Tarteso, on 19 March 2023 - 03:56 AM, said:
And where is the verifiable data/statistical proof showing that?
When in doubt in the very source that you are trying to refer to.
Just look at the foot notes for the global stats where you'll find this explaination on how Jarl's achieves numbers that allows to compare players against each other:
Ranks are determined by adjusted match score for players who have been active in the last three months.
Players who have stopped playing are still tracked but are placed into "retirement". They will be placed back into ranks if they return but their latest performance will have significant effect on their placement when returning.
How Adjusted Score Formula is calculated: ((Season Average Match Score)*((Season#+1)^1.8))*(-(1.007^(-TotalGamesPlayed)-1))*(ClassMultiplier)
This will give full score around 500 games and each new season is weighed higher than the last. After this, the score is adjusted based on classes played.
The weight class coefficients are derived from each classes' recent global performance. The current class weights are:
Light: 1.111111111, Medium: 0.9803921569, Heavy: 1, Assault: 0.9523809524.
I guess you'll be able to figure out what those "weight class coefficients" mean in terms of how the actual numbers numbers look when comparing weight classes among each other. Hint: Light numbers have to be inflated by 11% vs. heavies about 16% against assaults and about 12% against mediums in order to make those number comparable. The only minor change against older data of the same type is that currently mediums also seem to have a "negative" coefficient against heavies (but still close enough to not matter that much when compared against assault and light coefficients).
Tarteso, on 19 March 2023 - 03:56 AM, said:
A quick analysis using the 100 top ranked players (Jar´l List) show that the Light - Medium - Heavy - Assault average use is: 21.33 - 20.35 - 23.51 - 30.06 %, and no statistical differences (alpha 0.01) between Light - Medium - Heavy use.
A "quick" and still heavily biased "analysis". Do yourself the favour and do that comparison against the entire "active" player base.
Tarteso, on 19 March 2023 - 03:56 AM, said:
No, I'm not surprised to see that someone is citing a particular source which they clearly never even bothered to take a closer look at and then proceed to provide further numbers that are rife of selection bias.
Tarteso, on 19 March 2023 - 03:56 AM, said:
And for damage / match average scores I don´t know but, should it be make sense in other way?
That's quite obviously not the only thing that you "don't know".
Edited by Der Geisterbaer, 19 March 2023 - 06:03 AM.