This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
When do you want MORE melee players in raid?
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
219211
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
skribs
So the only real way to check it - gear the person up and see what dps he does at the end.
Which is the exact opposite of the suggested "only the person with the higher numbers should get gear." So what, are those without gear supposed to get geared up without getting gear? I must be missing something.
Post by
Monjaru
It's a very simplified, but still truthful way of seeing it. It's not truthful. It's simplification to the point of pure deception.
You can make it into the 3-way system: great players, players who try to be great, bad players.
First are the ones who perform the best possible, other ones are the ones who try to perform the best and didn't get there yet and 3rd ones are the ones who don't care. Still 90% of players are the third ones. If that were the case, 90% of the players would have never seen any end-game raiding past an occasional Naxx 10 or 25 PuG. Now, I don't have the patience to look up every level 80 character in game at this point and figure out the exact number, but I highly doubt it'd come out to a 90-10 figure in favor of baddies who have yet to obtain any form of skill in the game. I'm sure there are plenty out there, and you may seem to attract more than you'd like for whatever reason (karma, perhaps for being so damn high on yourself?).
I don't know. But either way, you're distancing yourself from probably 50% of the player base (who are actually decent players, but for whatever reason don't perform up to your standards) for an irrational notion that they're all just like the terri-bads of the server who've yet to learn mages are a caster class.
As usual, though, you're taking your personal experience with players (maybe that 90% really does hold true for you) and using it to define the entire range of people who play the game. And as I've continually told you, your personal experience (without sufficient outside evidence to support it) is meaningless in this debate.
You can keep making this classification of players more complicated. like including how much they like/dislike spec, their computer quality, their internet connection quality, noise level in the room they play, working schedule, and many more factors that will affect performance of a specific person, but then classification just becomes too massive and hard to use. The point is the same - I can't stand baddies who don't care how they perform and just like to pew-pew and push buttons. Exactly why I don't believe classification is really a tool that should be used in this situation. If you just class someone by what you see of them, you miss out on so many things it's not even funny. Tunnel-visioning yourself to your own little classifications just makes you look simple-minded, and I really don't want to believe you are as provincial as you make yourself look here.
As you mentioned, there are too many outside sources that can have an effect on an individuals performance that you can't see in-game to easily classify that person on what you do see. As such, it's incredibly unfair to just link them as a "baddie" who doesn't care how they perform. You have absolutely no idea who they are or how they think unless they tell you. Which links back to what I said about your experience.
Perhaps 90% of the people you meet
do
tell you that they don't really care enough to try to perform well. However, as I
also
stated (numerous times; and I'll keep saying it till it gets through to you), your experience by itself does not belong here. It's not going to be valid evidence towards your argument, no matter what you are trying to argue.
Post by
skribs
On top of what Monjaru has said, classification systems will vary by guild. If you are in a guild that's as competitive as Ensidia, then maybe "top performance or gkick" is a viable option. If you're in a guild that's progressing at a weekly rate instead of 2 days after a boss is released, you may have several classifications within your guild: those you only bring if there's no other choice, those undergeared (usually alts) but skilled enough players you bring if you can carry the lower gear score to get them caught up, those skilled and geared players who have a hectic RL schedule and can't raid much (i.e. very helpful to raids, but wont be in every raid), those who are decent players but may be lacking in one area (e.g. high DPS but takes a few seconds to target switch, medium DPS but quick switcher, good player but tends to pull aggro and die by not watching omen), and then the elite players who know their class and play the encounter. These classifications may be official or unofficial, may be based on a number of factors, and allow raid leaders to see who to bring.
If you're lucky, your guild will have 35 elites on every night to do as much easy progression as possible. If you're like 95% of raiding guilds out there, chances are you'll have 5 elite, 1-2 of those with hectic schedules, 8 decent players, 1 great player with lag, 4 undergeared and 4 of those you bring if you have no choice. So then you're sitting there calling people to get another 3 slots filled, and then you go. This isn't the optimal way to do it, but its how a lot of guilds (read: every guild I've been in, and most guilds I'm in are higher ranked on the realm) work.
Post by
219211
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Monjaru
If that were the case, 90% of the players would have never seen any end-game raiding past an occasional Naxx 10 or 25 PuG.Not true. Naxx is so easy that it doesn't require any skill. I think that Sunwell was the raid instance that was tuned for only skilled players. You can check how many players have been there and how many cleared it. And even at lvl 80 you can't just run through it without knowing fights and having some kind of strategy.
Plus there are plenty of people who didn't get into icc. And my warlock has been in icc-10 2 weeks real time after he dinged 80. That's why I said "past" Naxx. Please, at least make an attempt to read what's said if you're going to quote it.
