I think the winner to date is misunderstanding. We both want the same thing.
The problem from their point of view is that I stated that barbs are part of the 4 man meta and that other classes had lower greater rift clears in 2018. These are not relevant to whether barbs get a DPS buff but just a friendly reminder that other classes are excluded from the meta or had the unfortunate title of worst solo clear recently. I feel that perspective is important.
Also, there is concern about how I calculated average solo grift clears.
They favor using buffs to support legendaries to achieve cross class parity. I prefer a universal class-specific modifier that would buff all classes excluding wizards (the current top solo class). In my scenario, barbs would get about 10.7 greater rift bump that biggest of any class.
Those are the disagreements in a nutshell. (I think, but needless to say I do not speak for Free and associates)
Nah, all good Micro, we never really had any rough conversations. But your thread is creating some confusion. Because you cannot at the same time say “oh, they need buff” while between the lines be saying “but they are in meta all the time so they kind of don’t need it as bad as some other classes” without sending essentially two contradicting messages.
Feels to me that you’re using Team Free’s Cart to pull yours at the same time. Why can’t you play your own game ? Get all your statistic, and do your math about witch class you prefer, build a website and obviously spend thousand of your own free time to make something decent to prove your point ABOUT YOUR MOST FAVORITE CLASS that is lacking in some sort, find ideas how to buff it, request help and better ideas, and set sail my friend with your own boat.
Someone want to quote the simpson, Homer with the map as a hat, ‘’ I’m the captain’’ and there goes the hat, blown by the wind.
I already proposed a solution for global class balance using the data that was derived from diablo3ladder. This proposal has a simple formula that achieves class solo greater rift equity. Free’s cart in my opinion has too many parts to be built by the classic game development team. I proposed something simple and very different. He is focused on his favorite class. My focus is all classes and their GR balance.
They actually said they were going to specifically look at the case of barbarian. This indirectly means they were finally going to look at the problem of the class: Viable legendaries and passives.
However, they completely failed on their promise so we have no idea in what form they can balance. It may be the good old “buff 6P numbers”…
Crimson buff will help Demon Hunters and Crusaders I think. Maybe Monks too. I don’t think it’s helping us too much if at all. We did get Mortick’s though I guess which is some life per Fury spent added to builds that can fit it in…
Demon Hunters definitely taking advantage of Squirt’s upgraded amulet too. I don’t think any of our builds can risk the defense penalty for GR pushing though.
Have you forgotten what other folks who dog whistled did to our class? Whether he meant it or not, the effect is still felt.
Mortick’s is an item from 2.2.0. It was in the game code already. All they had to do was re-enable it to drop. In other words, it was a last minute inclusion for Barbs, clearly meant to pacify us since there was nothing else of value in there for us. And obviously, it didn’t work.
Some folk jumped for joy when they saw the bracer’s return. Those folks either don’t understand the current state of the game, or still think than an item from 2.2.0 is going to matter in 2.6.6. They’re ignorant or full of wishful thinking.
Mortick’s is not what Barbs wanted. We wanted what was in the proposal.
No one’s a fan of that because it doesn’t fix any actual problems and it’s incredibly unlikely to be implemented. It doesn’t fix broken sets, doesn’t increase build diversity, doesn’t offer options in group play, and it doesn’t elevate struggling builds. It’s well-intentioned, but unnecessary.
Your heart is in the right place, but your constant attempts to address the issue or solve it only exacerbate things. This is why we’ve repeatedly asked you to sit back and let Barb experts handle Barb.
The entire proposal? Yes.
But some of it is 100% possible. I know for a fact that:
The devs have read and discussed our proposal. It was well-received and even discussed with folk outside the dev team.
2.6.6 includes new affixes on old items and wholly new items. Our proposal only modifies existing items.
In other words, much of what we asked for is possible, even if all of it is never going to be on the dockett. They didn’t deliver this patch, likely due to the patch being deep into development by the time our proposal went live, and likely due to an enormous amount of red tape that prohibits even the simplest of changes. We all think it’s easy for a dev to just go in, increase the numbers on an item, and call it a day, but I suspect that even that involves multiple levels of approval, possibly QA, and possibly other hurdles before it can make it’s way to PTR. I don’t know that for certain, but I do know a lot about how companies the size of Blizzard operate, and that all seems very likely to me.
