To TuneOut and potentially others,
Here is an explanation about why I consider other’s assessment of “my”/”not my” numbers important. I will discuss the source of the “not my” numbers later. The numbers in the original table and the one that I presented later were both considered “bull” in your opinion. I would argue that there are both reasonable estimates.
The reason that you and several others may consider both “bull” are individually or in combination:
-
The top 10 greater solo rifts are not representative of overall class power.
-
Averaging the top 10 is not mathematically valid as greater rift levels are exponential (+17% hp) and not linear.
-
This analysis must include a statement of the average paragon levels of each clear. For example, two classes might appear equal but if one class can achieve the same greater rift clear at half the paragon then that class is more powerful.
-
This analysis does not correct for difference in legendary gems.
-
This analysis does not correct for difference in augments.
I agree that 1-5 are valid concerns. In the link at the bottom, I did look at season 17 (This thread was made before this one and went under the radar. It includes an assessment of legendary gem levels, paragon, and seasonal hours played.)
So the question that you might want to ask is: If I knew 1-5 were valid concerns and I already did a more complete assessment, why did I take a more simplistic approach in this thread? The simple answer was that in my mind it was good enough. It was not perfect but reasonable. There was another major reason.
It appears to me that it is widely accepted by the barb forum community that the 2.6.6 barbarian buff proposal was well done and that all their “numbers” are right or at least close enough. The second table that I asked if you considered bull was from that proposal’s website. It is not mine. In my OP, I reproduced IDENTICALLY the barb website calculation that they did for each region as my template. Identical to my analysis, the quoted barb proposal table only considered the top 10 solo greater rift clears in a region. Identical to my analysis, the quoted barb proposal table mathematically averaged the greater rift clears. Identical to my analysis, it did not include a statement about relative paragon levels of the top clears. Identical to my analysis, it did not correct for differences in legendary gem levels. Identical to my analysis, it did not correct for differences in augments. This is the other reason that I chose to calculate the numbers the way I did to maintain fidelity to the method done in the barb 2.6.6 buff proposal website. I figured that if I did that, I would be less likely to be criticized even though I knew that there were problems in how this calculation was being done (good enough but not perfect in my mind). There is the old cliché: “What’s good for the goose is good for the gander.” It turns out that I was wrong on the extent of unfair criticism.
I would argue that there is a dilemma. If you and others insist that my numbers are “bull” and the calculation was performed identically to the barbarian buff proposal website, then those numbers in that table are also “bull”.
I think that we all have implicit and explicit biases that negatively impact our perceptions, analytical reasoning, and reading comprehension based on experiences and desires. I think this thread highlights that point. It is easy to criticize the method of others who may have a slightly different take on a narrative when people lack open-mindedness and have bias. Similarly, if the method used to support your position was “right” in the barb proposal, I do not understand how one claims that the same method was “bull” that was used in my OP. My take is that either: 1) both calculations should be accepted with the knowledge of their limitations or 2) neither should be accepted. Double standards are a form of hypocrisy. Due to a dislike of someone’s opinion, it does not mean everything that they say is wrong.
There have been 8 posters in this thread who have been the most negative. Almost all 8 complained that my numbers were garbage to calculate average power between classes including Free (that delicious irony was not lost on me). If posters can not accept that we used identical methods, how can I ever get a fair, non-prejudiced assessment of what I say without my words being twisted. I have been accused inaccurately of dog whistling when I say barbs need a buff over and over again that what I really mean is that I want barbs nerfed. This is complete and utter nonsense. Even in the barb forum, there has been criticism of how preposterous the false claim of dog whistling is. I hope that I provided you and potentially others with some food for thought.
P.S. I think my numbers and the ones in the barbarian proposal represent good enough “calculations.” The conclusion is the same that barbs are currently underperforming and need a buff. In 2018, demon hunters and witch doctors using this calculation were the class with lowest performance using the method that I (and by extension) the barb buff website employed. Luckily for these 2 classes, they got a buff. If barbs get a buff, then a buff for monks is also warranted, and the cycle continues… Multiple classes are significantly underpowered in comparison to wizards.