This is so true about wizards. I know that some view the word “nerf” as a 4 letter word 
, but it is easier to bring an extreme outlier back then buff 6 classes.
3 Likes
We’re no strangers to love
You know the rules and so do I
A full commitment’s what I’m thinking of
You wouldn’t get this from any other guy
I just wanna tell you how I’m feeling
Gotta make you understand
Never gonna give you up
Never gonna let you down
Never gonna run around and desert you
Never gonna make you cry
Never gonna say goodbye
Never gonna tell a lie and hurt you
We’ve known each other for so long
Your heart’s been aching but you’re too shy to say it
Inside we both know what’s been going on
We know the game and we’re gonna play it
And if you ask me how I’m feeling
Don’t tell me you’re too blind to see
Never gonna give you up
Never gonna let you down
Never gonna run around and desert you
Never gonna make you cry
Never gonna say goodbye
Like I said, it all comes back to Fazula/Swarmi. LoN SP, Vyr, all built on the back on Fazula. I think the Devs should aim for every class at a reasonable benchmark, give or take 5 GRs, and slowly change the meta till you can have a LoN Wiz OR LoN WD doing trash, a DH or Necro doing RGK, a Barb (or Crusader) pulling trash, etc.
It would take a lot of tweaks though, which is why they should have started..well, 2 years ago.
2 Likes
How about… Ummm
Go to blizz api,
Copy the generated json data
Go to convert json to excel website
Grab the excel sheet
Profit
Not as complicated as you are saying.
Hmmm? That can’t be right can it?
1 Like
Dear Pro,
I wanted to jump in and give my two cents. There are a bunch of interlocking problems here, and “solving” some of them just creates new issues.
#1: Consistency of particular builds.
We all know that some builds are more consistent than others. A player of one build (S6 Impale, for instance), given a constant paragon and set of gear, might be able to clear GR X at their peak, and consistently clear GR X-5, seldom or never failing. Meanwhile, a player of another build (MOTE(6) Leapquake, or Wastes(6) WW, for instance) may also be able to clear GR X at their peak, but regularly fail GR X-8, X-10, or even X-12.
This is due to the ability of some builds (i.e. Impale) to deal significant damage to single targets, as opposed to requiring density (i.e. WW).
A build that relies on density runs into, and usually fails, quite a few “checks” in every GR they open. Say you’re playing WW. You open the rift, and see caves. You just failed. You can play the rift if you want, but your chance of success is 0%. So you remake the game, and try again… barracks. Failed again. The next one you open is a Festering Woods, but it’s full of Fallen Firemages. Another failure. Or, you could find a Festering with Transformers- a great level!- only to lack a conduit and thus be unable to kill many (or any) elites. Or, you could find the conduit, clear the level, get a great level two, only to spawn the RG and find that it’s one of the many you cannot kill in a reasonable amount of time without a power pylon.
Given the same rifts, the Impale DH vaults his way through, murders every elite he finds, kills a big pile of trash with a conduit, and then executes the RG in record time, with or without a power pylon. For this build, the “checks” are few. Density doesn’t matter too much. Pylons are nice, but not absolutely essential. And basically every RG is killable in good time.
This is why the DH GR clear average is so high: because of this one build. On the NA leaderboard, 91 of the top 100 clears, and 96 of the bottom 100 clears, are with Impale. The top 4 clears, however, are NOT with Impale (Top clear is 134, using N6 Rapid Fire, top for S6 Impale is 129). If you were to remove S6 from the game, the DH average would drop downward sharply, even though these top clears would remain the same. This is because N6 Rapid Fire, given optimal rift conditions, can take advantage of those conditions in a way that S6 Impale cannot.
Put another way, for these “density-seeking” builds, a bad rift produces an awful result, a good rift produces a mediocre result, and a great rift produces an amazing result.
For “single-target” builds like Impale, on the other hand, a bad rift produces a decent result, a good rift produces a good result, and a great rift also produces a good result.
When you combine these characteristics into one build, you get VyrTodo Wiz, basically the apex predator of the GR ecosystem. It’s tough as hell, annihilates density, kills single targets fast (especially when you start counting up Stricken stacks), and teleports quickly around the map.
