Good catch. You are right Jako. It was a typo and I have fixed throughout. The last column should read 132.4. I pasted the monk average twice.
1 Like
So nothing has really changed imo. You keep posting different analyses using different methods and what not. Ultimately though, what I said a week or so ago is still true. So I don’t understand why we need so many threads and posts.
- Barbarians need 5x damage
- Monks need 5x damage
- Demon Hunters need 3x damage
- Witch Doctors need 3x damage
- Necromancers need 2x damage
- Crusaders need 3x damage (this is frustrating because they nerfed Leniency even though I told the developers it didn’t need it)
That’s going off of 2.6.5 numbers of course. 2.6.6 will affect this some I fully expect.
And as always, I don’t think nerfing Wizards is a good option.
3 Likes
I agree overall with your assessment.
In this thread at least, there has only been one method used with a slight difference of whether the data was based on the solo top 10 per class in the America region or 3 regions worth of top 10s. I have included some variants in other threads.
2 Likes
I believe that’s a normal reaction when everyone is critical of official numbers that you have compiled. And I believe it was prokhan who did a list some time back, in which he tried to show with his way how bad barbs were.
Why people have been counter reacting to micros list baffles me, the list still shows exactly what they know and “want” to hear, barbs are bad. The only thing this list was trying to convey is that yes, it’s bad, but historically they haven’t been the worst class for longer periods of time, but at the same time not the best.
But calling micro flat out wrong is, well wrong, because it’s as accurate as prokhans previous list, by which both were flawed by nature, because it’s not all simple statistics that you have to compile, not to mention both not having all the relevant data they need.
2 Likes
So it is not accurate. At all. And can’t be. You can’t take previous seasons either with either outdated or less paragon levels, less levels of gems and so forth.
It makes no sense whatsoever.
And if you read through this section, you can see him trying to defend the list over and over and over again without even wanting to actually read something himself…
This was not about him showing real numbers, was more about him wanting to show something and keeps defending it, while being proven that it is wrong, not by me but others as well.
You do realise the effect of lists like this, right? People yell up about “oh this is op, this is too!” and then it’s either removed or nerfed, when it shouldn’t be.
He even wrote “people were telling one class was the worst through the years (barbarian) which it was not”. When in fact IT IS.
So yes, he is wrong. Has been in previous posts as well.
No matter how much he corrects or edits his post or make new ones.
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.
2 Likes
So.
I have no problems with your numbers. They seem very reasonable and accurate to me. I don’t speak for Barbarians as a whole obviously. I haven’t done as much digging as Pro or Free or Arch. But overall, your numbers in the above list seem like numbers I see.
Wizard +11
Necromancer +6
Witch Doctor +4
Crusader +4
Demon Hunter +4
Monk +1
Generally speaking I’m not a fan of using the Top 10. The Top 10 from each class are the hardcore players. Those rifts were all most likely fished and those players all most likely are top tier players with godlike gear and a crap ton of paragon. As such, I would probably look at Ranks 21-100 in my own analysis. In this range you have a deeper pool of numbers. It eliminates some fishing and some RNG. You have some casual players up there potentially. Ultimately Rift RNG though does make this kind of analysis really hard. I think this has been a chief point Prokahn has tried to make in several threads.
But let me also interject with something about the whole dog whistling.
You know what you’re doing with all of these threads man. Ya, you say “Barbarians need buffs” but then three posts later you make a comment like “well Monks need buffs too”. What does that have to do with Barbarians getting buffs? Make a separate thread for Monks if you want them to get buffs. Barbarians aren’t here in General Discussion to discuss what other classes need. We don’t want those talking points complicating our requests. It creates unneeded arguments and adds extraneous information. Barbarians want to be concise and direct. We don’t care if other classes receive buffs, but don’t piggy back off of our threads. Let us use our threads for Barbarian discussions and requests. We’re here in the General Discussion for visibility to players who might not visit class forum sections, not to discuss other classes.
You’ve also repeatedly made comments like “well Barbarians are in the meta”, which whether or not you mean it to, it comes off as you downplaying Barbarians’ lack of damage. Throw in threads like this where you even go as far as to say “see, other classes have had it worst than Barbarians a few seasons”, and it definitely looks like you’re trying to play both sides and that you have an ulterior motive.
