Achieving Better Solo Balance Across Classes: Outside the box proposal

General Discussion
1

Goal: Have each class in the 138.3 range relative to the average top 40 solo grift clears worldwide using the current era data at diablo3ladder. Using monks as an example (Current 127.6 average), they would need an increase of 10.7 greater rift levels.

In this scenario, no class would be nerfed and all build for a given class would benefit with the same gain in solo greater rifts without having to having to buff a multitude of skills/bonuses/items.

Facts:

  1. There is a 17% difference in monster hp per greater rift level.
  2. The current averages for the top 40 worldwide solo rift clears are as follows for the current era based on the data at diablo3ladder
    a) barbarians=126.7
    b) crusaders=130.7
    c) demon hunters =130.8
    d) monks = 127.6
    e) necromancer=132.8
    f) witch doctors = 131.2
    g) wizards = 138.3

Proposed solution: Blizzard introduces a proportional and class-specific damage buff that occurs at each paragon level up to paragon level 800. As such, the buff to base damage for all classes caps at the paragon level 800 bonus.

The idea is at each paragon level earned up to 800, there is an incredibly small class-specific damage buff that occurs based on the class-specific greater rift differences.

That per paragon level buff is calculated as

=[1.17^(138.3-current class average greater rift level)]^[1/800]

For example, monks are 10.7 greater rift levels behind the target of 138.3. They would need a global DPS buff of 1.002102 (=0.2102%) per paragon level up to 800.

=[1.17^(138.3-127.6)]^[1/800]
=(1.17^10.7)^(1/800)
=1.002102132

In practical terms again using monks as an example at paragon level 200, 400, 600 and 800 (the cap) their base damage would increase by 1.5219, 2.3163, 3.5253, and 5.3652, respectively.

Obvious issues with the solution:

  1. For some classes, a simple 17% DPS increase is insufficient and it does not equal the ability to go up a greater rift due to the lack of damage mitigation; however, monster damage only goes up to 2.3% per greater rift level.
  2. Some of the difference in the current greater rift levels do not reflect the true power of the class, but the number of people playing the class competitively and the proportion that have used unfair means to earn their leaderboard sots.

Suggestions are wanted:
Does anyone have an outside the box solution to normalize greater rift class balance?

Disclaimer:
This thread is not about any single class. For class specific discussions, it would be more appropriate to have those conversation in either pre-existing threads or in the class-specific forums. The goal of this proposal is to bring ALL CLASSES to similar power level than fixing in detail problems for any one class.

13 Likes
3

I’d just say to stop beating around the bush and make the soloing of 150s possible without absurd paragon and niche builds. The sooner the game can generally ceiling itself at a difficulty level, the sooner you can more legitimately start to tweak classes/items while also not being worried about breakaway outliers because all they’d achieve is soloing a few minutes faster, maybe. You also eliminate the multiplayer gap. It’d also help cement a baseline for alternative content should Blizz ever decide that GRs aren’t just THE endgame anymore.

3 Likes
5

Wizards won’t get nerfed. Developers have said repeatedly they don’t want players logging in and being weaker than they were the day before, barring a bug/unintended issue being fixed. And Wizards shouldn’t be nerfed for the record.

Which means classes and their respective builds should be balanced with GR135 in mind imo.

6

If you’re looking at it from the context of “should 131 be the new normal” or whatever personal choice, then yes, jumping up to 150 would seem extreme. However, I’m also attempting to look further ahead when people are then tired of that new normal and then want it to be higher. Do we just invite yet more power creep? I suspect some would hate that.

Basically, the extremism is about circumventing those periodic speedbumps while also addressing things I mentioned in my initial reply. If we’re not touching gear or skills implicitly, you need to look at the enemy scaling. Whether the goal is 131 or 150, you’re gonna have to tweak those stats per-player-present. This would more generally translate to earlier GRs also becoming easier, where something like a 120 now would be more like a 145 post-adjustment.

