Your getting lost in logic. Just read the chart. It's from Blizzard. Do you work for Blizzard? Probably not. But I'll squabble one last time before I ditch this column.

You nailed yourself in the foot with your own argument. Let's take your scenario of 9900 warriors and 20 priests. If out of 9900 warriors only 1% reached the top 5%, then warriors would be even worst for arena. This is because out of such a vast number only a few managed to reach the top.

It's like having a million ants and only a few survive. While out of 10 cockroaches 5 survive. Cockroaches will obviously be the viable species/class/spec/gnome w/e you want to call it. Stop smoking the reefa bro.

The fake scenario also means that out of 100 people in hi-end arena...

ONLY 1 IS A PRIEST. THE REST ARE WARRIORS. DO YOU UNDERSTAND?

AND YET BY BLIZZARD'S METHOD OF NORMALIZATION PRIESTS ARE OVERPOWERED IN THIS SCENARIO

I'm not 'shooting myself in the foot'

EDIT: The cockroach analogy is wrong, but I can't figure out why now. Maybe tomorrow when I'm more awake. Anyone help? (or deny, I don't care)

I read it wrong and didn't take into account normalization. However, even if there are a lot of hunters/warriors. Why would their %'s be so low? And don't say because most people who play those classes are kids.

Edit: I read the link thoroughly and the example given is a small sample size. The sample size from Blizzard is large. And that even if there are a large number of people who play certain classes the percentages still reflect accurately. For all we know, there could a comparable amount of Warlocks to hunters but Warlocks percentages are still high in the chart. Correct me if I'm wrong.