I'm not sure I understand the logic behind using class representation when deciding how to balance classes for PVE. I've seen GC, on several occasions, allude that since a lot of people continue to play warriors, they're ok. It's as if Warriors are intentionally being left as is in hopes that people will reroll to help balance out class representation. Why is balance amongst class representation pursued? Does it really even matter?

There are also comments being made that guilds are still using Warriors in Ulduar, so they must be ok. This doesn't make sense either. Yes, they CAN tank the content, but not as easily as other tanks and without providing the equal benefits other tanking classes provide.

The fact that Warriors are still used, despite their shortcomings, makes me believe that there's probably factors other than class performance that are contributing to Prot Warrior representation.

They've been around and been capable of tanking effectively for longer than any other class. Therefore, there will be more just because the amount of time they've been available. This extended amount of playtime would also lead to a stronger bond to their toon. A warrior of four years won't be as willing to reroll because another class is more effective at tanking and guilds won't can their long time tank just because he won't reroll... most of the time.

These factors, and I'm sure there are more of them, make me wonder why representation is even considered. Why is a class deemed "ok" because people still play them? If you really want to bring the tanks in line with each other, wouldn't it be more effective to base any changes or tweaks on the performance of the classes?

This attitude that, even though Prot Warriors have the lowest DPS, TPS and take more effort to AoE tank effectively, are ok because people still play them is a little perplexing to me. It's like dedication is being punished with massive amounts of inconvenience. Does class representation take precedence over class performance?

What a new and original topic!

---

Q u o t e:
What a new and original topic!

---

If it's been answered, point me in the right direction. I can't seem to find it.

---

Q u o t e:
If it's been answered, point me in the right direction. I can't seem to find it.

---

Because they have it in there heads that all classes should have about equal representation population wise, and they feel that class balance is a good point at which to help shift classes, and not fun factor.

West of House
You are standing in an open field west of a white house, with a boarded front door.
There is a small mailbox here.
To your left is a dead horse decaying on the ground. Next to the horse is a stick.

> pick up stick

You are now holding a stick.

>beat teh horse

I do not understand the command "teh".

>beat the horse

You are now beating a dead horse with a stick.

---

Q u o t e:
If it's been answered, point me in the right direction. I can't seem to find it.

---

We don't have an exact answer, really. But the question's been brought up a thousand times in a thousand different ways ever since GC made the mistake of mentioning class population it in a response.

I'm sure I'm not the only one who's tired of hearing about it.

It matters because Blizzard says it matters. They make the game, and while they happily(?) take our opinions into account, they are not turning the reins over to us, and they control the final product.


Edit: Feranel is likely to be eaten by a grue.

<3

---

Q u o t e:


Because they have it in there heads that all classes should have about equal representation population wise, and they feel that class balance is a good point at which to help shift classes, and not fun factor.

---

Yeah, that's why I made the thread. To see if any light could be shed on why they're so concerned about that population balance as opposed to what the classes are actually capable of. Why is balancing the class population that important? What kind of a detriment is it if one class is played more than another as long as each class are on par with each other? The only way there would be a huge imbalance in class is if one were severely OP. If they balance based on performance, the chance of one being that OP would be slim.

---

Q u o t e:


We don't have an exact answer, really. But the question's been brought up a thousand times in a thousand different ways ever since GC made the mistake of mentioning class population it in a response.

I'm sure I'm not the only one who's tired of hearing about it.

It matters because Blizzard says it matters. They make the game, and while they happily(?) take our opinions into account, they are not turning the reins over to us, and they control the final product.


Edit: Feranel is likely to be eaten by a grue.

<3

---

I'm sorry. I didn't mean to aggravate you. I tried to be clear in my thread title so that people who weren't interested wouldn't waste their time reading it. I guess I just phrased it wrong and you thought I was talking about something else.

GC alludes to class population when it comes to balancing because the amount of a certain class is one of many factors when it comes to class balance. I think that when they look at broad scheme of things, there has to be a reason why people play X class over Y class. Some arguements made by a few bear/tankadin tanks mentioned the lack of those respective classes in high end progression, etc. Like I said, population is one of the many deciding factors. Just my opinion.

---

Q u o t e:
GC alludes to class population when it comes to balancing because the amount of a certain class is one of many factors when it comes to class balance. I think that when they look at broad scheme of things, there has to be a reason why people play X class over Y class. Some arguements made by a few bear/tankadin tanks mentioned the lack of those respective classes in high end progression, etc. Like I said, population is one of the many deciding factors. Just my opinion.

