PTR Thank you for ALL of the DH, Necro changes!

They would never do this. Even if they could reply with “we got 10 man strong on this”, people would find something to complain about. There will always be unsatisfied people that would demand more.
Imo. about balance and updating, they lack in general. But since it’s an old game and D4 is being made, I could see why there will not be much more for D3 than we already see.

Blizzard released a blog post about their ongoing support where they outline updates to the game. They are continuing to make progress on their stated goals (new 6-piece class sets for each class, new legendary items, new seasonal themes, etc…). They have also provided a blog post on game balance. Although I and others proved that there is something off in their calculation, they are trying to communicate more.

I suspect that once D4 is closer to/at release, D3 will enter maintenance mode.

Yikes didn’t see this before. This looks really unwise. It already is in almost every dh build.

I figured since its already required for every build, why not change it to where DH’s can get more out of it. If it also gave a 25-35% CDR to the other skills we could skip CDR stats on gear. This will help with survival more.

The best plan would be to reduce Vengeance to a lower number to make it where you can get permavengance by sacrificing stats for CDR, but that is something I cant see blizzard ever changing.

Edit:
The mike has been dropped… Demon hunters are dead.

1 Like

Actually that was Nevelists, much to the delight of the community at large.

Buff DH/Necro.

Demon Hunters were never the focus of this patch, which was something we were extremely clear and transparent on before the PTR launched.

I know it’s frustrating to not have something for your favorite class in every patch, but the reality of the rate at which we can supply updates means we can’t do something for everyone in each patch. Instead, we’re taking a focus-fire approach on a maximum of 2-3 classes per patch and doing as much as we can with the resources we have at a time. Remember, each change needs to be thoroughly tested (both internally and as much as we can on PTR, across four supported platforms), so it can be time consuming.

Demon Hunters and Necromancers both will likely be the main focus for 2.6.9. After that, we plan on doing more broad balancing patches to revisit anything that needs to be reigned in or boosted up. It’s a long-term process, and that can be a frustrating wait, but we are getting to everyone as quickly as we’re able.

15 Likes

It is not surprising. Nev informed us already. Remember the 2.6.6 barb buff proposal did not lead to any additional changes to barbs that were not planned. In that patch, barbs got Mortick’s Bracer and nothing else. They did lay the foundation for patch 2.6.7 due to their “exuberance”.

The important question is not what she said but was she right. According to them, a 5K paragon witch doctor on average would only solo GR 120 in season 19 with the pandemonium buff and GR 130 in non-season with the same paragon level. Can you explain how the pandemonium buff WEAKENS witch doctors by 10 GRs in their solo clears at the same paragon level?

1 Like

Although I wish we could have been buffed or at least been able to cube the furnace in the next season. I truly appreciate you taking the time to reply. Thank you!

2 Likes

I’ve been throwing it out there every once in awhile but I’d REALLY like to be able to use Elemental Arrow again.

:wink:

To reiterate what I’ve stated before, this is a byproduct of the data being from only two weeks in (for a class that didn’t receive updates in that patch and saw generally less play at the start of the Season - behavior that’s pretty reliable in patch cycles; people prefer to try the new stuff).

This is why we take multiple rounds of data for our own testing and observation. We can’t rely on one snap shot. However, the nature of my job, unfortunately, often leads to the requests I make for data winding up wildly out of date by the time I can acquire approvals, get things localized, and get them published. The holidays didn’t do me many favors there. :frowning:

As an aside, data’s pretty much never perfect, and is much more valuable in extremely high quantities with multiple snapshots and data points. It is highly susceptible to cases of individuals taking one piece of information and manipulating it to suit their observations or arguments. You see this everywhere, from politics to games discussions. It’s part of why we’re hesitant to share data on the regular; in part because it’s time consuming, but also because we’d prefer the philosophy to be the focus, not an arbitrary number that’s easy to take out of context.

