Mist
REEEEeyore
- 31,087
- 23,420
I think using the Mystic to change the item's stats makes them account bound.
Diablo 3 - Reaper of Souls
- Thread starter Agenor
- Start date
-
Guest, did you like the last podcast notification?? Well here's the second one, and for the third podcast! Yep. This Thursday 8-8-24 at 7pm Central
Go here to check out his podcast thread for info on topics and links!Go into the FoH discord and find the Happy Time Fun Hour channel and give it a listen!
looks like the game i want is going to be on consoles, they will never add an option to play without RMAH/AH so console it is.
idk i really enjoyed trading in d2, yeah sojs were currency but you could still trade without sojs, just a personal opinion really, and ive never been a fan of buy2win, i guess it does not matter since im not forced to play with those people.
but once pvp is good, buy2win is going to blow, unless you just pvp with your friends. i want pvp in this game to be good because my best memories of d2 was the pvp games.
and boy did gear matter alot in duels, and i feel p2w is going to suck some level of fun out of it.
but once pvp is good, buy2win is going to blow, unless you just pvp with your friends. i want pvp in this game to be good because my best memories of d2 was the pvp games.
and boy did gear matter alot in duels, and i feel p2w is going to suck some level of fun out of it.
what part is the hard way, going around game to game looking at what people have to offer, and seeing what they will offer up for what you have? maybe a little misplaced nostalgia.
or is the hard way not using rmah or an AH period? because i was never the type to spend much other than a box cost on games.
and i explained why i prefer no AH because it added another layer to the game i felt, maybe misplaced nostalgia.
or is the hard way not using rmah or an AH period? because i was never the type to spend much other than a box cost on games.
and i explained why i prefer no AH because it added another layer to the game i felt, maybe misplaced nostalgia.
- 16,715
- 7,731
If you like going around game to game to find trade deals, then yes, that explains it. But that is the harder way. Easily takes much more time than just throwing your drops up on the AH and returning to farming.
When I say AH, I mean just the gold AH. I dislike the RMAH and I'm in no way advocating for it. Maybe just selling on it to earn some cash. But spending real money on a game like D3 just seems pointless and side steps the whole aim of the endgame. If you feel the need to spend real money on D3, you should probably just not play it anymore.
When I say AH, I mean just the gold AH. I dislike the RMAH and I'm in no way advocating for it. Maybe just selling on it to earn some cash. But spending real money on a game like D3 just seems pointless and side steps the whole aim of the endgame. If you feel the need to spend real money on D3, you should probably just not play it anymore.
Grayson Carlyle
Golden Squire
- 225
- 9
Account-bound is their solution to the AH. I like the AH in concept. In practice, it makes gear far too visible and available than without it. Items, in particular, good items, need to be removed from the public economy. So it looks like they're going with the modifying items = account-bound route.
Personally, I think I'd prefer items becoming account-bound when they're purchased off the AH: You can trade them person-to-person all you want (share among friends, family, communities), un/equip them all you want but as soon as it's bought off the AH, the person buying it is the only one who can use it. That removes AH sniping as a way to make a profit as well. The amount of good gear on the AH will be small, because it won't be recycled. It would also bring back the pay days of people who originally used the RMAH for making money from those with too much of it (or those of us who fondly remember selling Windforces on ebay for several hundred $ in D2). I think it solves just about every problem the AH has caused, but maybe I'm overlooking something. I'd even combine the modifying and AH purchase account-bound methods together. The former also makes that really sweet item you got and spent the time to upgrade to really feel like it's yours.
Personally, I think I'd prefer items becoming account-bound when they're purchased off the AH: You can trade them person-to-person all you want (share among friends, family, communities), un/equip them all you want but as soon as it's bought off the AH, the person buying it is the only one who can use it. That removes AH sniping as a way to make a profit as well. The amount of good gear on the AH will be small, because it won't be recycled. It would also bring back the pay days of people who originally used the RMAH for making money from those with too much of it (or those of us who fondly remember selling Windforces on ebay for several hundred $ in D2). I think it solves just about every problem the AH has caused, but maybe I'm overlooking something. I'd even combine the modifying and AH purchase account-bound methods together. The former also makes that really sweet item you got and spent the time to upgrade to really feel like it's yours.
I am also going to +1 in the camp in favor of account binding. I think for uniques if you equip it then it should bind to your account. Right now there is oustanding inflation because perfect/near-perfect items keep going into the system without ever leaving the system. So eventually the only things worth a damn are perfect/near-perfect items -- which makes finding them impossible. So that basically forces you to buy some gold from the RMAH so you can get a character that can plow through MP6+ where it rains legendaries that will be, for the most part, worthless. I'd still be playing the game if it wasn't for the fact that the only things worth anything are high Skorns, crit Mempo, high EF. It is pretty gross I have such a low chance to find a Skorn and then even grosser that I need to hit the statistical lottery just to get one that is actually sellable. Completely killed my motivation to play.
