|
Post by Deidreven on Jun 18, 2016 11:16:59 GMT -5
Thanks for doing all that Margothon. Lots of great info.
|
|
Xaya
Community Moderators
Posts: 1,663
|
Post by Xaya on Jun 18, 2016 12:16:56 GMT -5
That data is quite useful indeed My 2 cents, especially on a first iron: - better to start with what you know
- Shadow Meld has been a life saver for me (and many others) in cases of bad respawn and pats
- don't try to be the first to 100 on anything unless you already have a 100
Xayaforsi lvl 100 pandaren hunter (alive) Wyrmrest Accord Xayamonk lvl 57 night elf monk (alive) Wyrmrest Accord Xayapaci lvl 30 pacifist rogue gnome (alive) Wyrmrest Accord Xayahorde lvl 12 bloodelf rogue (alive) Wyrmrest Accord
|
|
|
Post by Ironworgen on Jun 18, 2016 13:28:10 GMT -5
When I look at specifics like this, I usually focus on the most recent expansion only because of all of the changes. Apples and Oranges as they say. Warlords of Draenor
|
|
|
Post by gnumbers on Jun 18, 2016 15:05:13 GMT -5
Have a look at the table of facts like Xaya and Neverdeid, who appreciated the facts. You have obviously gone straight to my opinion of the facts to pick at them and create a narrative. Now i will please ask you to look at the table i have created and look at the stats, data and facts provided and draw your own conclusions on class/race combinations as i have stated. "Politicians use statistics in the same way that a drunk uses lamp-posts—for support rather than illumination." -- Andrew Lang Nearly all high level irons have some sort of aggro dump: Night Elf, Rogue, Hunter. This is not a surprise--having an aggro dump is very, very good. However, once you get rid of the aggro dump characters, you're left with only with very rare outliers. Trying to draw conclusions using only outliers is questionable. (Also, the mage column is very suspect: the highest level mage on your table got red flagged for using two heirlooms.)
|
|
|
Post by Discordiankitty on Jun 18, 2016 15:07:11 GMT -5
My goodness, that's one loaded title.
|
|
Dranina
Iron Veterans
MotherOwl is Draninas old alias
Posts: 1,063
|
Post by Dranina on Jun 18, 2016 15:18:19 GMT -5
On the old list there was a stats page thanks for trying to make something like it. I had thougth of doing it, but the programming - or workload - doing this had me baffled.
|
|
|
Post by ironissa on Jun 18, 2016 15:56:25 GMT -5
Thanks for the info Margothon. I think the data is accurate enough when looking at the top choices, ie Nelf Hunters and Nelf Monks being the best as far as ease in completing the challenge. I know people have their preferences and obviously people can play whatever they want. But if someone is curious about which will be the easiest (not easy, but easier by comparison) then this is fairly accurate.
The hardest class to play is difficult to gauge though. It's important to consider a few things: A lot of the non-Hunters listed on the board leave not because they died and gave up or felt it was too hard, but because they're not progressing FAST enough. So someone new at this who chooses to play a Rogue or a Paladin, might give up sooner than someone playing a Hunter because it's MUCH MUCH slower. This might prevent more classes from reaching the 40+ mark. There's also the issue with different xpacs changing classes...Hunters have always been the best, but other classes have become harder/easier throughout the years. So you see that level 85 Mage at the top and think "WOW see! It's totally doable!" But they did it during Cata when Mages had more utility. I'd be shocked if a Mage could make it that far in WoD. I think if you only calculate people leveling 1-100 in WoD who are at 60+ it might be more accurate.
With all that said...Night Elves have the best racial, hands down. I don't care what anyone says lol they simply do. Hunters and Rogues can probably be any race ONLY because they have a similar (or arguably better) ability to Shadowmeld (Feign Death and Vanish).
|
|
Asyluun
Iron Veterans
Drunk
Posts: 272
|
Post by Asyluun on Jun 18, 2016 15:59:21 GMT -5
Really didn't need a chart, its either get shadow meld, feign death / evasions? (rogue) or get the fark outta town.
