Bluetracker

Tracks Blizzard employees across various accounts.

Blizzard, nerfing is okay, that's not why people are upset with the Barbarian changes.

It's because of overshooting and then the inevitable undershooting. Any time something seems viable to change up the gameplay, it gets nerfed to the point where it's not even on the radar anymore.

Maybe you guys made a mistake and overshot the changes to the Barbarian, but the response to it is even worse by completely undershooting it afterwards. It's ok to throw them a bone once in a awhile, but don't flaunt it and take it away completely, at least leave a portion of it. Nerfing total damage to 33% is extreme and is viewed as a knee-jerk reaction. It seems like we are told these interesting changes will come in a future patch some day, but if you leave us to starve, we might not be around to enjoy them when (or if) they finally come.

To make matters worse, these changes are heavily influenced by the seasonal bonus. For this upcoming season, Barbarians actually work better with it than most classes (remember how RoRG season was Barbarians?). Due to this, their power is actually inflated a bit, meaning it may actually have been balanced without the season bonus, and how much worse this build will be after season 19.

Nevalistis

Posted 4 years, 7 months ago (Source)

Probably the last post I'm going to make on this because, despite those who are presenting their points positively and constructively, there's still a lot of toxicity I have to sort through to get to it and I'm recognizing pretty quickly the toll it's taking on me.

With deployments on PTR, we would rather overshoot than undershoot and then adjust accordingly. When deploying to live, however, we'd much rather do it the other way around. Real talk: no one likes being nerfed, even when it's warranted (and I'm not saying that's the case here). It's much, much harsher for a larger percentage of the community to accept a reduction in power on their tangible, "real" character as opposed to one in a test environment. We try, as much as possible, to avoid situations where we need to nerf what's on live.

It's possible we've undershot as a result of the Lamentation change. The testing we've done internally, combined with large amounts of data and feedback we acquired during PTR (including accounting for outliers like players with extraordinary amounts of Paragon levels), doesn't indicate it will be as severe as what some of the theorycrafted results are anticipating.

I'm not saying we're infallible. That's why we made the change the way we did; because it's easy for us to go back and change again later. We're still actively working on the game, and we have a lot more to go (including a patch that will have more focus on Barbarians with their new class set).

I think there's some additional context missing from the conversation that I'm in chats with my development team about putting into a more formalized blog. I'm setting up meetings today to discuss it, and I'll try to execute on that as quickly as I can. We're not going to make everyone happy 100% of the time, but I do hope we can make our reasoning a little more clear.
Nevalistis

Posted 4 years, 7 months ago (Source)

I understand that nerfing can make people upset, and I think this process kind of originated from RMAH + nerfing = angry people and the mentality kind of carried over despite no real money being involved anymore which leads us to such large numbers.

I think the reason why some games can pull off the nerfs with a bit less of the backlash has more to do with new seasons changing the meta, so while their old class got nerfed, they have their eyes on this new powerful build that will change how they play and be a new experience to them.

Instead, we get builds that are brought up to a reasonable level, but not top level. While this might be not bad for balance, we still often feel obligated to play the top builds that have been at the top for the past couple years which means the game still feels the same, which can be boring.

I think bazooka wizards are kind of the source of this problem. They are simply just too strong, can one shot GR150 elites and are still ridiculously good in solo. Nerfing them will result in GR150s not being doable anymore, but not nerfing means they will be better than all the other classes at solo. It's a tricky situation where you could maybe make the bazooka wizard as the baseline for solo balance, nerf it (and get a lot of angry people), or nerf it and nerf GR monster's health so people can still take on the same GRs in 4-man but at the same time making solo more viable when compared to 4-man.

You might not have seen yet - but bazooka Wizard did get nerfed. The decisions made in patch notes are rarely about one individual change, but the entire batch as a whole, and I do think this is an important consideration to the overall picture.

<blockquote class="quoted">
    
</blockquote>
<div class="md"><p>Probably the last post I'm going to make on this because, despite those who are presenting their points positively and constructively, there's still a lot of toxicity I have to sort through to get to it and I'm recognizing pretty quickly the toll it's taking on me.</p>

<p>With deployments on PTR, we would rather overshoot than undershoot and then adjust accordingly. When deploying to live, however, we'd much rather do it the other way around. Real talk: no one likes being nerfed, even when it's warranted (and I'm not saying that's the case here). It's much, much harsher for a larger percentage of the community to accept a reduction in power on their tangible, "real" character as opposed to one in a test environment. We try, as much as possible, to avoid situations where we need to nerf what's on live. </p>

<p>It's possible we've undershot as a result of the Lamentation change. The testing we've done internally, combined with large amounts of data and feedback we acquired during PTR (including accounting for outliers like players with extraordinary amounts of Paragon levels), doesn't indicate it will be as severe as what some of the theorycrafted results are anticipating.</p>

