Nerf Thread on General

FYI barbs - there is a thread on the General calling for Barb/Sader nerfs.

It’s starting all over again.

It was always going to happen as we get closer to the end of S19, and people start thinking/talking about changes for S20, and what they want to see on the PTR.

I posted a response: Patch 2.6.8 Balance changes Nerfs/Buffs

Frankly, there’s not much momentum to “Nerf Barbs” at present, and I suspect that’s because Barb mains are happy with where we are. Sure, our other builds could use some buffs, but we’re in a pretty good spot and we have a top tier build. We don’t need nerfs. Everyone else could use buffs.

Folks, if you post there, remember to keep it focused on:



There was also recently a call for nerf due to there being so many Rend builds in the top clears for Barbs…umm, that’s not a choice, that’s a lack of alternatives.

I’m not even sure the nerf crew are sure what their argument is anymore. They’re now down to calling for a nerf because the build can do 120 :man_facepalming:


I saw you do some good work arguing in Table Guy’s thread, but alas, trolls are gonna troll. Regardless, you mah homie to the end.


I try and hold a sensible conversation with them, unfortunately the moment you disagree with them, you’re automatically a troll, a noob, so on and so on.

And I seriously can not keep up with their constantly moving goal posts. It does my head in.


They only have one real goal: Nerf/buff everything until some theoretical perfect “balance” is achieved.

It’s neither feasible, nor truly desirable from a game play standpoint, but you’re talking to folks so fixated on “balance” that they can’t see the forest for the trees.


Not to mention you can’t get a clear answer out of them about where they want the balance to be, or why, other than Blizzard said, Matthew said…again, does my head in.

1 Like

As I demonstrated in that thread you mention, you get similar results in terms of which classes are at the top of the pecking order or at the bottom if you:

  1. Only consider the top 10 worldwide clears
  2. GR efficiency of 21,000 leaderboard clears.
  3. GR leaderboard clears of players with paragon 2,500-3,500
  4. GR clears on the leaderboard of players less than 2.3K paragon

This is not making different arguments, confusing where to balance, but simply, multiple metrics that all yield very similar conclusions.

I posted again, but it’s like talking to a wall that occasionally spits out printer paper. I guess that’s like talking to a printer?

Apparently, someone was “right” about Barbs “absurdly over performing.” Folks, that isn’t a nerf thread, it’s a tryout for stand-up comedy.


LMFAO!!! We seem to think the same, you just have a much better way with the words than I do.

Also, be careful of Table Guy, he has developed this habit of changing posts after you have replied to them.


Excel is absurdly over performing, better nerf.


As I said in his thread, stats can tell a story, they can also be made to tell a story.


You’re right. There’s something eerie about some folks’ over-reliance on data and statistics, and for me, the creepiest part is how it negates player experience. A nerf to Barbs doesn’t do much to the players with 10k Paragon, but it will make the build less enjoyable to the vast majority of players.

Of course, if you simply buff under-performing builds, then you achieve the widely-desired build diversity that many people like to pretend will magically sprout.


At this point, the game is near as makes no difference to 8 years old.

It’s already had it’s follow up announced.

We are not getting new expansions or content.

Why is everyone so scared of people being able to solo 150?

Down the track the guys with 12-15K paragon might be having races to see who can do the fastest 150. So what? Good luck to them. Makes no difference to my game play.


Charts McGee is everywhere.


Yeah, honestly at this point, who really cares. Buff stuff so that everyone can have fun with their chosen class/build.

We already have ample evidence that perfect balance is almost impossible. Nearly 8 years of patches have shown us that. Just get it within the same ballpark and call it done. Who cares is barbs or saders (or whatever the new flavour of the month next patch will be) overperform slightly? If people are having fun with it, and it brings people back to the game for a bit to play their preferred build/class again, that’s a win in my books. Especially at this point in the game.

If someone’s favourite build gets nerfed, they are probably going to get a little more bored with D3. And maybe they’ll move on to another game for a while. And for what? ‘Balance’? It’ll never be perfectly balanced anyway, so you might as well just let players have their fun (within reason).


It does not matter what my particular views are on game balance as these decisions are controlled by Blizzard. I am willing to express my views as I encourage others to do the same. On this issue, my views align well with the Matthew Cederquist, the game producer.

Matthew Cederquist acknowledged that their max GR target is GR 141 for 10K paragon player and wrote:


I haven’t chimed in to this thread in a while but i want to make sure everyone understands.

In the blog post we’ll be presenting, it’ll go over the specifics of how we balance and hopefully answer many questions.

Some have already deduced through multiple threads and replies how we envision our balance.

  • Classes that are 1-2 GRs above or below our projected max GR is good.
  • Classes that are 3-4 GRs above or below our projected max GR is the grey area where we could potentially look at it to make some adjustments. Whether that be through numbers tweaking, items, or whatever other means.
  • Classes that are 5 GRs above or below our projected max GR is not good and we would aim to balance them in the near future.

So, if you’re looking at Crusader…we can all look at them and say, “Good Day! Have your fun for now!”, but…more likely than not, they’ll come down a bit next patch."

Here is the link that shows the quote in blue.

I want to highlight the fact that he wrote: “i want to make sure everyone understands.”

He is trying to be transparent and let everyone know their thoughts on game balance. It is perfectly acceptable to disagree with him. I agree with him on this issue.

I want to highlight the fact that he wrote: “Some have already deduced through multiple threads and replies how we envision our balance.”

Many of us deduced his/Blizzard’s current ideas on game balance, because he has made multiple posts in multiple threads about this topic. His posts have been abundantly clear and reiterated over and over again. A blog post is forthcoming.

Wouldn’t it be great if all classes were within 4 GRs of each other?
Is it bad if one class outperforms another by 10 GRs?

On Dec. 11, Matthew posted about the AoV set

Maybe they were auditioning for a film remake…


To be fair I’m not suggesting that everyone should be able to run 150 in sub 10 minutes.

But when you look at the number of people that are doing 150, hell, even 140, it’s such a minor selection.

The Table guy is hanging his hat on what Matthew said about one particular person, conveniently forgetting that not everyone else is in that level.

Or even close to that level.