The tools the monk has is alot puts it above the hunter for ease but the pet trumps it,
|
|
|
Post by Ironworgen on Jun 18, 2016 20:54:12 GMT -5
Nice job. Not to saddle you with additional work, but you might want to think about stats for the Honored Dead which will give you more data to work with. WoD: ?Show=IronMan&WoW=6Top 500 goes down to level 30, just over 100 level 54 or higher. WoD - Honored Dead: ?Show=IronManDead&WoW=6Top 500 only goes down to level 54, so many more characters to work with. (although there are a couple hundred Death Knights at 55-56ish, still gives around 300 non-DKs) Seems to be a problem with the filters past the first page so can't easily get more data than that. Thanks
|
|
|
Post by gnumbers on Jun 18, 2016 21:14:02 GMT -5
The title is not accurate. You make emotional conclusions based on incomplete or irrelevant data. Example 1: You try to use PVP data to support your conclusions about Iron Man statistics. WoD PVP is dominated by humans* but humans are virtually non-existent in the Iron standings. Only one human has cleared BC content and that was a rogue, the class where your race barely matters once you get Vanish. (* If you take a look at any DPS spec, either the majority of the 2200+ arena players are human or humans aren't allowed to pick that class. Humans are also the majority or plurality on some of the healing specs. ) Example 2: You suggest that gnomes may be unpopular due to, of all things, their starting zone. Getting a gnome to level 3 is trivial and the gnome and dwarf starting zones are identical starting at level 5. Plus, it's trivial for any level 1 gnome to go to the Dwarf, Human or Night Elf starting zones--the road to Ironforge is free of dangerous mobs.
|
|
|
Post by ironissa on Jun 19, 2016 0:19:20 GMT -5
The title is not accurate. You make emotional conclusions based on incomplete or irrelevant data. Example 1: You try to use PVP data to support your conclusions about Iron Man statistics. WoD PVP is dominated by humans* but humans are virtually non-existent in the Iron standings. Only one human has cleared BC content and that was a rogue, the class where your race barely matters once you get Vanish. (* If you take a look at any DPS spec, either the majority of the 2200+ arena players are human or humans aren't allowed to pick that class. Humans are also the majority or plurality on some of the healing specs. ) Example 2: You suggest that gnomes may be unpopular due to, of all things, their starting zone. Getting a gnome to level 3 is trivial and the gnome and dwarf starting zones are identical starting at level 5. Plus, it's trivial for any level 1 gnome to go to the Dwarf, Human or Night Elf starting zones--the road to Ironforge is free of dangerous mobs. I'm not sure I understand what you're getting at? Why would anyone compare pvp to iron man? The human racial dominates in pvp and has for a while. Just like the night elf racial dominates in iron man. That's all there is to it. Maybe what you meant by it flew over my head lol, I can be a little dumb like that sometimes. Anyway, I think what Margo is saying by "emotional" is when people first start out they may choose an iron based on personal preference rather than say, whatever is easiest/hardest because they lack the experience to know any better. The very first iron I created was a nelf druid back in MoP because in my mind, having never done the iron man challenge, a druid would be optimal because they can stealth and heal. I didn't even consider a hunter and I only went with a night elf because I prefer Alliance and I prefer nelf druids over worgen. Overtime and having experimented with several race/class combos, I now know which combo is easier/harder. I think his intention was to bring that to light based on which race/class combo has been most and least successful so people new at this have an easier time deciding what to choose. At the end of the day choose what you want, but some people might be going into this just wanting to GET there as fast as possible. At this point, I know I do which is why I play a night elf hunter.
|
|
|
Post by Discordiankitty on Jun 19, 2016 2:04:00 GMT -5
Calling the title loaded is also accurate.
Anyway, you've collected some nice and interesting data, so gj on that.
|
|
|
Post by gnumbers on Jun 19, 2016 3:21:24 GMT -5
I'm not sure I understand what you're getting at? Why would anyone compare pvp to iron man? Margothon did so way over here (http://wowironmanchallenge.proboards.com/post/13049) Anyway, I think what Margo is saying by "emotional" is when people first start out they may choose an iron based on personal preference rather than say, whatever is easiest/hardest because they lack the experience to know any better. And I'm using 'emotional' as in 'emotional argument', defined as "the manipulation of the recipient's emotions in order to win an argument, especially in the absence of factual evidence." Margothon made a nice table but, for the most part, it's not needed. * The Night Elf racial is very good. We already knew that. * Hunters are very good. We already knew that, too. Beyond that, we run into problems. There's only a few million active WoW players. Iron Challengers are a tiny subset of WoW players. The number of people who are capable of getting to level 60+ as an iron are a small subset of the Iron Challengers. Once you the sample size gets that small, statistics are unreliable.