In short, builds have a “spread”, between the highest GR you can consistently do (clear perhaps 75-100% of the time), and the highest you can do, period (clear 1 time). For “single-target” builds, this spread is low. For “density-seeking” builds, this spread is high. For builds that can do both, the spread is moderate, and the overall clear potential is very, very high.
This brings us to…
#2: Intra-class balancing, OR: "How good should that build be, and why?"
There are a few different conceptual schemes you could use for choosing which builds, for a given class, are better / more powerful.
-
You could just do it randomly- this largely seems to be the case now.
-
Or, you could stipulate that builds that are generally harder to play should be more powerful / clear higher. This is the approach Free and I adopted in our proposal. Simply put, it attempts to reward skill.
-
Or, you could stipulate that builds that take more time (i.e. fishing) to reach their highest clear should be more powerful / clear higher. This approach attempts to reward determination.
-
Finally, you could attempt to equalize all builds, so that none is better than any other. You could do this equalization along the lines of either average clear or top clear, but not both. Equalizing by average clear would result in builds with a high “spread” having the highest top clear (this is essentially the same as 3, above) , while equalizing by top clear would result in builds with high “spread” having a lower average clear.
These are your four options, there really aren’t any others.
Some people might seek to correct the issue of “spread” by either increasing the ability of “single-target” builds to deal aoe damage, or of “density-seeking” builds to deal more damage to single targets. And this approach is legitimate, up to a point.
Carried to its extreme, though, it leads to VyrTodo Wiz: a build that does everything well. When this sort of build exists within a class, it eclipses everything else. I have seen a lot of complaints from Wizards on this subject: that playing any other Wiz build seems pointless when you could clear higher, more easily, playing VyrTodo. And I do not relish the thought of other classes adopting this approach, because that would destroy the aesthetics and the feeling of differences in gameplay between one set, and one class, and another. So, I think (I hope) that to some degree, “spread” is here to stay.
For intra-class balance, I strongly prefer approaches #'s 2 + 3. Let the best builds (by a couple GRs, not a ton) be either the ones that are hardest to play, or the ones that take the most time. And try not to have any builds (like VyrTodo) that are the best at everything!
I would also say that “solo balancing, between classes” should not directly concern us (or it should be a very low priority). When you’re playing solo Barb, you’re competing with other Barbs, not with Wizards. The same is true for every other class.
In groups, however…
#3: Inter-class balance, OR: "Whose job is it, anyway?"
We need to talk about group play, and in group play, you can’t really divorce the idea of how good a build is from its particular job within the team.
When playing solo, you’ve got to do everything yourself: your toughness, damage to groups, damage to single targets, ability to group enemies, movement speed, everything-- is all dependent on you, your gear, and the skills you choose.
In a group, though, you’ve just got one main job, whether that’s providing survivability, grouping enemies, killing trash, or killing the RG. And while the ability of builds to thrive in solo play is somewhat reflected in groups, this is not a 1:1 comparison. Consider, for instance, the overwhelming dominance of VyrTodo in solo play, vs the equal dominance of Bazooka Wiz in groups.
Another example: in our proposal, Free and I imagined an upgraded Frenzy Barb (thorns or no) as a RGK. While this build might be inferior as a solo build to S6 Impale, at a certain point of damage and attack speed, it could stack Stricken fast enough to exceed Impale as a RGK. If you could somehow get to a 1 frame attack (60 attacks per second), you might surpass even Thorns Necro as a RGK, while still being considerably worse as a solo build.
Or, imagine if the Necromancer item Bloodtide Blade increased Death Nova damage by 4000%, rather than 400%, per enemy within 25 yards. A necro wielding such an item might well be a better trash clearer in groups than even Bazooka Wiz, but would probably have considerable problems clearing a solo GR as high as Bazooka Wiz can.
This is, of course, theoretical, but I hope the point is taken: in group play, specific builds have specific jobs, and being good at a meta job does not necessarily make a build very good at solo clears. Conversely, a build that is not very good at solo could still be excellent in groups (Free and I got an earful about this from Archael when we were working on the proposal, and I’ve taken his message to heart).
Adding buffs without acknowledging this fact risks massively deforming the overall shape of the game in unintended and unfortunate ways.
Conclusion
I have gone on far longer than I originally intended to, and have perhaps not expressed myself as clearly as I would have liked. For that I apologize. Anyway, here’s the bottom line:
I don’t think it’s a good idea to look solely at the overall averages, and work from there. That’s like looking at the finances of ten people, and thinking “well, on average, they’re all doing pretty well for themselves!”, without noticing that one is a billionaire and the rest are homeless.