Make no mistake, I’ve pretty much been against the infinite scaling mentality since it first arrived, and it’s only now where we are somewhat near the 150 point to consider it the milestone marker. Some might argue that the cap should then just be upped to 200 or whatever, but the same problems inevitably remain and you’re going to have sensible builds that succeed and those that don’t largely due to absent gear/synergy. Personally, I’d play the game more if it didn’t feel like I’d be stuck in queue hell as a DPS like in an MMO, but that’s pretty much how the multiplayer scene is here while the gem level gap is also something I’ve consistently found indefensible.

1 Like
7

If they chose not to nerf wizards (Blizzard did say that bazooka was not an exploit but could be nerfed if it killed build diversity), I also had 134 (the current average of solo wizards) as an alternative benchmark. A similar calculation can be done for all classes. To get witch doctors from 130 to 134, this class would need a DPS buff of 1.000785327 (=0.0785%) per paragon level up to 800.

The calculation for monk to move up to 134 was in the OP and below:

3 Likes
8

Ya, but you know they aren’t just going to give 6 of the 7 classes a baseline damage increase like that.

I feel like I’m going insane hearing some of these suggestions since PTR has gone up.

2 Likes
9

I realize that it is not what they have done, but it might make sense as this game goes into maintenance mode to achieve better class parity than the current 12 greater rift gap. In terms of introducing a new affix to an item, it is far less risky and would require less resource from the classic games team to implement.

The near-end times (i.e. upcoming maintenance mode) require desperate measures.

6 Likes
10

Micro, you’re basing your numbers on only the top 10 of NA season 17. Your averages are off. You need to look across multiple regions and non seasonal leaderboard to get correct information. The season theme is always changing and affects builds and gr clears. You can not replicate season 17 to season 16 data. It’s the wrong information to base class balance off.

Secondly, at this point in the game, people have over 9k paragon. A buff to the first 800 paragon levels is nothing.

Every day, almost every half day I come on to this forum and see a new thread from you claiming a solution to class balance with minimal information and skewed numbers.

You’re taking valid information from everyone else and throwing it out of the window. Your posts have no point to them because every other hour you have a new thread proposing a new solution.

This all started with balancing barb and within that discussion you still didn’t listen to factual information developed by expert barb players.

Why not advocate for the information that’s already in front of the developers faces?

Last thread you said that we need simple and easy to change number increases. I quoted from the proposal exactly that and your response is “I don’t think that’s going to happen”. Right afterwards you make a post about changing the coding of how paragon works and making it affect every class!

Frankly, it sounds like you are just blowing smoke.

6 Likes
11

Initially, I based the differential off the seasonal leaderboard. Certainly, if this was implemented they could take a global era average across regions and expand it to a different number of people at the top of the solo leaderboard. I chose the American seasonal leaderboard since that is where the game client I use and I also put together some statistics about this leaderboard.

As you can imagine, it took awhile to get the information together in that post.

I think this comment suggests that you do not understand what I am proposing. Lets say we use 134 solo as the benchmark. This proposal would bring all classes to that power level. You may want to reread the OP.

Do you understand the math and the formula used to get there?

I have a different opinion. I am taking the feedback that I have received and I trying to think of a way to achieve class parity.

“I have not failed. I’ve just found 10,000 ways that won’t work.” - Thomas Edison:grinning:

5 Likes
13

Excellent point. Will try harder to be good poster.

I will edit my post to remove things that could derail this topic.

2 Likes
14

Like I said before. You’re talking in circles. You think factual information is an opinion that you may disagree with. One second you want a simple fix, the next you want a complex fix.

If one blanket fix could’ve been done, it would’ve been done.

I don’t “think” you’ve created more posts. You just said you’ve made 16 threads. That’s far too many threads. You make a thread trying to make your point and when it isn’t validated you make another thread. I’ve already seen your pattern.

I don’t know why you think you have the solution to an ongoing problem, or that a proposal that took months to create is not a possible solution, yet you can fix it all in a day with skewed numbers.

Your words carry no weight to me. I’ll have to find the mute button.