|
|
|
Post by Discordiankitty on Jun 20, 2016 9:03:22 GMT -5
The presentation choice of "Emotion VS FACTS" has been bugging me. I'm about to begin philosophizing. Philosophizing - to speculate or theorize about fundamental or serious issues, especially in a tedious or pompous way. I apologise in advance. This presentation suggests that there's two different ways to choose a character: you can make an emotional choice, or you can make one based entirely in the data, the facts. The first would have no real benefit other than you feeling happy, the second would have actual, in-game benefits. On the surface, this makes sense. But here's the problem I have: Emotions can be data that affect your chances of winning or losing just as much as most of the benefits these races can provide, and if there is an emotional element at work, ignoring it would just be irrational. I'm not sure if I'm explaining myself well here. Take, for example, someone who's always played Blood Elves. They play Belfs because the have a personal, emotional attachment to the race. Because it's a race they've been playing forever, they have the race talent that's used to silent and restore focus/mana/etc in their rotation. Even though it's not the strongest racial, they know how to use this ability, and they know how to use it well. They might even use it instinctively at this point. When that person decides to make an Ironman, it simply wouldn't make sense to make, say, a troll instead, even if arguably a troll may have better racials for the challenge, because they're not used to using and working with those racials - they're used to using and working with the blood elf racial. One thing I have found personally with Ironman is that it's more important for my own survival to stick with what I know myself, and also to have an emotional attachment to my character. I know that Night Elf Hunter is easily the best race/class combo. That's pretty undeniable. However, I hate Night Elves, and I've never really played Alliance. For me, that creates a whole range of problems that playing a Nelf Hunter would create, from accidentally going to a Horde area and being killed by guards because I'm just used to viewing that as a safe zone, to finding it hard to spend any real time working on my Ironman at all, simply because I can't get emotionally invested in a Night Elf. When I created my character, I chose Horde because I know the zones better, and I chose Blood Elf because it's a race I have persistently found easier to develop an emotional attachment to. I cannot personally play a troll. Everything from the way they move to the way they look irritates me. Now yes, this is a personal, emotional thing, that I'm sure wouldn't be a problem for most people, but that doesn't make it any less a factor that I should consider, one that's just as important and can have just as much of an affect on my success than whether or not my character is getting 20% extra XP from killing animals. In fact, actively being annoyed with the way my character runs is probably going to negatively affect me more than 20% extra XP from killing animals, particularly as so much Ironman levelling is done during zone level squishes, when XP from creatures is next to nothing. At this point, I adore my character. I've invested more than time and effort into her, I've invested emotion. And that genuinely helps me, because Ironman needs you to be dedicated and willing to put in a LOT of hours, and feeling emotionally connected to something makes being able to dedicate time and effort in that thing easier. So what I'm saying is, if you're going to consider the data and facts when choosing a character, some of the data might be easily quantifiable and applicable to almost anyone, eg Night Elves have the strongest racial, no denying that, but some of the data might be subjective and personal, eg I have always played Horde, so playing Horde is going to be easier for me, because of my knowledge and experience with of Horde zones. This is a fact. I don't enjoy playing trolls. I struggle to connect to a troll emotionally. This is also a fact. A personal, emotional fact, but a fact nontheless. So choosing a character isn't a choice between emotions and facts, it's simply a choice based on all the data you have - the stuff that's universal, like which races actually have better racials, and the stuff that's personal, like which race is going to be a better choice for you, specifically. So instead of saying emotional choice vs data and facts, I would have made more of a distinction between data that's strictly personal and data that's more universal. And even when we talk about that universal data, I think it would be disingenuous to assume emotions absolutely were not a contributing factor in the sort of numbers we're seeing - for example, why so few gnomes? Finally, I think that actual facts can usually speak for themselves without anyone constantly having to reaffirm that they're the facts. So yeah. That's why I find the title loaded, and also a little misleading. I'm not trying to criticise collecting this data at all, it's a good thing, but I am uncomfortable with presenting it as data vs emotions rather than this data that is different to that data.
|
|
|
Post by Margothon Lord of the Elements on Jun 20, 2016 9:30:57 GMT -5
The presentation choice of "Emotion VS FACTS" has been bugging me. I'm about to begin philosophizing. Philosophizing - to speculate or theorize about fundamental or serious issues, especially in a tedious or pompous way. Thank you Herrena, a very mature and non inflammatory response, i absolutely respect your feelings and points on the title and would just like to explain that at no time when writing it was i trying to create any type of ill feeling. I think the ill feeling of the title and any opinions in the original post is indeed in the eye of the beholder. I once made a post with the word Drama in it and the whole world blew up in my face. I was purely selecting a word that best described the two aspects of choice, for the life of me i still cant think of any other word i could have chosen, "random choice" maybe, for me "random choice v data and facts" doesnt explain my point well enough, but thats my choice, right or wrong. Again thankyou for taking your time to make me feel better.
|
|