Posts Tagged ‘Armory’

Master Blogging and Altitis Birthsday

So after a significant slowdown to my posting activities, this is my 300th post on Altitis. Incidentally, the blog is also 1 year (and 10 days) old now.

Before moving on towards 400, let’s take the opportunity to review some facts both interesting and trivial about this place:

  • Collectively, my Damage Meter benchmarking series are what interested most readers, attracting slightly over 10’000 pageviews over time. While I can’t make any promises, I intend to get back to these “soon” to check where we stand now that the landscape has stabilized and the new combat log feature is almost ironed out.
  • My Parrot review remains the most popular post not part of a series, followed quite closely by my CowTip review.

Interestingly enough, as the wow blogosphere always makes a point of mentioning this kind of things, none of the above have ever been mentioned by wowinsider, and for that matter, haven’t been linked to from other blogs. The readers all come in through search engines, 98% from Google.

A quick review of phpbb3 combined with a mention of wowdb comes next in popularity, although I suspect most visitors to that page leave disappointed. From the search terms used, visitors were mainly interested in phpbb3 wow themes, not my short review & ramblings. Well, for wow-themed phpbb3 styles, here’s a short list:

There’s likely to be more out there if you want to google around but the above sampling should give you a good starting point.

My two most popular rants are tied to the Ghostwolf nerf, and I have mainly Mania to thank for that, as most viewers to these pages come from her blog.

One of my oldest theory posts still attracts a decent amount of viewers every day, the second one in the Defense Theory series which explains how PvE defense works, in particular for tanks.

Now for some other interesting or odd stats:

  • Last week, Altitis ranked second in Google for clicked queries on wrath talent trees (in fact I’m still second as I write this). There’s definitely a hunger for information on the matter out there. Unfortunately for visitors looking for this kind of information, what they get here is my post on how I believe it is too early to engage in in-depth discussions about wrath talents.
  • Some people are apparently still interested in my clumsy attempts to write my own armory crawler in php.
  • To the three people looking for Stop the Warrior: although we both are frequently commenting on each other’s posts and sometimes shouting out (or at) each other, his blog is over there. And while we’re at it, his GM, who holds a (probably deserved) bad opinion of me, has her own blog as well, and if you’re interested in insights into how guild management works in a serious raiding environment, you should have her on your blogroll. No excuses, go subscribe now.
  • What gives honor in AV? Killing other people of course, but also burning towers, holding onto towers until the end of the match, killing the opposing Captain (that’s either Galvander or Balinda depending on your faction), protecting your own captain until the end of the game, killing the enemy general.
  • Armchair from treehugger: dunno what you were looking for, but it sounds hurtful.
  • Casserole FFXI: sounds tasty
  • Cheese Conspiracy Theory: Yes, the good old mystery about the Darnassian Bleu still hasn’t been solved.

While there’s a lot of additional sassy keywords in here, this is probably enough of self-congratulation for a single post. As always, allow me to thank everyone of you for reading and commenting on Altitis, it’s your silent or outspoken presence which gives this blog a reason to be.

On Similar Matters

Closing the 2007 Welfare Epics Debate with a Look at PvE

As you will have noticed, I’ve had a couple of things to say on the whole PvP loot distribution system and its perception by the playerbase.

From the other side of the issue, Rohan has been using about as much virtual ink over the matter pointing out the flaws of the arena rewards system and why he believes it should be “fixed” or removed altogether.

The most interesting thing is that judging by all the comments, the issue is pretty much one-sided, in the sense that the only people seeing one are the ones focusing almost exclusively on raiding (and who are probably pretty good at it). As we have seen, the core of their problem is centered around cosmetics and recognition – they feel others getting epics too, through other means, cheapen their game experience. Some of them believe the fact that they downed raid boss X should automatically make them the center of a server-wide admiration for their accomplishments, and that the likeness of arena gear to raid tiered sets deprives them of that admiration (I think there’s a term for that, attention whores). Others, probably the more mature among them, regret that all in all, status symbols (like titles or rankings) are now very heavily favouring PvP.