If the developers have read the barb buff proposal, do you think that the developers would really care what I say?
The only reason that they might care in my mind was if they thought my idea for buffing all classes was superior to your idea on how to buff a single class. Are you that worried that they would take my idea that you consider bad?
All these questions are rhetorical.
Correct on the idea that it doesn’t fix broken sets and doesn’t increase build diversity. It does buff options for group play and it buffs all builds. For monks it would be ~10.7 GRs for barbs ~11.6 greater rift for every single build. My proposal achieves cross class parity.
Lets assume they buff one build using the 2.6.6. buff proposal ideas. If they over buff, then you will still have the same intra class disparity as now. If they don’t buff enough, then you will not have cross class parity. Either way, buffing any one barb builds does not solve barbs problems. It will simply reduce intra class variability without addressing cross class parity (Win-neutral). You will be in the same position that you are in now with a woefully underpowered solo DPS class. Alternatively, it will address cross class parity and likely increase intra class disparity. (Win-lose)
In list 1, it only changes modifiers on existing items. List 2 adds new affixes to several “existing items”. Yes it can be done. At best you will get 1 (or 2) at most added. If you get 2, I am pretty sure other classes will get 1, then it is luck of the draw about who ends up where relative to the differential buffs given to all the builds.
An alternate approach that fixes cross class parity and increases the power of all intra class builds proportionally is:
Sorry GodofAllBob, I think you might need to bring Savage out of retirement.
You know what: Free, I and couple of others are already TL3 due to the dependability of our suggestions and game knowledge and based on past contributions.
And they did consider his proposal and the kind of suggestions you are making have been made in the past. None was ever considered by devs due to their statisticsl errors.
Only select few has impacts with the devs in the past (Nubtro, CC123, Free, S4v4g3, Myself and many others). If you are not willing to understand what we are saying and you still think that you are 100% right, then you are actually clueless and these can only be your opinion.
So we have no idea about your motives. Your way cannot help or be used to bring cross class parity and balance. It is a really fruitless, unconstructive communication.
Yes. There are select few posters who are TL3. These include MVPs in addition to others. These “others” often included those who wrote guides in new player help and class-specific forums who were manually granted TL3 via Nev.
TL3s can post animated gifs like the one below.
Overall, I wholeheartedly agree that the manually awarded TL3 posters have been incredible assets to the forum community.
Although I disagree relative to what I consider the best method in my mind to achieve class parity with Free for example, he is exceptionally knowledgeable about barbs. For other classes, he acknowledges that his knowledge is more limited.
I assume that the second sentence only refers to “the kind of suggestion” that I am currently making. To be honest, I can not recall a solution like mine being suggested on the forum. Can you show me where some else suggested this? Also, how do you know that the developers saw this “kind of suggestions”? How do you know that the developers never considered this “kind of suggestions” “due to their statistical errors”?
If what you say is true, you are privy to information that almost no one outside of the inner workings of the D3 developers would know. I am surprised that you know what things have been considered by the developers and you know the exact reason that “the kind of suggestions” was not considered due to "statistical errors. "
In terms of statistical errors, do you mean what is presented below meets your definition of statistical errors as it takes the average of the top 10 GR clears within a region and then averages them:
" A Global Comparison
… Here are the averages of the top 10 GR clears by class for all three servers:
Worldwide average for all classes is 130.8 , which means Barbarians are 4.1 tiers behind the average for other classes. Every other class, except Monk, nearly meets or exceeds this average,"
I remember a time when a lot of people flat out called for nerfs to barbs. I don’t ever remember a time of reading people “dog whistling” because that is not a term I use to describe peoples posts.
It is a type of coded language that apparently only people like you seem to be able to pick up. Although, I really think it is a type of attack against people whose message you don’t agree with.
You act like you 100% know he was calling for nerfs to barbs even though he never once asked for it. The part that confuses me is that you tell me I don’t know what it is and then point to a post describing something that wasn’t dog whistling.
You have a lot of merit to argue his numbers and his methodology about his post which is why I get confused as to why you would then go the route of adding on about dog whistling. Don’t stoop to such underhanded tactics it just makes you look weak.
Micro, it has been mentioned to you quite a few times already and you are still not seeing your error in your approach. Simply averaging some numbers do not qualify for a representative data. What you are doing does neither approximate nor describe the behaviour of the data. You simply average top 10s.
