Diablo 3 - Reaper of Souls

Grayson Carlyle_sl said:

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.

Click to expand...

Everything breaks down, but a lot of markets are notdrivensolely by the need to replace obsolete or non-useful materials. Which is the point of the post. Durable goods markets are highly profitable because of their generational component (Which you agree with) and which MMO's already have (Which I said, as quoted below, it's just abstracted in games). The post is then aboutWHYpeople buy new and shiny...and how to simulate that in an online economy. And because markets of durable goods functionbeyondgenerational drives, there is most certainly a comparison to make, because thus far, that simulation is sorely lacking in MMO's (While again, generational systems are not.)....Hence the whole point of the post.

As for the clothes "being terrible" comparison. Clothing is largely replaced based off trends (In certain income brackets) not due to breakage/durability issues. Which means, most of the time, you don't replace clothes because they have holes but you replace it because you bought a new shirt. Then that "old" shirt typically is sent to a secondary market, either charitable or resale. The "break down" of clothes, when they do happen,doesn'tsolelypush this economy. Which is what I was saying. You saying "it DOES, eventually, break down!" doesn't mean anything, it's not even pertinent to point.

The pointwasn'tthat there isnota durability or generational aspect in real world economies, there is and I actually say this (Below)--the point is real world economies haveMOREthan that--and MMO's economiesdon'tsimulate that additional depth. Instead only generational (+good) or obsolesce/durability (Binding) are simulated--and that's because actual characters, builds and itemization have no depth, so the market naturally becomes shallow/narrow as the demand for any breadth to items isn't there due to that.

Grayson Carlyle_sl said:

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.

Click to expand...

You mean, like I said?

Some of this demand is generational in nature (+gooder or literally younger people needing stuff)but some isn't.

Which I then went on to say, this.

In an MMO you can simulate thisANDgenerational demand (Generational demand would be a strictly superior items), rather than just generational demand (Which is what D3 does now).

Notice the "and" in there? I stated, very clearly, that real economies handle durable goods through generational demandand...Generational demand means new people entering the economy, creating a market through durable goods purchases, combined with technological obsolescence, or replacement (For more efficiency or other factors). MMO's simulate this with the +gooder system, but rather than putting more people into the economy, they focus on more on the obsolescence--so they create more discreet generational supplies.

The whole point of the post is that a huge factorin additionto generational demand (+good) ismissingin online economies. And that factor can be simulated through broader interactions, creating more diverse markets. Again, I actually posted the words you using to say "I was wrong"--I'm not sure if you just didn't read? Or what.

Grayson Carlyle_sl said:

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.

Click to expand...

Yes, without stuff falling apart, there will be a glut of them. Good thing this problem is already addressed in the simulation of generational demand in games, which is what the whole +gooder system is built around. No item has to leave the economy if it's forced into irrelevance by the introduction of new items which replace it.

Or did you hop on a horse to ride to work today? No? Good. MMO's also replace the horse. They do so by making the statistics on the old item irrelevant to the current generation of gameplay. This wipes the slate clean WITHOUT needing to artificially force items from the economy. AGAIN, this is the generational break down as it pertains to an MMO.

We don't need more of the above. What we need is actual demand within a generational time frame. You can either add like they do with lightbulbs, by creating an artificial removal of them from the economy by forcing some kind of break down. Or you can do it by spurring demand by creating unique, small markets in order to differentiate things *WITHIN* a generation of goods.

You know, which is what I said first.

Tenks_sl said:

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."

Click to expand...

Highly differentiated mob types that interact differently with various builds, slowing some builds greatly, while speeding others. Highly differentiated builds that augment how a player moves through the world, and reacts to not just mobs but certain physical limitations in the world. Traps that greatly affect players based on items, skills and other factors--there are many ways to make this question VERY hard to answer. Combine those variables with actual character investment, and some difficulty in experimentation and you have one of the things that literally makes ARPG's fun--trying to answer that question, even though there are hundreds of variables that affect the outcome.

