One Man with his forms ,spreed sheets ,and bullet points dictate direction where D3 is heading

My math was correct. I clearly stated the dataset that I analyzed and how it was analyzed. Nev’s post said that they used a different dataset (earlier date) and scaled/transformed the data. I used actual clears.

Me 2+3 = 5
Nev: Your math is wrong. You should add instead 1+ 6/2 = 4

We used different datasets and analysis. You can check my math because I cited what I did. No one can check Blizzard but I assume that the made a good faih effort to be correct. I am glad that they mentioned the artifacts cause by the youth of their datasets.

3 Likes

So…

  1. Bad method + Bad data set = Bad results
  2. Bad method + Good data set = Bad results
  3. Good method + Bad data set = Bad results
  4. Good method + Good data set = Good results

It’s irrelevant which of the first three options you went with because anything other than the fourth option ends up with bad results. This is a very old concept that’s now decades old of GIGO (Garbage In, Garbage Out).

7 Likes

Agreed. I know how I would analyze the data and the datasets I would choose to analyze. It is complex to do this well. I hope that Blizzard will do their best.

The nice thing about my data analysis is that I state the dataset used and how the data was analyzed so people can decided the limitations and determine for themselves which category it is. I even give issues/concerns about the data/analysis.

The issue here is that players will always have a bad or incomplete data set. That means regardless of whether they use a good or bad method to analyse it, the results won’t be good.

1 Like

The data that is available from the API is not “bad”, especially if you are thinking about balance and leaderboard rankings. Even Blizzard said their 5K paragon player data was based on the GR average of the leaderboard using actual and scaled/transformed data.

On topic, the OP suggested that Blizzard listens to me when it comes to buffs/nerfs. I think that you know that is not true.

Yeah, rend modifier needs to be removed from lamentation completely as seen by that 146 clear.

Actually, this is what happened. He was closer to the true balance where as Blizzard’s numbers showed classes clearing a lower GRift in Season 19 at the same paragon level than non-season. Anyone with a brain can tell that Season 19 theme adds the capabilities to clear higher and not in fact lower.

I think the possibility of it being true is approximately 0%.
However, the possibility that I’m glad they don’t is 100%.

4 Likes

I disagree with this. Removing the rend modifier entirely is ~5.8 GRs.

Which would put it at GRift 140, which is right at where Blizzard wants the balance to be around 10k paragon

First of all, “some errors” doesn’t mean “everything is wrong”.
He could have made some errors but the general direction of his line of thinking was correct and in-line with Blizzard’s.

Secondly, it’s a CM who’s saying that. Not a game designer. And CM’s are notorious for being “political”, i.e. they say what is convenient for a company to say.

2 Likes

Ehm, the math wasn’t wrong, her wording was. Anybody with a bit of clue about math and statistics will know that there wasn’t anything wrong with the actual math, as the calculations were simple and could be done by a 10 y/o. The data used was the actual thing being questioned here. Nev claimed they used a broader set of data and basically tried to “appeal and benefit broadly, and not to any one particular camp” with regards to balance.

This is where the actual arguement begins. In my opinion their definition of balance is a joke. I find it amazing that they decide to upscale literal trash clears to 5k paragon levels in an attempt to balance at all levels. For instance, say I rather casually cleared GR 110 with Vyrs and 700 paragon, they might’ve actually upscaled this clear to 5k paragon and added this clear into the balance equation. It would be very stupid, because my clear wasn’t a push and did in no way reflect the highest clear I could pull off. Including such clears is more likely to skew the data rather than provide a more accurate picture. So her assertion that a wider range of data will lead to better analysis is definitely not always correct. Hell their data was a snapshot from early December, players had barely had time to push at all.

The problem here is obviously that’s it’s very hard to know when a player attempts to push or when he/she runs the rift casually. It becomes much less of a problem once you go higher up the leaderboard however as you can be sure those clears are attempted pushes. That is generally why balancing from the topend down is the best way to do it. Especially in a game such as D3 where GR 70 is identical to GR 150, even though certain players and CMs like to pretend it’s rocket science.

9 Likes

MicroRNA knows about D3 more than Nev’s or any Blizzard employed. Even with no tables or maths any player that actually plays the game know more than any blue.

3 Likes

the D3 team think at GR140 with 4.5-5K Parangon and not 10K .

Press ( X ) to doubt.

8 Likes

Surely you jest sir.

6 Likes

This is pretty much correct. I didn’t do any math. Microsoft excel did. It was quite simple. I downloaded Blizzard’s leaderboard data through their community development API for all seven classes era 12. This was imported into excel. Excel was used to sort leaderboard clears by paragon. As such, I only used paragon clears of 4.5k to 5.5k to let excel again calculate the average. I did no math. Unless someone is claiming that Microsoft excel can not calculate an average, I think we can all agree the question related to using different datasets (mine was later and less prone to artifacts) and that Blizzard scaled/transformed their data to model a 5k paragon player while I used actual 5k paragon data from the leaderboard.

The non-season leaderboard was data from less than 3 weeks where only 2 days existed where S19 was not concurrently running. This is consistent with Nev’s subsequent post on the recent PTR feedback forum.

The good thing is that they are continuing to look at the data and acknowledge that the age of the data and class popularity caused issues with their game balance blog tables, hence Nev’s quote.

3 Likes

You’re flat out wrong. Take a look at this post by Blue-Matthew Cederquist;

2 Likes

And I’m really tired of inane comments like this. Crusaders cleared 150 easily. If barbs were able to there would have been no problem - simple equivalency.

Hope this helps.

Crusaders were nerfed in patch 2.6.7a. Blizzard stated that the nerf did not go far enough. In the patch 2.6.8 notes, crusaders are being nerfed again. Even in these notes, the developer’s comment is that they will continue to watch crusader as a third nerf may be necessary.

1 Like

No, Crusader needs a bigger nerf too. We will see how the latest one works out

1 Like