> >um wrong, common error. the 4% is out of 2000 people playing at
the time. the 7% was out of 38000 or so people playing at the time.
percentages are hard numbers if you relate them to the same or
comparable things. In this case both are related to the number of
people playing at a specific time.
> Um, duh. The common error here is that you are relating 4% bards
to being the same as 7% pvp. If there were only two classes to
choose from then your analogy would be appropriate. Since there are
13 other choices however, it is not.
Assuming all classes were equally played, you'd expect each class to
be equally represented at 6.67%. If Bards account for 4%, they're
below average, but not significantly below average.
Assuming PVP and PVE were equally played, you'd expect each type of
server to be equally represented at 50%. If PVP accounts for 7%,
they're significantly below average.
> >no, we're talking about the big picture here. just because there
are more choices doesn't make one minority any less significant than
another.
> Totally and completely untrue. The number of choices directly
affects the significance of any minority percentage. This is true
both statistically, analytically, and practically.
The comparison we're making here of 4% Bard to 7% PVP is flawed.
What we should be comparing is the ratio of one choice to another 4%
Bard, 10% Druid, 8% Wizard, etc. to the ratio of one server choice to
another 7% PVP, 93% PVP.
Bard:Wizard 1:2
PVP:PVE 1:13
> Not likely. The reason more people don't play them is because the
return on the work invested is not proportionate. Unless you truly
enjoy the actual work involved, there is no reason to play a bard.
Some people do enjoy the constant challenge despite the fact it is
not rewarded equivalently to the lesser challenges of other classes.
> Bards are not some Nietzschian ideal class that only those who are
willing to sacrifice can play and for which they are rewarded with
awesome powers.
> It is inherently arrogant to assume that bards are actually really
powerful but are not played by more people solely because of
ignorance, laziness, or incapacity.
Let's back up a bit on this one. Do you agree or not agree that
Bards are tougher to play to their fullest potential than a Druid or
a Warrior?
This isn't some self-serving, stroke my own ego question. Plain and
simple, "Are Bards harder to play well?"
I say: Yes.
I think you say: Yes.
Now, we can move on to power, once we assume well played.
Do you think a well played Bard is more powerful than a well played
other class?
I say: Yes.
I assume you disagree: No.
The only answer I have for why more people don't play Bards is cause
they're the hardest class to play well. I've seen, first hand, how
powerful we can be in comparison to other group members. I've also
seen, in perfectly balanced groups, how worthless what I have
contributes. The only thing I don't see, first hand, is how the
group operates substituting me for a different class. Maybe the
level of difficulty to play is not worth the extra power. I suppose
you could argue that it's not, based soley on how few people play
Bards. Or maybe people don't understand how powerful a well played
Bard can be.
Darkfox