We are nowhere near that in non-Season. Over in Season, it’s the Season Themes that are jacking power through the roof, and that’s a whole other can of worms. I don’t talk about Season themes much because I don’t play Season, but I can assure you that in non-Season, GR 140, much less 130, is beyond the reach of most players without 5-7K Paragon. And again, getting that much Paragon takes a lot of group play, a lot of time and dedication, and it is, in a sense, inevitable.
I know you’re trying to put the brakes on powercreep–I get that that–but look around. Look at the current direction of design. Look at the Season Themes. The devs might reduce a few numbers on items across the board for all classes, but that’s not going to mean anything for Season players who will use the next OP Theme to wipe the floor with GR 150 in record time. All it’s going to do is tick off non-Season players–perhaps the most casual of players–when their favorite builds are suddenly weaker.
I mean, come on. Y’all see what’s going on over in GD with the Season Theme exploit “working as intended”?
It is crystal clear what kind of game experience is on the menu, and it’s not your old-school ARPG grind-fest that cares a whit about balance. It’s time to face facts and either stuff the nerf talk, or move on to a different game (which, heck, even I have done and I never wanted nerfs in the first place). Where we are today, it’s not the place Rage and I worked to get to, and whatever my opinion about it may be, none of that matters.
Here’s what I think is a best case scenario: The devs look at the strongest builds for each class (Rend, Valor, GoD, etc.). They buff all the other class sets to be within 3-5 GRs of that–maybe some closer. They call it a day.
Non-Season players still won’t be crushing GR 150. Next Season, when the Theme makes players deaf and melts their GPUs, they’ll crush 150 in 2 minutes. That’s where we are.
Well, valor hf was pushing that limit, it was so far above everything else. Now did it make casuals hit 150? No, but if there was no nerfs going out, all other builds would have to adjust to that, then they would buff something that would be stronger than valor, not nerfing that would result in further power differences.
Remember what gr level we did before when ros introduced rifts, it was far from 150. Now they are making preventive measures to stop that and eventually gain some sort of balance.
But they are nerfing… So what facts are you talking about? They have nerfed crusader 3 times, to reel in that power, which was good because they were far too strong. Does that not mean anything?
Yes, hopefully that would happen, but you know it’s not gonna, they will buff sure, but they will miss their target. And thus the cycle continues.
Okay, this is actually a good talking point, because let’s look at what happened. Valor was hitting 150 solo, right? And it was doing it with far less Paragon than any of its competitors (which weren’t hitting 150, but close). So, Valor got nerfed, right?
Did anyone need to ask for it? No. Blizzard saw something they felt was out of line and they reigned it in. Right? They did the same to Chantodo’s, and eventually to the Necro Thorns build. They didn’t do any of that because of massive public outcry. They did it because they’re steering the game in a specific direction and where those builds were sitting didn’t fit that vision.
So here’s the thing. You don’t need to ask for nerfs. Period. Full stop.
If something is out of whack with their vision of the game, they’ll nerf it. They’ve done so before and they’ll definitely do so again. And that’s out of our hands; I think the best we can do is raise a ruckus if the nerf bat hits too hard (as it did with the Lamentation nerf). But bear in mind that asking for buffs is a request that benefits you, your community, and just about every other player. If the devs agree and comply (like they did with Barbs), everyone who enjoys those builds gets to be more powerful.
If, on the other hand, you’re asking for nerfs, you’re asking for something they’re going to do regardless if they think it is necessary. So, why go through the trouble of ticking off people who will (rightly) see you asking for the devs to nerf their fun? Because you care about “balance”? Like nerfs, that’s out of our hands; if the devs want balance, they’ll make it a reality, and if they don’t, no amount of whining is going to make it a reality (see the folks who want more stash, a SSF mode, etc).
That’s not really an argument, because the game we’re playing now is radically different in nature from the launch of RoS. As players gained more Paragon, the game was adjusted to give more players better access to “end-game” content, but that goal post kept moving as players gained more Paragon, and the cycle continued. This was always inevitable due to the more or less infinite nature of Paragon, and it never really mattered because the game was going to cap at GR 150. This is what I mean when I say that this is the game we’ve always been playing: we’ve been moving in this linear direction the whole time because the game is that linear.
