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.
Thank you SO VERY much!! Epic community here!!
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?
What? Is this Bizarro World?
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.
No they haven’t!
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.
The door is there. Adios.
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.
C’est la vie !
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.
I’m confused. Do the DHs want us to help or not?
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
Everyone else:
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.
https://us.forums.blizzard.com/en/d3/t/ptr-thank-you-for-all-of-the-dh-necro-changes/12284/222
It was a response in a thread about DH and necromancers.
The thing with the Frenzy Build, after the Dev’s tweaked the build a bit, it gave the build a few gear options and even better, a choice in play-style options which is good in my opinion and makes the build a lot more fun to play.
If the Dev’s could chose to give the Frenzy Build a few more tweaks here and there in the next PTR or when ever, I believe the build could be one of the top contenders in the game, at least for solo play.
Anyway, I also have a passion for some of the DH Builds and I intend on giving my support to help get the much needed and way over due Buffs that the DH’s absolutely need.
Whether they liked it or not is irrelevant in this case. It wasn’t what they asked for, therefore your claims that their “approach” was just as successful doesn’t hold water if your example is that they got something they didn’t correlate to their requests!
The fact is every class is getting new sets. The first few sets the new classic games devs made had some tuning issues which they were more or less able to address based on PTR testing vs their intended power level. So yes, the data from the PTR was used to change the set, but since players didn’t get what they asked for via feedback, arguing that approach as being as successful as the barb proposal that got specific items changed according to the proposed changes, and a call out in the patch notes, in addition to the planned new set, just doesn’t make sense.
Are you sure?
The first two new sets were for crusaders and monks. The crusader set has already been nerfed in patch 2.6.7a and again in patch 2.6.8. As Blizzard said, this build is being carefully watched and there may be another nerf in the next patch.
The next three sets were for wizards, barbarians, and witch doctors. Free reports that the H90 set is ~10 GRs lower than ww/rend. The wizard set is incredibly weak in comparison to the LoN variant, making the new wizard set rather useless. Witch doctors are clearing GR 150 in non-season with their new set, including one player with less than 9K paragon.
Again, there is no consistent pattern.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/podcast/episode/brain-seeks-patterns-where-none-exi-08-10-03/
PSA: The forum now has an ignore function or one can use adblock to ignore specific forum posters.
Forum ignore:
https://us.forums.blizzard.com/en/d3/t/forum-feature-changes-ignore-and-trust-level-groups/14439
Adblock:
https://us.forums.blizzard.com/en/d3/t/forum-mute-ignore-function-an-easy-solution-with-adblock/3156
Right, so you’re confirming that Barbs have had 2x as many buffs as other classes. Hmm. I wonder why that is . . . ? Couldn’t have anything to do with everything I’ve written, could it?
I con confirm that one of the dev team’s explicit goals is to back solo clears away from 150–or rather, it was when the Monk and Crusader sets dropped, but whether that’s still the case is anyone’s guess. Mostly, this is due to performance and hardware constraints. That’s all I’m able to say on the matter, but I do get my info direct from Blizzard, for what it’s worth.*
No, I don’t think you can conclude that, because you’re missing the point. It is possible that our approach fostered better community-developer interaction via the appropriate channels. Nevalistis and Cederquist acted as the liaisons, and neither are currently active; Nev has left Blizzard for a new job, and Cederquist was very sick a while back, and may not have recovered. D3 doesn’t have a CM right now, and likely won’t for some time, and even if Blizzard temporarily plugs someone into the role, it is very unlikely that person will have the same level of connection to the community, much less the same pull with the developers.
Then there’s development cycles and iterative wickets to consider. Outside of priority stuff (bug fixes, broken items, etc.), set and item development has to begin well before release. We released our proposal in late June of 2019, then revised for re-release on July 3rd. Patch 2.6.7, with all of our buffed items, was released November 12th, and 2.6.7a was released on November 20th. Though we received Mortick’s back in 2.6.6 (August 20th), I was told that development constraints would not allow a faster turn-around on new items, affixes, or overhauls, but that additional buffs were coming. It took 4 months to get the big Barb patch (2.6.7), and during that time. Even simple numbers adjustments–changing the value of an existing multiplier–requires vetting, and can be a lengthy process.
So, even if the devs have taken player feedback into account, there are many obstacles in place, and a large time sink between when feedback is noted and when (if) it is released as content.
The future “balancing patch” may no longer be on the table; I suspect it will be, but I also suspect that its size and scope will be diminished.
None of this does anything to detract from my one, consistent point: Our approach worked. It is likely to work for other communities; at the very least, it is more likely to work than any other approach, and it is certain to work better than a passive approach. Barbs haven’t won every fight on the forums, but we easily have the best track record in terms of reverting nerfs, getting buffs, and organizing community efforts. I’d also argue that outside of CMs or MVPs, we have the most direct contact with Blizzard staff of any class forum, and that relationship is based in no small part on our organization, our community representatives being vocal, present, and persistent, and the level of discourse that surrounds our various endeavors.
The current design goal–intentional or otherwise–is clearly to elevate at least 1 build per class into a cross-class competitive zone, which very much seems to be GR 140-145+. After that, it seems increasingly unlikely that intra- or inter-class balance is much of a concern, at least for the time being.
Still, there’s no denying what Barbs accomplished: 3 patches worth of items and buffs that gave us:
This is miles beyond what any other class has received. You can argue semantics all day, but the facts are plain to see.
EDIT: For what it’s worth, y’all, this Decipher individual also has a thread up on GD implicitly calling for nerfs for WDs and Saders. Much like a certain someone’s table frenzies, his post shies away from calling for explicit nerfs, opting instead to just, oh, you know, “draw attention” to really high solo clears. No underlying motive, I’m sure.
If this looks more Fun Police shenanigans, BINGO!
Dang, I feel for Iria. Fellow comes here, posts some nice stuff, asks for help. Discussion takes place. Then this Decipher kid barges in and makes a mess. I’m SMDH, but I don’t think I can get it to turn around far enough.
You have provided a summary table of the current state of barbarians. Your table seems fair globally, barring some issues. The current state of barbarians, crusaders, monks, witch doctors, and wizards are what they are.
Now he’s posting tables that are completely irrelevant to the topic at hand. Dude’s really taken a page from He Who Shall Not Be Named.
Shhh… don’t say it three times!