Not sure why putting CP on the Rogue is even being discussed. It wont happen in the middle of an expansion, its probably the biggest nerf to a class any class can have. You’d have to re-design all 3 specs entirely…
Also imo it will never happen for PvE reasons, but the idea of it being a suggestion is imo laughable.
Basically if you want that style of play, go and play wrath.
And guess what, the conclusion was proven almost 200 years later, so a long time after Newton passed away. We also have the theory of relativity and although there are many indications that it is correct, it has not yet been finally confirmed and probably won’t be in our lifetime.
BUT: In the course of the centuries, there have also been many assumptions that seemed logical and yet were complete humbug. For example, an absolute majority of people believed for thousands of years that the earth was a disc and not a sphere. How could it be a sphere, because if everything fell downwards, we could only live at the very top of the pole without falling! An absolutely logical conclusion, since they knew nothing about gravity!
And you are just like these people. You simply lack knowledge in many areas due to experience! Just because there are a few examples in our history where people have drawn the right conclusions based on their observations, you cannot apply that across the board. On the contrary, one should regard it as an exception!
Also, pioneers of science have usually at least backed up their theses with experiments. The Wright brothers would hardly have been able to build an airplane if they had not learned from their failures and wrong assumptions beforehand. A famous and supposed quotation from Edison goes like this: “I have not failed. I just found 10,000 ways it doesn’t work” if I am not mistaken.
It is the same in PvP. It may seem like a good idea at first glance, until you realize through experience that you haven’t thought of this or that, or that it’s too complex to implement.
And therein lies your problem, a conclusion based on a bunch of supposed misconceptions. If you are right, feel free to confirm it with experiments, in this case high rating!
A simple question: Can one be a master in a craft without ever having practiced the craft properly? Or does it not necessarily require experience in that field before one can become a master?
Theory and practice are two very different things! Just because you know in principle how a car works and what the traffic rules are, doesn’t mean you can safely maneuver a car through traffic. As with almost everything in life, this simply requires practice!
Which means, everything you say, which hasn’t been objectively proven to be right, is a prejudice as well. How can you reproach me for something that you yourself exemplify?
Anyways, this wall of text becomes to massive to be worth it to answer any further. To me, you will remain a layman of the subject until you have proven by experience to be a master. And I guess most people will handle it like that. Because if you are a master, it would be easy to prove it, right? 
Or perhaps to put it in your worldview. Sufficient data may lead to an empirical conclusion, but that presupposes that it behaves the same everywhere. With laws of nature that may be the case, but just because I’ve prepared and eaten chicken a thousand times doesn’t allow me to draw any conclusions about how chicken tastes when I am on a trip through Asia. Same for PvP. If you have only witness low ratings, you know nothing about medium and high ratings, which “tastes” completely different!
So, if we have to be completely in line with the scientific methodology, then through Karl Popper, you do not verify a theory, you falsify it, and only strong theories can sustain attempts of falsification. Newton is not wrong, it is that the approximation is not as precise as Einstein’s modern theory of gravity. And so, Newton is still used to this day (see Newtonian dynamics, Modified Newtonian Dynamics), it is just that in certain circumstances, Einstein’s more complicated and precise approximation can account for inconsistencies that Newton’s equation cannot, and an example of this is extreme gravitational fields such as Black Holes or close to lightspeed velocities.
This is true. But something being old does not make it inherently wrong. Here you can read Heidegger’s book on Technology, were he outlines the prejudice we have towards humans of the past because we are more technologically advance, but because of the slow change in Evolution, our cognitive potential is most likely identical to the Ancient Greeks, and so it is an assumption that we somehow are better thinkers today just because technology has provided us with more knowledge.
I try to refrain from judging you and claiming you are not knowledgeable, so I require of you to show me the same respect. It adds nothing to the debate and it is the very lowest form of argumentation.
Again, the discussion on empiricism vs rationalism is not new, and there has been many before you that has claimed knowledge to be 100% empirical. But, how can we as humans describe 4 dimensional spacetime, black hole singularities, wavelengths beyond the visible spectrum, or quantum mechanical processes when neither are empirical by humans? And if you mean that they are empirical because we have captured data, but the very models that allow us to see the spectrum of light beyond the visible spectrum are made by scientists who reasoned themselves to it through physics and mathematics entirely by thought.
