Still no balance a year later - with facts

"

mark1030 wrote:

"

Legatus1982 wrote:

"

mark1030 wrote:

You do know that the higher the level, the less effect your starting position has, right? It takes 10 points to get from the Ranger start to the Shadow Tree and the Witch start to the Shadow tree. Therefore, there is at most a 10 point difference between those classes. When you have 120 passive points at level 100, do you really think 10 points makes so much difference that it makes the Shadow suck compared to Witch and Ranger?

Take 10 points off your build and try.

Are you kidding me? Most of my characters have unused points. I've played characters with as many as 24 unused points. Have you ever played this game? The content stops at level 78. If you can do that content at level 80, those last 20 points are a luxury that only makes the game easier. When things get easier, people get careless and die. Your "data" only shows that people who play Shadows are more careless than people who play Witches. This cannot be disputed because it is based on FACTS.

I can't really say whether or not shadow needs fixing, but either way your argument is a poor one.

It is simply not true that all builds that are equal at 90 points invested will also be equal at 80 points invested. Some builds mature earlier than others do. Some builds are really gear friendly compared to other builds.

If no builds substancially benefit from the shadow starting position relative to other starting position, it's a fair assumption that the shadow's starting position is lacking given the current meta. If all builds which use more than one starting location in addition to using the shadow's starting location, all these builds can save 1 or 2 points by using a different starting location, then essentially it is undeniably true that the shadow variant will be 1 or 2 effective levels behind the other positions. Your argument doesn't address these possibilities because it assumes they cannot exist.

"

Xarog wrote:

Your argument doesn't address these possibilities because it assumes they cannot exist.

No, my argument is that the difference is negligible to the point of irrelevance. If the shadow position doesn't benefit any builds substantially, that doesn't mean the shadow start is lacking. It means it's versatile and can be used in many builds without being pigeon-holed into only specific builds. I can build a crit Tornado Shot archer just as easily from a shadow start the Ranger start. How can that mean the Shadow start is lacking but the Ranger start is fine?

"

mark1030 wrote:

"

Xarog wrote:

Your argument doesn't address these possibilities because it assumes they cannot exist.

No, my argument is that the difference is negligible to the point of irrelevance. If the shadow position doesn't benefit any builds substantially, that doesn't mean the shadow start is lacking. It means it's versatile and can be used in many builds without being pigeon-holed into only specific builds. I can build a crit Tornado Shot archer just as easily from a shadow start the Ranger start. How can that mean the Shadow start is lacking but the Ranger start is fine?

If some builds are substancially benefitted by certain starting points, and if all starting points have builds which they are substancially better than alternative starts, except the shadow, then the shadow start is lacking something all other builds have.

You cannot point to one particular build and say that [x] and [y] can both do it and say therefore no problem exists.

Case in point, if the shadow can do a tornado shot build as well as a ranger, the same can be true of the duelist. Yet the duelist is getting a revamp of its starting area. Are you claiming that GGG is in error?

"

Xarog wrote:

Case in point, if the shadow can do a tornado shot build as well as a ranger, the same can be true of the duelist. Yet the duelist is getting a revamp of its starting area. Are you claiming that GGG is in error?

Yes, yes, a thousand times YES.

"

Charanjaydemyr wrote:

Uhm...OP is in the naughty corner for a bit and you're still going? He wins.

OP won like 8 pages ago, but who cares, ppl seem to be enjoying themselves :)

"

RogueMage wrote:

"

Xarog wrote:

Case in point, if the shadow can do a tornado shot build as well as a ranger, the same can be true of the duelist. Yet the duelist is getting a revamp of its starting area. Are you claiming that GGG is in error?

Yes, yes, a thousand times YES.

Choosing one build out of the whole gamut of possible viable builds and saying because that ONE build works for a particular class, there's no way that class's start is imbalanced is about the same thing as saying because John Doe was a smoker and did not die of lung cancer, smoking cannot cause lung cancer.

Edit: Mistaken Identity

"

Xarog wrote:

"

mark1030 wrote:

"

Xarog wrote:

Your argument doesn't address these possibilities because it assumes they cannot exist.

No, my argument is that the difference is negligible to the point of irrelevance. If the shadow position doesn't benefit any builds substantially, that doesn't mean the shadow start is lacking. It means it's versatile and can be used in many builds without being pigeon-holed into only specific builds. I can build a crit Tornado Shot archer just as easily from a shadow start the Ranger start. How can that mean the Shadow start is lacking but the Ranger start is fine?