But that's the essence of what I'm talking about. Your post brings upcoreissues with actual game play and then look to an economic solution for a fix, rather than asking what makes it so easy to determine what's best. What makes it easy is the linear nature of gameplay. How horribly narrow our definitions of "power" have become. This is why people look back on even terrible mechanics, like immunities, and wonder what made them a little compelling--it's simple, they were compelling because they made answering these questions, actually, a bit difficult. They added variables to the game that didn't distill it down to "get more X to do Y faster".

And that said, I think Immunities are a terrible mechanic, just FYI. But the nature of those elements of games--the nature of really tossing in tons and tons of variables so it takes either a LONG time to answer what's best, or you never get an answer? Is what makes really good games, in my opinion. Fixing the symptom of that problem, the problem of that question is VERY easy to answer in D3, by sapping items from the economy, is, in my opinion, like putting a bandaid on a tumor. I think they need to dig and see what's causing that linear, and ultimately boring view in the first place (And don't get me wrong, it was NOT a problem D2 had fixed, either--D2 was plagued with it too..But D3 seems to be a step back even from where Blizzard was then in addressing it.)

Lithose_sl said:

You saying "but it DOES, eventually, break down!" doesn't mean anything, it's not even pertinent to point.

Click to expand...

No, it is the entirety of the point and the issue itself. You are trying to make an argument for a completely different set of rules. Your argument does not apply at all.

Lithose_sl said:

We don't need more of the above. What we need is actual demand within a generational time frame. You can either add like they do with lightbulbs, by creating an artificial removal of them from the economy by forcing some kind of break down. Or you can do it by spurring demand by creating unique, small markets in order to differentiate things *WITHIN* a generation of goods.

Click to expand...

Demand can't be created within a generational time frame in D3. You are trying to apply fixes that are irrelevant to its application. Unless you are advocating they constantly release new affixes and ranges for current affixes that slowly invalidate the current loot. Which you haven't stated and which obviously can't work in between expansions for an ARPG; it goes against the whole carrot-stick and level playing field philosophy of a static-area random instantiation game.

TecKnoe_sl said:

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.

Click to expand...

I think you're out of luck if you are looking for Blizzard to provide PVP like D2 or D1 had. They are too big and keen on keeping their players so any pvp you get will be categorized, fair and sterile bg pvp, if they ever do it. For that reason I hope they just scrap that workload and stick with providing a good monster bash (start provding I should say I guess).

Mr Creed_sl said:

I think you're out of luck if you are looking for Blizzard to provide PVP like D2 or D1 had. They are too big and keen on keeping their players so any pvp you get will be categorized, fair and sterile bg pvp, if they ever do it. For that reason I hope they just scrap that workload and stick with providing a good monster bash (start provding I should say I guess).

Click to expand...

It is already a good "monster bash" if you compare it too its competition. TL2 and PoE in particular. Now can the expansion turn this in to a great experience? Here's hoping.

Grayson Carlyle_sl said:

No, it is the entirety of the point and the issue itself. You are trying to make an argument for a completely different set of rules. Your argument does not apply at all.

Click to expand...

How so? I'm discussing the simulation of demand without the need for obsolescence or generational demand. This DOES occur in the real economy. But isn't represented in games. I'm discussing ways to simulate that type of demand in games by increasing the depth and breadth of character, skill and item interactions, in order to increase demand throughbroadeningmarkets, by creating demand in more unique, more specialized items as the economy matures.

You saying "everything breaks down!" is outside of that discussion. Weknowthat.Everyoneunderstands that. The question is,howto we simulate theOTHERforces of demand from real economies. WeKNOWhow to simulate durability and generational demand, it's alreadyINgames. We have those systemsright now. That's not what the post was about, though.

And I think this might have been my bad, because my original post jumped right into this without making the premise clear. I was not advocating nuking generation based shifts, rather it was built off the premise that D3 wasincludingthem by increasing levels in the expansion(s). So, my assumption is that we will see a "generation" roll over every year or two with new expansions--and this additional specialization in the economy will create demand in between those...(And that if there needs to be *additional* durability based removals before these "great floods", then something is seriously wrong with the underpinnings of gameplay.)---Sorry if that wasn't all clear, but yeah, the post was made with the assumption that items DO get removed at regular intervals.