3 Likes
I know Jako.
My point is simply keep everything in perspective. I will go slightly more old school to make my point. In the first couple of seasons, there was an overwhelming call to buff other classes or nerf demon hunters because of their outsized DPS and meta participation. It was fair. The game has ebbs and flows. All classes should be balanced; however, that is not the history of the game. It is a factual accurate statement that other classes have had the lowest greater rift clears in earlier. I know that you appreciate the history of the game.
We can look at things with nuance and perspective. Simly stating, that one class is poor in X but is good at Y does not equal that I do not want to see X fixed.
I would argue that it is the lack of nuance more broadly in society is the reason that we have such divisive politics, but I know better to get into a political discussion. 
1 Like
You make a list. Then type :
“Others have said the class was worst for years and I proved you wrong”.
These are the things WHY I say you are wrong :
Paragon levels.
Gem levels.
Gear. Stats on them.
Skill level.
How long have you practiced etc.
All these things matter if you want to make a list.
On top of that, you go back previous season, just to prove people wrong for saying Barbarians have been the weakest.
Do you even know WHY people say this?
You were told to go read on Free’s posts about the subject.
This is not about grift levels only.
He talks about the buggy set Raekor.
WW that requires the perfect gear and is STILL weak compared to other builds.
He talks about the unfair patch that came for season 17, where Barbarians got nothing.
ON top of that, he speaks about the communication from Blizzard, saying “we are not done with Barbarians” and the ONLY thing they got was an outdated item, that literally does nothing for them.
This list is wrong, cannot be accurate at all.
It’s like seeing people with 9k paragon points on the ptr, saying “generator monk is back!!!”…
Do understand these things.
You keep reposting your list, never listens to what I actually say.
You may say “I don’t say my list is balanced or correct”. But you STILL keep bringing it up.
You still wrote that “a certain class was the worst I proved you wrong!”, when you refuse to actually read what we tell you to.
So to micro.
Go read. No, don’t stop here and hit the reply button.
Go Read.I don’t even know why the F I should keep repeating stuff for you, when me and others have told you this several times.
This is a fact.
What Free wrote about Barbarians IS A FACT.
So yeah, I call it bull. Cause that’s what it is to me.
I don’t care what you update this list with. I don’t care if you sit at home and rework it.
You were wrong. Simple as that.
The second list (and the only one that I reposted) is NOT mine. It is from the barb buff website. They used the same methodology as I did. Our lists are functionally identical. Every complaint with my list applies equally to them.
Needless to say, they did not consider in their analysis wonky mechanics of other classes and paragon levels and legendary levels of other classes. If not, how can any comparison be fair?
The funny thing is that I think it is good enough and I have little problems with it.
3 Likes
Have you seen me saying “the Barbarian made list is accurate”? Do you really think you can judge me upon this, when I’ve never spoken about it?
The previous post I wrote was the FIRST time you have ever gotten my opinion about listing classes in D3. Never before. You never asked.
The FIRST thing I saw when I hit that reply button, was you replying… Again.
You don’t even reply to the questions. Nor go ahead and actually read… Funny thing is, you are a troll from now on imo.
Cause you refuse to listen.
You refuse to go read why people were saying Barbarians were the worst.
You refuse to actually take part and ask or at least KNOW my opinions before you go ahead and write about me.
Seriously. You smack up a list, are so hung up about defending it, and yet you fail to see what you are actually lacking…
Knowledge.
Reading.
Listen.
So go on and make your daily quota of posts on here. I wont be discussing anything with such a narrowsightet person.
And you refuse to listen to what micro was saying, it was never about hindering buffs, but when barbs yell, on a near constant basis that they are the worst, people have their own opinions.
Yes, you are behind, most know this, you should have buffs. But have some restraint. Why I defend micro is because as me, we’re both tired of listening to the talks.
And saying focus on your own class, then I say, we have!, it’s just that you actually got a reply. And had the barb community been a bit less optimistic, they would have understood that the buff wasn’t coming this patch. Come on, they responded like a few weeks before the patch dropped, Mortick’s was probably just tacked on because they had the code ready.