Again, the data provided was meant to be an example, not “snap shot of truth.” The blog caveats as much, and I’ve stated this as well, but I’m happy to continue issuing that reminder when necessary.

8 Likes

I just noticed that today is the 14th and your here working. I hope you have a great Valentines day!

1 Like

First, Happy Valentine’s Day.

It makes sense that the dataset had limitations due to its age that presumably affected the seasonal data more than non-season. If the season and non-season data were taken at the same time, it means that the season data was 2 weeks old as you stated and the patch 2.6.7a data was about 3 weeks old. We know that there is a dramatic falloff in the number of non-season players once a new season begins. This fact also contributes to the non-season data being less reliable than at the end of an era. I am glad that Blizzard is continuing to assess the data.

Necromancers were the most obvious example but even crusaders which is a popular class “dropped” in the early season 19 analysis, highlighting the difficulties in data transformations using the selected datasets. I simply hope that Blizzard continues to look at the data in rigorous ways. It is not trivial to model/scale data without introducing artifacts and to take into consideration class popularity and player biases. To be done correctly, this is a Herculean endeavor.

Needless to say, I have played around with the data myself from era 11 vs. era 12 in many ways. One thing that I interrogated was DH and WD that did not receive buffs to look at the performance of different analytical methods. The expectations is that the 5K class performance would be identical since there were no changes to these classes during this time. Some analytics/statistical methods perform better than others given the reduction of the number of top end DH and WD where there seems to be about ~80% and ~50% reduction, respectively, in players in non-season that posted their high GR clears in the non-season leaderboard.

I fully agree that people can manipulate data. In academics, we have a saying there are liars, darn liars and statisticians. One advantage of published scientific research has is that the underlying datasets are made publicly available (for publications supported by government funds or in respectable journals), is subject to scholarly peer review before publications, and the statistical methods are explained in detail. Even with all these safeguards in place, many scientific studies are not worth the paper that they are printed on and have erroneous conclusions due to limited/faulty datasets and/or statistical analyses. Given this, there often are post-publication reviews for questionable studies that are done and some publications are retracted as a result.

Needless to say, Blizzard is a company and has every right to keep their information proprietary. From a personal standpoint, it was not my math that was wrong when you responded to me. My math was correct given the dataset that I clearly stated was being analyzed. My other issue was that the numbers did not make sense intellectually. If there is analysis that seems counterintuitive, then additional peer review is in order. For example, if the seasonal data was too immature to use, then it would have been better not to post the results at all.

I agree that people will use data/manipulate data to fir their arguments. It is important to note that this goes beyond individuals but to groups of individuals and corporations. That is why it makes sense to question in a respectful manner what has been provided as information.

Confirmation bias or motivated reasoning is something that we all suffer from. I am no exception. That is why I tend to look at data using multiple metrics to see how parsimonious the conclusions are. It sounds like by taking multiple snapshots Blizzard is trying to do these same things and presumably using multiple metrics where the data can be parsed in different manners to see if the conclusions are consistent. Altogether, these steps will help reduce erroneous findings.

You likely have noticed that when I give numbers I always try to explain the source of the data and how the data was analyzed. This way the forum community can double check (if they desire) or critique as necessary.

With more mature datasets, the analysis will be better. My initial comment was that there seemed to be something off with the data/analysis. I am pleased to see that there is recognition that the data provided was meant as an example, not “snap shot of truth.” My initial post was that there seemed to be something off. To me, it makes sense given your comments. I sincerely hope that if the analysis changes with better datasets and better ways to deal with class popularity that balance changes are made with this improved information, if warranted. With D4 on the horizon, it would be nice to have a well-balanced game (perfect balance is impossible) as discussed in the blog post.

Well at least the DH had the drop rate for In Geoms fixed, that’s not technically nothing.

1 Like

No, I didn’t write the article. You’re asking a question of me that I can’t answer when Nev is right here to ask, which tells me you’re trying to deflect b/c you’re stung. It’s OK to be wrong.