Nirgon
Log Wizard
- 13,666
- 21,274
Lithose
Buzzfeed Editor
- 25,946
- 113,036
A game that requires items to leave the economy has underlying issues that need to be addressed. Real economies work with durable goods, goods that don't leave the market (At least, not with in a generational time frame). Some of this demand is generational in nature (+gooder or literally younger people needing stuff) but some isn't. There is, for example, a huge demand for clothes *within* generational markets (So not new clothes for kids) even though they last longer than purchasing trends (So people tend to buy new ones before the old ones wear out). That's because real economies work by enticing you to buy NEW stuff, not just because it's better or because the old stuff wore out, but because it's different, it's exciting, it's fresh compared to the old stuff (heh, Dumar is not going to like this!). In an MMO you can simulate this AND generational demand (Generational demand would be a strictly superior items),rather thanjustgenerational demand (Which is what D3 does now).
That focus on just generation demand leads to +gooder, which leads to failures (Like D3) or to rampant, but very, very boring inflation (like WoW). Because the only way to entice new purchases is to give aDIRECTacross the board power increase to items. Mix this in with farming and non-differentiated economies (Low levels far the same money high end people use) and you have a recipe for "needing" items to leave the economy just to create demand. Slapping "Account Bound" on that problem only attempts to stave off the inevitable. It doesn't actually fix the underlying issue and what's worse, it creates a ton of new issues in it's place.
This is why having a DEEP system of character builds, that interactbroadlyand directly with items is so important. Imagine two of the *same* sword dropping--One sword though gives +1 to every whirl wind rune you have bought, if you have three or more runes, the other gives +3 to Blood Funnel if you have 3 points in that rune. Even though it's the sword with the SAME stats, it has two separate builds it is in demand for.
By creating gear that compliments certain builds and requiring the player to work to create those build (By leveling and investing points into skills, or whatever)--it makes it so there is a highly diverse market for unique item pieces to fit specific builds. The same item, with different skill augmentations, can accommodate wildly different play styles and different desires in the market. So you don't have to increase +gooder to increase demand (At least, not nearly as fast), because just having something DIFFERENT will create demand, by allowing for different builds. If you've done a decent job at making a lot of combinations powerful and by making item builds+ items like "recipes" you can do this easily 2 Hurricane Runes+Blood Funnel+Volcanic Rune should give you a different and weird skill bonus compared to 3 Hurricane+Volcanic--and let the player spend time and effort to do these experiments, let him be unique in showing off his odd and colorful rune/item combinations.
It's that diversity that will drive a market much farther than simply having +gooder and forcing obsolescence to stimulate demand. Items shouldn't be freaking lightbulbs, where the only reason you want to buy a new one is because the old one isn't usable anymore. Is that exciting to anyone? Forcing obsolescence is almost always a trade mark of generic materials that are required and not distinctive. Any industry that can create trends and offer variety, distinction and "fun", like say clothing, can create demand by actually differentiating itself, by making people WANT to *try* new things.
Account binding is an artificial solution to the problem of farming (Bots), poor economic rules and boring,linear, and ultimatelyunimaginativeitems/game systems (And their interaction). Offer some breath to what items+skills can create, allow the players to make a bunch of tools for the same job, and you'll tackle the underlying problem of linear +gooder systems pushing items into +gooder treadmills which ultimately break down.
That focus on just generation demand leads to +gooder, which leads to failures (Like D3) or to rampant, but very, very boring inflation (like WoW). Because the only way to entice new purchases is to give aDIRECTacross the board power increase to items. Mix this in with farming and non-differentiated economies (Low levels far the same money high end people use) and you have a recipe for "needing" items to leave the economy just to create demand. Slapping "Account Bound" on that problem only attempts to stave off the inevitable. It doesn't actually fix the underlying issue and what's worse, it creates a ton of new issues in it's place.
This is why having a DEEP system of character builds, that interactbroadlyand directly with items is so important. Imagine two of the *same* sword dropping--One sword though gives +1 to every whirl wind rune you have bought, if you have three or more runes, the other gives +3 to Blood Funnel if you have 3 points in that rune. Even though it's the sword with the SAME stats, it has two separate builds it is in demand for.
By creating gear that compliments certain builds and requiring the player to work to create those build (By leveling and investing points into skills, or whatever)--it makes it so there is a highly diverse market for unique item pieces to fit specific builds. The same item, with different skill augmentations, can accommodate wildly different play styles and different desires in the market. So you don't have to increase +gooder to increase demand (At least, not nearly as fast), because just having something DIFFERENT will create demand, by allowing for different builds. If you've done a decent job at making a lot of combinations powerful and by making item builds+ items like "recipes" you can do this easily 2 Hurricane Runes+Blood Funnel+Volcanic Rune should give you a different and weird skill bonus compared to 3 Hurricane+Volcanic--and let the player spend time and effort to do these experiments, let him be unique in showing off his odd and colorful rune/item combinations.
