is because I only wanted to use listings with between 3000 and 4700 records. Any less and the sample size starts to get a bit small (hello Ruin 5v5 with 284 (!) active teams), any larger and they likely don't have all the teams.
Please note that while I have specified values these are approximate only as they are averages, and the actual rating reqs for each title will vary by BG. So, the charted ratings look like this:
As you can see, the top 0.5% has quite a spread, spanning 500 rating, whereas 25% of players are in the 245'ish spread between 1505 and 1750.
In addition 50% of players are at or below 1465 rating. With some of the Hateful gear requiring Rival status it is no wonder that more and more players are dropping out of the arena, I know I personally am finding matches at 1400-1600 harder than I found matches at 1700-1800 in previous seasons. In part this is down to meeting a huge number of players who outgear us in Naxx 25 welfare gear which allows for people to be dropped almost instantly, however it is also because a lot of the 1600+ players from last season are in the 1400s. (and of course in part because I suck
)The recent rating changes seem to be clumping people together in the low-mid range, and stretching it out as you go up the scale. This is why many people labour under the assumption that far more people are at 2k than before. They aren't, it is just that the spread is now higher at the top end.
Population distribution shows a similar trend:
You can see here a definite clumping in the lower-mid range, with the top end being extended further out. Comparing Season 3 to Season 5 we get:
Season 3 - BG9 (US) 3v3
2000+ = 363 teams
1700+ = 2445 teams
Season 5 - BG9 (US) 3v3
2000+ = 177 teams
1700+ = 1441 teams
So all you people claiming 2k+ is easier than ever and that more people are 2k rated are simply wrong. In reality there are fewer than half the teams playing compared to earlier seasons.
Report Post
32 comments
3 replies to Paperkat (hide)
3 replies to Paperkat (show)
Permalink
Quote
Post Reply
Reply to this comment
Vhairi Feb 28, 2009 at 7:50 am
+15 votes
Paperkat said
nerd
averith Feb 28, 2009 at 4:23 pm
+1 votes
Vhairi said
Those who can do, those who can't do stats.
Kaweh Feb 28, 2009 at 8:06 am
+1 votes
that doesn´t take away the fact that it´s 100x easier to get 2k+ as pala/dk/hunter then it was getting it 2k even as druid mother******* warrior.
explain why im seeing players who couldn't break 1800 in tbc at 2200?
explain why im seeing players who couldn't break 1800 in tbc at 2200?
Melaaf Feb 28, 2009 at 8:45 am
+1 votes
Maybe tables have just turned and new bad players have just replaced old bad ones, because of brand new class imbalances.
Only the best players remain at the top, even playing a weaker class and getting the most out of it.
Regarding your comment about druid/war, getting 2k with a pre cyclone range / speed bonus nerf druid didn't seem to be that hard either.
The main point for me is that less teams are playing though subscriptions are at an all-time high. That should ring a bell to someone, somewhere.
All in all, fantastic post and data, thanks for the great work!
Hope you'll be able to provide new data along the way to next seasons.
Only the best players remain at the top, even playing a weaker class and getting the most out of it.
Regarding your comment about druid/war, getting 2k with a pre cyclone range / speed bonus nerf druid didn't seem to be that hard either.
The main point for me is that less teams are playing though subscriptions are at an all-time high. That should ring a bell to someone, somewhere.
All in all, fantastic post and data, thanks for the great work!
Hope you'll be able to provide new data along the way to next seasons.
Marus Feb 28, 2009 at 11:32 am
-1 votes
Bullhist. Top players stay at the top. Lol. There are no top players in WoW because there is no serious competition. Thousands of would be great players do not bother to compete in WoW because they are to annoyed by class imbalance and having to spend so much time gearing to even be able to play competitive.
Also your stats are totally flawed because lots if not most of lower rated teams don't even actually try to really compete. They are often dead teams or only 10 game-a-week teams to grab arena points. Their numbers don't say anything about how hard it is to get 2k+ if you actually try.
Also your stats are totally flawed because lots if not most of lower rated teams don't even actually try to really compete. They are often dead teams or only 10 game-a-week teams to grab arena points. Their numbers don't say anything about how hard it is to get 2k+ if you actually try.
Alsn Feb 28, 2009 at 11:38 am
+2 votes
Marus, except teams being dead and only being played to get 10 games per week has existed since season 1 and makes no difference whatsoever.
You could argue that the number of "dead" teams have increased but I don't see why that would be the case.
You could argue that the number of "dead" teams have increased but I don't see why that would be the case.