Another common complaint is that PvP gear allows people to skip part of the raid progression, as if going straight from normal instances to SSC or ZA was some kind of criminal offence (never mind that PvP gear is, for most classes, badly suited for raiding, and that there’s only a limited amount of arena-geared people a raid can support before becoming too inefficient for its purpose).

Finally, an ever-increasing worry is the fact that PvP in its current implementation is slowly killing PvE. It becomes harder and harder to find players willing to go through the hoops of gearing themselves up, even in normal instances.

One thing all these complaints have in common is that without any exception, and in the typical nerf calling mentality I hate and despise, even if they admit PvE has issues at the moment, they will try by any means to get PvP rendered less attractive. What is really happening in the game at the moment is that PvP, in its current implementation, serves as a looking glass for end-game PvE, and the image sent back is not pretty at all.

PvP has changed a lot in the three years since WoW got launched. Raiding, on the other hand, has only undergone one minor change, the introduction of token-based loot. The mechanisms are still exactly the same as in 2005, though. And while some believe TBC raiding is a lot better than before, in the sense that the fights have all become more technical and less prone to slacking (like MC who was said to be played while watching TV by some players), the only other major transformation was the size of raids. Whether 10/25 is actually better than (10)/20/40 is open to to interpretation. I would rather rejoin Foton’s opinion on the matter though. Had they made TBC 10 /20, the first 6-8 months would have sported a lot less guild drama and guild shattering than what it is now, those extra 5 men are the particularly costly element here, but that’s only my tuppence on this.

Currently, PvP is the more attractive proposition for many players, and moreso for the casual gamer, for obvious reasons. It requires less advance planning, less logistics, less organization and costs a lot less than raiding. It’s current most important flaw is the AFK leechers, something Blizzard will have to address in a much more drastical manner. But it is not by tweaking PvP that you will revive the currently lackluster raiding experience.

Tobold has recently reposted one of his raiding reader’s proposition to fix PvP (essentially by segregating it from PvE a lot more), but then approached the issue from the other end, looking at where PvE currently falls short of attracting players, and proposing a couple of solutions. I concur that widening the gap between PvE and PvP would be a big mistake. The key to WoW’s success is mass appeal, not catering to the hardcore, and this is a design philosophy which is even manifest by the extremely low hardware requirements to run the client, even by 2004′s standards. Brian Green ponders whether catering to the widest audience is a good thing, I’d argue that Vanguard is a good example of how catering only to the most hardcore players can result in a commercial train wreck of a game.

But how to fix raiding to render it more attractive? As stated, Tobold has a few ideas on the matter, making raids PUG-friendly by toning it’s “normal” settings down while turning today’s setting into a heroic mode. I don’t fully agree with this, but it certainly resonates with an old request from the o-boards, to create a story mode for raid instances for the casual player to access, if not the battles, at least the lore elements involved by downing Kael or Illidan. At the core of that request is the fac that there’s a lot of content in the game that the average casual or semi-casual player out there has never seen nor will ever see (and Blizzard recognizes it insofar they want to relocate Naxxramas to WotLK).

What I believe to be the most important issues limiting PvE today are:

  • Barriers to entry (attuning, rep grinding)
  • Trash respawns (which basically hinder casual guilds most, preventing segmenting a raid accross several evenings)
  • Cost to Play, mainly consumables and repairs
  • Healer and tank burnout
  • Unreliable loot distribution system

Barriers to entry are an issue because reputation grinds in particular, but long and convoluted, 5-men based key quests as well, obviously serve more as a slowing down mechanism than anything else. Rep grinds are incredibly boring, and unfortunately it looks like the Tigole-mentality is still prevailing for accessing both the 5-men and 25-men Sunwell Plateau instances – Early patch 2.4 reports talk about an opening effort reminiscent of the War of the Shifting Sands, the server-wide grind and farmfest which is probably the best example of just how fatally flawed and unfun you can make a world event. For the record, several realms launched on TBC didn’t ever bother opening AQ, but more importantly, some realms launched in Summer 2006 didn’t bother either and have had their gates closed for 18 months.