I know some folks don’t like that, but
Ehh . . . maybe? Look what’s going on with the Season Theme. I mean, if you want proof that they want Seasons blasting GR 150s with ease, look no further than the last 3 Season Themes. But the real potential of builds lies in non-Season, and over there, no casuals are blasting GR 150s solo.
If you’re talking about balancing groups, well, that’s never going to happen. Blizzard’s willingness to meddle with group play is practically non-existent.
Look, the game is what it is. It’s 8 years old. Its sequel is in active development. If you want my advice, it’s this: Get your favorite stuff as powerful as it can be, have your fun, and move on to something else. Or do what I’m doing and focus your time creating guides and helping newer players. Just don’t expect this to an old-school grind-heavy ARPG. It’s not. Never really was (unless you count vanilla, which was a boring slog).
Because there are parts where you can steer the nerfs, as such I asked for making sure the interactions between valla’s and GoD was working properly, there has also been quite a few crusaders asking for nerf towards Ivory tower as it did scew the potential for valor quite a bit.
There’s also discussions to be made into how strong the nerf should be, as you could say the nerf to Vyr was too strong because it had a build which was acting on duo or triple element bonus from CoE, which isn’t a pleasant build imo. What you could do instead is to fix that interaction and then gauge the power of the nerf.
Talks about nerfs should be allowed to happen, not only to tick people off, but to shape the builds into better versions of what they are. Otherwise we end up with builds like thorns necro because they weren’t looked at for a good while.
Of course there will be people going “nerf because op”, much like “buff because weak”, but there will also be a huge portion who will be a bit more nuance than that, breaking down the build to find what can be changed to improve it at the same time. For instance, wd spirit barrage lost the pet status, but with it, they gained an armor and gem slot.
It’s things like that that can help future playstyles, if valla’s is “removed” from the build, then you can fit a nice array of cooler ones like fortress ballista and such. Something that could actually give you a straight buff, rather than being a “it might have some better results for some reason”.
This is still overstating how important paragon is, while it does affect builds, it does not affect as much as people are stating, more on the defencive side rather than the offencive. On the grand whole, the items held more power than paragon. While paragon hasn’t changed in its power, items kept being improved to match the strongest build, that has always been the case.
Paragon remained linear in power while items always went exponetially due to the powercreep. Paragon was easier to obtain due to this sure, but the effects it had was much less in comparison. This is not to say there was no meaning behind it, but compared to going from 10k main stat to 50k, is much less than going from at best maybe x3 multiplier in bonuses to x600.
Of course, that’s why they should always base around non-season for balance. Season themes does mess up the leaderboards enough, but they are a minor problem, since it doesn’t carry over that much into non-season (besides some levels and gems).
Sure, but being as powerful as it can be doesn’t say much if everything else is far above it. And if that build is far above everything else, then others will feel weak.
The only thing I can do really is give my insight into were the nerfs and buffs could be applied, hoping that they dont destroy a playstyle in its wake.
I think in the end, even if it has a few years left, I want that time to be as good as it can. And being in this cycle isn’t gonna help getting there, but as the balance being adjusted, I’m always gonna be vary of not killing builds for the sake of it.
Even though it’s not a popular stance to take, remember that the end result is gonna be better, even if it means stepping on some toes getting there.
This is a major logical fallacy. By corollary, there is no need to ever ask for buffs, because Blizzard is “steering the game in a specific direction and where those builds were sitting didn’t fit that vision.”
If you strongly feel that “others” do not need to ask for nerfs, then why ask for buffs?
Is the following true also?
If something is out of whack with their vision of the game, they’ll buff it. Why make any requests for buffs or nerfs?
Personally, the forum is a place to discuss the game. The developers have their vision and the players have their own. As long as we post respectfully, we can disagree. It is not about silencing others who have an equally valid viewpoint.
It’s . . . eerie that I haven’t replied to him in months, and he still keeps quoting me and posting nonsense, right? Dude needs a hint. No one is buying what he’s selling. Not worth my time, etc, etc.
I wasn’t going to post this, because the window of opportunity was closed by the time I got my account errors sorted, but it seems somehow relevant again. You mentioned that people often misrepresent your statements. It’s not you; it’s a tactic.