Marus Feb 28, 2009 at 11:41 am
+2 votes
Alsn said
Marus, except teams being dead and only being played to get 10 games per week has existed since season 1 and makes no difference whatsoever.
You could argue that the number of "dead" teams have increased but I don't see why that would be the case.
You could argue that the number of "dead" teams have increased but I don't see why that would be the case.
Yiska Feb 28, 2009 at 1:03 pm
+1 votes
Marus said
Bullhist. Top players stay at the top. Lol. There are no top players in WoW because there is no serious competition. Thousands of would be great players do not bother to compete in WoW because they are to annoyed by class imbalance and having to spend so much time gearing to even be able to play competitive.
Also your stats are totally flawed because lots if not most of lower rated teams don't even actually try to really compete. They are often dead teams or only 10 game-a-week teams to grab arena points. Their numbers don't say anything about how hard it is to get 2k+ if you actually try.
Also your stats are totally flawed because lots if not most of lower rated teams don't even actually try to really compete. They are often dead teams or only 10 game-a-week teams to grab arena points. Their numbers don't say anything about how hard it is to get 2k+ if you actually try.
Marus Mar 1, 2009 at 7:10 am
+1 votes
Yiska said
So how do you explain for instance all teams attending this week at the esl finals having top positions in their battlegroup? Sorry sir, it's not random.
Uhm...and as far as i know teams for the esl finals where chosen for their positions or names? So its not really a surprise that the finalists are the same as those top in their battlegroup. I just say they are not really good since they don't have competition. Just like many products in communist states were not very good for lack of competition. They probably still were the very best available for the people in those country (do you know the trabbi?^^) but that still didn't make them good.
Yiska Mar 1, 2009 at 2:27 pm
+1 votes
When you have clearly no idea how the esl system works, why would you comment on the theme? Your whole point is bull**** sorry. Nobody would pick up wow as an esport just like noone don't pick up cs after a couple of years release.
Vhairi Feb 28, 2009 at 1:45 pm
+3 votes
Also your stats are totally flawed because lots if not most of lower rated teams don't even actually try to really compete. They are often dead teams or only 10 game-a-week teams to grab arena points.
And you are an idiot, because people try harder when gear has no ratings than when you need to be top 20% to get a single piece of hateful right?
10 games a week for APs is pointless and so is the fact 1200 rating gives the same points as 1500 when you can't buy anything.
And you are an idiot, because people try harder when gear has no ratings than when you need to be top 20% to get a single piece of hateful right?
10 games a week for APs is pointless and so is the fact 1200 rating gives the same points as 1500 when you can't buy anything.
Marus Mar 1, 2009 at 7:19 am
+0 votes
Vhairi said
Also your stats are totally flawed because lots if not most of lower rated teams don't even actually try to really compete. They are often dead teams or only 10 game-a-week teams to grab arena points.
And you are an idiot, because people try harder when gear has no ratings than when you need to be top 20% to get a single piece of hateful right?
10 games a week for APs is pointless and so is the fact 1200 rating gives the same points as 1500 when you can't buy anything.
And you are an idiot, because people try harder when gear has no ratings than when you need to be top 20% to get a single piece of hateful right?
10 games a week for APs is pointless and so is the fact 1200 rating gives the same points as 1500 when you can't buy anything.
10 games a week for AP isn't pointless for them though as they can spend their arena points to reduce the honor points needed for certain gear. Instead of spending like 6-10 hours to get about 60.000 honor they can just make 10 games a week and spend 300 arena points to only have to gather 12.000 honor in like 1-2 hours.
So even without any rating it still makes sense to gather arenapoints. Also you might never know when in the future the system gets changed or maybe someone gains more serious interest in pvp and gets the opportunity to reach a rating high enough to spend arena points on new equip. For that eventuality people still keep gathering arena points via 10 games a week.
If you want to say with your 2. sentance that people wouldn't be at 1500 if they wouldn't try than i dare to say that some people don't try and the rating they get by not really competing seriously in arena is just what you see there in your stats.
Solange Feb 28, 2009 at 5:33 pm
+1 votes
as mentioned, this doesn't quite explain the reality i can see with my own eyes on my server.
In my pve guild several almost pure PVE players do arenas on weekends, max 2 hours. They are NOT good at pvp like you imagine a 2200 player would have to be (they do have the best in game gear though). Immediately after the new ranking system hit, the pally/dk gained 200 pts, and have now gained another 200 in a couple weeks and are at 2250 going up. Hunter/shaman 1700-2000, rogue/disc priest 1800-2050+. None have ever EVER been anywhere near 2000 before, and all were stable at their previous ratings for a couple months now.