Grayson Carlyle_sl said:

Demand can't be created within a generational time frame in D3.

Click to expand...

Really? Why not? Why can't you create items that only work after certain investments in characters? Making them uselessexceptfor very specific builds, but those builds, they'd be very powerful. By having millions of combinations of these specific build items, you'd create situations where demand becomes more specialized as your economy ages. So the axe isn't desirable because it has more +good, but rather it's desirable because it has a VERY specific combination of +skills/runes/gems that let it be built into a specific type of character.

Creating more specialized need that actually grows more specific as the economy matures, because more options will open as the players build their characters up. Combine this with actual investment in characters being required to facilitate new item usage (So experimentation, and item interaction is actually part of gameplay, rather than a quick UI element swap), and you extend the time it takes for economic stagnation by making it so very unique itemscan'tbe used by everyone but are in demand because they fit into highly specific (Complex) builds very well.

Then, when the economy saturates, you put out an expansion/end the season and roll the generation over to start the process over again.

Grayson Carlyle_sl said:

Unless you are advocating they constantly release new affixes and ranges for current affixes that slowly invalidate the current loot. Which you haven't stated and which obviously can't work in between expansions for an ARPG; it goes against the whole carrot-stick and level playing field philosophy of a static-area random instantiation game.

Click to expand...

I'm talking about evolving characters that create unique demands on items, and items with enough combinations that an axe with the same base statistics, could fit into thousands of builds differently just depending on how it interacts with skills. And those thousands of possible permutations of need, creating a "breadth" in the economy that will drive the economybetweengenerational roll overs.

As I said above, I probably wasn't really clear with that. But my main beef is that D3 is JUST focused on that generational type demand for items and instead is not asking why their markets stagnate so fast that even a wipe every 18ish? months or so probably wouldn't be enough to keep the market from plummeting. Rather than ask that question (And find the underlying game play is linear and too focused on +good and that is reflected in the economy), they instead are focusing on adding yet another "durability" based abstraction to remove items (Account Binding).

Personally though, I think, as said, they need to add depth and breadth to characters, which will create different forces of demand in the economy AND for the generational roll over, I'd rather see once a year "Seasons", rather than expansion "gear wipes". Seasons should be based on an endless dungeon and who gets the lowest in it. Start of the season? If your character is ranked, all gear gets tossed in an "unranked" chest (For any "unranked" characters), and your skills are wiped. Economy gets wiped clean every 12 months, and the search is on for those new, very niche, unique items to suit specialized builds and progress deeper into the endless dungeon.

I see what you're saying now, which points back to my original rebuttal where I said it would just slow down the saturation by a few months. I was having trouble seeing the forest for the trees. You want to go really, really far with that so that even in a game where the AH exists (in one where it doesn't, you don't need that much differentiation), your item churn is still significant because instead of requiring several hundred million rolls to get a 1% item for your spec (roughly about what we have today), you're talking a few orders of magnitude more than that. Thus pushing the necessity for an item wipe off until a significant patch/expansion/season.

We had those really low odds at the start of D3, but they weren't interesting stats and everyone just bitched that all the loot sucks. So they made all the loot much better, greatly increasing the odds of a "good" item, but did it uninterestingly, so they just sort of broke apart the pile of garbage then swept it back up into a pile somewhere else.

Summary: Make all the loot "good", but diverse in how it affects your character. I think it's a noble goal, and definitely a way to remove the necessity of account-bound items (or another removal solution), but maybe beyond Blizzard's creative/technical ability. Adding in "Smart Drops" counter-acts this to a point, but not so much where the pool of affixes couldn't be large enough to make up for that as well.

I'm not a fan of being in a season myself, but as is obvious with D2, you can easily have a consistent player/item pool while maintaining a ladder season. As long as the AH remains, I'd prefer to have account-bound items from AH purchases, as well as diverse gear. I think I'd only want to go completely unbound if there was no AH at all, and smart drops combined with your goals for item-character synergy would make a really fun game for a small group of friends.

Grayson Carlyle_sl said:

I see what you're saying now, which points back to my original rebuttal where I said it would just slow down the saturation by a few months. I was having trouble seeing the forest for the trees.