I'd also like it if you'd not skip half of what I say. You're continually avoiding everything I say about keeping your personal experience out of this, and continue to post unfounded generalizations you've come up with without even making an attempt to address the points that I'm presenting. It really makes for poor debate if you're simply going to ignore half the content of what I post every single time I post it.
I think that it is. If you have such a bad internet/such a slow computer/such a loud barking dog that you can't get out of void zone because of it - you are a baddie. You are also a baddie if due to mentioned above reasons you do 1.5K dps wearing full epics. But that's just the problem with your argument here, not everyone below your standard is dying continually in void zones or pulling ridiculously low dps in comparison to their gear score. You're once again skewing the line between "baddie" and "average player", because apparently in your screwed up version of WoW, average players don't exist.
Post by
skribs
Those without gear simply don't make it in guilds that expect best performance of all the raid members :)
If you're talking about the top guilds, maybe not. However, a lot of guilds understand that you had to start somewhere. Those undergeared players may not be in the standard raiding rank, but in a "future raiders" or "fresh meat" type rank, with the understanding they'll be brought in if they can be. Currently you can get ready for ICC (and ToC, which drops a lot of stuff which will help progress into ICC) just from doing heroics. You wont be in full 245 or 258 gear from heroics, but you'll be in 219-232 gear with a 4-piece T9 bonus. That wont be enough for world firsts, but it will be enough for ICC (my paladin still needs drops on all 5 bosses in reg 25 ToC, and yet I lead healing on our ICC 25 runs).
My DK is going to be in full 219-232 gear when it gets done gearing from heroics. There's no way it can do the DPS of a comparably skilled DK in 245-264 gear with the quel-delar weapon (assuming I have a 232 by that point). Does that mean that my DK should never be considered and I am a horrible player simply because my gear score is worse? Even if my DPS is up to par with what's needed for the raid?
If only those who were 100% geared could play, no new raiders would ever be found. Maybe in YOUR guild it's different, but your guild isn't 95% of the population.
Post by
Ippon
I don't know. But either way, you're distancing yourself from probably 50% of the player base (who are actually decent players, but for whatever reason don't perform up to your standards)Because they
aren't
decent players.
As you mentioned, there are too many outside sources that can have an effect on an individuals performance that you can't see in-game to easily classify that person on what you do see. As such, it's incredibly unfair to just link them as a "baddie" who doesn't care how they perform. You have absolutely no idea who they are or how they think unless they tell you. Which links back to what I said about your experience. The reasons behind it are irrelevant. Performance matters, and if you fail, you fail. I've played with people that live in Australia and South Korea, and they're still better than 95+% of the PuG idiots I've played with, while having 500ms of latency at all times.
Post by
219211
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
skribs
I don't think that normal Uld10 is much harder (it is just longer so not many pugs will be willing to come back next day to finish it up). ToC is really easy, and given no trash you have time to wipe if your group is completely terrible. ToGC-10 is puggable, you can make a tribute to skill or even mad skill with random people who never played with each other, insanity will require at least 5-6 people who have played together before, especially tanks and healers. ToGC-25 as a pug probably won't be able to kill anub, but first bosses will be possible to kill. ICC is easy for now too (as I was saying - my lock was in there 2 weeks after dinging 80, after running heroics, once toc-25 and once or twice running toc-10), we will see how it gets in upcoming wings.
This is true on your realm. But not all realms. There are some realms where not even the top guilds have downed ToGC 25, and a ToC PuG is more than likely doomed to fail. Heck, I've even seen people fail on FL 0 towers. These are the newer realms with a less experienced playerbase. Not all players on this realm are bad, in fact there are very good players on these realms. They just happen to be spread out in various guilds, instead of all in the same guild, which is where the problem lies. Good players can get into higher level raids after a few weeks of heroics, my DK has spent a week and a half gearing up and I topped damage in the last raid my guild did (although in defense of them, I think it was a full alt run as far as DPS is concerned), you're right there.
My question is this - if all those instances are so easy, then why does it matter if people are so good or not? If everything is puggable except the hardest boss, which is doable with half PuG, then whats the point in being so elitist that you'll force everyone to go for 3% more damage at the cost of what may be fun for them?
Oh, and if you go to wowmeteronline.com, you can get breakdowns by class of the top 20 on a boss and what spec they are. If you'll check things like DKs, you may see 17-18 unholy in there, and then 2-3 blood. Which tells me that if Blood can make the top 20, it's not a bad spec.
Because they aren't decent players.
