Nerf Thread on General

Ever since that Blog Post, the Fun Police have been pretty quiet. A few squawks here and there, but it’s obvious all their steam is gone. I, for one, am glad.

Nerfs?

We don’t need 'em.

Other classes need buffs. :slight_smile:

Suddenly I’m very excited for the upcoming patch. I feel that something good is in the air, or at the very least, something fun and new–if not for Barbs, for other classes. So far, my predictions have been spot-on. I think I’ll try to keep this streak going :sunglasses:

6 Likes

I’m still trying to figure out permutations/combinations of data to get to their numbers. Prokahn’s analysis had Demon Hunters 7 GRs ahead of WD in era 11. Without any changes/nerf, the blog post table indicates that WD exceed demon hunters by 5 GRs in era 12.

It is not just my “tables” that are not in agreement.

I fixed that for you.

But in all seriousness I truly hope you can move past all this hate for Barb’s and simply enjoy the game. That’s all we want for you.

3 Likes

You may not agree with my analysis and that is fine. Prokahn quoted his and did not recognize that for 2 classes (DH and WD) that did not change in patch 2.6.7 that his data and Blizzard’s data is VERY different.

When analyzing large data sets, there should always be a reality check.

I am not sure that it should be a Guassian distribution as Pe3eWe3e stated, but a reality check is in order.

I don’t hate barbs. I have played barbs exclusively since patch 2.6.7. My goal was always equity as evidenced for advocating for barb and monk buffs and wizards nerfs pre-patch 2.6.7. Likewise, I advocated for crusader nerfs and necromancer buff for the next patch.

Keep it going, bring other people down with you if that makes you feel better. Fact is Pro didn’t ask for any nerfs, but you did, with your flawed analysis, while pretending to be a professional with all the tables.

2 Likes

Do you know if you cleared a GR 130 as a WD in non-season, you would rank in the top 90 of all WD clears in the entire world (US/EU/AS/China combined)?

So ask for WD buffs. Leave barbs alone!!! For all we know the new WD set will be just as powerful as the current sader builds. Then next season we all will be behind WD.

1 Like

Thats outside the scope of his agenda.

3 Likes

Do you know you’ve already been told you’re wrong?

Do you know you’ve already been told you don’t have access to all the data?

Do you know you know just sound like a whingeing little kid who is not used to being told no?

Do you know no one is ever going to care about your tables and data ever again? (not that many did in the first place)

Either use your data to help the weaker classes, or shut the hell up!

5 Likes

no need to get worked up…just ignore him. Don’t feed the trolls.

3 Likes

It is quite fun watching the little child throw his toys out of the cot, now he’s been put in his place by a blue.

2 Likes

Yes and yes. Does that mean that I am wrong? Maybe, maybe not.

In real life, I have monthly meetings to discuss data analytics. One thing that recently occurred was someone else’s analysis of a case-control study with two subgroups of cases. Each “sample” had ~50,000 data variables per sample and >200,000 samples total. You can imagine this data requires supercomputing for analysis or filtering to make the dataset manageable.

As you can imagine, this type of data analysis requires considerable expertise and rigor to analyze correctly. The primary individual responsible for this analysis was a junior faculty member who has a PhD in statistics. He typically provides high quality analysis. Among our team, I was the only one to raise concerns about the data analytics because it did not make logical sense and failed what I would call a simple reality check.

Over the next several meetings and privately, I continued to voice my concerns to no avail. I also analyzed a subset of the data for myself. Low and behold, a sheepish e-mail was later sent out to the team that his prior reported analysis had a simple error, leading to erroneous conclusions.

The reason that I relate this story is there are time when someone says “You are wrong.” They may or may not be correct.

Blizzard’s data analysis may be completely correct. Their analytical methods and dataset that they used is proprietary. Their data in the API is not. In the case that I described above, there was enough transparency to make an independent analysis of the data.

There are very few people who post on these boards who really play around/analyze the leaderboard data. In general, the results of the analyses are reasonably similar even when using divergent methods. I am just stuck by game blog analysis that appears in opposition.

Do you know if you keep going, you’re just further proving yourself to be a troll.

1 Like

Not all heros wear capes

2 Likes

Have you noticed there are some real testy people on the Forums today, I really can’t imagine why! :expressionless:
As always, Spin To Win! :stuck_out_tongue_winking_eye:
:peace_symbol:

2 Likes

The only data point that matters now

6 Likes

It has to be mighty hard for you to analyze accurately and come to the same conclusion as Blizzard did when some of the data points or data are kept secret, as Blizzard stated. You are just wasting your time without all the numbers if you are trying to come to the same conclusion. :nerd_face:
Good luck and stay sane!
:balance_scale: :yin_yang:

3 Likes

There is some irony in the statement of a reality check being required… :rofl:

1 Like

I am trying to stay sane. I’m just perplexed. I looked at the top 200 WD clears (of the total 8,000 leaderboard era GR clears) worldwide currently that would grossly overestimate the “average” scaled player at 5K if this is true (specifically these players represent “the highest level of play” as Nev stated). I agree.

You do not need to scale the data if you have actual player data @ 5K. Even with this current leaderboard where several new records were set since early December, the actual WD average for players (n=30) between 4.5K and 5.5K paragon is GR 128.0 in era 12/non-season.

I have reread Nevalistis’s post too many times. It definitely is an issue to reproduce a method given limited details and lack of knowledge of what data points were considered.

How many people are playing Barb this season/patch vs how many are playing WD?
I’m willing to wager, that more people are playing barb, therefore you’ll have more clears on the barb leader board which pushes out the rankings, this is the range of your data set, surely you know this.
So the comparison between a rank 130 barb and rank 130 WD that you and peewee are making doesn’t stand, at least in the manner you’re both trying to present your presupposition.

Would you go to your team meetings at your workplace, and confidently present sets of analyses that don’t take into account all of the data because you do not have access to it and claim it to be accurate?