I was one and yes, I’m still antagonized constantly to this day. Even now people still bash on me when I try to bring reasonable conversations. It doesn’t help when threads like this exist and I can’t report the thread itself for whatever reason.
I think that you are preaching to the choir 
I just try to stay above the mud-slinging, and avoid name-calling and other personal attacks. As someone correctly noted on this thread, these types of insults and pejoratives weaken arguments. I try my best to avoid responding in kind.
I have looked back at some of the posts related to patch 2.6.7 and wear the insults proudly, knowing who made what GR predictions with the clarity of hindsight.
I feel the need to clarify my personal view on the topic at hand. I do not believe that calling for nerfs is necessary. Calling for the nerf hammer to slam down on something you see as not fitting what you want in the game is not needed. Calling for nerfs brings nothing but animosity and conflict to what is nothing more than a game. Something to enjoy while passing the time. That does not mean I do not expect nerfs or even feel they may be necessary at times. However I do not call out for nerfs and throw tables around because it does nothing but harm. If you feel a class/build is performing under par work to get it to where it needs to be. It’s so much easier to help someone up than hold them down. Nerfs can and will happen but that’s on blizzard not me so I for one will never advocate for a nerf to any class ever. I will however call out 
as I see it.
2 Likes
I would argue that the biggest thing that causes animosity on the forum is lack of civility and name calling/personal attacks. The consequence of other poor forum behavior is trivial in comparison.
I would argue knowing the leaderboards and in game data make for a more informed playerbase. Misinformation spreads like wildfire and often is used to divide the playerbase. You can see how misinformation was used to target negatively those who the leaderboards later vindicated.
Is it necessary to call for buffs? I call for both nerfs and buffs as these are ying and yang. Blizzard uses both. Even if someone does not like the fact that a nerf is going to happen, it is nice to see numbers to determine justification.
I do not think we are at “excellent” yet. Outliers such as monk and wizards need to be buffed. Wizards are further behind now than barbs were in patch 2.6.5.
Oh boy do I miss the ignore feature!
1 Like
The ignore function does exist currently on the new forum. To use the forum ignore feature:
- Go to your forum profile page
- Click on preferences
- Click on users (left panel)
- Add users you want to ignore and set the duration
We’re not talking about the first PTR iteration. We’re talking about Barbs as they exist now. Barbs are in a great spot. Their other builds could use buffs, but otherwise, we’re fine.
You read the proposal, right? You do realize that despite our belief that more difficult builds should ultimately be a little stronger, the difference between them was less than 3 GRs, right? That’s a significantly smaller gap than what currently exists.
I love when y’all try to use the work Rage and I did against us, but it actually just confirms that balance was always a part of our work–a part, not the whole, and that’s important. We wanted Barbs to be competitive with other classes in terms of game balance, but the real meat of our work was in how things worked mechanically, how a player could express a build’s potential and generate creative combinations through play.
SImpler is often better, but not always. Nerfing a build has other consequences, not the least is that it will, at some point, be the weaker build after power creep and other adjustments have caught up. Better to buff other builds.
I’m definitely talking to a wall here. You see “balance” as being the most important thing, something to strive towards above all others. I see it as part of a larger picture, and not a high priority when it comes to more important aspects of the game, such as fun–which, for most people, has little to do with balance.
No one has been discussed by name, and if you think “Fun Police” is a “derogatory term,” well, you are going to flip when you graduate high school.
Let’s not be ridiculous. “Fun Police” is a comical way to refer to folks whose first reaction is almost always to nerf something new and powerful into the ground in order to achieve balance. It doesn’t seem to matter that doing so would put a damper on a lot of people’s enjoyment of the game or that there are other ways to achieve this oh-so-precious mythical state of balance.
Maybe stop peeing in other people’s Corn Flakes and focus on buffing things you enjoy? Seems like a good idea to me.
Lodestone gets it. Well said!
1 Like
Free,
You have complained that people mischaracterize your position that you want everyone ploughing GR 150. I do not think that you hold this position.
Please have the courtesy not to mischaracterize the arguments for forum members who prefer balance. By definition, I and others feel that each class top build should all be similar in power and therefore, we are opposed to nerfing builds to the ground. We advocate for OP builds to have comparable power to other top builds. Your hyperbole does not persuade.
It is clear to me that your posts do not reflect the broader picture, but are in opposition to Blizzard’s thoughts on good game design. Moreover, your concept of fun does not align most likely with the vast majority of the playerbase. I suspect that most players want good balance to maximize their fun and not to have to deal with the constant OP builds.
To take this one step further, clearing GR 150 is an accomplishment and getting your legendary gems to that level is a time-consuming process. In the current season, the multiplayer meta that Blizzard has given their approval allows for GR 150 to be cleared by more than 350 players so far in 4 man groups in less than 2 weeks of the season start (July 3). These legendary gems will rollover to non-season. Some may consider it fun to clear GR 150 with <1,500 paragon.
OP does not equal fun for many of us as this thread demonstrates.
