Barbs essentially received two new builds where I consider ww/rend new because of how this build plays with Ambo’s pride (with the controversial addition of auto-apply of rend). There is now one completely dominant barbarian build that far surpasses all others in terms of power, as Rage noted and your table supports. This phenomenon is not unique to barbarians and is true for several other classes. For example, how many witch doctors are not running a spirit barrage build?
I would simply be happy if they buff the 6-piece DPS bonuses of marauder, UE, and shadow by about 6-9 GRs damage equivalent, dependent on the specific set. Blizzard would not be introducing new mechanics and would not need to worry about strange/unintended interactions/mechanics.
As far as problems go, that’s a good one to have. It means we have a top 3 build that’s really good at, well, everything. It means we’re strong, fast, and efficient, where we used to be none of those things. All the other builds need is a little more juice to close the gap.
Y’all worrying about intra-class balance on a 8 year-old game with its sequel in active development need to shake off the Blizzard blues and enjoy the good stuff when (and if) it arrives in your stocking.
Did y’all organize and work to achieve this like the Barb community did for their class? What have you done to make this happen? Or are you just spitting in the wind?
You’ll be lucky if they ever touch the old items again. I hope they do, but I also hope the new DH set has you cruising 140+ in record time.
I disagree. The best way, imho, is skill changes. Set changes may affect more than 1 skill, causing issues for starters. The same applies to legendary items.
Did crusader organize like barbarians to get their build that can clear GR 150?
Did witch doctors organize like barbarians to get their build that can clear GR 150?
This clearly illustrates that build power is independent of centralized requests or the magnitude of those requests. Frankly, I think it will be random luck about where DHs end up.
Most likely. Every patch that has occurred after a class had a build in non-season clear GR 147 or above has been nerfed (thorns necro 147, wizards 148, crusaders 150).
The point still stands that crusaders with nerfs in patch 2.6.7a and 2.6.8 still clear GR 150. Crusaders and witch doctors have been far more tacit in their approach. Witch doctors were buffed substantially so that top players clear GR 150 (the numbers on the PTR are irrelevant as this is not the live game).
I suspect that the new DH set will be in the 144-150 range in terms of top end power. Since Blizzard decides power, it can be anywhere in that range and it does not matter what anyone says.
I think the fact that Blizzard initially held firm about the complete removal of the rend damage modifier in patch 2.6.7 after a 1500+ post thread illustrates this. If it were not for crusaders being completely OP in patch 2.6.7, barbarians would not have gotten lamentation with a 100%-150% rend damage modifier in patch 2.6.7a along with the crusader nerf.
Edit:
True. I am glad that I did not say that. You missed the point. Blizzard considers forum feedback; however, they have the ultimate power to decide. The change to lamentation relative to the PTR was identified on November 1 at Blizzcon was posted on the forums. Over November 1 and 2, more than 10 threads were created on the rend topic. On November 2, Free stated that he was contacting Nevalistis directly.
Overall, more than 30 threads were created on this topic. On November 3, the “Do Not Nerf Rend” thread was started. After more than 1700 posts in this particular thread, Nevalistis on November 11 responded that the rend damage modifier was not going to be on the lamentation belt in patch 2.6.7. This is what occurred. Additional threads were made to advocate for the damage modifier return.
After Nevalistis’s response and the “temporary” locking (that oddly kept resetting daily for a month) of the “Do Not Nerf Thread” thread, a multitude of other threads were made. Of note, one thread that was created November 12 was titled: “A BARB RESPONSE TO THE LAMENTATION NERF”. Free wrote in his OP:
This is not disputed. Therefore, one can not claim that Blizzard listened and ACTED based on you or the barb community in relation to this issue for patch 2.6.7. You can accurately claim that Blizzard did listen in patch 2.6.7a; however, they did not give back the full 150%-200% modifier but 100%-150%. Therefore, you can not claim that they listened completely.
My point stands that other classes (crusaders and witch doctors) have gotten buffs that have far exceeded barbarians and have used a more tacit approach. The idea that DH and necromancers will only get significant by following the barabarian centralized example is a logical fallacy.
This is also not true. The multiplier came back due to tremendous community outcry, and from conversations that I had with Nev. There was a lot of back and forth between the community and the developers, and without that multiplier, the build would barely be above where the old whirlwind build sat in terms of power potential.
The narrative that the community has no influence over the direction of the game is flat out false. We proved it. And we showed everyone else how to approach it, how to get things done.
Holy moly I had no idea. And here I was thinking Blizzard finally got their crap together regarding barb on their own, but it was you awesome folks that made barbs shine as we knew they could.
I am in utter amazement. Man, thanking everyone for their tireless effort in this endeavor really is not enough, but from me it’s sincere and true.