Happens to me every time I post something. It actually happened in this thread, if you scroll up enough. Partial-quoting and misquoting are the same thing as lying; they know they haven’t a leg to stand on, so they attack the position by intentionally warping the idea it was intended to convey.
In my estimation, this is not only an admission of dishonesty, but also an admission of a failing argument. People who carefully manipulate quotes in order to attempt to force a different meaning onto the words of another speaker are doing so because they know they cannot refute the original argument.
Sadly, attacks against the speaker are the first resort on forums like these. Logic and reason have no place here.
It’s where the phrase: “Respond to the words I actually used, not the words you wish I used” comes from. If people take your statements as they are presented, there is less to use against you. Intentional blindness, twisting words, and misrepresenting the root of an argument are all tactics to avoid addressing the actual statement. They know their position is indefensible, so they instead attempt to reforge their opponents’ arguments in a way which gives them some ground.
But then who’s to say whether it’s valid or not, you?
Sure, that is never fun when a quote is either misrepresented or taken out of context to further an argument, I don’t think all times are deliberate though.
It can be that certain sentences catch someone’s eye, and they react to that.
That’s why the wording “fun police” ticked me off, it was a clear attempt at invalidating that opposition by giving it a catchy nickname, there’s never an attempt to an honest discussion, it’s either you’re right or you’re this funny term.
That point is addressed earlier in the topic. While the D3 team claims to rely on player feedback, it quickly becomes clear that they have a specific goal in mind for the game, and anything which resides outside that goal is declined or outright ignored.
Perhaps not, and that’s not something I intended to infer. There is always the possibility that someone genuinely misunderstood what I said. However…looking at the venom the regulars are constantly spitting at one another…you have to be able to understand why I would be reluctant to reach that conclusion. It honestly seems like they’re more interested in “winning” than actually debating the topic at hand, or establishing any kind of progress toward a better game.
While I can admit that assigning a term might have been a trigger, this argument kind of bumps with your second and third statements. It may not be a deliberate attempt to claim that all opposition is necessarily devoid of valid argument, but rather that some of the individuals are more focused on automatic opposition than hearing a debate on an issue. I made a similar argument before. There really are some people so closed to other views that they will clap hands over their ears and scream until their detractors go away. I find it difficult to view it as coincidence that these are the people calling for nerfs to classes they don’t play.
I don’t think Free meant to alienate people with a legitimate grievance. I believe his statements were geared more toward establishing objective balance and fair play, rather than perceived balance and fair play. We can argue all day long on what constitutes either of those terms, but let’s please -all of us- refrain from Ad Hominem tactics and stick to the talking points.
So essentially both sides are wrong or rather irrelevant since Blizzard ignores most feedback?, if I understood that correctly.
I don’t see it as a one group thing, both sides are exhibiting that pattern. The ones you could look at are the ones who actually has a statement or an argument that actually makes sense, whether it’s against your beliefs or not. It’s not that you have to agree with it, but atleast you can understand that it’s not without a thought.
I might have a different opinion of him because of our history, I have always seen him as rather imposing, and ideas that do not sit with him are often ridiculed. I’m not saying that every post he made was like this, but enough for me to have that image.
So forgive me if I don’t believe that there was no ill intention.
Mersinary and I bumped pretty hard, initially, but he replied to another post I made without any hint of aggression. That point alone makes it worthwhile to hear him, despite my belief that he is automatically opposed to anything I say.
Free is a strong voice; there’s no getting around that fact. He has a belief that is going to be communicated, and if you supply a counterpoint, he is going to respond to it. I think where trouble occurs is when people read too deep into it instead of taking the responses at face value. I’m not saying you did that; it’s just my impression of him as a person.
This is the core of my point. If you encounter an argument for Position A, but you believe Position B may be better, then you would argue for Position B. You wouldn’t drag up the fact that the person who argued in favor of Position A spent time in juvenile detention, or hates puppies, or anything equally irrelevant or stupid. My point was that most people will default to the latter instead of spending any meaningful amount of energy or time on the former.