As the blog post notes, the goal is to balance classes around a metric defined by Blizzard. As such, “power creep” is only into this metric and not above. Therefore, both nerfs and buffs have been used by Blizzard. According to you, this has resulted in “excellent cross-class parity” that should prove Blizzard was right.
First, there are 2 pejoratives that have been used of particular note. It is not the term “fun police” that by your very own definition is a hyperbolic mischaracterization not based on the facts.
Again, I think this thread illustrates the importance of civility. You can make your point without insulting another poster (not me) as you did in your last post (one of a myriad of examples) saying: “you are going to flip when you graduate high school” and “I’m definitely talking to a wall here”.
The internet/forums provide anonymity where people engage in behavior that they would not in real life face-to-face interactions. My philosophy on forum etiquette is simple: Only say things that you would say to someone’s face (and consider if your mother or their mother overheard the conversation as an extra filter).
1 Like
Uh oh necro now has a faster clear the dhs on the world leaderboards. Time for more charts and the fun police to investigate.
2 Likes
The fact exist though that you dont consider certain builds equal, even if it was an established build, the fact that you value them differently according to what you find difficult, the bias is there, and as such I dont think you value everyones fun equally. That was my point.
I could use your logic in this and say whirlrend is probably one of the easiest builds I have ever seen, and as such it should be far behind all other builds in the game. You might not agree with me, but that’s how I see it.
But here again, we are reaching 150, that’s the ceiling, now they are toning it down to an equal level more or less. The fun factor will still be there because it’s still equal to the other ones.
If you like the build it should be competative right?, well now they are, even more so than before. If they are op, they are not competative since they’re in a different league by themselves.
And in this, powercreep will not catch up, since they are nerfing activly.
Balance is the most important thing for me, since I dont want to have my favorite build end up on the low end, much like barbarian builds, they got the effect of powercreep for a long time. As I said, powercreep is a perpetual nightmare, with no end in sight, unless you start halting it with nerfs.
Still, what was the point of using that name? Was it to invalidate the opinion of the opposition because “they have a funny name I thought up”?
In your mind, you cant believe anyone would oppose you in thought, thus you take the chance to ridicule them.
I mean “fun police” does refer to someone who stops fun or regulates it, nevermind that many would surely like full balance, and that’s fun to them. In this case you might aswell be called fun police because you want to regulate “our” fun with your view on balance. You may not call this derogatory, but tell me again why you called your opposition by that name.
And you dont think I do that also?, Of course I throw out suggestions on how to buff stuff, it’s just that I can also have opinions on whether a build feels too op or not.
1 Like
Of course not. And neither did Rage. He even agreed that his favorite build, Fire EQ, was mindlessly easy to play compared to (then) Zodiac WW. But the difference between builds was never meant to be more than a few GRs, so when you say ridiculous stuff like this:
You’re being, well, ridiculous. We had a design philosophy, one that was logical, and we stuck to it while still aiming for relative parity between builds. You don’t have a point, Rashiel. I don’t think you have an argument, either.
You could say that, but you’re wrong. Objectively, the build is much more difficult to manage than, say, Fire EQ, and IK HOTA. R6 HOTA is much harder to play, but only because it’s squishy and reliant on gimmicky wall-charging, something no one wants. I’d argue that H90 and Pro Slam are as diffcult, maybe more so than Zodiac Rend, because they require the same careful cooldown management, the same positional awareness, and the attention to detail (elite types, dealing damage correctly under certain conditions and in certain ways, etc.) They’re also far glassier than Zodiac Rend, and we also felt glass cannon builds should have a higher overall clear potential–risk vs reward–so if those 2 builds were buffed to be a little stronger than Rend, cool.
I’m cool with that 
Note I said “a little stronger,” because that’s all we ever intended. Of course, we’re not the developers, so it’s not my vision of fun you’re critiquing–it’s theirs.
That could happen, and if you mean that swapping GR 150 for GR 130 if everyone’s in the same ballpark, then yes–there’s not much difference, is there?
But if there’s not much difference . . . what exactly are you advocating for? If the difference between GR 150 and GR 130 is that there’s yet still higher to climb, your argument is about the nature of power scaling in the game and the GR cap, two elements Blizzard has either not commented on or already explicitly said will not be changed.
But here’s a better question: Are you plowing GR 150s solo? How about 140s?
No, you’re not. Neither am I. Neither are most players.
There is, and always has been, an elitist angle to this nerf argument, this “things must be brought back to a more manageable level” nonsense, and it boils down to this question: Nerf for whom?
Cutting 5 GRs off a build’s solo potential won’t mean much to Paragon 8-10k players. They’ll grind out some more Paragon in groups, likely groups that are still cruising through 150s, and get right back to GR 150 in a few months. But for solo players, particularly the most casual who don’t group with elite (lol) players and who don’t already have gems in the 130-150 range, those 5 GRs are a monstrous chore.
This is something y’all don’t understand: Not everyone enjoys the grind.
Many players just want to grab their sets, level gems, and start pushing. For many, the thrill of D3 is soley rooted in end-game play: pushing ever higher in GRs and incrementally improving gear. This is, after all, what D3 does best, even with all the burdensome RNG present in crafting, looting, etc.