Imagine a formula 1 race with 20 racers. And you are taking the top speed of the top 5 racers. Then you average these speeds and call those numbers as the average speed of the racers for the whole race. This is what you are doing.(Imagine Wizards are in F1 league, Necro in F2 and Barbs are racing at F10 league). You cannot compare a boxer from heavy weight to a boxer from light weight.
Yes you are suggesting a 10gr worth of buff, which may or may not be correct, but your way of thought reaching to that conclusion is flawed.
It is not a robust way of thought/analysis.
I think you have quite a long thinking that you should carry out before posting suggestions or presenting “analyses”
Currently I am on holiday and I dont have access to a fast internet. However, I see no use doing a 2.6.5 analysis at this stage. However, once 2.6.6 is out, I will definitely do carry out my approach, which considers low-average-high parts of the data spectrum generated by players, which makes it more evident what level of buffs will benefit low-mid-high tiers of players.
However, do note that this type of a general buff only elevates the gr clesring potential at the same clearing efficiency. We actually achieved this back from S11 to S12. Afterwards, the real problem of barb class had to be addressed through legendaries and items and this did not happen.
Also I cannot pinpoint specific posts from past regarding your questions as I dont have to proove myself to you. We have been very active in these forums so these are our observations made in the last 5 years. We kind of know what works for devs or not.
Given this fact, I would argue that it is incorrect to call it my approach. My approach was based entirely on Free’s. I think that it would be better to say: “The approach used by Free and duplicated later by you has problems.” My response to this statement is “I fully agree but his/my approach has limitations/problems. I feel that is good enough with acknowledged caveats.”
I am not convinced that Free can argue that the merits of his methodology to calculate these numbers is superior to mine since we used the same methodology. These numbers and approach are from the 2.6.6 barb buff proposal website linked above. Free and Rage are the ones who made that website.
I do not have a problem with Free’s method. It is good enough. I fully recognize that the method is far from perfect.
My problem is simple. The first person in that thread that Free directed others to that disagreed with the methodology was Free himself (see post #10). Ironically, he complained that the methodology used was invalid. He failed to recognize the fact that he did the exact same thing on his website (i.e., averaged the top 10 solo greater rift clears per region). That irony was not lost on me.
Some posters claim that Free’s numbers/methods are good/appropriate. When I post Free’s numbers directly from his website/use his methodology (without saying that these are from Free), I get eviscerated by some of the same people who tell me to go to his website to see the right way. I dislike hypocrisy.
I look forward to this future post. The prior analyses that you have done were quite good. Ideally to have the best estimate of class power, you need to consider paragon levels, legendary gem levels, augments, hours played, and how many competitive vs. casuals are playing each class. Unfortunately, we players do not have access to all these variables to make a perfect comparison.
I think one thing that you need to show is that there is a very good correlation between paragon levels and two key variables: augments and legendary gem levels. For people who play primarily non-meta classes, one would anticipate that their average augments and paragon levels would be lower.
Also, you have talked about class power relative to the average Joe. I do not think that you or anyone else has really captured that. I base this on the premise that the average joe is not on the leaderboard/top 2000 per class.
Anyone can argue anything at anytime that they feel like. I am all for a lively debate about how things should be or why they should be. I am not for underhanded tactics like calling someone a dog whistler.
I get it man, I really do. I still think there is always room for debate and discussion and really only wanted to make a point in not using shady tactics to shut down these discussions. I do think using those numbers is the quick and easy way to get to the same conclusion that barbs (and other classes) still need buffs/tweaks. I like Pro’s method a bit better as it go way more into detail and allows for more nuanced changes to happen.
Aliens? Robots? People who have come into contact with a dictionary? Fascinating!
Ah, no. Please read my posts carefully:
Not quite.
The data on your GD thread is not the same as the data from Rage’s and my site. We looked at the top 10 non-Season GR clear for every region, then averaged it solely to prove that Barbs (and Monks) clear significantly lower than all other classes in non-Season.
There’s a reason we emphasize non-Season, because our concerns is with the top-end power potential of the class. Top-end power potential is not necessarily reflective of low-end or mid-end, and though we didn’t publish it, we did crunch the numbers on those clears as well. Season data had to be excluded due to the instability created by Season themes and exclusive bonuses, but also because the presence of botters is felt more heavily in Seasons; by the time you have 4-6k Paragon, all botting is doing is fetching you keys and mats.