<p>I'm not saying we're infallible. That's why we made the change the way we did; because it's easy for us to go back and change again later. We're still actively working on the game, and we have a lot more to go (including a patch that will have more focus on Barbarians with their new class set). </p>

<p>I think there's some additional context missing from the conversation that I'm in chats with my development team about putting into a more formalized blog. I'm setting up meetings today to discuss it, and I'll try to execute on that as quickly as I can. We're not going to make everyone happy 100% of the time, but I do hope we can make our reasoning a little more clear.</p>
</div> (<a href="https://www.reddit.com/r/Diablo/comments/dvbspc/blizzard_nerfing_is_okay_thats_not_why_people_are/f7cgoub">Nevalistis</a>)
<hr/>

<blockquote class="quoted">
    <div class="md"><p>I understand that nerfing can make people upset, and I think this process kind of originated from RMAH + nerfing = angry people and the mentality kind of carried over despite no real money being involved anymore which leads us to such large numbers.</p>

<p>I think the reason why some games can pull off the nerfs with a bit less of the backlash has more to do with new seasons changing the meta, so while their old class got nerfed, they have their eyes on this new powerful build that will change how they play and be a new experience to them.</p>

<p>Instead, we get builds that are brought up to a reasonable level, but not top level. While this might be not bad for balance, we still often feel obligated to play the top builds that have been at the top for the past couple years which means the game still feels the same, which can be boring.</p>

<p>I think bazooka wizards are kind of the source of this problem. They are simply just too strong, can one shot GR150 elites and are still ridiculously good in solo. Nerfing them will result in GR150s not being doable anymore, but not nerfing means they will be better than all the other classes at solo. It's a tricky situation where you could maybe make the bazooka wizard as the baseline for solo balance, nerf it (and get a lot of angry people), or nerf it and nerf GR monster's health so people can still take on the same GRs in 4-man but at the same time making solo more viable when compared to 4-man.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div class="md"><p>You might not have seen yet - but bazooka Wizard <em>did</em> get nerfed. The decisions made in patch notes are rarely about one individual change, but the entire batch as a whole, and I do think this is an important consideration to the overall picture.</p>
</div> (<a href="https://www.reddit.com/r/Diablo/comments/dvbspc/blizzard_nerfing_is_okay_thats_not_why_people_are/f7cuif1">Nevalistis</a>)
<hr/>

Tweet

<p><div class="md"><p>Probably the last post I'm going to make on this because, despite those who are presenting their points positively and constructively, there's still a lot of toxicity I have to sort through to get to it and I'm recognizing pretty quickly the toll it's taking on me.</p>

<p>With deployments on PTR, we would rather overshoot than undershoot and then adjust accordingly. When deploying to live, however, we'd much rather do it the other way around. Real talk: no one likes being nerfed, even when it's warranted (and I'm not saying that's the case here). It's much, much harsher for a larger percentage of the community to accept a reduction in power on their tangible, "real" character as opposed to one in a test environment. We try, as much as possible, to avoid situations where we need to nerf what's on live. </p>

<p>It's possible we've undershot as a result of the Lamentation change. The testing we've done internally, combined with large amounts of data and feedback we acquired during PTR (including accounting for outliers like players with extraordinary amounts of Paragon levels), doesn't indicate it will be as severe as what some of the theorycrafted results are anticipating.</p>

<p>I'm not saying we're infallible. That's why we made the change the way we did; because it's easy for us to go back and change again later. We're still actively working on the game, and we have a lot more to go (including a patch that will have more focus on Barbarians with their new class set). </p>

<p>I think there's some additional context missing from the conversation that I'm in chats with my development team about putting into a more formalized blog. I'm setting up meetings today to discuss it, and I'll try to execute on that as quickly as I can. We're not going to make everyone happy 100% of the time, but I do hope we can make our reasoning a little more clear.</p>
</div> (<a href="https://www.reddit.com/r/Diablo/comments/dvbspc/blizzard_nerfing_is_okay_thats_not_why_people_are/f7cgoub">Source</a>)</p>

<p><div class="md"><p>You might not have seen yet - but bazooka Wizard <em>did</em> get nerfed. The decisions made in patch notes are rarely about one individual change, but the entire batch as a whole, and I do think this is an important consideration to the overall picture.</p>
</div> (<a href="https://www.reddit.com/r/Diablo/comments/dvbspc/blizzard_nerfing_is_okay_thats_not_why_people_are/f7cuif1">Source</a>)</p>
    
    <hr/>

Bluetracker

Blizzard, nerfing is okay, that's not why people are upset with the Barbarian changes.

Tweet

ODYN