Removing key quests altogether isn’t something I would like, but the grouping part has to be rethought. When nobody wants to run Shadowlabs ever again, it’s hard to get a group together which will bear making it to Murmur to get your Kara fragment. More soloable or duoable paths to the keys need to be used, and soloable should be a quest chain, not another rep grind, thank you so much.

Trash Respawns doesn’t need much explanation, but basically forcing a raid to re-clear every night before being able to resume their previous progression is also adding to the raid weariness of the less hardcore players out there, and needs to be rethought.

Cost to Play is the most important one which concerns all player classes. Repairs are a major issue which only mounts as your raid progresses – the better your gear, the higher your repair costs. There’s also the added penality tied to the type of armor you’re wearing – a warrior or paladin tank will typically spend more on repairs than anyone else (which also participates to burnout when you combine it with the fact that they are the least suited to farming, prot warriors specifically). And there’s the cost of consumables.

Regarding repairs, adding (more) free repair NPCs along the path in a raid instance would immediately alleviate this problem. For consumables, adding more flasks and elixirs to the loot tables could help as well. This way you eliminate a big part of the gap between PvE and PvP, reducing the costs tied to the activity and the farming time necessary before you can participate.

Tank and Healer burnout is probably the most difficult one to address. Healers had at least some work cut out for them by adding free spell damage on their healing kit, which simplifies farming and diminishes the amount of gear they needed to carry around. Tanks are next, but there’s a lot less simple fixes in there: how do you turn mitigation and avoidance into damage?

And beyond that, many tanks and healers burn out because they feel too much of a raid’s success is burdened upon them. To alleviate this is unfortunately something totally out of the reach of armchair designing on a blog. Still, this issue is also at the heart of dying 5-men instancing, and specifically PUGs. Continuing to trust perfect strangers to do their job, at the expense of big repairs and often random abuse and unwarranted advice can quickly turn you away from PUGing ever again.

Fortunately, loot distribution can be changed to the better. I would favour turning all current boss gear drops into tokens, which can be exchanged for the gear at a specific vendor. Further, the tokens from one tier should be redeemable for the higher tier after passing a certain threshold, like killing at least one boss in the next tier or similar. Yes, this would give people more room for the free-riders to get access to some gear from the next tier without actually putting an effort into it, but it would nevertheless revitalize the whole tiered food chain, since you’d still need to get a wealthy amount of tokens from the lower tier to get the next one. We could imagine that T4 tokens would be stackable to 100 only and redeemable at the rate of 3:1 for T5 tokens, for instance, with T5-grade kit costing 15-25 T5 tokens you would still ensure a waster pool of T4 players working on progression and eventually moving on to the next tier.

There’s one last thing we have not addressed, the need for recognition some raiders feel. As long as the Armory doesn’t implement a kind of guild ranking like WoWJutsu currently provides, the only other way I can think of is giving, at least, more titles based on accomplishments – each raiding end-boss enabling a new title (how does “Demonslayer Gwaendar” sound for killing Magtheridon?).

These are of course only a few ideas, but none of them require any nerfing of PvP at all. Will some people find it cheapens raiding? Most definitely. But at some point in time, you will have to make up your mind. You’ll have to choose between a hardcore raiding experience which attracts less and less players and eventually only happens on a handful of servers where the Nihilums reside, or a healthy raiding progression with a broader player pool. You can’t have it both ways.