Clearly, the barb community had a big impact on getting the rend modifier back to 100%-150%. Other classes such as crusaders and witch doctors have also received substantial buffs as illustrated by both classes clearing GR 150 currently in non-season. We will see how the de-centralized and more reserved approach of demon hunters and necromancers work out in the next patch. Will it be more similar to monks and wizards? Barbarians? Crusaders and witch doctors?
Literally every item they gave us was directly influenced by our proposal, which is obvious if you look at the patch notes and compare them to our suggestions. The developers even said as much in the patch notes:
You’ll also notice a significant number of Barbarian item changes in this patch. While the Barbarian class set will be coming at a later date, we have very much heard the War Cry from our dedicated Barbarian community and implemented a number of changes heavily inspired by extremely thorough feedback. While not every suggestion has been taken at a 1:1 parity, the thoughtful analysis helped guide us to changes we could implement in this patch. Thanks very much to the community members who expressed their concerns in a respectful, constructive manner. It’s very helpful, and we greatly appreciate the thought and effort that went into making your voices heard!
I’m not sure what “listened completely” means in this context. They took away Lamentation’s multiplier. We made the case this was a bad idea. They gave most of it back. End of story.
We felt ignored during the PTR because the overwhelming feedback there didn’t convince them until 2.6.7a, but patches undergo localization, translation, and many other iterative processes prior to deployment, and my conversations with Nev indicated that we had been heard loud and clear.
No, they haven’t. They got new sets which were over-tuned (not in my eyes, but the general consensus seems to lean that way). Meanwhile, across two patches, we got a new set, an overhauled set bonus (Wastes 6), and 6 updated (buffed) supporting legendary items, all of which were directly influenced by our proposal. In terms of quantity, what we got far exceeds either Saders or WDs, and we also got a top 3 build, and our new set is in second place with untapped potential. Quantity and quality.
No one ever said our way was the only way. What we said was: This worked for us, and we’re confident it will work for you.
Look, you can spin this however you want, but our approach, as I’ve proven multiple times in this thread–as my private discussions with Nevalistis explicitly state–was clearly very successful. Were the results perfect? No. But nothing truly is.
Well, except Zodiac Rend. That build is pretty darn close to perfect.
So, the moral of the story is that yes, other approaches might be effective, but ours was, period, full stop. And it’s worth considering that what we accomplished has larger implications. It may have inspired the devs to look more closely at under-performing builds, and it may have made them more likely to consider feedback from the community.
Anyway, stop making nonsense arguments. Stop trying to downplay the efforts of the Barb community. Stop trying to diminsh and devalue the hard work this community put into itself.
I realize that you put a lot of time into getting barbarian buffs and am not trivializing your contribution or for that matter the barbarian community as a whole. I am simply pointing out that other classes have gotten significant buffs, most notably crusaders and witch doctors, using a more reserved, de-centralized approach. They are more than 1 way to achieve change as you have acknowledged.
I wrote “this issue”. Please read more carefully. I was strictly referring to the rend damage modifier on lamentation in patch 2.6.7 and hence the use of the word “this”.
It means that the buff was not restored to its PTR level of 150%-200% aas many advocated.
And as your table showed that barbarians now have one build that is ~10 GRs higher than the 2nd best build according to your table. It is good that you got buffs so that power gap would not be even more outrageous.
I am not diminishing what the barbarian community did. I am highlighting the fact that other approaches work in contrast to your adamant insistence that your strategy is “best” and undeniably effective. Your sample size is limited and there are obvious counter-example showing other methods work. Since crusaders and witch doctors are clearing GR 150 in non-season, their approach worked. It is not that it “might” have worked. This clearly demonstrates that alternative approaches do work. Your method is one option among many. Nevalistis has taken another job so your technique would not even work now. Also, I would suggest that there are 3 primary strategies where the forum community could get a class buffed. I will not go into detail about each. I’ll simply state that I prefer two methods over the third based on my personal ethics.
They got new sets, which is what every class is getting! It just so happens that their new sets are tuned to be very, very strong! That is not the direct result of any approach by their respective communities! You’re fabricating a narrative to use a counter-example to our approach.
There is no counter-example! There were no community initiatives from Saders and WDs. They simply got new sets that were very powerful on PTR, got nerfed, and are still powerful. It could happen to any class with a new set, but WE AREN’T TALKING ABOUT THE NEW SETS.
We also never said our approach was the best. All we’ve ever said was, “This worked for us and was very effective.”
Frankly, I can’t think of a better approach. Why are you adverse to using what has already proven to be effective? What is your deal?
There was no approach! See above!
This is you literally fabricating some narrative about “other approaches.”
Kindly take your ethics and go elsewhere. Don’t need you crafting whole fictions about mythical community endeavors while you snub your nose at this community. You are indeed diminishing this community’s work, and I, for one, am not a fan.
You are wrong. The crusader AoV set that was tested on the PTR was weak and there were widespread calls for buffs. It is clear to me that you do not follow other communities as closely as barbarians.