Nerfs hit those players hardest. And for what? So some of y’all get some heady sense that “balance” has been restored?
Know what else would do that? Buff every build for every class to within 3-5 GRs of Zodiac Rend. It might shake up the meta. It might not. But it sure as heck wouldn’t be a headache for newer, more casual players.
Of course, I’m not a dev. They may opt to go a different route. If so, I’m cool with that. At least then you don’t have fellow community members kicking up a ruckus and potentially spoiling someone else’s fun.
This is bad relativism and plainly ridiculous. I don’t advocate for anything other than buffs and improvements to what D3 does best: a linear progression of power that terminates in pushing GRs. I don’t advocate that anything get taken away from players. You can’t flip it around and say, “Ah ha! But if you look at it from this angle, that is taking things away from others!”
In other words, you can’t turn your shoe over and claim that if you look at it from this angle, it’s a waffle.
Oof, yeah, I wish you wouldn’t. Of course, that’s just my opinion.
Cheers!
1 Like
The addition of the legendary affix to Ambo’s pride was wonderful addition that makes the ww/rend build work. I think the vast majority of the barbarian community would agree.
This is not true.
Let me walk you through the math for a 10k paragon player with very conservative estimates.
Main stat on gear 13,000 (Gear number + augment)
Main stat from paragon = 37,000 (Max 47,000, assuming 10,000 in vitality)
Total main stat = 50K
For this player, 5 GRs worth of extra damage would require 2.2X main stat or 110,000 main stat. In this scenario, that player would need to be at 22,000 paragon.
The whole point of balancing around 5K paragon is that no matter what class you want to play, all have similar power. If a 5 GR nerf was required it meant that build was way out of line . I would like to remind you that the barb buff proposal, the claim was barbarians needed a 4.1 GR buff but now everyone but the OP class is weak by 5GRs is fine if we accept your new reality.
1 Like
My point is that you cannot say what people find fun, neither can I, we can only say what is fun for the people who think like us.
We can agree to disagree, but please drop the “I fight for the fun value for players”. No you fight for your version of the game, the fun police is as much in you as it is in anyone else.
I say that, and I’m not wrong, because I think it’s a lot easier than most builds in the game, but that’s what I think. So you shouldn’t base something on what you believe is more challenging,instead aim for all things to be more or less equal.
What I’m saying is that we were approaching 150 for casuals, because powercreep, and this was due to constantly buffing. Every time they had to adjust builds closer to the top end, they kept moving the goal post. But for the game, 150 is the end.
That’s why I advocate to not try to compensate every other build after an outliner surpass it’s expectations. Because it just keeps going.
Look free, in the end we more or less want the same thing, some form of balance between builds, we only have disagreements on nerfs, thing is that you know very well what has happened through the years. Whenever something was changed, the rest had to be changed to adapt, and the cycle repeats.
The main reason barbs ended up at the low end was because of this cycle, you know it never ends well. You can say that they just didn’t buff barbs enough but then someone else would have possibly been at the low end. Nerfing is fine, as long as it doesn’t kill builds.
1 Like
I returned to this game and the forum after many years. I notice that this game is still unbalanced, but it is worse than I imagined, it is unthinkable that a group of 4p could complete the maximum level of this game, but I could see even solo players doing it. I am very disappointed, I expected to be able to enjoy the new sets and have a lasting challenge, but what I have left is to play seasons and complete the maximum level in less than 2 weeks.
All Free is saying is he would agree with you but then you would both be wrong.
1 Like
Free,
I am curious as to your opinion of the seasonal theme that Blizzard has stated is working as intended. As you may know, the season is two weeks old today. 395 distinct players in the America region have already cleared GR 150 in 4 player groups.
The top 4 man team has done GR 150 in under 6 minutes with paragon 1755, 1756, 1841, and 2115 paragon. None of their gear was augmented.
Some may consider it fun; however, it appears that the overwhelming majority of forum members consider the theme OP and unfun.
What is your opinion? Do you feel that they should leave the seasonal theme as is since it is “fun” for some?
The theme is bugged, unintended and clearly being exploited but as Blizzard had no clue how to fix it, they’re saying it’s intended. This season is going to completely pollute the next non-seasonal era due to the massive influx of heroes with 750 stat Caldesann’s and rank 150 main gems.
Hell, not only did their hotfix not resolve the exploit, they apparently didn’t even manage to solve all the lighting changes the weather effect has, leaving people still subject to headaches and epileptic fits.
I feel sorry for PezRader, in his first couple of weeks on the job, having to peddle the level of malarkey needed to come out and say this is intended.
Anyway, what does this have to do with DHs?
This thread has discussed far more than DHs, including ideas on civility, intra-class balance, the “excellent cross-class parity” (???), and how to deal with OP. Some posters feel that being OP is not an issue and should not be fixed because it is fun. I am just curious where the line is. The seasonal theme provides a simple example in my mind of extreme OP. You seem to agree.
What OP should and should not be fixed based on some players idea of fun versus the greater good?
1 Like
Please find another way of expressing this.
Seriously, read it out loud.
4 Likes
Giggle *** snort