But, at this point, it is meaningless for me to try and provide you with information and literature from several years of study, you have made up your mind about how you want to understand the world, and your knowledge structure is your responsibility, and you get to live with the consequences of that decision.
But if you ever change your mind, come back here, because I wrote the names of authors that provide you with the cutting edge research on the topic. So don’t believe me, believe the literature I provided because they spent their life investigating the very same question.
Empirical data is required in causality with what you are investigating. Therefore, If I want to make a theory about galaxy evolution, then I must provide evidence of that by empirical data, because the theory becomes a subject of the object, or as Rene Descartes said, res extensa and res cogitans. The modern scientific paradigm (in the name of Thomas Kuhn) is that res extensa, the objective world, is the true one, and that it is our cognition we must question. Therefore, theories about the objective world requires empirical data. And in this relation, the causality of the damage throughput of classes in wow is done by numerical investigation by making experiments based on the gear. For this, we could give all classes the same level of gear, and give them 10 min to deal as much damage as possible undisturbed. Then you can measure the total damage and see if there is a difference. If one class provides a much higher output then that is a suggestion that the underlying numerical tuning needs to be changed. And this context such a test does not require CR. In fact, it is a requirement in the scientific method that experiments can be reproduced and give the same results, and so if we want a completely objective analysis, we must stick to only numerical values, because only then can I provide you with an experimental methodology that you can test and reproduce. From this, CR becomes a subjective evaluation of the experiment, and as such you claim it cannot be reproduced by low CR players, such as me. Then if that is true, then the methodology of incorporating CR is in itself nonscientific as it does not agree with the scientific methodology.
This is why I provide authors. Do not believe me because I say so. That is a terrible reasoning. If logic and reason has to stand its ground, one should come to the equal conclusion based on reasoning alone. This is the foundation of logic, which math is built on. We can agree that 2+2=4, so we know that accepted reasoning from thinking exists.
But, please do NOT believe me. Instead, grab the long list of authors I provided, attend lectures by Nobel Prize winning researchers and make up your mind from that. If you end up disagreeing with some of the greatest thinkers in the world, you are claiming you are more knowledgeable than the history of mankind. And so, either you are a brilliant mind that should utilize that potential to help the world, or you are on the very first peak of the Dunning-Kruger graph.
Noone claimed that was impossible, but it’s unlikely that someone unaware of most variables could reach a conclusion thats on par with the one of a specialist.
I’d second that, yeah.
Perhaps it isn’t. I’d argue if we went by majority vote, Rogue and Ret would be the first classes to be gutted.
That poses the question : Should balancing be done to please the majority, or to be as close to fair as possible?
If it is to be as fair as possible, I’d argue you have to put more weight on the inputs of higher rated players, who play the game at a level where every class is utilized close to its maximum capability.
I can yell “Rogue/Ret OP!” in low CR all day long while ignoring/not being aware of my options to counterplay those classes.
It should be. I’d argue you can get to 1,8k rating, if not higher on rogue, without performing your DPS rotation corretly, thus pressing skill A and ending up with suboptimal outcome X. Said person would have a harder time and have a distorted view of the performance of the class. I chose Rogue not as a veiled insult to you btw, but since I can’t think of an example of a class actually able to mess up their rotation besides Rogue.
Noone is disputing you can’t debate the numbers and tuning. But the numbers come in the context of when, how and how frequent they are applied and under which conditions such as CC, kiting, LoS.
Ret can and could always produce insane burst, yet the times where they actually reached the top of the ladder you can count on one hand. Were the numbers for ret askew at times? Most definitly. Do the big numbers make the class broken if it is preventable with relative ease? Arguable.
I agree. Thanks for the good response! I think you outlined well the relationship between the underlying numerical framework and the subjective skill of the player!
However, I think we should make sure that we value both the numerical evaluation and the subjective skill based evaluation equally. Only then can we reach a balance that is fair across all CR.
If all classes can produce exactly X damage in 3min, have exactly Y number of utilities of equal strength, and all classes are exactly Z sustainable in terms of damage reduction/healing/etc, and all classes are equally geared by an ilvl of K, then I argue that the outcome of such fights will be entirely skillbased (lets call it S).
