I know that I am beating my head against a wall of secrecy but some information has been provided. If everything is self-evident, what is the fun in that?
I am trying to think about the various ways on how someone would analyze the data within the context of the information provided and how to fit the results provided.
LoL I am sure you will come up with something. 
I can’t find the ignore option on these new forums. Am I blind or did blizz just forget it?
It no longer exists, but by ignore I simply mean DO NOT RESPOND TO THEM, AT ALL, IN ANY FORUM, PERIOD.
Don’t give them the time of day or the attention or validation they so desperately seek.
If there will be no nerff, ok.
But IF there is, nerff lamentation or WW would affect not only push, but speeds (which represents the majority). That is why, if hard cast is removed, WW would be 141, but our speeds would be fine.
For the 2 people that have cleared 146?
I can see why they would go to all that trouble.
It is not my statement. I just quoted what was said by DP. Whether or not HardCast represents 5lvl, I don’t know…
What I don’t want is for rend to be ruined for speeds
Yeah, I get that.
But A) there is already no change coming, and B) I can see why they are not going to bother going to that trouble to nerf two people.
If people were clearing 146 in massive numbers, and everyone was speed farming 140, then I could understand the discussion. But that just isn’t happening.
You did notice that their table showed that the GR potential of crusaders @ 5K paragon in seasons was 136 and in non-season 138.
Previously, you claimed that the seasonal buff was completely overpowered. Their “official” data claims that seasonal buff REDUCED crusader GR clears by 2 GRs. How does this data fit your idea and what seemingly contradicts common sense?
As I stated on the other thread, their scaling model probably has some limitations and doesn’t work as well when looking at mostly lower paragon scaling to 5k to represent GR efficiency. In non season they have a wide range of paragon to scale as well as many 5k paragon players so the limitations of the scaling are made up for by having the larger range: 2k (low end), 5k (mid, and the desired scale), and 10k (upper end) data points. In season, that early on, their data points are only between 100-2000 paragon. You could see how that data is not going to be as accurate as the non seasonal data. Clearly.
I am not trying to bash anyone. I just wish that better logic could be applied.
How so? I gave Blizzard’s numbers. You and I agree that this difference relates to the limitations of scaling. A simple prediction of a scaling model is how well does it actually fit 5K players. For seasons, the data for 5K paragon players is more limited than non-seasons.
Confirmation bias is seeing what you want to see and ignoring evidence to the contrary. I am still working through the data to make a more thorough assessment but already you and I already recognize that the scaling is problematic to some extent due to limitations in the seasonal dataset and its extrapolations.
My post was about crusaders and to highlight that there are issues with the scaling method used at least between season and non-seasosns.
Thank you linesman, thank you ball boys!
Game over!
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.
Yes, and we even have the confirmation in blue.
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.
Meteorblade performing his own mic drop 
It’s a shame I can only give this one like.