---

This. If less people are playing rogues than say, hunters, Blizzard wants to know why. Is it more fun? Is it too powerful? Can they make hunter gameplay more fun?

Its a tool they use to figure out what is good and what is bad. In principle, if equal numbers of peope are playing all classes, then the game is good and everyone's having an equal amount of fun.

Because the more people that play the class, the less is done to it. If it's popular, why change it? Good business model :P

---

Q u o t e:
GC alludes to class population when it comes to balancing because the amount of a certain class is one of many factors when it comes to class balance. I think that when they look at broad scheme of things, there has to be a reason why people play X class over Y class. Some arguements made by a few bear/tankadin tanks mentioned the lack of those respective classes in high end progression, etc. Like I said, population is one of the many deciding factors. Just my opinion.

---

Those "reasons" you mention are as varied as the people who play this game. In order, to use that data for class balance you have to make a lot of assumptions on why these classes are picked. The vast majority of guilds do not min/max in every aspect and the same can even said about the top guilds. Why switch tanks if you like the guy playing the character? Especially when the tank balance is not totally out of whack that using another "sub-par" tank class is possible for most fights. Then comes the question, why is this mostly being brought up in regards to tanks and not other classes? Last I checked, I have never heard of Blizzard wanting the massive rogue population to dip to allow other dps classes in. I know it is oh so funny to comment on dead horse beating, but I am surprised this new philosophy is not being talked about more. I guess other classes are not worried because it has only been mentioned about warrior tanks, but everyone should be worried about what this means for the future of this game.

I'll take a crack at it.

Basically this is what I think of for why they consider it. GC has said that they are afraid of buffing warriors too much because they don't want them to become the FOTM class and thus have all the FOTM baddies surging to increase our ranks. So they are being very careful how they buff warriors. They also look at how many people are still playing warrior tanks in Ulduar and conclude that because we haven't re-rolled yet, we obviously can't be THAT bad off.

They say they are happy with where warriors are now, so then when we look at the other classes, that are so much better than we, logic tells us they should be UNhappy with where those classes are.

Can the player's skill overcome the class deficits? To an extent, which is why there are still the world leading guilds that have warriors tanking world firsts. But the average player isn't tanking world firsts, and the average guild and most likely any newer guild forming to raid wont be using a warrior tank.

Blizzard has taken the trouble to implement four classes capable of MTing raids. The balance is far from perfect, of course, but in theory and in spirit, Warriors, Death Knights, Druids, and Paladins should each make a capable lead tank. Naturally they consider each being represented in active raiding guilds a desirable outcome.

I think all of the "WHY THEY MAKE US REROLL" angst is a bit unfounded, though. I don't think Blizzard is worried about established guilds whose lead tank is not really changing even if balance dictates they have someone else MT a few fights. I think they're concerned with up-and-coming guilds.

Consider this: a new (or rerolling) and intelligent player - the kind likely to form the sort of raiding guild that will be around for awhile - will naturally be interested in positioning himself to be the best tank possible. If Warriors are both the most represented and oft-argued to be the best tank, that will be the default choice, because their sheer critical mass makes it likely the community will accept them as the "safe" MTs.

Blizzard has created an environment in which these new guilds will be receptive to trying one of the less traditional tanking classes for its MT. If said environment is a bit discouraging to Warriors, well, that's a shame, but it is less of a priority given how many Warriors are already tanking endgame.

This post is Devil's advocating to an extent - I don't necessarily agree with this perspective, but I think there is more logic to it than the 'victims' of its existence tend to admit. It's not about you, it's about who comes after.

Basically this is what I think of for why they consider it. GC has said that they are afraid of buffing warriors too much because they previously were THE tank class and that perception is still carried by a respectably high number of people. They want to make sure the other tanks are considered equally effective tanks, so they are being very careful how they buff warriors because if they over buff them they will have just destroyed everything they were trying to change about the majority perception within the community. They also take into consideration whether they are being effective in the current content and since they are they haven't had any need to do anything in an emergency mini-patch way.

Agree entirely with previous comment - that was my understanding. There's a world of difference between

"we're being careful not to accidentally make warriors the best tank again, because they were for so long and we've worked hard to change that"

and

"we're keeping warriors deliberately weak because there are too many of them and we'd like some of them to re-roll in frustration & bitterness, all the while boosting our profits by manipulating players into playing more, muhahahaha"

Hope that explains why there's been so much misunderstanding of a very simple comment. And No to a previous poster: GC didnt make a "mistake" in saying this. People misunderstand all the time: clear, logic, concise, precise statements only go so far, you know.

---

Q u o t e:


^ ... SUPPOSIVELY ...

---

roflchopters