I don’t think that’s fair to say. We are honestly dealing with three types of argument in this case. Position 1 is that subtracting from any established build hurts that build (and, in some cases, associated builds that have nothing at all to do with why that build was nerfed), and that buffs are preferable to nerfs because they “bring up” an underperforming build to the levels established by other builds. Position 2 is that nerfs are necessary to bring overperforming builds into line with the established norm, because…well, I don’t really know why. Is it just easier to destroy one build than to bring up several? Could be. Position 3 is an obvious attempt at sabotage for any build not endorsed by the speaker, advocating whatever nerfs will place all other builds beneath their favored class. Every class has these people, and it becomes more obvious the deeper you probe into their arguments. I think that Positions 1 and 2 are both equally valid, dependent entirely on the situation, while Position 3 can go buzz.
This point becomes clearer if you are able to see my PS4 profile (which you can’t): I have exactly one Barbarian, and it’s a 90 “Salvages” build, which I greatly enjoy. As I said before, I make a willful, deliberate, concentrated effort to at least try all classes and make a determination on what I enjoy based on my experience with each. I’m in a Barbarian subforum right now, arguing in favor of…hell, we’ve pretty much all forgotten what this post is in favor of by this point, haven’t we? Because I value the Wizard and Demon Hunter more than I do the Barbarian is because they have more builds I like, not because I think the Barbarian should be under my heel. This is why you will not see me arguing for nerfs to Barbarians. I’m in the minority there, because -although it is my least favorite class- I do not believe it should underperform, therefore I do not ask for it to be destroyed.
The fact that Blizzard will selectively ignore feedback when it clashes with their vision of the ultimate version of this game is kind of related…but not as critical as the realization that there really are players who would rather see their class -and only their class- capable of performing at all. There is more than one issue at work there.
EDIT: While we’re on this particular track, let’s also recognize that there is a huge difference between nerfing a class or build, and correcting a factual bug. One is adjusting the abilities of an entity which is (or was) performing as intended until a new decision was made. The other is removing an entity which was never supposed to be there in the first place.
For the record, I don’t consider removing unintended interactions or abilities from a class or build to be a “nerf”. However, sometimes we get both. Star Pact is one example. Players were exploiting an unintended overlap in the damage from channeling skill booster items (Deathwish, etc), so Blizzard “fixed” that by adding a 1s delay to the damage boost. Well, it fixed the exploit, but it also did irreparable damage to most of the channeling builds I enjoy. That 1s delay is just enough to force a player more toward root-and-shoot than a gun-and-run strategy, which…in higher levels…can be lethal. Yes, I’m still salty about that change. We couldn’t have a fix that doesn’t harm legitimate builds?
So you claim. Here are some quotes from you solely in this thread.
I think that you keep talking about me personally and my posts.
When it comes to the issue at hand, to me it is no different than a simple preference./opinion. Some people like to go to see movies in the theatre while others prefer the comfort of home to watch movies… Neither viewpoint is invalid.
Likewise, some people prefer balance through nerfs and buffs. Some prefer to “only buff, never nerf”. I find the latter problematic; however, forum posters have a right to have that opinion.
I have the same doubts about Mersinary, given how hard he came after me in other threads. Just one civil reply to one of my posts has given me the incentive to offer a second chance.
People tend to think of other people as either for or against, on or off, right or wrong. I think that’s incredibly short-sighted and doesn’t allow for the complexity of sharing some viewpoints while opposing others. I will not ask you to change your mind, but I will suggest that it should remain possible based on current and future interaction.
Although casuals cannot reach the maximum level of this game yet, I cannot agree with this excessive powercreep
.
The point is that, apparently the maximum level, the power cap that a character can reach is 20k paragon. But there are players who, with half of that, were able to complete a 150 solo. What is the point of completing the maximum level with only half the possible power? It just shows how harmful the powercreep was.
Some argue that everyone should make (even casual) the maximum level of this game, so they could enjoy all the “” “content” “” of this game. "But I ask, what is the difference between making 120 and 150? None … .
After a few hours of play, we completed the first build, so there is absolutely NOTHING to do other than min-max our items, the gameplay is the same, the mechanics are the same, the game modes will be just RIFTs and GR’s that are … exactly the same …
So, what is the point of having levels in Gr’s? This is because these levels serve us only as a ranking of POWER …
Based on what has been said, I think it is a mistake to get closer and closer to “solo 150”, this could be reasonable if it were a player with the cap of paragon and with all his perfect items + perfect GR, but I don’t think it is right to arrive at that level with only half that.