BUt since X,Y,Z,K,S can be different from class to class in a 3v3 match, it becomes hard to determine whether or not the strength of a player is because of X,Y,Z,K,S or all of them. Basically, if we made this numerical, for which we would calculate them, and that every value is 1 for the average, then the average equation would yield
P = X_a + Y_a + Z_a + K_a + S_a = 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 = 5,
Where P is a probability factor for which the higher P is from 5, the higher the probability that such a player will win against the average
Then if 5 players in a 3v3 are average, and the 6th player is better such that
Then how do we determine that 8 is because of either X, Y, Z, K, S or a slight overtunement of it all? From here, I say that S is correlated positively with CR such that it is reasonable to conclude that high S means high CR. But what about X, Y, Z, K? They matter too, but above approximation also shows that we can increase S and lower other parameters to still maintain the average, thus a skilled player CAN achieve more with less, but this doesnt mean that X, Y, Z, K are irrelevant in the analysis.
And since S is proportional to CR, it also means that the average S will increase with CR, thus the dominating aspect of X,Y,Z,K must be the highest delta in both the lowest and the highest brackets, that is, it is expected that the players of the AWC are somewhat in the same range of S, then unless the difference of the winner and the loser is determined in a small delta of S, then the delta could also be measured in X,Y,Z,K and thus we can try to seek and understand these numerical values such that the arena becomes closer and closer determined by your S and not the other parameters.
And yes you can expand S too, to say that S must contain skill parameters such as Q = how good you are your max dps sequence, T= how good your strategical thinking in the match is, M=how good a teamplayer you are etc. I just for the sake of understanding collapsed this value into a single S to make it easier to understand.
My interest is to analyse X,Y,Z,K and I can analyse these parameters regardless of what number my own personal S is.
But that still requires you to do it. So why don’t you falsify your theory, that you can be a experienced player without high rating, by reaching high rating?
I don’t lack respect when I question whether you have the appropriate background knowledge to make a thesis that doesn’t stand up to scrutiny.
Seriously, do you really think you’re going to be a good athlete in a discipline just because you know everything about it in theory? Do you really think you have the expertise to coach a national soccer team, even though you yourself have never advanced beyond the lowest amateur league so never witnesses soccer on a top level?
Or perhaps an even more appropriate analogy:
Do you really think, just because you POSSIBLY know everything about the stock market in theory, i.e. what are the reasons for rising and falling prices, what are the trading strategies, what are the different indicators, how they work and how to evaluate them using technical analysis, etc . that you would be able to make investment recommendations, although you have only ever made losses yourself?
From my impression, you are hiding behind authors, because you can’t speak for yourself. But maybe that is just me. 
it’s not about reading comprehension. It’s about understanding that context is important. Wow arena forums are not the place to embark on several page long essay type responses. Don’t you agree?
For the same reason we don’t start from scratch in science, we reference previous research to continue progress. What you claim is old, and you neither buy my arguments or buy my references, so from here I claim that you are not convinceable. You won’t change your mind regardless of what I say, because you have decided a priori that the success criteria is in the CR, and thus you have made a model of success that the only way I can provide you with a solution to the model, is to reinforce the model, and so the model becomes self-sustaining. What I have tried to explain to you is how your model of success has issues, but you don’t buy the literature and you don’t buy the arguments, and so there is nothing left for me to do here. Believe what you want, its your life, live it like you want and live the consequences of that.
This is why I mentioned prejudice. You have decided from the start that I am wrong, so regardless of what I say, you have decided a priori that your mission is to prove me wrong. You don’t even continue on the arguments I make, you just ignore them and restate your position. It moves us nowhere.
This is why we have athletes to do the sports, but have professors in health, autonomy and physical activity. We recognize that researchers here are not suppose to run as fast as Usain Bolt, but can still provide Usain Bolt with knowledge about his body, health and training methodology to maximize his running output. In the same manner, we can recognize how developers can analyse the backbone of WoW while AWC players are the athletes that push those boundaries.
I actually work in a FinTech company as a software engineer that works with risk management and mathematical risk models. The answer is chaos theory, for the same reason that we can predict the boiling of water in a pot on a stove with great accuracy, but not predict the weather with same certainty. The problem is both a statistical one, but also relates to the many-body problem of physics where our models have a hard time predicting many-bodies when the interaction between the bodies are all affecting the bodies. This is what machine learning (and especially deep learning models) might help us approximate better. So no, one cannot predict the stock market. Its too chaotic, and also any predictions of the stock market becomes a part of the stock market, so the stock market changes based on the number of people utilizing the model that predicts the stock market. So the stock market predictor is always one step behind the actual market.
