I can say the same thing. The gap is not as large as you imply which I have now said three times. If it was, they would have already nerfed barbs.
The sader and WD were and they have been nerfed. Those two exceeded both VYR’s and WW.
Look at the midrange, for the second time please. It’s not as large as you think. This is where a larger proportion of people that play live. The middle 501 down
What I showed was wizards and barbs. To my knowledge, all the top barb clears in era 12 (top GR 146) and 13 (GR 147) are ww/rend.
The top EU vyr/chant from era 12 is GR 143.
The top EU vyr/chant from era 13 is GR 143.
The top Asia vyr/chant era 12 is GR 141.
The top Asia vyr/chant era 13 is GR 142.
The top America vyr/chant era 12 is GR 138.
The top America vyr/chant era 13 is GR 140.
I do understand the math funnily enough.
What you do not get is you are placing 3,000 players out of millions that purchased the game above everyone else. Guess what ? Blizzard doesn’t.
It is actually YOU that does not get it and until you do, then you will keep frustrating yourself with your own logic, no matter how accurate it is. Blizzard calculated it on 5K and below. They clearly said the majority of players. Yo are doing the logistics of the game to justify a reasoning that has no place in their intent.
They will work for the majority of players not a lesser amount that have no life or no job, but the ones that play it regularly and comprise of the greater numbers.
I did not make their policy. Yo can take that onboard or keep frustrating yourself and also keep assuming I know nothing, when you know nothing about me, or for that matter, me about you. Either way, you’d be wrong.
EDIT: If it was an E-SPORTS, then everything you have said would be 100% correct because there would be money in it. This is a free game, so they won’t.
Personally, if Blizzard thinks that GR 147 is fine as a top solo non-season clear, then it would make sense to me to revert the nerf to vyr/chant build.
What criteria are you using to define “are exactly where they NEED to be, so is Vyrs”?
Is it your opinion that crusaders and witch doctors well-balanced in comparison to Rend and TR?
I am not sure how you can accurately say that the solo power of vyr/chant is equivalent to ww/rend. They appear to be 4-5 GRs apart.
Which player has a perfect roll on every piece of gear in both WW/rend and VYR’s Chantodo? That is, both sets and has tested both and likes playing both(also important) at the identical paragon level to be 100% sure?
ANSWER: - Nobody as yet.
There are too many variables in every figure and each player. Some people with 2K nearly as high as players with 5 times that. So not cut and dried.
You can look broadly at the leaderboards and consider the variables
https://us.forums.blizzard.com/en/d3/t/solo-game-balance-non-season-era-11-and-12-data-and-analysis/10865
The original post and several later posts are asking for consistency. My understanding on the request is either 1) buff Vyr/chant back to prior levels OR 2) nerf builds of similar power of pre-nerf vyr/chant to a similar extent.
Personally, I would like to see a buff to vyr/chant.
What you are arguing on is fact. What the entire game is made of and the stats they choose to keep or nerf for VYR’s and WW are not. If I could be bothered hunting for the official Blizzard post I would put it here, but I cannot. Again, your logistics may be correct, but to repeat again, it is not the determining factor. the gaps are not as large and the most basic of logic says that if it was, it would already be nerfed like the sader and WD.
As you were.
Blizz won’t unnerf chantodo, they introduced new hydra set and i think they will focus on that for pushing. Balancing is suppose to occur after next season, but i doubt that chanto/vyr will get boost. More likely it will be other sets like firebirds or dmo.
I play both … I had 3.8k in the previous ERA, I did 130 solo in 13m with ease with WW. Now, with Vyr double elements and almost 4.6k, I made 131 in 14:44m with some difficulty and several keys. Note that, I am a much better Vyr player than WW player.
LOL I’m still confused by this whole thread… Based on the Leaderboards rend is the 3rd most powerful build and TR is the 4th most powerful build. How can builds in the middle of the pack be OP? Why call for nerfs on the 3rd and 4th most powerful and not the most powerful and 2nd most powerful? Aren’t Rend and TR exactly where they should be? Nerf Crusader and WD, boost wizard, DH and necro and everything is good.
that’s easy the op probably plays the strongest build and doesn’t want to see it nerfed but wants nerfs to all the people playing other good builds that he doesn’t care for. 
According to blizzard, after every class get their new sets; all existing sets will be looked at. Of course, that would include vyr/chantodo. Despite that, I’m hoping vyr will be directly buffed instead of just chantodo; but we shall see.
I don’t think Blizzard should balance the game around the top clears on the leaderboards, that is not where most of the playerbase is.
If you do that you’d be balancing the game around a guy getting lucky with a good GR. That and the FotM builds are played far more.
Yes the current vrys is weaker. Im talking about prenerf vrys. The top clear was 148 and two full lvls ahead of the era 11 rend at the time. Not to mention the speed farming capabilities of vrys was 10 lvls ahead of rend in mid tier rifts. That is why it got nerfed. And I stand by everything I said. If prenerf vrys didnt get nerfed it would already have multiple 150 solos. It already did 148 and go ahead and add 1000s of paragon to there totals. I want prenerf vrys to come back too but don’t tell me i’m wrong.
Era 11 was before the introduction of the new ww/rend build. You need to look at the graphs that I made that look at GR efficiency that takes into account paragon level.
The first post in the linked thread below has graphs for all era 11 data and a separate graph for era 12 for perspective of this combined graph.
Thanks micro. It looks to me like you are arguing my point. Thanks bud!!
Era 11 vrys is better then era 12 barb by a little. Thing about barbs is we never want or ask for other classes to be nerfed. If someone does send em our direction and we will straighten them out. Hope you get your build back at some point but I am still 100% correct that vrys in full form would produce better results then rend.
Barbs are not homogeneous in their opinion. Players who main barbarians have asked for nerfs to other classes including some who had top 10 worldwide clears.
In terms of greater rift efficiency Era 11 wizards (not neessarily vyr/chant wizards) are similar/slightly better at top GRs in GR efficiency in comparison to era 12 barbarians. I have not dissected the data for wizards based on class sets. For barbarians, it is almost exclusively ww/rend barbs.
I suspect that if you look specifically at era 11 vyr/chantodo the results may be slightly different.
Blizz has already said that she will balance at 130 @ 5k, this shows that she will balance around players who are NOT trying to push. So … I ask you, why would the player base care if the balance was around the top of the leaderboard?
The problem is, this method of balance around 130 @ 5k would NOT work to measure the REAL power of a build. If your goal is for all classes, all builds to have the closest possible power, the correct thing to do is balance on the top of the leaderboard.
I think everyone is forgetting the human factor of the leaderboards in your arguments.
The number of wizard players pushing versus the barbarians could also be lower due to the fact that they have not gotten any love in a few patches.
Why continue to push with Vyrs season after season?
Many top players switch to the most efficient class or just push with the shiniest new toys. So comparing the top of the board era to era without taking into consideration who is pushing and how many are pushing is pointless.
Pushing 140+ means plugging 100’s of keys or more and if it’s the same set season after season the best players don’t even bother.
Bassdude is right you should look at the middle of the 1000 and compare how that group stacks up against each other. It is much wider sample size and more indicative of how the top player base for that era performs.
Otherwise you are basing your hypothesis on the performance of the outliers and that’s bad science.