For crusaders, there were no centralized, community-wide initiatives which is the topic of this discussion. They provided feedback on the the type of the new set that they wanted primarily on the crusader forum (and not in general discussion). During the PTR identified, specific deficiencies were identified, including weakness in overall power. Several changes that were suggested were adopted by the developers. I visit all the class-specific forums and actively follow the PTR for all classes.
Similarly for witch doctors, many expressed concerns about the power of the new set (even WD mains) that it was too strong and the gearing/rune/passive skill requirements for the set were not conducive to low paragon players (e.g., stacking mana regeneration). Specific suggestions were also adopted by the developers such as changing the new set’s 6 piece set. There is not a single best way or most effective way as these other classes illustrate.
The barbarian community definitely achieved several goals. Likewise, other communities have been successful using a different strategy. Crusaders asked for a buff to the AoV set that was weak on the PTR that they received. There is a reason why many in the DH community as you noted were quite resistant to the approach that you advocate. On that, we can agree.
The old proverb is true: There’s more than one way to skin a cat.
Crusaders asked for a more powerful version of what they had tested on the PTR. Instead, what they got was a completely re-designed and untested set, which buffed different abilities, and was so over-tuned that an emergency patch was released to attempt to fix it.
I also recall complaints from Crusaders about the redesign because it had become all about Heaven’s Fury (i.e. holy shotgun again) rather than Fist so, whilst it was powerful, it certainly wasn’t what they’d tested (and enjoyed) and wasn’t what they’d wanted.
How about we see what turns up on the PTR for 2.6.9 for DHs and Necros and then we can judge about how successful (or otherwise) their approaches were rather than derailing the Barb forum with stuff about DHs.
The first post talked specifically about DHs. Post #5 by Free centered on DHs vs. Barbs in how buffs are advocated for. I posted after that.
Some crusader players liked the AoV set that went live. Some did not. It is almost always that way. Some barbarians do not like ww/rend. Some WD wanted a non-SB build for their new set. You can not please all of the people all of the time.
Yes, in the Barbarian forum, and the post asked for Barbs to help advocate for DH buffs because of how successful Barbs had been at obtaining Barb buffs entirely because they didn’t have anyone in the DH community that could advocate like Free / Rage had for Barbs.
The OP literally asks for Barbs to help them, then subsequent posts tell Barbs that the way they asked for buffs to Barbs isn’t necessarily the way they want to get them for DHs.
First quote seems to want the help of the Barbs and their proven methods.
Second quote seems to suggest that DHs are just fine using their own methods.
Perhaps you could have had a chat between yourselves in the DH forum before coming to the Barb forum to argue about whether you want our help or not.
But it’s help that other DHs say they don’t want. Please, if DHs want to argue about whether they want Barbs to help them or not, could you maybe do it on the DH forum instead of here?
No, McChuck, I’m not. You don’t seem to be able to distinguish between different points, so let me break it down as simply as possible.
Barbs Across 2 Patches of Changes
1 new set
1 overhauled old set (resulting in a top 3 build)
6 buffed items (some with completely new affixes
Everyone else:
New set
Nerfs
Got it? You’re comparing apples to antique varnished nightstands.
The AOV set was iterated as many sets are during PTR. There was no collective effort on the part of the Sader community, just as there was no collective effort on the part of the WD community when their set was introduced. There was feedback in the PTR forum, but if you look at the facts as outline above, you’ll see a big honking difference. And you’ll note how the devlopers have continued to discuss re-balancing both Saders and WDs, but not Barbs.
Personally, I hope no one gets “re-balanced,” but that’s besides the point.
We–Barbs–had a specific, organized approach.
No other community has done the same thing. And the difference in what was achieved is significant. That is not an opinion. That’s a fact. Please make peace with it, mail in sad coupon, and move on.
As pointed out above, this is clearly not true. And, predicatably, you failed to take into any consideration what I wrote above:
If this conversation ain’t like talking to a (very dense) wall, I don’t know what is. You clearly don’t like the approach we took, and you don’t like that we advised other class communities to do the same. I don’t care. No one does. Our approach worked, and if you had spent half as much time doing that as opposed to crafting nonsense posts in the Barb forum, you might be singing a different tune.
Meteor, you’re doing that thing where you use solid reasoning. It doesn’t work with people like Decipher.
Every ckass that has gotten a new set has had at least 3 supporting kegendaries buffed. I do not recall any nerfs to monks. If you are considering wd as nerfed based on the PTR, they still clear GR 150. As you noted, Crusaders and WD may be nerfed in the next patch.
Two classes have gotten new sets that are considerably weaker than their top build (barbs and wizards).
Your hypothesis is that “it may have inspired”; however, you also state that other classes got nothing but new sets. Using what you wrote, I would conclude that it may not have been inspirational.
Some Truth
Now let’s look at where Nevalisits first mentioned the future balancing patch.