Based on your scale of 100% theory-crafting maximum or fail. Based on a scale that isn't dichomitized into perfection-fail but rather an actual scale from terribad to elite (with stuff in the middle) there is such a thing as decent. "Decent" usually means a little better than average, but not good or great.
The reasons behind it are irrelevant. Performance matters, and if you fail, you fail. I've played with people that live in Australia and South Korea, and they're still better than 95+% of the PuG idiots I've played with, while having 500ms of latency at all times.
I actually agree here. If someone has latency issues and as a result can't perform, then someone without lag should be there. However, you can't say they're a bad player - you can say they wont perform due to reasons other than skill. It's the same concept as guilds not letting players raid without a mic - it has nothing to do with skill, but rather an equipment issue.
As a side note, one of my guildies has a mom who streams movies all day long. So he pulls a good 3k more DPS at night, after she's gone to bed and the latency has cleared up. So it does affect performance.
Post by
MegaVolt
You are correct. In theory. In practice, you can take 2 people with similar gear, similar spec, similar damage breakdown, similar pretty much everything but damage done - one can be doing 1000dps more than another one. Why? Answer could be simple - one is playing from crappy and slow DSL and another playing from fiber optical connection. While it has nothing to do with person's skill, it definitely does affect performance. But there could be many factors affecting player's performance. So the only real way to check it - gear the person up and see what dps he does at the end.
I don't agree. The damage breakdown lists exactly what abilities were used how many times. Now if one dps has 10 fewer Scourge Strike than the good unholy DK you are comparing him to you know there is something wrong. It could be lag so that he simply can't time his attacks as good as the other player. It could be a messed up rotation. Pinpointing the exact reason for his failure often is hard - but you will see it in the damage breakdown, even without gearing him up first. You can even go as far and take his average strike damage and scale it to match the better geared players average strike damage and then look at this new theoretical dps output. This pretty much gives you the damage he would have done with better gear.
Especially lag is quite easy to spot since it simply leads to an overall reduced number of abilities used.
Post by
skribs
I don't agree. The damage breakdown lists exactly what abilities were used how many times. Now if one dps has 10 fewer Scourge Strike than the good unholy DK you are comparing him to you know there is something wrong. It could be lag so that he simply can't time his attacks as good as the other player. It could be a messed up rotation. Pinpointing the exact reason for his failure often is hard - but you will see it in the damage breakdown, even without gearing him up first. You can even go as far and take his average strike damage and scale it to match the better geared players average strike damage and then look at this new theoretical dps output. This pretty much gives you the damage he would have done with better gear.
I agree with the majority of this, particularly the part about looking at how many times X ability was used. However, the middle portion...
You can even go as far and take his average strike damage and scale it to match the better geared players average strike damage and then look at this new theoretical dps output.
...isn't entirely accurate. Someone who's geared for armor pen and expertise is going to have higher strike damage and lower spell damage than someone who geared for strength and crit. Some abilities also scale differently (which is why undergeared rogues will use rupture and overgeared rogues won't). You can judge fairly close (e.g. if one person has 26% scourge strike damage and the other has 15%, there's something wrong) but simply getting better gear isn't going to show a good X:Y ratio for DPS.
But the rest of it is entirely true. You can look at the breakdown, and if there is a problem address it (and it wont be the same every time, which means you can't theory craft the problem), and if there isn't a problem then you can assume that the undergeared player would perform similar to the geared player.
Another possibility is the geared player has a bad rotation and the undergeared player has a better rotation - someone who knows the class would have to be the judge, however.
Post by
219211
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
259957
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
skribs
I don't know much about DK dps and how much haste a DK will have on gear. But with casters, the more geared you are - the more haste you have - the more spells you will cast during fight. So your simple comparison of number of abilities used is not going to work.
DK runes take 10 seconds no matter what your haste is. Haste simply reduces the GCD. Unless they've changed since last time I theory-crafted them, which is easily possible because that was back in 3.0.
Now to actually answer skirbs question, you want to think of it this way: with the influx of dks and rets, ranged dps is the way to go. Rarely(more like never?) do we see raids spamming "LFxM xxxx, must be melee". Sarth3D being the only exception.
That's the reason for the question, you never do see "LFM need melee." So the question was what situations would you actually need more melee, assuming you got a wierd group and had all casters/hunters. You can't do Onyxia without ranged, but you can do a lot fights with only ranged.
Post by
MegaVolt
I don't know much about DK dps and how much haste a DK will have on gear. But with casters, the more geared you are - the more haste you have - the more spells you will cast during fight. So your simple comparison of number of abilities used is not going to work.
