Hardest classes to master in 39

elesian, the options are almost limitless as to the numbers of responses a player can have to a situation. You can say that some are more likely, but the unlikely ones can still occur.



Since there are no fixed variables, our minds do not work with RNG's afaik, it's hard to make any mathematical calculations on each and every one of the situational events in a fight. Take into account that the team size, or rather the players affecting the fight in some way, can vary a lot. Their actions, and how you think they will act, how they think you will act and how that way of thinking alters the process of the battle has to be taken into account.



Maximization of the over-all utilization of the class in order to fulfill a certain role will have different values due to personal opinions. There cannot be an index made which is completely unbiased.



The questions you've asked as lead-questions are good, there's a one and a zero, a black and a white, in most cases. But it's the scale that has to be put into use in between 0 and 1 that will vary from person to person.



Discussing the personal values and ratings of each situational event and forming a conclusive statement or answer will be the closest you will ever come to a perfect evaluation of an event since, as stated before, no calculations can be made due to that there is no right and wrong in each situation.



The process will inevitably be extremly time-consuming and will require a large number of people to be able to agree upon a close to infinite number of possibilities.
 
We could use factorials to estimate the situation pretty crudely,which would not take a lot of work. I don't think it requires a lot of analysis, or needs fine maths to come up with the results. There are certainly large gaps in the criterium i mentioned, between each class. With reference to putting discrete values to different areas, we could just do a mean of the general consensus to get us a more objective figure. It can be done :p
 
The consensus here seems to be "warlocks are ezmode and my class is generally one of the harder to master".

I can't find a reason why you couldn't do it tbh. Using factorials though, the end-result will have a huge error-margin growing exponentially for each number not being 100% correct in the calculations, and as you said, it will turn out very rough. Too rough perhaps?
 
Having only played 3 classes at a high enough skill level, I can only comment on those - everything else I really have no say in. All I really no is that the consensus among top arena players is that with everyone in a completely default game without mods shamans were the hardest to play to their max potential. That was before focus frame was brought in though so might have changed slightly. :)



Also yes I have played warlock to a high level, and really if you have not played the class you cannot comment on it. Even if you know each class in depth - it is very different when you are actually playing the class. If that makes sense ^^



Bench.
 
What you're saying makes sense, Bench, but the class-balance isn't the same at 39 as it is at 80.



You make an excellent point at the end however - it is very different when you are actually playing the class.
 
I think the word "master" is throwing people off. One could argue that anything is impossible to "master".



With that said, the skill required to dominate a bg is definitely the lowest for warlocks. Out of the 5 39 twinks I have, lock definitely requires the least amount of skill by far.
 
Pers said:
I think the word "master" is throwing people off. One could argue that anything is impossible to "master".
Click to expand...

yes i think people have different definitions for it

With that said, the skill required to dominate a bg is definitely the lowest for warlocks. Out of the 5 39 twinks I have, lock definitely requires the least amount of skill by far.
Click to expand...

to dominate a BG on a lock definately doesn't require much skill.



to 'master' a lock is impossible.
 
Right, ok, i'm going to go back to the drawing board. I think people are taking mastery too literally, perhaps in too much of a concrete way. Ofc there is always room for reaction latency, not to mention lag times, you might have an off-day excetra.



Perhaps it should be rephrased as, "how difficult is it to achieve the highest 'feasible' skill, with a class, that an INDIVIDUAL can possess?". IF you have lower than average reaction times, your reaction times, with all classes, are going to be lower than average.



When i say feasible, this is taking into account typical latency (50-100ms), no 'my loxz haz micromanagement adjusterizers". It's bullshit. One second on a damage over TIME spell, is not going to make any significance in 99% of scenario's. Reaching a level where they cannot improve on the criterium set out in my older post, by any significant margin.



Re-evaluate. gogo!
 
I'm not a warlock hater by any means, but if you let a warlock dominate a 39 BG's outcome, your team is doing something SERIOUSLY wrong.
 
elesian said:
Perhaps it should be rephrased as, "how difficult is it to achieve the highest 'feasible' skill, with a class, that an INDIVIDUAL can possess?". IF you have lower than average reaction times, your reaction times, with all classes, are going to be lower than average.



When i say feasible, this is taking into account typical latency (50-100ms), no 'my loxz haz micromanagement adjusterizers". It's bullshit. One second on a damage over TIME spell, is not going to make any significance in 99% of scenario's. Reaching a level where they cannot improve on the criterium set out in my older post, by any significant margin.



Re-evaluate. gogo!
Click to expand...

you can always get better at your class



to play at the highest 'feasible' skill is being 'good', which is what the original post asked not to refer to. so sorry if the conversation has moved into pointlessness :(



a warlock can be easily played well, just like a ret paladin. to play at a level where you're impacting a BG a lot is easy on an affliction lock or ret paladin. hunters can also fit into that catagory, even if they don't CC well. they can impact a BG easily too.



it's hard to rate which classes are most difficult to be feasibly good, because there isn't a scale that measures what is feasible and what is not. on what classes can easily make an impact in a BG, however, is a more determinable thing.



to determine a person's actual skill level really depends on the person, not the class. does it take a warlock much skill to play well? no. but a person on a lock can still be more skilled than a person on a warrior or shaman, even if the warr/sham is playing 'feasibly' well.
 