So at least there you have MORE PEOPLE AT 2000+ (that don't beling there).
In my pve guild several almost pure PVE players do arenas on weekends, max 2 hours. They are NOT good at pvp like you imagine a 2200 player would have to be (they do have the best in game gear though). Immediately after the new ranking system hit, the pally/dk gained 200 pts, and have now gained another 200 in a couple weeks and are at 2250 going up. Hunter/shaman 1700-2000, rogue/disc priest 1800-2050+. None have ever EVER been anywhere near 2000 before, and all were stable at their previous ratings for a couple months now.
So at least there you have MORE PEOPLE AT 2000+ (that don't beling there).
aimlessgun Feb 28, 2009 at 6:13 pm
+4 votes
Those people suddenly breaking 2k are replacing old bads who used to break 2k but are now stuck at 1700. Those bad warglaive rogues, warriors, druids and warlocks who used to faceroll to 2k+ in TBC have simply been replaced by different overpowered classes.
Kaweh Feb 28, 2009 at 7:22 pm
+1 votes
Yes there is some truth to that, druid/war/rogues/lock bads who broke 2k in tbc are now replaced with dk/pala/hunter bads. But when former r1 players on respectable BG's are having trouble staying over 2200 with a 60%, you know it's not just the tables that have turned.
Besides it's not just the ratings, go talk to a random highrated dk/pala/hunt, you'll find that they're simply not as knowledgable about the game as most tbc highrated players are.
Top cyclone EU is filled with random hunters when players like Jiffy (r1 with carekoala with 95%+ winrate) are stuck at 2300 with 60% winrate. The game is at an alltime low skillcap, and surprise surprise: ITS WORKING AS INTENDED.
Besides it's not just the ratings, go talk to a random highrated dk/pala/hunt, you'll find that they're simply not as knowledgable about the game as most tbc highrated players are.
Top cyclone EU is filled with random hunters when players like Jiffy (r1 with carekoala with 95%+ winrate) are stuck at 2300 with 60% winrate. The game is at an alltime low skillcap, and surprise surprise: ITS WORKING AS INTENDED.
Vhairi Mar 1, 2009 at 3:38 am
+1 votes
Besides it's not just the ratings, go talk to a random highrated dk/pala/hunt, you'll find that they're simply not as knowledgable about the game as most tbc highrated players are.
Top cyclone EU is filled with random hunters when players like Jiffy (r1 with carekoala with 95%+ winrate) are stuck at 2300 with 60% winrate. The game is at an alltime low skillcap, and surprise surprise: ITS WORKING AS INTENDED.
If people like Carekoala are 'struggling' then think about how much harder it is for people with less skill going up against Hunters, DKs, Rogues etc. in best in slot Naxx 25 gear all the way down to 900 rating.
Personally I think the biggest problem are simply:
1) Class balance.
2) PvE gear is substantially better for most players, and yet conversely 90% of people can't even get Hateful through arenas while players at the bottom are running around in Full Naxx epics.
Top cyclone EU is filled with random hunters when players like Jiffy (r1 with carekoala with 95%+ winrate) are stuck at 2300 with 60% winrate. The game is at an alltime low skillcap, and surprise surprise: ITS WORKING AS INTENDED.
If people like Carekoala are 'struggling' then think about how much harder it is for people with less skill going up against Hunters, DKs, Rogues etc. in best in slot Naxx 25 gear all the way down to 900 rating.
Personally I think the biggest problem are simply:
1) Class balance.
2) PvE gear is substantially better for most players, and yet conversely 90% of people can't even get Hateful through arenas while players at the bottom are running around in Full Naxx epics.
Mazz Feb 28, 2009 at 11:52 am
-1 votes
This just in: people are sheep, and believe everything Serennia says without thinking for themselves (SCOURGE STRIKE CRITS HARD ON A DUMMY, WITH A BETRAYER, AND USING PVE GEAR. SURELY THIS WOULD BE PERFECTLY THE SAME IN AN ARENA! PS: It's spammable, not an over-exaggeration at all!) =O
bulloch Feb 28, 2009 at 12:43 pm
+1 votes
Thanks for this data - very interesting stuff here. S5 is the worst
insidioux Feb 28, 2009 at 3:52 pm
+1 votes
Well i hope they inflate ratings next season so i can get that neat tabard and stuff
Your Comment is being posted. Please wait...