Of course it will work. With 30 seconds, haste on both their gear and a calculator I can tell you exactly how many more spells the better geared player is allowed to cast from gear alone. Any difference (in either direction) to that means one of them is doing something wrong.
Post by
219211
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
skribs
Now next question - will you realistically do it during the raid? Doubt it. And since you are mentioning recount (not anything that uses logs) - you are not going to address this fight afterwards. What you will most likely do is check the dps meter, quickly look over amount of hits - and be satisfied with results. It is a decent ballpark, but not a method to justify dps spot in competitive raiding guild. But again - if you have half of dps dying in void zones, you will most likely just prefer more intelligent and situationally aware player even if he is not geared.
If you only keep boss fights, its very easy to keep track of the breakdown for a run. Even if all you do is one fight, you can easily keep track. A raid leader may not do this during raids, but a guild leader will do this after the raid (or DK classs leader, etc) to evaluate players who may not be up to par.
My friend is a ret pally, but he plays a great holy priest. During raids he'll constantly watch the breakdown of their healing and see their best heals down at the bottom (I know because I constantly hear him QQ about poor priests).
I live in a world where good performance is expected :) I remember back in the day pugs failing at Thaddius or Gluth, but it was a pretty rare occasion. Or maybe I got lucky with all my pugs or I know how to choose a good one.
Then you're lucky, and you're probably on a good realm. Make or transfer a character to Nesingwary and see how pugs turn out for you. I've literally had to explain what "triangle" is, and that the gate we're talking about is the only big giant gate in sight that's right behind the trash we're killing, during a fail FL 0-tower run (this is in 3.3).
That's true, but it doesn't mean you can't get into groups as melee. And it is way easier to gear up a DK dps - just get some tanking gear and run heroics as a tank (3 seconds lines vs 15 minutes ones) - you will very quickly get enough badges to get full t9 which is sufficient level of gear to get into icc pug.
I know I can get into raids, but the question is if there's a reason to bring melee over ranged on some fights. E.g. if you need 6 ranged for a fight, then you need 6 ranged and 10 of any combination melee+ranged. Are there fights where if you don't have enough melee you won't succeed, and if so what are the general conditions which dictate a necessity to have more melee players?
Post by
MegaVolt
Now next question - will you realistically do it during the raid?
Who cares if
I
do it? I'm not in charge of recruiting and checking initiates raid performance in my guild.
But it can be done. Of course I don't do it every fight. But at least for healing I do it every time we get a new Druid recruit (I'm a main spec resto Druid), checking his haste levels and the number of HoT ticks he got compared to me, uptime, activity and all that. Since resto Druids don't really grow on trees this doesn't really happen often. But still, it's very useful information.
And ofc you can just as well use raid logs. They are more accurate than Recount anyway. Just because I only said "Recount" doesn't mean you have to take it so literally. Any combat log does the job.
Post by
Monjaru
I don't think that normal Uld10 is much harder (it is just longer so not many pugs will be willing to come back next day to finish it up). ToC is really easy, and given no trash you have time to wipe if your group is completely terrible. ToGC-10 is puggable, you can make a tribute to skill or even mad skill with random people who never played with each other, insanity will require at least 5-6 people who have played together before, especially tanks and healers. ToGC-25 as a pug probably won't be able to kill anub, but first bosses will be possible to kill. ICC is easy for now too (as I was saying - my lock was in there 2 weeks after dinging 80, after running heroics, once toc-25 and once or twice running toc-10), we will see how it gets in upcoming wings. Firstly, way to completely change the content of your post to avoid looking like a retard. And second, more personal experiences. Not relevant. Blah blah blah...
Dying in void zone more than once - sign of a baddie. Getting hit by wall of fire more than once - sign of baddie. I remember that when we were working on sarth+3 in my first guild, there were like 8 people who never were hit with stuff (and also were doing the most dps/healing) and then there were rest of people who were constantly hit with all kind of stuff. Nitpicking the context of a part of my comment isn't strengthening your argument. Nor does it make your personal experiences any more relevent... It doesn't change the fact that not everyone below your standard dies in fires, void zones, etc.
If you don't have anything relevant to say in response to my arguments, just don't say anything at all. It's a simple concept, really. Responding just for the sake of continuing a one-sided debate doesn't make you look any better. In fact, I'm almost beginning to think you're just another troll. You still haven't gotten the concept that your personal experiences mean nothing and continue to bring them in here in response to everything anyone is saying to oppose you.
It's tiresome. I will ask you again, as politely as I can. PLEASE, leave your personal experiences in reserve for when they are actually being used to strengthen a real fact, not just tossing them out there to show off how much in-game experience you have.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.