Website & Forums More Explicit Stat Ratings Under Class Help

At https://wynncraft.com/help, under the class section, as of March 28, 2020, the following statistics are shown for the classes:


Archer (Hunter)
⭑⭑⭑ Difficulty
☍ DAMAGE ■■■■■
♥ DEFENCE ■■■■■
➵ RANGE ■■■■■
⊛ SPELLS ■■■■■

Assassin (Ninja)
⭑⭑⭑ Difficulty
☍ DAMAGE ■■■■■
♥ DEFENCE ■■■■■
➵ RANGE ■■■■■
⊛ SPELLS ■■■■■

Mage (Dark Wizard)
⭑⭑⭑ Difficulty
☍ DAMAGE ■■■■■
♥ DEFENCE ■■■■■
➵ RANGE ■■■■■
⊛ SPELLS ■■■■■

Shaman (Skyseer)
⭑⭑⭑ Difficulty
☍ DAMAGE ■■■■■
♥ DEFENCE ■■■■■
➵ RANGE ■■■■■
⊛ SPELLS ■■■■■

Warrior (Knight)
⭑⭑⭑ Difficulty
☍ DAMAGE ■■■■■
♥ DEFENCE ■■■■■
➵ RANGE ■■■■■
⊛ SPELLS ■■■■■


As someone who has played Wynncraft for a long time, what frustrates me about these stats are that they are very vague, and experienced players cannot get usable values from these stats. Something like this would be much better (in this sample, I am not attempting to give accurate stats, this is just for example):

Archer (Hunter)
Difficulty: Medium
Damage Rating: 100%
Defense Rating: 60%
Range Rating: 120%
Spell Rating: 80%

Assassin (Ninja)
Difficulty: Medium
Damage Rating: 120%
Defense Rating: 100%
Range Rating: 40%
Spells Rating: 80%

Mage (Dark Wizard)
Difficulty: Easy
Damage Rating: 60%
Defense Rating: 80%
Range Rating: 60%
Spells Rating 120%

Shaman (Skyseer)
Difficulty: Hard
Damage Rating: 120%
Defense Rating: 40%
Range Rating: 100%
Spells Rating: 100%

Warrior (Knight)
Difficulty: Easy
Damage Rating: 100%
Defense Rating: 120%
Range Rating: 60%
Spells Rating: 60%

This type of arrangement would be more useful because it would allow players who look in the help section to gather exactly what these ratings imply.

 

This would be pretty useful :)

Also, shaman has 50% base defense (it got buffed) (which is also why it's damage should be made 10% lower to compensate imo)

 

I would disagree with using percentages because how can it be a percentage if there's nothing to compare it to? And I'm confused how the range rating would differ between Assassin and Warrior with the only difference being the spell range I thought, although I do like the difficulty ratings you've put and I do agree with all of them actually!

 

Well, with using percentages, one would hope that that defense percentage could be put into a formula to determine damage taken from damage given (excluding variables like defense skill points, elemental defense, etc.) Also, the damage percentage could either be explained as effective in-game or a representation of the differing damages across classes due to weapon differences and spell differences. Clarification on what is meant there would be nice.
The range rating might actually be better as an actual average attack range among main attack and spells.
The spells rating is the most confusing one of all to me, honestly. Does mage score best on this because it has heal? If it is meant to quantify the raw utility of the spells, which would be impossible to put numbers to, then this particular rating might be best left as-is.

 

Archer is easy
Warrior is medium
Why percent instead of 1 to 5

 

Mage should have 3 range I believe


would put 3 damage on warrior actually

 

Hi there,

You make a good usability argument: some players (experienced ones) benefit from reading numbers (such as actual percentages) while others (unexperienced ones) understand a big picture (how do they "compare") better.

I need to confer with Salted to see if we can make the actual statistics public (since it's ultimately his decision in regards to information hiding).

If he gives me the statistics, I can make a "More Information" button below those visual indicators that displays the more complex data in an accordion way. I don't plan on changing the interface but give an experienced user the ability to see some advanced information.

 

Awesome! That sounds like it is going to be very helpful for a lot of people. :)