It's that diversity that will drive a market much farther than simply having +gooder and forcing obsolescence to stimulate demand. Items shouldn't be freaking lightbulbs, where the only reason you want to buy a new one is because the old one isn't usable anymore. Is that exciting to anyone? Forcing obsolescence is almost always a trade mark of generic materials that are required and not distinctive. Any industry that can create trends and offer variety, distinction and "fun", like say clothing, can create demand by actually differentiating itself, by making people WANT to *try* new things.
Account binding is an artificial solution to the problem of farming (Bots), poor economic rules and boring,linear, and ultimatelyunimaginativeitems/game systems (And their interaction). Offer some breath to what items+skills can create, allow the players to make a bunch of tools for the same job, and you'll tackle the underlying problem of linear +gooder systems pushing items into +gooder treadmills which ultimately break down.
- 16,715
- 7,731
Your premise only works if there isn't a "best way" to play the game. In the real world of games there is almost aways, regardless of balance, going to be a "best way" to get things done. Brood Wars, the undisputed best balanced RTS in the history of RTS, has best ways to play. In TvP you never bio. It sucks. You mech. In TvZ you don't mech, you bio. In TvT you mech. This is similar to Diablo3. In your argument about the same weapon/different builds it only works if one of those builds isn't better than another. In reality you will go through some various meta shifts and vogues which at some point in time someone may find some underlying synergy with blood funnel which will be popular for 2 months but that will only make ItemB now "the best."
Trying to compare Diablo3's economy with one with physical goods, especially clothing, is fruitless. Because not everyone is the same nor does the same stuff. What is appealing to my fashion sense may not appeal to yours. And over time my tastes will morph and change. You can't compare that with Diablo3. There isn't room for opinion. The question is: Does my build kill shit faster than your build? If so, my build is better. But if the question was: What color of flannel is better red or blue? You can have two right answers because there is no right answer. So if you don't force items out that satisfy the question "Does this help my character kill shit faster?" in a very obvious sense then you'll be left with a ton of items that are "This is the best possible item to kill shit with." And eventually the only items worth a damn are those at the very peak. Basically if the answer to the flannel question was, undisputed, red but they make 100:1 blue:red shirts at the start finding someone with a red shirt would be rare. But eventually since every time they make 100 blue shirts (which everyone already has) they make a red shirt. So eventually over time everyone will have a red shirt and there won't be a reason for blue shirts to exist.
Trying to compare Diablo3's economy with one with physical goods, especially clothing, is fruitless. Because not everyone is the same nor does the same stuff. What is appealing to my fashion sense may not appeal to yours. And over time my tastes will morph and change. You can't compare that with Diablo3. There isn't room for opinion. The question is: Does my build kill shit faster than your build? If so, my build is better. But if the question was: What color of flannel is better red or blue? You can have two right answers because there is no right answer. So if you don't force items out that satisfy the question "Does this help my character kill shit faster?" in a very obvious sense then you'll be left with a ton of items that are "This is the best possible item to kill shit with." And eventually the only items worth a damn are those at the very peak. Basically if the answer to the flannel question was, undisputed, red but they make 100:1 blue:red shirts at the start finding someone with a red shirt would be rare. But eventually since every time they make 100 blue shirts (which everyone already has) they make a red shirt. So eventually over time everyone will have a red shirt and there won't be a reason for blue shirts to exist.
Grayson Carlyle
Golden Squire
- 225
- 9
That doesn't fix anything with the economy and trading, it just moves it 3 months down the road. It does however make itemization and item -> character identity a lot stronger. You can't useanyreal-world example as an equivalent becauseeverythingeventually breaks down. Your clothing example is just terrible, since they do eventually fall apart, and if they are tossed away in preference for something new and shiny, they are destroyed or passed off for charity until they do fall apart. Anything involving technology and obsolescence is also irrelevant because there are no limits to those. There are limits to what items are capable of.
From your initial paragraph you've stated a lot of false assumptions. Real economies that work with durable goods only do so because the population expands. When every person on the planet has your awesome whatever-a-majig that will last forever and anyone born can use one from someone who died, you can not sell any more of your product. You can not make any comparisons at all to anything in the real world because even if they take a thousand years to fall apart, they still fall apart, so there will be some demand. There is absolutely no demand for the 40th percentile of something when the top 20% is enough to supply the entire available population. Eventually the top 1% of all possible items in any game where items do not leave the economy will be in greater supply than the entirety of the population, even if you add a hundred billion different options to make them unique and special and build-changing. Goodshaveto leave the economy or have a fixed available quantity. This is true of real life as well and your attempt to make comparisons is laughable.