Thanks for this. I actually really want to play my necro. Please though, ask that the development team figure something out so that players have a strong competitive build that does not revolve around Land of the Dead. Thanks again.

Thanks for taking the time to answer Nev. However we are not asking to get something every patch. Demon Hunters have not received anything significant for many patches… (I can’t even remember the last time actually)

When GGG can creat 50 new skill, implement 150 news items, creat an all new season mechanism ( which is 10 timer bigger than lazy D3 season theme ) … etc … Blizzard can’t even work on more than 1 thing per year.

Diablo 4 isn’t here yet, remember that Diablo 3 is your actual A-RPG and you didn’t put any effort since the release. You are Activision Blizzard, you are not a low cost indie studio :roll_eyes:

Nev actually answered the question. You can read it if you choose. I would pay particular attention to her first sentence and her last couple. My point at that time was something seemed off when I looked at the data in comparison to their analysis.

I did read it, she responded because you asked me a question you should have asked her after she posted. Me reading that post had no bearing on what I wrote because of your chosen response and who you responded to with it.

Your inability to take self inventory is astounding.

I asked you because you said that Nev told me I was wrong. I wanted to see if you could provide an explanation. I have previously asked her and more generally on the forum about the counter-intuitive dichotomy in season/non-season clears. As of yesterday, she has provided an explanation that the datasets that they used were 2 weeks old (seasons) and presumably 3 weeks old for era 12/patch 2.6.7a. As such, these young datasets created issues where later inspection of the data is more reliable. Also, she mentioned the complications they have due to differences in class popularity that affect their analysis.

My analysis used more mature datasets. I only looked at non-seasons. I used multiple metrics, including ones that accounted in part for differences in class popularity (this is a difficult issue to deal with).

Actually you are a little off on you analogy. Paragon is more like practicing driving and putting in golf. Do it long enough you get really good at it. I am sure that golf courses have putting areas to practice your putting as well as driving ranges to practice driving. Doing both will give you good results like paragon.

Besides gold isn’t really a great analogy anyway. Simply because both players would be doing the same thing.

Paragon is not the end all be all of GR clears and you know it. Otherwise each rank on the leader boards would be in numerical order, and I know that it isn’t. I have looked at them many times. Time and time again I have seen that it isn’t in numerical order. You have to account for factors such as rng on gear. A player with higher paragon doesn’t necessarily mean that they will have better gear. Then there is the luck of the draw in getting that sweet rift to clear.

Even though you know that skill matters and the rankings are not in numerical order which is good. There is more to the top tier GR clears than just paragon. And paragon along won’t make up for subpar gear, gem levels, low augments, or lack of experience at playing the top tiered GRs.

I was just stating why it was put in the game. No intentions on derailing the thread. I will eventually put a comment in that thread as well as any additional comments here that I figure is needed.

Unless someone tells you that they have multiple accounts then there is no way of knowing for sure whether or not all of those accounts are owned by the same person. That is unless the profile says the person has multiple accounts. That is something that may have been added that I have forgotten about. So please inform me how it is shown on your profile page.

If you are going by the fact that a person hides their profile as evidence of the same person owning those accounts that is insufficient evidence. Because you are arguing that he is the only one in the entire would of posters that would do that. I am sure that one poster from another thread could probably calculate the odds of him being the only one to do that.

Right now the profile feature for everyone’s characters isn’t working atm. Don’t know when it will be back up again.

True, that is why there is the saying; “Figures don’t lie, but liars figure.”

Compare the size of the dev team that is working on this game along with the fact that the dev team currently working on this game have other things on their plate.

This game is not handled by a team of devs that only work on this game. This game is now in the hands of the classic game team. They have a lot of things on their plate such as this game and at least Warcraft 3 reforged.

Shrink the size of the dev team at GGG and have it where they are working on more than PoE and see just how much they will be able to do in the same time period. It is easy to do what they are doing since the dev team for that game is bigger than this one and they are working only on one game.

1 Like