And with this, I close my own contribution to the 2007 edition of the Welfare Epics debate, which is only another avatar of the good old casual vs. hardcore religious war. Will the new year quiet it all down? No chance. Still, as time passes it will become harder and harder to add new meaningful things to the issue. My hope however would be that in the future, more brainpower is spent on the constructive, game-improving solutions rather the destructive nerf calling knee-jerk reaction. One can only hope…

On Similar Matters

Top 5 Arena Teams – Correcting the Warrior / Pallie Myth

Back to Relmstein’s opinion about the strength of Warrior + Pallie duos in 5v5. I have cautionned, in both of his posts, that we weren’t looking at the whole picture, the first time because my couple of snapshots of top 100 teams didn’t show a particuliarly strong dominance of either class in any bracket, the second time because looking at just one US top 5 (out of the four Relmstein had surveyed) showed that there was actually a Third Man in every pallie / warrior duo – a shaman.

So I pushed the exercise further this morning, manually (I’m a slacker, didn’t code last night).

Here’s the complete class count for those teams.
Snapshot taken on October 17th 2007, 9:30AM GMT. In order to be taken into account, a player has to have participated in at least 10% of the team’s total game in season. In order to be listed, a team has to have at least 5 qualifying members on their roster.

Here’s the raw data:

And here’s the summary:

What these numbers show: behind every single pallie / warrior duo there is at least a priest or a shaman as third man, usually both. Mage is almost always present as the CC element.

Beyond that, Rogue, Hunter and Druid have serious issues competing for top spots in 5v5 (at least one piece of conventional wisdom which holds true). Warlocks aren’t massively over-represented. The most popular class is warrior.

On Similar Matters

The need for better Arena Statistics – Armory Crawler v2 in design

Relmstein stirred an interesting debate in his last two posts and gave me the kick I needed to get back to work in earnest in improving my Arena Ladder crawler.

In his first post, Relmstein made some pointed remarks about the reasons for the popularity of the warrior / pallie combo in arena. I did however dispute part of the premise based on the numbers I had gathered with the first version of the Crawler – that is, that warrior / pallie combos are over-represented to a significant degree in the top arena teams.

In his second post, he grabbed some numbers based on the top 5 in a couple of US battlegroups which added credence to that same premise. A quick verification on one of these however showed that a shaman was present as the third man in every instance where a pallie and warrior duo were on the roster for more than 10% of the season’s games.

Beyond nitpicking on the interpretation of these small samples, though, I’m feeling the same dissatisfaction with the generally accepted conventional wisdom than what lead me to begin a crawler in the first place (back then it was a claim that locks were massively over-represented in the top teams), that is, not enough hard numbers.

In my next recode, I’ll be grabbing more data for a bit more detailed analysis. This is what I plan to gather, still for top 100 teams per snapshot:
- Team composition, Rating, total games in season
- Member class, total points per talent tree, games played in season, and team rank in all three brackets

This should allow me to produce the following figures:

  • The old class and build statistics, this time discarding new (or bought-in players), I’m thinking of setting the threshold so that a player has to have attended 10% of the team’s games in order to be considered
  • Team composition figures (I could actually extract part of those from my old data, but I’m not satisfied with the way I stored them)
  • Player Competitivity in the other brackets

If you see anything else worth recording, this is the moment to chime in. Anything related to gear is, however, something I won’t consider, I believe that’s slightly beyond the scope of what I’m trying to achieve.

On Similar Matters

Coding an Armory Crawler in PHP – basic HOWTO

Upon special request, a few notes on how I build my crawler.What I’m using:
A stock XAMPP (for windows in my case) package, containing

  • PHP 5: I wanted 5 simply because it contains SimpleXML, which makes parsing easy and straightforward
  • MySQL 5: that one was in the package, I don’t think v4 would have made any difference
  • Initially nothing else.

In my latest recode I finally managed to find how to activate cURL in PHP.
The biggest difficulty I had was getting the Armory to send me back XML data instead of a formatted web page. From what little understanding I have, modern browsers are considered to have all necessary extensions to run the AJAX code locally in order to display the armoury – in that case Blizzard only sends you the page data, the rendering is done on your own computing power (I hope I did get that right). On older or unkown browsers, however, the page rendering is done on the armoury server and you are sent a formatted HTML page – which isn’t what you want.To determine the browser, the Armory will look its your User Agent. This can either be set in code or in the php.ini file.
An important note if you’re just starting out, xampp (and I expect the rest of php installations equally) has a php.ini in the \php subdirectory of your web server tools, which you can edit to your hearth’s content once you’ve started your server for the first time… without any results. I expect this one is the template used to build the real php.ini, which resides under your \apache directory. This is why I couldn’t get cURL to work for several days.