Ultimately, I think balance should be based around:
-
Relative intra-class parity, either based on the difficulty of playing the build or the amount of time you have to spend to get a high clear.
-
Relative inter-class parity within group play, based on performance within meta roles (i.e. not based on an extrapolation of solo clear data).
We compete mainly against others in our class, and against other classes for spots in groups, and these two different competitions do not track evenly with one another. This means that there is essentially no average buff that can be applied across entire classes.
You’ve got to look at each build, assess how it plays in solo or in a group, and then make a decision about how that build should perform based on its difficulty of execution, its “spread”, the degree of fishing it requires, and its particular capabilities in group play.
Finally, I would say that a lack of absolute parity is OK. Some other class doesn’t need to displace, or even entirely catch, Wiz as a trash killer, or Necro as a RGK. Getting fairly close would be close enough. The goal is to have options, for most or all classes, that don’t feel massively overmatched.
Your data, Pro, is excellent and interesting, and I’m certainly NOT saying that we shouldn’t consider the averages, just that we shouldn’t consider them to the exclusion of all else.
Your Friend,
Rage
5 Likes
I am aware of your points man. Actually this type of balancing was done by Don Vu from S11 to S12. The relatively good balance of the lowest 5 class is actually apparent, a remnant of that past balance. Buffing sets with constant multipliers are finalized for barbs. I am against such offers. Now is the time for legendary revamp and passive rework for barbs; what you proposed with Free.
However, I have seen some trolling efforts suggesting some multipliers based on something unquantifyable. I felt like it was a good time to put the state of classes in perspective for all to see. Hopefully this will complement barb rework by devs and aid devs a bit to see what to touch and what not to touch.
Of course all builds are different and my work is just a way to approximately describe the facts without twisting/or confining the observations to far fetched assumptions. It is just a way to estimate.
Cheers bro
1 Like
Lol of course not. That is what one gets by averaging 1st 1000 gr clears. I am also stating this. Averaging grifts is not right as depending on gr damage potential will vary. We can only average clears belonging to the same GR.
I just post here so that Micro does not open another thread to cloud judgement. Still though that average kind of matched barb (coincidence). It wont be always that way.
Essentially what I m saying is the graphs I post are the closest estimation of a “mean” grift description for a class where the luckiest rifts are defined by an imaginary line connecting the top points while the unluckiest clears are defined by an imaginary line connecting the lowest points. And every other luck/gr is somewhere in between. Mean basically describes the most consistently cleared grift performance levels.
1 Like
Another thing to consider, Barbs an amazing following and help here on the forums. I played Barb my entire D3 career until S17 when I tried Necro. The Necro forums were a barren wasteland for information whereas the Barb forum has intricately detailed posts explaining everything you need to do to be successful. Guys like Free did this for us.
2 Likes
All Barbarian experts called that item a trash and stated that it solves nothing. Are you sure about that? That’s intriguing to hear.
1 Like
Look at the top 15 or so in game on the non-season barb solo leaderboard. Visually, Morticks looks like strongarm bracers so you will need to look for clears post August 19 and the go to hero details.
When I looked last, it was 6 of the top 15.
2 Likes
I vaguely remember all Barbarian experts pretty much uptight about it. Anything changed?
2 Likes
It is certainly being used by top barbs. I think the power increase is at most <2 gr. I think many were calling it a lateral item.
2 Likes
Post like this one and Micro’s (surprise) worry me, because they obfuscate what our problem has always been: a sidegrade is not okay. Mortick’s can be incorporated into builds, and it will, for a build that has perma-Wrath, replace either Aquila or something similar. But it provides no additional DPS to a build.
Again: sidegrades are not okay.
Lateral item swaps are not okay.
Neither of these are buffs. Mortick’s is not a buff.
For every class, top NS clears will slowly inch upward as folk gain more Paragon, better Augs, and higher gem levels. Buffs, however, constitute immediate and significant increases in power and utility at various levels of play.
I’ll say it again so some of y’all in the back can hear it loud and clear: sidegrades are not okay. Lateral item swaps are not okay.