This was just a reaction to an overreaction, sad thing is, that I see the barbs turning on this rage, and lashing out agaisnt anyone who didn’t follow the pdf.
Mate, trust me on this, I like the barb class, I play it from time to time, it’s fun. And ofcourse I want a buff. But to me, the barb pdf did not tell anything new, and I didn’t agree with how to buff all the things on it (dont missread that as I dont want buffs, just not in that way)
And I dont think micro has anything agaisnt the barb class itself, a bit fueling the fire sure, but correcting the statement that it has been the worst class for years was the main thing.
We can go on claiming falsehood at eachother, calling names and such, but we still want the same thing in the end.
So let’s have peace now, let him pull up the stats, it still shows exactly what we know, barbs and monks are after by a lot. And hopefully it also gets attention as it would clarify a bit more the state about the top clears.
2 Likes
Let’s not peace out and let me have my opinions and why this is a bull post overall.
As written before : he refuse to listen. He refuse to participate into learning about the things he writes about.
The moment I hit “reply” on my previous post, I saw him in the left corner, replying. When he was told to 1, reply to my questions and 2, go have a read up about what I wrote and what others have written.
And don’t confuse me with the others debatting about Barbarians. I am not a part of it. I don’t know Free and the others at all.
The only real time you have seen me stand with them, is on this new forum site, cause I realised how great they are of writing the RIGHT info and how passionate they are about the class.
So don’t mix me up with one of the others as you call them.
And you refused to read what I wrote to Micro.
It’s not about buff or something like that. Sure I would like every class to get the fair amount of buffing and fixing.
This was about his first post. Being incorrect.
It was about Micro saying stuff about me and my opinions that he never knew anything about until 2-3 comments ago.
It is about how you cannot list classes easily in this game no matter what you go with.
It is about him saying “people were wrong! Look at me! I proved them wrong! Barbarians were not the worst!”.
Free wrote about it. I have as well.
It’s not about gr numbers alone that makes them the worst.
It’s about a buggy gameplay needed.
It’s about a clunky, weak set.
It’s about getting what other classes have gotten already from previous patches.
Same guy, derails anothers post with a question about what this post should be about…
Yeah…
Guess it’s more important to keep those posts numbers upwards than to know stuff…
That’s literally what everybody has, it’s not a single class issue, yes, they have bugs, but so does most of the rest aswell.
Tell me, is it a bug atm that’s holding back barbs or is it damage? I bet it’s mostly damage.
Look, in most cases, it’s the damage, and from what I can tell, yes there are some small outliners that could be fixed. They could handle the wall charge, but I believe they will still handle it like they normally would, add enough damage to handle higher rifts.
I dunno, it’s draining me to talk with you, I feel as we will never go anywhere. Fine mate I guess I leave you to your misery.
2 Likes
Thanks for the condescending comment.
I’ll leave you to talk about stuff you don’t know and keep comparing me to others, while you don’t know me nor my opinions.
Glad I could show myself how you are. Lying 
Relying on the “bug” though for our current #1 build limits the number of players who want to play it. It also prevents proper balancing of that build, which entail restricts proper balancing the class.
A lot of this stuff is interconnected.
And to top it off :
Here is your peace Rashiel. Keep defending someone derailing, not knowing stuff and that goes into other posts to ask for something he claims to have correct.
Just seem like someone who’s getting hammered by other barbs, them actually calling out for eachother to jump onto him, he still defends his point that yes, they are bad and it warrents a buff.
But he still defends that it’s factually wrong to assume that barbs has been the worst class, when they havent been. It’s sort of like online bullying, dunno, doesn’t seem nice from your side.
2 Likes
Again. Do you see me in that post?
Do you see me in any Barbarian posts other than me agreeing?
Do you understand, that you cannot put me into a group of others talking about Barbarians, simply cause I don’t agree with Op?
Do enlighten me why you think I am a part of this socalled “group” ?
He was proven wrong in that thread. By people KNOWING what they talk about.
I linked to another post where he 17 hours ago, asked about API related to this post.
So again, keep defending him, you are doing as well as Op.