Told you I’m a noob.

Anyway, there are three ways you can “fake” your user agent so that the Armory believes you’re a modern browser:
- In php.ini (the default is set to PHP and the version number)
- In your code, you can use the below:

ini_set(‘user_agent’, ‘[a modern user agent's string]‘)

- If you’re using cURL, you can pass it in a cURL session with cURL_setopt:

$myvar = curl_init();
curl_setopt($myvar, CURLOPT_USERAGENT, ‘[a modern user
agent's
string]‘);

As for the user agent string, you could use a recent Firefox one, like
this one:
“Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-GB; rv:1.8.1.6)
Gecko/20070725 Firefox/2.0.0.6″ . If you want others, there’s a good list here.

Once you have that, the rest is a matter of browsing through the various Armory pages, which is simply done by pointing to a valid URL.

In my case, the way I’m doing this is as follows:

  • I grab 5 arena ladder pages (which gives me the top 100)
  • Using simpleXML, I parse the URLs for each individual teams
  • I store these in a temporary table
  • In a second step (in order to limit timeout), I go “browse” these Team URLs one by one
  • I fetch the class composition and the URL to each player’s individual character sheet
  • I browse through the char sheet and get the Talent Trees
  • I store team rank, class and build type (not all Trees, just a type classification)

The rest is done by my still to be improved statistics code.

To “browse” to the various Armory URLs, there’s two systems:
Without cURL:

$myvar = fopen(URL);
$xml = file_get_contents ($myvar);
fclose ($myvar);

That one takes just three lines but apparently a lot of processing time.
Using cURL:

$myvar = curl_init();
curl_setopt($myvar, CURLOPT_USERAGENT, ‘[a modern user
agent's
string]‘);
curl_setopt($myvar, CURLOPT_URL, $myURL);
$xmlstr
= curl_exec ($myvar);
curl_close ($myvar);

Which is more code but quite a bit faster. In both cases, you can then parse $xml with whatever method your PHP release allows for – if you have PHP 5, simpleXML is the simplest way to do it, since all relevant data is actually contained in the XML attributes:

$xml = new SimpleXMLElement($xmlstr);

This will give you $xml as an object (at least I think so, as I said before, I’m a noob coder), where the various attributes can be accessed simply by the means of defining, for instance,

$myattribute = $xml->arenaTeams->arenaTeam['name']

Of course, you’ll want to study the xml of the particuliar Armory data you’re looking for in order to extract whatever you need, but you get the ghist of it.

EDIT: Changed link to the user agent strings listing, as the site appears dead

On Similar Matters

More Arena Compostion Statistics

Context: Data sampled tonight, 20h after arena reset. Limitations of the previous sample still apply.
Without changing the Crawler code, I collected more ladders. The data collected is reproduced below by class and build, expressed in percentage of the total amount of team members surveyed.

Since there’s still quite a bit of automation I need to code , the result isn’t yet as reader-friendly as I want it to be. The Build Type numbers correspond to the order of the talent trees for their respective classes, eg for warrior, Build 1 is Arms, Build 2 is Fury, Build 3 is Prot.