We will not celebrate doing GR 100 faster. That’s not a significant or meaningful buff.
Mortick’s is–say it with me–not a buff.
Every Barb expert of note is saying this and some of y’all are still tooting a different horn.
Thank you for the kind words, Pickles. Glad we could be of help.
3 Likes
So, you’re saying side-grades are bad, mmkay?
You kid, but some of them are acting like it’s a Scooby-Doo Mystery.
I mean, common sense goes out the window. Could players be experimenting with new items? Does every Barb who pushes GRs read the forums and have a deep understanding of the game? Are people maybe just–gasp!–having fun with items?
They can celebrate Mortick’s when someone gets 4+ GR tiers higher because of the bracer. Then I’ll say it’s a buff worth talking about.
Back in the day, I had to document the IK Truther Slippery Slope because a few shiny apples kept saying that maybe, maybe IK WW was stronger than Zodiac WW. Now, it looks like I’ll have to document the Myth of Mortick’s…
Mortick’s Reintroduced
OH BOY, ARREAT’S WAIL, GR 140 HERE I COME!!!
Here’s the deal: Free and I asked for the return of this item in our proposal.
There, it was part of a package of items intended to fix the problems with the Wrath of the Wastes set.
We got Mortick’s, but none of the other stuff.
From the perspective of “Mortick’s vs Nothing”, Mortick’s is pretty good. It’s better than Aquilla for IK HOTA Barbs (though the top clears with this set use Magefist). And it’s pretty good for lower GR clears with WW (though at higher tiers, it doesn’t provide enough mitigation, and so you need APDs instead). I think a few people have used it in VC GR clears (though, again, the highest clears have been with APDs).
From the perspective of “Mortick’s vs Barbs Suck”, it’s pretty bad. It has probably moved some non-top-tier players up perhaps 2 GRs (it definitely makes IK HOTA easier for less-skilled players). It has moved a few top tier players up .5 GRs.
I mean, you main a Monk, right? You should get it. Imagine if they gave your class a bracer that gave all Epiphany runes, and then people were like “all Monk problems are fixed now, lol”. And when you said, “uh, this item isn’t that great…” people told you that you were crazy!
Now, you guys didn’t even get a mediocre bracer, and I know: that stinks! Before I was a Barb main, I played primarily Monk for several years (mostly hardcore). I switched over when the class became super WOL centric, which wasn’t really to my taste. Anyway, it’s still my 2nd favorite class, and I know you guys are in the same place as Barbs in terms of needing buffs.
I’ve said this a lot of times before, and I guess I’ll say it again: Free and I wrote a Barb Buff Proposal, because we’re well-versed in Barb-specific issues. If we had the know-how do to the same thing for every class, we absolutely would have done it.
We’re both pro-buffs for every class that needs it, especially for underperforming, but fun, builds.
Enough with the Mortick’s nonsense! Mortick’s is “just okay”… and that’s it.
4 Likes
And you will, when they rework Barbarians abit. Take Mortick’s as a good will, not a significant buff. I can not talk about average 2 GR increase as the next best thing after sliced bread.
Well said.
Irrespective of class, many players have acquired more paragon with time/season rollover. They also have access to new items with which to experiment. Hypothesis: There is a statistical difference in the number of barbarians who have incorporated new items than other classes relative to their class specific leaderboards (used top 15).
Comparison of proportions calculator
Sample 1
Proportion (%): 40% (barbarians 6/15)
Sample size: 15
Sample 2
Proportion (%): 8.9% (8/90) (Results from all other classes combined)
Sample size: 90
Results
| Difference | 31.1 % |
|---|---|
| 95% CI | 9.5107% to 55.7348% |
| Chi-squared | 10.653 |
| DF | 1 |
| Significance level | P = 0.0011 |
These results cast significant doubts on your ideas.
2 Likes
[quote=“Free-1746, post:50, topic:2224, full:true”]
Again: sidegrades are not okay.
Lateral item swaps are not okay. [/quote]
On this, we disagree. Item decisions and trade offs are part of Diablo. It does not fix Barbarian issues - indeed some of Barbarian issues go directly to wide disparity between GR mob types and density - but ideally every item in Diablo is compelling and a tough choice in the one you use.
I think Mortick’s would be fine if some of the runes were more compelling, Arreats Wail and maybe Insanity should be 100%.
1 Like