Click to expand...

That was my bad. Looking back at the original post, I kind of assumed a starting premise based on the fact that they are bumping the level cap, and then further assumed a wipe would come with every expansion. But I never implicitly stated my premise was to handle the problem of gear sucking between those points, so instead it sounded like I was saying this would completely replace all generational swapping. Totally my bad on a poor explanation, heh, I made the forest really sparse there.

But yeah, mainly, the problem with D3 is as you say--between those big generational wipes (Expansions), the inter-generational period is just, boring and linear, so only a small subset of stuff doesn't suck. They intend to fix this, it seems, by making more stuff drop and increasing the "generational" removal in the economy to account for it (Account binding). It really feels like this is a way to "fix" the symptom, without tackling the problem of why there is such a narrow band of what's desirable in the first place.

Grayson Carlyle_sl said:

We had those really low odds at the start of D3, but they weren't interesting stats and everyone just bitched that all the loot sucks. So they made all the loot much better, greatly increasing the odds of a "good" item, but did it uninterestingly, so they just sort of broke apart the pile of garbage then swept it back up into a pile somewhere else.

Summary: Make all the loot "good", but diverse in how it affects your character. I think it's a noble goal, and definitely a way to remove the necessity of account-bound items (or another removal solution), but maybe beyond Blizzard's creative/technical ability. Adding in "Smart Drops" counter-acts this to a point, but not so much where the pool of affixes couldn't be large enough to make up for that as well.

Click to expand...

Yeah. In the original version, good loot was rare, but the statistics of what was "good" were so narrow, that anything that wasn't that very rare drop? Was garbage. Because absolutely everyone needed that same small subset of boring +better, and if it didn't have them, it was garbage. In a game though where specialized skill/item interaction happens, like very odd augmentations tospecificbuilds, then you can have drops still be really amazing, even without that small subset of numbers. So something that's crappy for you, could still be amazing for someone else, because everyone is not all crammed into such a narrow definition of what's better.

Yeah, with seasons, I edited my post. I think it would be cool to have a "general" pool, and a "seasonal" pool. Seasonal pools would be where you see the AH. When you enter a season, your items get tossed into a separate bank, and your character becomes level 1. And that season is like it's own contained economy. The ranks can be based on PvP+And endless dungeon or something. But the main point would be to churn the economy get people really desiring those highly specialized items to try out new skill combinations to get deeper into the dungeon.

I can understand why some people don't like seasons though.

Lithose_sl said:

Highly differentiated mob types that interact differently with various builds, slowing some builds greatly, while speeding others. Highly differentiated builds that augment how a player moves through the world, and reacts to not just mobs but certain physical limitations in the world. Traps that greatly affect players based on items, skills and other factors--there are many ways to make this question VERY hard to answer. Combine those variables with actual character investment, and some difficulty in experimentation and you have one of the things that literally makes ARPG's fun--trying to answer that question, even though there are hundreds of variables that affect the outcome.

But that's the essence of what I'm talking about. Your post brings upcoreissues with actual game play and then look to an economic solution for a fix, rather than asking what makes it so easy to determine what's best. What makes it easy is the linear nature of gameplay. How horribly narrow our definitions of "power" have become. This is why people look back on even terrible mechanics, like immunities, and wonder what made them a little compelling--it's simple, they were compelling because they made answering these questions, actually, a bit difficult. They added variables to the game that didn't distill it down to "get more X to do Y faster".

And that said, I think Immunities are a terrible mechanic, just FYI. But the nature of those elements of games--the nature of really tossing in tons and tons of variables so it takes either a LONG time to answer what's best, or you never get an answer? Is what makes really good games, in my opinion. Fixing the symptom of that problem, the problem of that question is VERY easy to answer in D3, by sapping items from the economy, is, in my opinion, like putting a bandaid on a tumor. I think they need to dig and see what's causing that linear, and ultimately boring view in the first place (And don't get me wrong, it was NOT a problem D2 had fixed, either--D2 was plagued with it too..But D3 seems to be a step back even from where Blizzard was then in addressing it.)