EU Blackout, 5v5, 661 members, 92 teams

Class Hybrids Build 1 Build 2 Build 3 Class Total
Warrior 0.9% 12.1% 2.1% 0.8% 15.9%
Paladin 1.2% 15% 0.5% 0.5% 17.1%
Priest 0.8% 0.8% 7.1% 4.8% 13.5%
Rogue 0.2% 3.2% 3.9% 0.5% 7.7%
Hunter 0% 1.8% 1.5% 0% 3.3%
Druid 0.3% 1.1% 0.9% 2.7% 5%
Mage 0.8% 0.8% 1.7% 9.7% 12.9%
Shaman 0.5% 4.5% 0.8% 6.2% 12%
Warlock 0.2% 6.8% 5.1% 0.6% 12.7%

EU Cataclysme (FR), 5v5, 596 members, 100 teams

Class Hybrids Build 1 Build 2 Build 3 Class Total
Warrior 0.5% 13.3% 0.7% 0.8% 15.3%
Paladin 0.5% 15.9% 0% 0.3% 16.8%
Priest 0.7% 0.8% 10.2% 4.5% 16.3%
Rogue 0.2% 2.7% 3.7% 0.3% 6.9%
Hunter 0.5% 0.7% 2.2% 0.3% 3.7%
Druid 0% 1.2% 1.7% 3.2% 6%
Mage 0.2% 1.2% 1.3% 10.2% 12.9%
Shaman 0.2% 6.9% 0% 5.7% 12.8%
Warlock 0.2% 5.7% 3% 0.5% 9.4%

EU Blackout, 2v2, 223 members, 87 teams

Class Hybrids Build 1 Build 2 Build 3 Class Total
Warrior 0.4% 11.2% 0.9% 0.4% 13%
Paladin 0% 9% 0% 0.9% 9.9%
Priest 0.9% 1.8% 7.2% 5.4% 15.2%
Rogue 0.4% 8.5% 8.1% 0.4% 17.5%
Hunter 0.4% 0.9% 1.3% 0% 2.7%
Druid 0% 0.9% 1.8% 9% 11.7%
Mage 0% 0.4% 0% 5.4% 5.8%
Shaman 0.4% 0.9% 0% 4.9% 6.3%
Warlock 0% 8.1% 9.9% 0% 17.9%

Note: This is last night’s sample reformatted to match the other tables.

EU Cataclysme (FR), 2v2, 253 members, 100 teams

Class Hybrids Build 1 Build 2 Build 3 Class Total
Warrior 0.4% 11.5% 0.4% 1.2% 13.4%
Paladin 0.4% 7.1% 0% 0% 7.5%
Priest 0.8% 0.8% 10.3% 5.9% 17.8%
Rogue 0.4% 4% 10.7% 2% 17%
Hunter 0% 1.2% 2.4% 0.4% 4%
Druid 0% 0.8% 0.4% 7.5% 8.7%
Mage 0% 0% 0.8% 5.9% 6.7%
Shaman 0% 1.2% 0% 2.8% 4%
Warlock 0.4% 7.5% 13% 0% 20.9%

EU Vindication, 2v2, 266 members , 100 Teams

Class Hybrids Build 1 Build 2 Build 3 Class Total
Warrior 0.8% 10.9% 1.1% 1.9% 14.7%
Paladin 2.3% 13.5% 0.4% 0.4% 16.5%
Priest 2.3% 1.1% 3% 4.9% 11.3%
Rogue 3% 1.5% 7.1% 0.4% 12%
Hunter 0% 1.1% 0.4% 0% 1.5%
Druid 1.1% 0% 1.5% 1.5% 4.1%
Mage 2.6% 0.8% 1.1% 9.4% 13.9%
Shaman 0.8% 1.1% 1.9% 4.5% 8.3%
Warlock 1.5% 7.1% 8.3% 0.8% 17.7%

EU Vindication, 3v3, 486 members, 100 teams

Class Hybrids Build 1 Build 2 Build 3 Class Total
Warrior 2.5% 11.7% 1% 0.6% 15.8%
Paladin 2.5% 12.8% 0.2% 0.6% 16%
Priest 3.1% 0.6% 4.1% 4.7% 12.6%
Rogue 1.9% 2.5% 6.4% 0.2% 10.9%
Hunter 1% 0.8% 1.4% 0.2% 3.5%
Druid 0.8% 0.4% 2.9% 2.3% 6.4%
Mage 2.5% 1% 1.4% 7% 11.9%
Shaman 1.6% 1.2% 1% 3.9% 7.8%
Warlock 3.5% 4.3% 6.2% 1% 15%

There you go for tonight. Watch this space for more samples in the future. As last night, the mandatory caveat: percentages may not add up exactly to 100% due to rounding errors.

