Thank you linesman, thank you ball boys!
Game over!
3 Likes
My apologies. I misread your intent. I thought you were arguing the opposite. Maybe could have been a little clearer on your point, but after re-examining, I see where I missed it.
All good.
It would be more accurate to say that a different dataset was used rather than a math error.
A math error is 1+1=3
A difference in dataset is saying 1+1=2; but another group choosing to analyze 2+1
For the dataset that I used and clearly defined, the calculations were mathematically correct.
No problem. 
It doesn’t matter how good your math is and doesn’t matter how you nitpick Nev’s word, your analysis was flawed as pointed out by a blue. Yet you keep trying pushing those flawed analysis down people’s throat, which is just mind blowing. I guess troll is gonna troll.
2 Likes
Yes, and we even have the confirmation in blue.
6 Likes
I was not going to respond, but man they give no rest to this issue.
Now how the devs are taking the balance this time around. From what we understand, they want to balance the classes considering a 5000 paragon player being able to clear 130 at their mean.
Now I would like to give the example distribution below:
Now these charts are old and not fully correct, but it is just a figurative example.
If you look at the barbarian curve here at its mean it is clearing 110 while at its top, it is clearing about 125 (This is about 15 GR spread away from the mean).
Note that every class has different mechanics so the spread will be different across all the classes.
Now let’s say that we want to buff barbarian class and all the other classes to perform similarly at their mean levels (unlike their old approach where they just were looking at the top clears).
What should be the GR about which they should balance? Lots of BS has been spreaded and spouted around, but logically if they want the ceiling GR to be 150, they cannot buff this mean GR more than 130. Otherwise, some classes will be too OP beyond 150 level.
Let’s say the mean barb is buffed from 110 to 130, which is a +20GR. Now let’s look what happens to the top: Barb top clears were about at 125+20=145. Nice it is below 150 and within the competition range.
Now let’s look at the Crusader. At their mean they are clearing 114 and at their top they are clearing about 130. Now in order to have their mean situate around 130 they would need +16 GR. Now let’s look what happens to the mean? 114+16=130. How about their top potential? 130+16=146 Nice below 150 and within competition range.
We can keep going on and on and on and on, but it looks to me they are balancing considering the median not the top now, which is the most logical approach considering 80% of the player base. Good for everyone.
Now as some ‘geniuses’ around here seems to get lost where the data they use is coming from. It is none of their business, but it looks to me that they filtered out every other build except the top builds. So basically for barbarian, when all the WWrend builds are compared, their median in the leaderboards is situated at 130GR at about 5000 paragon. This is quite logical. As their mean is situated at 130 and the spread of the barbarian class is about 15, the top pushes of barbs will be around 145 levels.
Again anything below 150 is a good top clearing potential and they are not looking at the top clears but just the mean. If you look at the crusaders’ particular build and its distribution, I am sure its mean would land somewhere 134-138, which may match and exceed 150 at their top potential, which is a no no for the devs and the holy balance. So they will nerf the crusader about 4GRs then they won’t touch the barbarian at all.
This is what logic and data tells me, all the rest is BS from trolls.
10 Likes
Meteorblade performing his own mic drop 
It’s a shame I can only give this one like.
3 Likes
Seems to me like you’re probably not going to be able to square this circle because the data that you have access to is incomplete, or rather, not as comprehensive as the data Blizzard has. Also, without knowing Blizzard’s exactly methodology for how they came to their conclusions, you’re going to have a real hard time replicating their results. I’m sure that’s immensely frustrating for you, but I get the feeling that what you’re trying to do is a little like trying to finish an incomplete puzzle in the dark: it’s hard to see, and even if you get everything in the right place, you’re still missing pieces.
I really don’t have any beef with you, Micro, but maybe it’s time to just… Chalk this one up as a loss and tackle the next thing, ya know? It’s real quiet over at the WD forums if you wanted to come and help me kick up a fuss, see if we can’t get the poor WD some more love and attention 
4 Likes
Ohh boi that burn 
Looks like microtroll got pwned hard. Now he is trying hard to play everything down.