Click to expand...

If you make it some Area A spawns mobs that are good for build X and Area B spawns mobs that are good for build Y then people will just compare "Which area is better to farm faster." If you try and make it so the they aren't seperate zones but melded into one area then you've got the Immunity problem that we already discussed previous to this. Which just makes for extremely annoying and irritating gameplay. I'm fine with Blizzard stepping back and realizing there will always be "the best" when it comes to class, build, routes and trying to fix it so that if you get a cool item from this route you are adequately compensated. Like I said before that compensation isn't there in Diablo3 at the moment since nothing leaves the system leaving you with either hitting the lottery and making billions or getting nothing. I'd be fine with not hitting the lotto but still getting an "alright" item and making a couple million gold. But that economy hasn't existed since the beginning of Diablo3 before massive gold and item inflation.

I cannot fathom how people are bitching about getting to respec so easily in this game. I tweak a skill set or even just a rune near every time I play just to try things out. Do you really want to play a character class again 1-60, 4 times through the game, because you got enough gear finally on X build to now support Y build? That's artificial time requirement at it's worst. Yes people did that in D2, but you had ways of bypassing tons of that time investment, which people did, because they DIDN'T WANT TO SPEND ALL THAT TIME GRINDING AGAIN.

Granted I enjoy the GAMEPLAY of D3 well enough, but I haven't even mustered up the desire to level hardcore characters to 60, after getting my normies up there.

Deathwing_sl said:

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.

Click to expand...

Trading gives you a chance to show your shit. RMAH killed the social element of this game entirely. It was poorly implemented from the beginning and was nothing more than an NPV decision from the suits on high. Nobody can safely argue against that, it's infantile to even try.

Gold AH only? Then what the fuck is the point of gold.

Seriously - get rid of this pay2win bullshit and bring back the core mechanics that made D2 so great.

Commander Vimeseh_sl said:

It is already a good "monster bash" if you compare it too its competition. TL2 and PoE in particular. Now can the expansion turn this in to a great experience? Here's hoping.

Click to expand...

I agree. While D3 has it's flaws and PoE is better in some ways, PoE just feels so bland and unsatisfying. Killing stuff in D3 just feels right.

Tenks_sl said:

Immunity problem that we already discussed previous to this. Which just makes for extremely annoying and irritating gameplay. .

Click to expand...

The immunity system was annoying--but that whole vein of differentiation was not, in my opinion. The problem is extremes. Even right now, some mobs play differently. They should emphasize that. Instead of making mobs flat out immune, instead make them interact uniquely with certain things (More so than now). So, a set of "vortex" mobs that greatly reduce the damage of Whirl Wind by slowing the spinning down. Or Fire elemental that take less from fire, or shield using mobs/skeletons that take less from arrows. Add uniqueness to mobs that directly interacts with player skills and is not just random bullshit "OMG AE AND LIFEGAIN!" affixes. But make it so classes have a big tool box, and no affix completely shuts something down (Just makes it less efficient). This way, particular build isn't stonewalled for being a specific spec,buthas to approach differently--and either accept the slow down, or make sure their build is broad enough to handle various affixes. That's a completely different realm from "fuck off, you can't even hurt these guys". It is all about gradients.

Combine that with being able to "build up" any spec you want, and then get items to enhance and interact with the unique builds? And you'd have a far more interesting game than +gooder that interacts pretty much the same with every spec because "good" affixes are so fungible and bland between specs. I mean, think about any special spec right now---what does it need? Primary Stat, Vitality, Crit, Resist all and then typically Life on Hit or something (This last one is really the only variable).

But imagine if gear had things that directly augmented skills? You could have hundreds of possible affixes that drastically affect how you build--and it can multiply on itself if those affixes require other items. For example. You get a Helmet that gives +25% Whirl Wind Damage and Radius but Increases cost by 150%, making it kind of a useless item because it's an instant drain. But then you find some boots that give -X cost for Whirl Wind IF you have 3 points in say, Blood Funnel (They could stipulate buying this skill, rather than windsheer to blunt balance issues) The boots, combined with helm, combined with spending points in that skill, create a powerful combo that allows a specific build, but the build only works if youhaveall these things. (And this is just bullshitting off the top of my head, you could really make it complex) Unlike a more generic affix system, where you can ghetto the build because the affix variable was often just one thing (Stack more crit....stack more life on hit.....keep the rest the same).