1 Like
15

I wouldn’t care about the level of GR clear capability if they changed how we leveled gems, but until that happens, you can figure a lot of soloists are looking at a 25+ level gap with those on the higher end likely more tolerant of the multiplayer meta.

Attempting to dissuade with accusations of going off-topic aren’t really going to work on me with this as I personally view the issues as distinctly related.

1 Like
16

I looked already. The new forum does not have the “ignore” option. I had a couple of people on ignore in the old forum, but it does little good as people quote them so you still can see what ignored users post.

4 Likes
18

Only way to balance out classes is to test them long period of time on PTR with full primal gear, at same paragon/gem level. This can be done by Blizzards internal test team. They know how to do it but they don’t want to do it.

Proof of this is Necromancer. They knew they need to make over powered class because only few would spend money on class that is not in META. And they did just that and it took only 1 iteration of development.

On the other hand they know that DH is most popular class and they are intentionally not giving DHs buffs they deserve because over buffing this class could harm the game. Everyone would be running DH.

Also it is hard to balance between solo and group play. Main difference is toughness we gain in party.

If game was designed as 4 people running Damage dealing builds in party it would be more interesting and easier to balance out.

Area Damage stat that was the last core game stat introduced to the game was bad game design decision.

21

After looking at the top 40 solo worldwide greater rift clears, it does make sense to utilize the era rather than seasonal leaderboards. I will edit/add numbers to reflect this. You are correct that seasonal leaderboards add a bias based on how well the seaspnal buff differentially affects classes. The LoN buff appears to have the greatest negative impact on barbs (they are 5 grifts lower in season 17 in comparison to the current era). Necromancers have benefited the most and are 2 greater rifts higher in season 17 than the current era.

4 Likes
22

I think you’re correct that the only way we’ll find parity is if there’s an across the board balancing factor added. The great thing about doing this is that Blizzard could simply adjust the coefficient each season/era/whatever as other things change.
The naysayer above does have one good point, which I think you’ve seen now: using a simple limited average of clears doesn’t provide the best estimate. While you’re starting to look at other leaderboards, that doesn’t quite solve the problem. You have 2 other issues to contend with.
First, not every clear, even in the top 10, has similar paragon or augments. Any good solution should adjust the clear based on mainstat.
Second, classes that clear very high are popular and have a lot of competition. Seasonal Barbarian on the other hand might only have 2 or 3 very serious players (no offence to anyone, I haven’t looked at the leaderboard, I’m just giving an example). This will have the effect of making the more powerful class look even more powerful over the average of clears, so you’ll end up with a buff that’s too big.
The second problem is harder to deal with, but it’s not unrelated to the first (more serious players = more paragon and augments). You could look at a few different measures (average top 10, top 100, different boards, #1 on different regions, etc.).

It’s overall a fine suggestion, I just think Blizzard should do the math if they’d actually implement it.

2 Likes
23

The averages in the revised OP are based on the top 40 worldwide solo clears.I figure that these individuals would all have near max gems, high augments, and high paragon levels considering it is the era leaderboard.

I think for the first tuning pass you could buff each class that needs it to 135 or 136 to see if that adds people to less popular classes that in turns raises the class-specific greater rifts numbers too much.

You are absolutely correct if ac lass is OP or underperforming, one could adjust the formula to accomplish a correction.

2 Likes
24

Check my past analyses
Season 11 (pre buff)

https://reddit.app.link/zBLlcEnDUY

Season 12 (after buff)

https://reddit.app.link/XCXcs5zDUY

25

Do you have a link? :wink:

Nevermind. You updated your post.

2 Likes
26

Season 11 and Season 12 analyses are there. On reddit you can find links to all my links.

In order to obtain leaderboard data including paragon, durationvetc, you need developer access to blizzard APIs. At the bottom of tge forums, you will see an API link, you need to register to access APIs. Tgrn, you need to find your way to get all LB data you need. Then search for online json (API data format) converters to excel. Then you can do any calculation and plotting you like.

S12 was the best balanced time. They keep ruining the balance by unnecessarily buffing here and there randomly afterwards. I would not waste my faculties for these developers.