"To play at the highest 'feasible' skill is being 'good', which is what the original post asked not to refer to."



This to me would imply mastery. Being good would be having better than average utility and skill than, the average, player.



Mastery (1), in these examples, should mean you have reached an INDIVIDUAL skill level (for that class), where any macro scale improvement is impossible, and any micro scale improvement is insignificant. The question is ranking the relative Mastery (of definition (1)) of each class, for a given individual.



I should have been more pedantic in the OP. IF you wish to visualize it in a more numerical way, an ideology would be - "if mastery, in the definitive context, is 100%, we consider percentage of players, and how hard it is to achieved this, of each class who have achieved the 95%, and above, mastery boundary."



Firstly, i'd like to think that everyone realises that this is just a conceptual idea, but it should give you a better idea, of what i was trying to originally portray in my OP.



Et cetera, my old enemy. I'll just stick to etc.
 
This is why we are considering it at an individual level.



I have every class of twink spread over several brackets. What i intend to do later is give a quick break down on my perceptions of the classes, and see if people agree or disagree with them.



It is too easy to just say 'subjective' and move on. For instance, game reviews are highly subjective, as is any contemporary media, yet, there appears to be general correlation in scores in nearly all cases. If any of you are familar with the english gaming magazine 'Edge', they have perhaps the strongest 'objective' reviews. If you inspect the framework they use, it is remarkable consistent, and pretty hard to disagree with, irrefutable in most cases.



I am an objectivist, so in all but the most absurd cases, i will look for a strong conclusion. I think very few people would say that mastery, by my given definition, is equal in all class cases. So, we know, straight away, that there is variation - yet we cannot put a finger on it, because we have no discrete measurement scale. So, then we might ask ourselves, what are more commonly accepted difficult classes? Then the converse, and by working with some kind of framework, come up with grouping of classes. For instance, is a warlock, for all purposes, a similar, multi target role? If we then say that warlocks are on the easier scale, we might then group priests with them. We might consider hunter and mage in a similar way.



By looking at trends and grouping sets, we can contradict ourselves, if need be, on an outcome. The point is to develop a model and then apply the rules within our model. If we realise something is very wrong, we re-modify the model, and then re-apply the rules, until we reach something that most people agree with.



Sure, it is a tough undertaking, but this is why i'm not trying to tackle the problem on my own :p.
 
well I missed 2 pages to respond to powerglove but.



""True, but some of these things may be more or less difficult to some classes.""



"this is probably easier for a warlock to do than any other class, seeing as how 90% of their spells are instant "



I would argue that the dots are the least important skills that a lock has to master. Yes they can cast their damage instantly and move. But fear and drains are certainly not something you can stop and move with. Considering locks are almost always the first target sans healers that means stopping to cast the truly important skills makes life difficult. Also with any number of rogues in play in a given bg lock survivability becomes much more difficult than other classes.





"With that said, the skill required to dominate a bg is definitely the lowest for warlocks. Out of the 5 39 twinks I have, lock definitely requires the least amount of skill by far. "



you are certainly confusing doing a lot of damage and mastering. Dominating by geting a lot of kbs and damage is not even close to mastery.



@ bench



I havnt played lock in 39s, I do have an 80 lock so I think its okay for me to comment, even though I dont have a 2.3k arena rating.









Id even say that this differential between dominating a pug bg and "mastery" as we are discussing it gives a point to lock/pally/hunter etc. A class becomes mentally more difficult to master if you think you are doing good enough already. If there is no push to become better then the difficulty goes up.
 
Alteffour said:
I havnt played lock in 39s, I do have an 80 lock so I think its okay for me to comment, even though I dont have a 2.3k arena rating.
Click to expand...



Yeah all I'm saying is that unless you have played the class to a decent depth, the more depth the better in term of understanding, then you cannot have an accurate view of the reality of the class.
 
Sure, a hunter/lock/retadin are easier to do well with in PvP. I think everyone's general experience gives that the nod. So, let's put that aside as a given: hunters, locks and retadins are a head above everything else 1v1 based on class alone.



I think what's falling through the gaps here is that the play styles of different classes cater to people with different skill sets. For locks and hunters, that's multitasking.



If you aren't someone who can multitask with bullets whizzing by your head, you aren't going to be a top lock or hunter. Other classes have to multitask to some degree, but not like these two classes.



So, by and large, other classes have fewer tools to master and less multitasking to do to be truly amazing within their limits.



Shaman btw: yeah, totems are a bitch. But they're more of pain than true multitasking. They consume the GCD and you need to get them down in time for them to be useful. There's a learning curve for that but there's no rocket science to them. If you're coming up on a retpaly and the grounding totem isn't down just before you hit HoJ range, you fucked up.



Now, that a retpaly will wtfpwn you even though you dropped the grounding totem. That's something else all together amirite?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Top