This is also why in physics we often make so called black box cases, so that we recognize that the deterministic aspect of models require the initial state of the system within the black box, and that external factors might affect the result.
Nah. It is easy for you to state that I know nothing. You can just write it! So your challenge is not arguing against me as a figure on these forums, instead the challenge is the authors I provide. But how do you argue against me providing authors of my arguments? A strategy which is an integrated part of the scientific research methodology?
Well, that’s easy for you, just ignore them, or tell me that I am hiding behind authors! Now the authors is not a problem for you anymore, and you can easily win this argument war! But this is meaningless statement. That I am referencing Newton for his research on mechanics is not me hiding behind him, it is me stating that I don’t need to sit here and prove to you the motion of the planets, because it has already been done by a previous researchers, so by providing the author I am giving you a chance to get up to date with the knowledge and research in the history of mankind. The forums here are not large enough if I have to provide the mathematical proofs, axioms and research papers on empirical data. In fact, if you dont want references, then I need to reference all empirical data too, all the code used to analyse it. And even IF I did that, I am certain that you would find another reason as to why you are not convinced, because in the bottom of all this lies one truth; you have decided a priori that I am wrong, and nothing I provide here will ever change your mind.
No. Discussing the truthfulness of physics also should not require pages of material, but so many people are not convinced of it, and so in the pursuit of truth, one is often forced to outline pages of pages of material, because we live in a high knowledge society were the success of the modern world is a collection of hundreds of thousands of peoples work before any of us were even born. Whether it is in a research forum, a debate club or here on the fora, if doubt requires it, then research and knowledge must provide it.
This whole topic is going way beyond wow arenas because someone here is trying to hide his inexperience ans likely inability behind knowledge of other fields.
If you have the ability to achieve something, then do it, and then tell people “hey I did it”. Don’t be the person who runs around saying he could but never did.
Also when I read in “I know a lot aboht the class and PvP” and then “45s Kidney wouldn’t nerf the spec” … I am torn between tears and laughter.
I think you need to brush up on your reading skills. I am not arguing I could get high CR. I never mentioned that. In fact I am arguing that there are two components to analyse here, one which is experience (CR) and one which is numerical, and I am only interested in the numerical one, because I have recognized that I do not have high CR experience.
First, you picked out part of the sentence instead of picking the entire story. I actually said that 45s would be a nerf, but by removing the CP condition (thus having a max kidney shot on 45s CD) would be an improvement because CP stacking is expensive as an Assa Rogue. This is a suggestion though, so I am not claiming this is THE TRUTH, lets debate it and find out together.
However, a forum is ment to debate. That you quote me and mention that it makes you laugh, thus signifying how stupid you think the statement is, you are not participating in debate, no you are here to ridicule. What value does that bring? Your alternative is to say “I disagree with you because…” but instead we are here now 30 posts later with me still having to defend myself from the two main arguments you guys throw at me:
Imagine if scientific papers worked the same way. All arguments would never be debated, just a constant omg imagine saying that, this guy cant even fly and he thinks he knows how to build a rocket to get to the Moon, LMAO.
I hate rogues but that is not the reason why they should they be nerfed, they should be nerfed (assa) cuz their kit is overloaded with insane cc and dmg. By far most overperforming class over the years.
I agree! Have any ideas how to tune down our kit but still retaining the Assa class fantasy and core gameplay?
But science does not develop further either if you always stop at the level of knowledge that you have already achieved.
At the moment you have the level of knowledge of an elementary school student in terms of WoW PvP, but act as if you have already completed your studies and are therefore able to make suggestions for improving the balance.
Great example, not realizing that it will support my argument, not yours!
Beside that they still can’t tell them how to best mentally prepare for a competition etc. which will have a profound impact on performance you can only know when you experienced it yourself, all the supporters have one thing in common! Can you guess what? They are experts in their field and have proven this with various studies, works, etc. through their degree and years of practice!
They will first have applied their accumulated knowledge in practice, at least by at least assisting other experts at a very high level, or by working their way up from the bottom going through all levels from amateur to professional!
NOBODY relies on the testimony of a supposed student who has no practical experience! And that for a reason…
And in our case, you are from my perspective, with all respect, not more than a freshman. That’s why I kept telling you to become an expert first!
