How can you call for don’t nerf when
A you dont even have a barb
B you dont run star pact wiz
C your paragon is barely 800 so you wouldn’t have come remotely close to mid game on sader
Are you solely basing this on videos and leader boards when you havnt even touched endgame yourself. Seems pretty half baked when ur asking for nerfs and not nerfs for builds you yourself arnt even close to playing
It would yea cause that player shows more experience and knowledge on the game. Not someone logging in who’s paragon could be achieved after 3 days of play or a half day carry
I’m not saying his view is invalid but it doesn’t hold much weight given how inexperienced he is at this game
ive been playing 4-6 hours a day every day for the last month because i’m on break and my current paragon is the result of that…
6 hours a day at the begging of season would achieve Para 800 in a week easily to be just past that in a month is pretty bad. Before calling for not nerfs and nerfs i would research why these players are achieving what they are as you yourself clearly have stated here you are not playing the game efficiently
Is that how you describe a build that relies on a mechanic that’s more than borderline exploit, ie having chanelling buffs while in a state where you are not chanelling a skill ?
Like, I also like playing bazooka, but :
1 - it absolutely kills diversity in the 4p meta
2 - it was clearly thought of as an exploit when created, by the players who first “created” it.
3 - it relies on a macro to be efficient, which is not great imo
Nice dodge.
No way to verify this with your profile hidden, but I doubt that you have anything close to that. Because you hide your profile.
If this were true you like I would understand why Pro’s chart can’t be taken as gospel in this discussion.
Irony.
Not in your case, in your case what I wrote was true. Since you post on barb/sader so much and accuse me of bias I’m guessing you are saying that about yourself and not me. I’m not asking for and don’t advocate for nerfs.
I see why so many people have you on ignore.
My profile is not hidden. Hover your mouse over my avatar. You will see my battletag if you look at the bottom left of the screen. Take your profile career page and change it to mine. For your convenience, I have linked my profile below.
https://us.diablo3.com/en/profile/MicroRNA-1507/hero/116200754
You can also check out my career profile. At least from what Matthew has posted, Blizzard seems to have a clear vision about how they plan on balancing the game in the future. What is exciting to me is that they have been more specific than in the past. Their actions in patch 2.6.7 and 2.6.7a are consistent with this, except they soon realized that crusaders were not nerfed enough in patch 2.6.7a and that another change is coming in 2.6.8
Why would I lie about this?
31% of my play time is DH (2444 hours) and 11% barbarian (700 hours). I realize that a lot of people lie on the internet; however, some of us do try to be truthful. According to your profile 64% of your play time is on crusaders. For crusaders, you have ~7185 hours
It actually is, when I click on your avatar it says ‘user profile hidden.’ Bug? I wouldn’t have found your info without you posting links.
My issue with this is that they are balancing around .00001% of the population. It’s bad for the game. They used to give gr range based on gr level ranges for these and it was a lot better.
It would have been healthier for the game if they said something like ‘next patch we’re going to tune classes for 145-146.’ If under 20 ultra high paragon players go higher then fine. Attaching the paragon number they did is from a statistical performance standpoint, basing a performance goal in a statistically invalid measure.
Yes I main Crusader and Barb. I’ve never tried to hide that.
Now much as I appreciate you linking your profile it has me wondering why you don’t advocate for buffs to DH, if that’s your main class, instead of posting about what other classes are doing balance wise.
Can we buff Bazooka by just abit?
–> Archon pure power also doubles your current arcane powers.
–> Starpact consumes all arcane powers and drops a powerful meteors with a blast area of 50 yards.
In general, top GR clears reflect player power at lower paragons. For era 11 and era 12 I analyzed 21,000 leaderboard positions in different ways including top end, GR efficiency, and by paragon stratification in relation to GR clear. There are some exceptions. For example, thorns necromancer was incredibly powerful at the top end but its power was not very relevant to the average necro on the leaderboard.
I rotate my classes that I play and as you may have seen I have my biases. For the past 2 months or so, I have exclusively played barbs. As for why I am not focused on DH buffs at the moment, I believe an “outside-in” approach is best. To fix game balance, you start with the extreme outliers (necromancer for buffs and crusagers/barbs? for nerfs).
Man, starpact =/= bazooka. Be attentive, please. Starpact itselves doesnt base on any exploit
You’re right. I didn’t pay enough attention cause usually both build get mixed easily.
That 00001% gives us more reliable data than the rest of casual players. They need data on the maximum potential of the build in question, and this cannot be provided by average players. A build must be balanced around its achievable potential and not in a “range”
Last 30 Seasons???
What game are you talking about?
D3 is in it’s 19th Season.
So you want to tell the majority of players that the balance for their set was determined by one to 7 players. When you do things like that you ensure one of two things; people quit or they start botting.
Never mind people are doing 150’s sub 4k paragon in season. That is the icing on the cake for this bad joke.
It’s a bad way to balance, from a statistical standpoint it’s not valid period. People will either lose interest or more people will start botting. My suggestion promotes neither to any more or less degree than already exists.
You are right that looking at the top of the power curve may not represent the spectrum of class power across a distribution of paragon levels. Having said that, in general, it is a pretty good surrogate for a more comprehensive statistical analysis. As I mentioned before, you can look at the entire leaderboard or parse the data by paragon levels. I should have provided the link to my earlier analysis on non-season.
No. Each class needs to be usable in group GRs. That means they need to be balanced amount each other. Maybe not perfectly but 10GR difference is unacceptable.
It actually isnt because it doesnt track augments,sets used, legendary gem or legendary affix strength. Unless you control for those variables those general charts stand a really good chance to end up showing a bias result.
I cant agree that using a micro percentage of the community qing for a rift that falls into an equal percentage chance of spawning is a good measure of top end. That’s fear or spite balance, not healthy balance.
You are correct that there are extra variables that my analyses do not account for. The simple reason is that the Blizzard API in their leaderboard data does not provide the variables that you mention.
The overarching idea was to get an assessment for overall balance among the solo classes relative to their respective solo non-season leaderboards. For example, the data does not inform how well seismic slam barbs can clear GRs relative to demon hunter slow ball builds. It was not the point.
This is the issue with the chart, though, you can’t say that you want to see where classes stack up against eachother then turn around and ignore data which is relevant because it falls in the scope of what is being measured.
I understand what you are saying but its not in context of what I’m saying. It wouldn’t be build x vs build y, however every class has several sets with a fairly wide range.
We may not agree on everything but at least we are having a reasonable discussion.
