Thanks Nevalistis. The numbers just seem very odd to me. I can see that barbs would be similar to wizards; however, the similarity to witch doctors in terms of power is surprising.
EDIT: The numbers presented can not be right. Specifically look at the projected performance of 5K paragon players in seasons versus non-seasons. This season the buff was very powerful, yet you have witch doctors losing 10 GRs in their ability to solo clear GRs in seasons (120) in comparison to non-season (130).
In addition to the American region data that included several metrics including GR efficiency, I also looked at the worldwide data for top 200 clears (US/EU/AS/China combined). I posted this awhile ago on the forum.
As I noted, the data analyzed has several limitations and I fully appreciate it.
Irrespective of the metric (region/worldwide, top clears, stratified by paragon), I have never seen that Barbs and WDs are roughly equivalent in terms of solo power in era 12.
My suspicion is that the difference in my analysis and the blog post must relate to the 'list of records generated by region" and/or how the data was scaled. Of course, this assume that some trivial error was not made in the data analysis. I guess this will be one of those things that are behind a curtain of proprietary information.
I do a lot of data analytics/statistics in real-life on large datasets and I can’t reconcile Blizzard’s and my numbers. Usually, distinct analytic methodologies even with marginal changes give similar results with recognition that they won’t be identical.
I’ll give you this…WD being at the same level as barb doesn’t seem right at all. Certainly from game play, my experience with WD, is that it’s not in the barb range. Would have been nice to see the step by step.
Their game, their data, guess they’ll do whatever they do…
Certainly hope WD still gets some buffs, along with DH. Necromancer needs a complete overhaul badly.
At GR 129-131, the GR efficiency calculation for the America region has barbs ahead by 11% over WD. This data does not a have ton of data points and is the America region only (n=75 for barbs and n= 6 for witch doctors at that time). As you noted, the gap becomes more pronounced the further left you go (i.e. to lower GRs).
Oh man, I’m laughing so much here
Thank you, Nev, for shutting that troll down. He’s been always harrashing us with his “table” since the Barb WW revamp and refuse to acknowledge any valid point of argument. And now since you’ve told him some of his mistakes I hope he’ll cease to spread false data analysist from now on.
I agree that data can easily be manipulated. That is why I provide the source of the data, when the data was accessed, and how the data was analyzed. I also give limitations of the dataset. I agree that the more information one has the better the analysis. Blizzard’s analysis reached the conclusion that barbs were roughly equivalent to WD and wizards. I can not check their methodology.
You can check my work since I use accessible information and explained precisely what I did.
The analysis is imperfect as is the dataset. I even say so. It provides a picture on the data available that can be obtained in a feasible amount of time.
Thanks for that Matthew. In a 30 day month, that is 166.666 paragons per day. While it is feasible to get over 1,000 in a single day, the first 1,000 i.e, because the experience required for each paragon exponentially increases, 5000 in one month leans towards either botting or no sleeping for 30 days. The natural response would be that it is not close to average unless you are only gauging it on people that have no life or no job and can play it all day in seasonal - But thankfully, you clarified it.
WIth the current season buff you can play 150s all day on a 10min average, it’s not too difficiult to get to 4-5k paragon even as somebody who has a job. But obviously the majority of people complaining here in the forums have never played 150s so they don’t even know what they are talking about…
Why did you choose to post data from early December almost 2 months later? New builds take some time to be fully figured out. I am sure that right now Barbs are ahead of your 130 GR average.
Why not share newer data?
Only Blizzard have all the data. Community asked for better API support (so we can use data about augment levels for example) many times and was ignored as many times. It would be nice if your community could confirm your results.
Give us set specific leaderboards for all classes and we will give you more data for each set because people tend to use builds they can compete with. I don’t see reason to augment some sets now but I would if I could compete with them.
In 30 days. solo? 10 minutes per day in 30 days by yourself solo you can reach 150 and 5K paragons with a full-time job without piggy-backing on others to progress?
Please tell everyone how you did that solo. I am happy to learn and I know other’s would too.
We could debate what’s the bigger mistake: a) taking into account part of data that has bigger quality or b) taking more data of lower quality and scaling it…
If you can do scaling the right way than it is definetly better to go with option b.
But scaling process is far from perfect. You have to imagine what 1K Paragon guy would be able to do at 5K Paragons. And you hope you took everything relevant into account. Very easy to make a mistake there.
Just look at the ladder. On EU for barbs level 130 starts from 289, for wizards - 60, and for monks 90. On US, respectively, 112, 29 and 35, on KR 160, 25 and 42. It is obvious that the barbs build is stronger, and if you get the same average values for them, then this means that the methodology is erroneous.
Averages outside the ladder are corrupted by bots that closed only low levels grifts in fast run. (For example, many players with high paragon barbarians have records of 110-115 in 3-4 minutes, especially at the beginning of an era.)
Hi!
Just wanted to chime in and say that I appreciate the transparency and wished this would have been released 5 years ago to better understand nefts and buffs from the devs point of view. Thanks for writing it though
You aren’t balancing a class or a set at top level you’re balancing a player. So no, that’s not the correct path. You factor it into an average. Re read what Nev wrote, from a statistics standpoint it’s correct to do this the current way. People aren’t going to like it because it removes a lot of potential for hyperbole and dishonesty. The ‘feelings not fact’s’ which includes people who like to try to use skewed data to present an erroneous argument crowd.
More accurate data with biases and skews? No, less accurate. Especially if people at the ‘top end’ aren’t pushing as hard on some classes as others for whatever reason.