If some builds are substancially benefitted by certain starting points, and if all starting points have builds which they are substancially better than alternative starts, except the shadow, then the shadow start is lacking something all other builds have.

You cannot point to one particular build and say that [x] and [y] can both do it and say therefore no problem exists.

Case in point, if the shadow can do a tornado shot build as well as a ranger, the same can be true of the duelist. Yet the duelist is getting a revamp of its starting area. Are you claiming that GGG is in error?

The Shadow already got the revamp that the Duelist is getting (ease of getting out of the starting area). Name one build that is better as a Duelist than any other class. Name one build that is better as a Ranger than any other class. Name one build that's better as a Scion than any other class. Name one build that's better as a Templar than any other class. Name one build that's better as a Marauder than any other class. Nothing you said about a Shadow doesn't also hold true for all other classes with the exception of Witch because that start has more strong nodes than anywhere else. If a shadow start is underpowered, I'd like to see your list of builds proving that all the other classes are better.

"

mark1030 wrote:

Name one build that is better as a Duelist than any other class.

I agree with everything else you said, but this challenge is drop dead easy. Virtually any melee Marauder build that takes the Scion Wheel of Life will get there more efficiently from the Duelist's starting point. The Patch 1.2 Skill Tree nerfs rendered the Marauder almost completely vestigial.

"

mark1030 wrote:

The Shadow already got the revamp that the Duelist is getting (ease of getting out of the starting area). Name one build that is better as a Duelist than any other class. Name one build that is better as a Ranger than any other class. Name one build that's better as a Scion than any other class. Name one build that's better as a Templar than any other class. Name one build that's better as a Marauder than any other class. Nothing you said about a Shadow doesn't also hold true for all other classes with the exception of Witch because that start has more strong nodes than anywhere else. If a shadow start is underpowered, I'd like to see your list of builds proving that all the other classes are better.

You're missing the point. I'm not claiming that the shadow's start is over-powered or under-powered. I'm simply saying that you're doing the equivalent of cherry-picking the data set you want to work with in order to prove your point, but the cherry-picked data doesn't actually hold water. Considering the fact that you were bemoaning OP's behaviour regarding abuse of statistics, your position is somewhat hypocritical.

And it's exactly because I'm on the fence that I'd like to see a good argument for and against the idea that the shadow's starting point is in need of a buff. But so far, niether side has been very convincing.

"

Xarog wrote:

"

mark1030 wrote:

The Shadow already got the revamp that the Duelist is getting (ease of getting out of the starting area). Name one build that is better as a Duelist than any other class. Name one build that is better as a Ranger than any other class. Name one build that's better as a Scion than any other class. Name one build that's better as a Templar than any other class. Name one build that's better as a Marauder than any other class. Nothing you said about a Shadow doesn't also hold true for all other classes with the exception of Witch because that start has more strong nodes than anywhere else. If a shadow start is underpowered, I'd like to see your list of builds proving that all the other classes are better.

You're missing the point. I'm not claiming that the shadow's start is over-powered or under-powered. I'm simply saying that you're doing the equivalent of cherry-picking the data set you want to work with in order to prove your point, but the cherry-picked data doesn't actually hold water. Considering the fact that you were bemoaning OP's behaviour regarding abuse of statistics, your position is somewhat hypocritical.

And it's exactly because I'm on the fence that I'd like to see a good argument for and against the idea that the shadow's starting point is in need of a buff. But so far, niether side has been very convincing.

I have been watching this thread every so often with some amusement because I do see issues with the OP's attitude on what numbers constitute as facts. But I also agree with you that this discussion got rather heated and now there needs to be a collective breath catching. What I would like to see now is OP actually collaborating thoughtfully with others on what would statistically define an under-performing class. If he cannot agree with a general consensus or actually citable sources, his own opinion on that matter means nothing (and so far I have found this an entertaining read because of this). At the same time, the other side was bashing OP too hard to make consensus feasible with OP.

Second, there needs to be actual statistics damnit! If you are all going to claim statistical significance then actually present your results properly. Give me some sexy sexy p <.05 or .01! Even without a definition of what under-performing is, the words relating to any form of statistics should never come up in your emotion-filled argument if you aren't even going to present some friggin' alpha levels you bums!

Psychology major rant over.