On Similar Matters

Top Arena 2v2 Team Composition – Blackout EU

As promised, here’s the data gathered so far.

Notes:
Battlegroup: Blackout EU
Ladder: 2v2
Teams surveyed: Top 87
Players surveyed: 223
Methodology: A player who invests more than 30 points in a tree gets classified as that Build type, if no tree has 31 points he gets counted as a hybrid.
Sample time: Data was collected 2 hours before weekly Arena Score accounting by Blizzard.

Class Breakdown:

Warrior:
Count: 29
Highest Rank: 7
Arms: 25
Fury: 2
Prot: 1
Hybrids: 1

Paladin:
Count: 22
Highest Rank: 5
Holy: 20
Prot: 0
Ret: 2
Hybrids: 0

Priest:
Count: 34
Highest Rank: 1
Disc: 4
Holy: 12
Shadow: 16
Hybrids: 2

Rogue:
Count: 39
Highest Rank: 1
Assassination: 19
Combat: 18
Subtelty: 1
Hybrids: 1

Hunter:
Count: 6
Highest Rank: 8 (next one is 71)
BM: 2
MM: 3
Surv: 0
Hybrids: 1

Druid:
Count: 26
Highest Rank: 7
Balance: 2
Feral: 4
Resto: 20
Hybrids: 0

Mage:
Count: 13
Highest Rank: 1
Arcane: 1
Fire: 0
Frost: 12
Hybrids: 0

Shaman:
Count: 14
Highest Rank: 5
Elemental:2
Enhancement: 0
Resto: 11
Hybrids: 1

Warlock:
Count: 40
Highest Rank: 2
Affliction: 18
Demo: 22
Destro: 0
Hybrids: 0

Team Composition Summary
The numbers below measure how many teams had at least one of each class on their roster:
Warrior: 31%
Paladin: 21.8%
Priest: 37.9%
Rogue: 41.4%
Hunter: 5.8%
Druid: 29.9%
Mage: 11.5%
Shaman: 16.9%
Warlock: 43.7%
Numbers may not add up to exactly 100% due to rounding errors

Please note that due to calculation time, the Crawler does not currently make any distinctions based on effective amount of games played.

On Similar Matters

Crawler Progress Update

The crawler itself is now totally debugged (had one until the last minute which I kept missing which wouldn’t actually get the individual talent trees for each arena member).

I gather all the data I want to for this project, but have yet to code the statistics part.

My next issue is the execution time of the whole thing – hitting the armory with 410 requests in short progression, with a fopen() and fclose for every single one is horribly inefficient. I raised my script execution time to 5 minutes and I cannot even get all 400 members of a 2v2 ladder that way.

Looks like I have to investigate more into getting cURL to work instead of fopen() to get the armory data, as it is supposed to be a lot more efficient, so a recode is due shortly.

In the next post I’ll dump the data I have now, a lot less than expected but a lot more than what I did manually.

On Similar Matters

New Crawler Delay

Crawler coding proper is done, I was able to collect a data sample from the top 2v2 teams in one battleground. Now it’s the statistical part which I have to work on.
Not entirely sure how I want to compile and display the data yet, so I’ll take another night or two to think things through.

On Similar Matters

Crawler coding progress

Got parsing to work, coded through retrieving individual team members and storing them.

Tomorrow, I only need to retrieve their builds and I’m done with the Crawling. After that, it’s all a matter of interpreting the collected data. Looking good.

On Similar Matters

World of Warcraft™ and Blizzard Entertainment® are all trademarks or registered trademarks of Blizzard Entertainment in the United States and/or other countries. These terms and all related materials, logos, and images are copyright © Blizzard Entertainment. This site is in no way associated with Blizzard Entertainment®