Great, but that was another wall of text not answering my question. Unless you’ve had some success in the stock market yourself, no one will trust your investing tips.
But still a majority of people invest their money into the stock market, as it obviously gives the best return.
Nobody can predict what exact card will show up in blackjack next either, but by counting cards and using an optimal (mathematical) strategy, you can increase your chances to over 50%, which means that you will end up with a profit if you play enough games.
Same for the stock market, you can’t exactly predict what will happen, but with the right strategy, sufficient capital allocation and investments in more secure companies, the chances of earnings are increased by a lot!
But that wasn’t the point. The point was, that you trust the strategy of Warren Buffet a lot more, than you would trust someone, who lost all his money!
I never said you know nothing. I said you know nothing about PvP above low ratings!
I will challenge with the authors, as soon as you link me a book about WoW DF PvP based on the current patch notes, written by proven experts in that field! Until then, you are trying to hide your lack of knowledge by acting smart and well-read. And that is actually something, that deserve disrespect.
And please don’t always reply with a wall of text. That doesn’t make you appear smart, just like an annoying talker who has no idea about the subject. No one wants to come to a scientific consensus on whether or not you are qualified to suggest improvements!
Rather spend the time in arena than creating 10min forum posts i think that would help you more.
had the duud on ignore for some reason that cant remember but now looking this post i think why
propably some similar debate somewhere some time ago
the post had some valid points about rogue and now theyre all drowned on philosophical debate if someone can give game tuning advices without playing the game
Thanks for your subjective opinion. I get it. You think I don’t know anything. I have known this judgement since the very beginning. I am done arguing this topic. Lets decide you win. I am but a student!
Thanks for your subjective opinion. I get it. You value empirical knowledge over all else. I have known this judgement since the very beginning. I am done arguing this topic. Lets say you won. All knowledge is now only empirical and anyone without proof of empirical skill shall hold their tongue, for they know nothing!
I could share my knowledge on stocks here, but I know where this is going. So:
I get it. You value only words from successful people. The lesser ones without achievements should not speak, because what value is found in the 95% below the best! I have read this judgement from you since the beginning. And I am done arguing it. Lets say you won. Only successful people may now speak. And I will hold my tongue, for I am but a worthless student without knowledge and without skills!
Yes. This is the prejudice you have. But I am done arguing. Lets say you won. You proved that I am nothing, that I know nothing, and that I was silly for even thinking of debating on these forums. You proved that I am but a fool hiding behind my fancy literature, when in reality I am just a noob. You won. Congratulations. I will disappear from the forums, and you can forever think back at your glorious win.
Enjoy.
And now you’re acting like an offended liverwurst. This is getting more and more ridiculous!
I value mostly words from people who have proven to know what they are talking about! Doesn’t mean they are always right, but at least they have something to support it.
But that doesn’t mean I wouldn’t value words from people without success. I mean, I read your posts, didn’t I? But after thinking about it. the conclusion I got to was completely different than your hoped effect. That’s when I started to check, where your conclusions were coming from and I found the reason pretty fast.
It’s also you who is defending himself here, trying to give his words and opinions more value, by saying that it is not a requirement to prove to be an expert for being an expert. And while that is true, if you write something no expert would have written and missing the prove of being an expert on top of it, aren’t you asking too much to still “trust” your expertise?
And again, you give yourself a lot more value than I do. I don’t want to offend you with that, but man, seriously. Do you think we battled here? And that it would have been somewhat glorious?!
I just tried in several different ways to make you understand my way of thinking, but somehow you made a battle out of it.
What ever, enjoy yourself. If I hurt your feelings somehow, I am sorry.
You argue having enough “skill” to justify your points, but in the end skill in arena is measured in rating which you lack.
End of story.
Oh and …
No you didn’t. Proof :
You may be wrong on Assassination, but about that you are on point.
Your one and only justification to your words is “I main Assa Rogue and have played the game a long time so I know”. Well, as it happens, I main Assa Rogue as well, I have played the game for a long time too, AND UNLIKE YOU I have ALSO successfully put my knowledge in practise up to high rating. According to your own way of giving people the “right”, my words simply weigh more on the topic at hand. We can therefore conclude this very annoying thread.
Nerf dmg slightly or nerf kidney for assa rogues xd