I agree, but as we will never have access to all the data to confirm or deny it either way, we’re back to the exercise in futility.
Whatever they tell us I guess.
People can jump up and down in disagreement with what they have posted (or agreement), and it’s not going to make a spit of difference.
That’s the numbers they’re working with. How they derived them is not going to be disclosed to us.
So we either live with it, or if anyone feels so aggrieved, I guess they can always find another game.
Or really out there is to gain employment at Blizzard and find out the truth for yourself. But that wouldn’t help anyone else because I am certain that there would be NDA’s and the sort, so nothing would get out anyway.
Wait till they ban the bots (if ever at this point), then they will realize more then half of the player base that has ever reached it uses bots. That will be fun.
Once they make the changes we don’t need to confirm/deny any of their data used to make those changes - we’ll simply discuss the changes. And if there are problems with these either their used data or their decisions were lacking.
In order to prevent the above (bad changes) they need to be more informative in their blog posts. I mean this whole blog could have been a post/thread on these forums…
Communication has been a gripe on these forums for some time.
Despite saying we hear you, and we want to communicate better, it’s not happening.
I’m not laying blame at the Blue’s, I believe they are under strict orders about what they can/can’t say, and their information posts are heavily scrutinized.
EDIT - In fairness, I think they’re on a hiding to nothing anyway. Because even if they did present a lot more information, people would still find ways to complain about what was used, how it was presented etc. So I don’t envy their position.
They are still refusing to give a proper explanation (and lie) why they aren’t including an SSF ladder when they agree there exists a solo vs multi disparity.
Behind this could stay the same reason as for the SSF case - they may simply not want LBs in their game.
If that’s the issue then say it in your blog so we know it and don’t discuss “dead” topics on these forums anymore. But lying (or hiding information) to us does not make sense when you want to communicate adequately (following your principles) with us.
I wanted to run something past you. From Blizzard’s comments, is it fair to say
Using leaderboard data alone, this will overestimate GR clear potential of a model “average” 5K paragon player, since leaderboards represent the highest level of players.
More recent data (from a week ago) versus early December showed that players GR clears have improved over time with more practice and experience with builds.
P.S. I found a way to approximate their non-season numbers that are reasonably close.
Take geometric mean of worldwide top 20 leaderboard (non-season)
Subtract 10 GRs
Adjust the data slightly due to geometric mean of paragon levels for top 20 players (~0.8 GR level difference between highest and lowest paragon classes)
5K paragon non-season
Barb
Crusader
DH
Monk
Necro
WD
Wizard
Their numbers
130
138
125
130
123
130
130
My approximation using data from different day
132
138
125
130
123
129
131
I may need to fine tune this approximation, but I’m fairly happy with it.
These numbers seem to poorly recapitulate actual “average” 5K players using real worldwide data (not scaled/transformed). I’m still trying to figure out how to capture their deviation which is complicated to determine due to popularity biases.
For WD, I checked the final era 11 and current era 12 top 200 worldwide (US/EU/AS/China combined) for all players 4-6K paragon (n=60 or n=64 dependent on the era). These “superstar” ~5K paragon players among the worldwide top 200 averaged GR clear of 129.3 (era 11) and 127.8 (era 12), Therefore, the estimate of GR 130 for an average 5K WD player seems off.
To illustrate this, there were only four WD players @ 4-6K paragon in the America region to clear GR 130 or above. The top 2000 WD era 11 leaderboard had >200 players 4-6K. (The lowest clear among the 2000 WDs was 103).
[–]Nevalistis Community Manager 18 points 2 days ago
This is where this discussion has always gotten interesting for me.
What currently stops someone who only wants to play alone from playing alone right now? Is it the leaderboards? The thing where you’re actively playing against other people to compete? (Forgive me, I’m a little cheeky today.)
The nature of competition means you aren’t ever really playing alone, because you’re still opting to measure your efforts against someone else’s. If anything, the request is really for an SSF leaderboard rather than an actual mode. That’s a wholly different request, and one that’s difficult for different reasons (largely has to do with databases and long-term storage issues; I can’t get into details, but there’s a reason only the last several Seasons/Eras are tracked in-game).
It also comes down to supply/demand and resource management (i.e., us choosing our battles). Fulfilling this request is one that would take a lot of time and a ton of resources, and we don’t have data suggesting that a majority of players would want or use this feature. Most of our data suggest players want more content, more items to chase, and more Seasons (with more new rewards).
Making the choice between the two, given limited resources, seems pretty evident.
If that is correct I agree. I am not sure. I read somewhere that there are quite a lot of people who do not play seasons and some that play to get the rewards and go back to normal play?
See above - If you are correct that makes sense but again, I am not sure without Blizzard supplying a close to exact average over a year of how many people regularly play each on any given 3-month period. I do not think they will somehow.
Just an idea: maybe they weighted #1 clear more than #1000 clear?
I don’t plan to play hide and seek with Blizzard. If they don’t want to be more transparent I can’t do anything about it.
Edit: Whole blog post does not mean much to me. The point of blog post should have been to explain how and why they are balancing so we know what to expect. But since they did not really explain how they scale data we can’t reproduce results. I expected some examples on scaling. Not exact formula but at least written explanation for some examples. So we will not be able to know if something we consider balanced / unbalanced is considered as such by Blizzard also. Blog post did not help with bringing Community and Blizzard on same page when we speak about balance.
From theory stand-point I do agree with most things they wrote. It is common sense. Was not surprised.
At least I know that I should be clearing 130+ easy with my skill/paragon/gear.
PLEASE reset the PTR leaderboards prior to access. Everyone, you, me, all the devs and population at large playing gets a much better idea of how classes sit.
Thanks for listening.
What my preferences has to do with something being a lie?
It’s a one day work to add an SSF ladder in this game - every programmer can tell you that if you don’t believe me. The reason why they are not adding it is something else and I want to know that so we draw conclusion about their game philosophies - do they want more LBs or not?
It has nothing to do with your preference. You calling her a liar because you don’t accept that she said that current D3 is lack of resources to do all things.
(Forgive me, I’m a little cheeky today.)