Our philosophy has always been: Work from the top down. Look at what we’re capable of on the high-end, buff accordingly, and make special exceptions for builds that are severely underperforming (primary skills, IK HOTA, etc). Our analysis looks at global averages only to examine solo clear potential in non-Season. After that, we get into the specifics of wall-charging and so forth. In other words, even in our proposal, the numbers are not the true tell.
Where people are taking major umbrage with your work is A) the emphasis on group play, and B) the argument that Barbs haven’t been the worst for a very long time.
My response to both is that A) that’s a separate issue, so leave it out, and B) in eras where we cleared higher than some classes, it was due to broken sets and exploits and we still haven’t been addressed in other ways.
In other words, the numbers alone are not the final tell. My Measured Response thread spells that out plain as day.
Context and details make numbers significant. We’ve asked you over and over, so here’s me, once again, asking nicely: Leave Barbs to Barb experts.
Negative, mah dude. You don’t understand how Barb builds work.
+10 GRs = zero for WW in fishing, rolls, frustration, front-loaded damage, etc.
+10 GRs = zero for Frenzy or Bash or Cleave. It means nothing for wall-charging. It means nothing except slightly larger base numbers.
Boulder Toss will still be garbage. Slam builds will still be 10-15 GRs behind HOTA. See where this is going?
Global buffs are not the answer. I can’t say it any more plainly.
Buffs need to come from targeted supporting legendaries. Barbs have received nothing for a very long time (so help me, if someone says Mortick’s is something, you’re fired). Look at my Measured Response thread. It spells it out in detail.
One more time, Micro: Leave Barbs to Barb experts. Stop making threads about this stuff. Stop with the suggestions. I’m happy to discuss things with you on the forums or answer questions, but we’re all better off with less arguing.
I am primarily focused on cross class parity. I also have made a thread on having better parity for solo versus groups that is of interest to me. I think that my desire to have class parity is a hypersensitive subject because barbs are the worst solo class currently in terms of higher greater rift clears.
On ESPN, they often have the segment called blind resume to compare players analytically. I am curious about your philosophy on class and build parity.
Edit: For clarity, a two fold increase in power level “in D3 terms” is the ability to clear a greater rift that is ~4.5 GRs higher.
Which would be the best of 1-5 in your mind?
Which would be the best of 6–8 in your mind?
Power Goal = 3000
Original Build Power
New Power of Scenario 1
New Power of Scenario 2
New Power of Scenario 3
New Power of Scenario 4
New Power of Scenario 5
Best Build
1000
3000
1000
1000
1000
3000
Build 2
500
500
3000
500
500
1500
Build 3
400
400
400
3000
400
1200
Worst Build
250
250
250
250
3000
750
Power Goal = 3000
Original Build Power
New Power of Scenario 6
New Power of Scenario 7
New Power of Scenario 8
Best Build
1000
3000
3000
1000
Build 2
500
1500
3000
500
Build 3
400
1200
400
3000
Worst Build
250
750
250
3000
P.S.
Point of clarification: My OP had the data for seasons and eras. I copied your table verbatim at around post 200 and was told that that table was “bull” also.
This seems to be one of your biggest issues. The “It” = wall charging bug began “before 2.4.1”. If the barb community has been advocating for this to be fixed for years without any luck, I am not sure why would expect it to change now.
I’m entitled to my opinion even if I am not a barb expert. Remember what Nev said. Nevalistis Community Manager
This is simply a question about preferences not about any class in particular.
The numbers gives a builds functional power in arbitrary units (the higher the number, the more powerful). The goal for functional power is 3000.
A build whose functional power is 1000 is twice as powerful as a build with 500 power, and four times that of 250.
Column 2 refers to the functional power of 4 builds for an underperforming class prior to buffing).
Column 3 -the end refers the new power of each build following a potential buff. These column represent different scenarios of buffing to achieve at least 1 build of 3000 power.
Rows 2-5 refer to 4 builds (most powerful to least powerful within a given class).
I hope that helps.
For scenarios 1-5, my preference is for 5 then 4.
For scenarios 6-8, it is more difficult to choose. I prefer 8 most then 6 then 7 the least.