Just to be clear: To my knowledge, no one is making a concerted argument that casual players should breeze through GR 150. But arguing that GR 150 should only be accomplished closer to Paragon 20K isn’t a real argument because GRs weren’t scaled with Paragon. What I mean is, GR’s dial up various numerical factors, such as monster HP, damage dealt, and so forth, and the values by which these are increased is not correlative with, or based on, Paragon. I very much doubt past dev teams ever expected players to achieve 10K Paragon, much less 20K, and the GR cap was established independent of that. From what I know talking with Blizzard insiders, the GR cap is in place primarily for code and hardware reasons, and I’m 99.99% sure it will never be increased.
I’m not refuting your main argument, which is that you’re unhappy with the current level of powercreep. I’m just saying that trying to connect Paragon and GRs in the way you’ve done is not going to work.
To clarify something else, a down and dirty summary of what I–and some people with a similar mindset–are arguing is as follows:
The current state of the game will allow, on occasion, solo players to crack GR 150. This is in part due to multiplayer dynamics, and in part due to buffed item multipliers. Not a big deal as this is generally relegated to players between 7-10K Paragon.
Blizzard’s explicit baseline for balance is GR 130 @ 5K Paragon.
When points 1 and 2 are considered together, buffs should be doled out to under-performing builds for each class.
Generally, Intra- and inter-class parity should be 1-5 GRs in terms of baseline and top clear potential.
Seasonal clears should be disregarded because they don’t reflect a build’s true potential. Season Themes are crazy powerful.
Nerfs should be a last resort, and the call for them shouldn’t originate in the community. Too often, such calls sound like a desire to reign in someone else’s fun because the game is not progressing in the direction the Fun Police want it to progress.
Should a class that has been under-performing for a while is buffed, even if that buff makes the class (or build) overperform (as defined by Blizzard’s baseline), it should be left alone for a while–a Season or two at least. Let folks who watched their favorite class languish feel powerful for a while!
Fun is not numerically quantifiable.
EDIT: Clarified a few points. The above list is evolving.
Unless you (the general you, not you by name, Free ^_^) see someone playing a different class and clearing higher than you. Then it’s time to demand the destruction of a keystone item or two.
If a build is genuinely overperforming, then retuning its damage and survival potential can be warranted. The problem is that some players don’t know the difference between the following:
-Mathematically provable advantage in excess of the standard
-Outlying players who are just genuinely clever or talented enough to score higher
-Cheating
I play an idle game on Kongregate. It’s been the only game I play there since it came out 4 years ago. A reasonable person might expect me to score highly. The person who accused me of cheating at the game insisted that I am a master hacker because my score was higher. That voice is often louder than the voice of reason or experience, and it gets heard far too often.
EDIT: I know you added more content as I was posting this, Free. Not intending to partial-quote you, but thought I’d still highlight the terrible attitude I see in some players. “He’s succeeding where I have failed, therefore he is hacked/bugged/exploiting, etc, etc”. I see that used as an excuse for pro-nerf arguments all the time.
Powerful. Yes. That’s right. Definitely not buggy, exploitable, untested nonsense. Because, you know, Blizzard said they were by design and totally intended. It had absolutely nothing to do with them not knowing how to fix it, not having the guts to deal with the exploiters and roll loads of stuff back and admit they screwed up. Nope. Definitely not that.
Great point, BW. I think a lot of people overlook this. Nerfing–or even calling for nerfs–because of what’s going on with the leaderboard’s top 10 doesn’t take into account everything else below it.
What I said, was because some players “complain” that they MUST reach 150, at the maximum level of GR “because it is the” “” objective “” ". For me, this is completely wrong. It’s just a rank, nothing more that, and this leads us to another question: If it’s just a rank, then it doesn’t make sense, with just half the maximum power, to find a limit where we can’t cross it. In this case we have 2 options, increase the cap, or nerf all.
I remember the blue post a long time ago, when GR was implemented. It showed that it was a leaderboard with the objective of showing the player’s power, there was no “Limit” for that. Just as they might not have imagined that someone would reach 10k paragon, they also did GR in a way that even if this level of paragon was reached, it would still be possible to achieve a higher numerical value of GR’s.