1 Like
Looking at this graph, at the top end WD and DH performs similarly: similar GR being cleared with similar paragon and duration.
However, seems like DHs data in the 1st 1000 starts at 117 onwards while WDs 1st 1000 starts at 107.
Note that in my post here, I am not commenting on anything about WD and DH. My observations are as noted above. However, some ‘geniuses’ who like to average GR values as a gauge of balance like to twist observations by averaging data points across GRs. As I stated 10000000 times, this approach is wrong. As you can see in the table in my post (given at the end), I averaged GRs of all the clears and stated that this way of data evaluation is not right. I am mentioning that averaging many GRs across each other is wrong and it will give wrong observations (you can see this explanation below the table).
So Micro has been using that table to say that I said the WDs are 7 GR weaker. Lol. WD performance is similar to DH, however more players are preferring DH because it may be better for pushing overall. But I prefer not to comment on other classes. And see this happens, some people will bend over the data in any way to support their agenda.
As somebody who looked at these leaderboards and their meaning, there is no 1 fixed value of difference among classes. The difference varies sometimes slightly sometimes by a lot depending on the compared GR level. If one has to put a number to this difference, he has to consider the mean curve. It is the most logical approach and perfect balance will not be 100% possible ever. Some builds will simply perform better at higher GR while some will excel at lower GR.
4 Likes
I’d argue it’s dead easy to make a fuss, it’s the whole ‘effecting real and tangible change’ that’s considerably harder, but point taken
I don’t think anyone is saying that Blizzard is infallible, just that they have access to more data points than you or I have, so maybe - just maybe - they’re seeing something we’re not? 
Anyway, I want it noted for posterity that I tried. Promise you’ll be nice to us WDs when we’re smashing solo 150s off-season? 
2 Likes
That is him after you guys do that.
6 Likes
No, just no. You are wrong there is no “maybe”. At this point you just look delusional. Accept that you were wrong, you don’t even need to do it publicly, and do so quickly. If not for the sanity of everyone else on the forums then do it for your own mental health. Smashing your head into a wall will eventually cause permanent damage.
5 Likes
This just needs an audio clip of “How dare you!”
3 Likes
However, for a model 5K player, Blizzard’s table showed in non-seasons that average WD would clear GR 130 and DH GR 125. Your analysis shows that at the top end, their performance is similar.
I may very well be wrong. You believe Blizzard is accurate. They may be absolutely correct. Unfortunately, there is no way for anyone outside of Blizzard who can make a determination of “facts” given the transparency of the data and analysis methods.
What I can say is using Blizzard’s reported data, it seems counterintuitive that an average 5K paragon crusader would clear GR 136 in seasons and GR 138 non-seasons.
This would suggest either their is an inherent issue in their data scaling, severe limitations in a dataset, or something else such as maturation kinetics of the GR clears. Blizzard said that both tables used data derived from similar timepoints.
Ha! You are making it sound like the Blizzard math people are sitting around manually stimulating their “Kinet’s” by hand! 
I think you should rephrase that sentience a bit! 
I was trying to get at the idea for the non-season leaderboard people already had some gear on hand (obviously not the AoV set at the start of the new era of course) to push/get a leaderboard spot versus early season where it would be much more difficult to project/upscale the data. A reality check, though, would be that there 5K projection for seasons had to be similar to above non-seasons.
Whoooshhhh!!! 
Blizzard told you:
-
You don’t have access to all the data. You only have access to leaderboards data.
-
You can’t just analyze based on leaderboards data.
So, what’s the point in keep arguing whether you’re right or wrong? Your analysis was never good from the beginning, because you don’t have access to all the data. Blizzard clearly told you so, are they wrong about this?
It doesn’t matter how good you are with numbers, if you don’t have good/complete data to begin with, your analysis is just garbage. You may very well be just shut the f up.
3 Likes