Anyway, that's how you make it hard for players just to distill down what's best. You throw tons of variables in there, and give them time to work it out. Will a build eventually rise to the top? Probably. But right now, that takes all of two minutes to do due to how gear works. Making it more difficult to answer "what's best" can only really make the game better.

Amzin_sl said:

I cannot fathom how people are bitching about getting to respec so easily in this game. I tweak a skill set or even just a rune near every time I play just to try things out. Do you really want to play a character class again 1-60, 4 times through the game, because you got enough gear finally on X build to now support Y build? That's artificial time requirement at it's worst. Yes people did that in D2, but you had ways of bypassing tons of that time investment, which people did, because they DIDN'T WANT TO SPEND ALL THAT TIME GRINDING AGAIN.

Granted I enjoy the GAMEPLAY of D3 well enough, but I haven't even mustered up the desire to level hardcore characters to 60, after getting my normies up there.

Click to expand...

No, I don't think there should be "hard" lock outs of skills. Rather I believe it should take investment to build up skills. But I'd be happy with unlimited breadth....So say I built a character up for Whirl Wind, and got an amazing piece of gear for Furious Charge that would completely change the nature of the build. I'd swap over and start putting my "paragon points" into Furious Charge. Make it like AA's were in EQ, you can just constantly get them.

In a particular skill, if you wanted to reset your expenditures and re-do them, you could--but have it cost a few of the points you spent (Just a small %) and the points in that skill need to stay within that skill (So no taking points from Whirl Wind and dumping them into furious charge, for example.) But essentially, make the system like AA's, where you can just start at the end game building new skill sets, and wrapping them into items.

That kind of build experimentation, and building a character up, really feels, for me, like a core gameplay mechanic of ARPG's. The loot grind alone? Gets boring. Always progressing and making your character stronger with different build possibilities that you can try out in an ever branching/evolving set of new and powerful skills? Keeps me interested.

Lithose_sl said:

That kind of build experimentation, and building a character up, really feels, for me, like a core gameplay mechanic of ARPG's. The loot grind alone? Gets boring. Always progressing and making your character stronger with different build possibilities that you can try out in an ever branching/evolving set of new and powerful skills? Keeps me interested.

Click to expand...

You are right, loot is only one half of arpg motivation. I LIKED leveling up new characters in D2, for me and most fans that stuck with it for years that was the game. Level a char, play your favorite chars in high level stuff and find an interesting new drop that enables a new build you find interesting, try that build out through a new character. I dont quite understand why that's suddenly bad(tm) but my assumption is the post-WoW blizzard audience attitude is to blame. These people would have played D2 once and dropped it back in 2001 and that was ok, others liked the arpg gameplay. Now D3 is tailored to that audience and alienates the arpg fans.

I'm hoping the paragon revamp is really just endless AA like in EQ, that's an acceptable solution for removing any interesting in building new chars. I can play while slowly advancing my char through paragon and try out different builds if I find game-changing items that warrant it. So, right now game-changing items are kinda scarce, are there any details in loot 2.0 from gamescom (besides lol proc hydra!!1)?

Boozecube_sl said:

For everyone talking about the item build up from the in game economy and how to remove items from the game or slow it down ect, that's what the Diablo 2 Ladder always accomplished. It's why Diablo 3 needs a ladder system to hard reset that shit every so often.

Throw in a few new ladder only Legendaries each new reset, and some little scoreboard and blamo problem solved.

Click to expand...

It's a decent solution for the ladder play, but the default league was always cesspool. It would be nice if that could be designed to be a sorta healthy environment/economy. Much broader itemization would be part of the solution. I hope the mystic enchanting system sucks up items/gold like a vacuum in exchange for optimizing your precious, sorta like rolling the right links in PoE. They just designed their game with too few money outlets, hence this insane inflation. I dont see the harm in having too many money sinks, so err on the side of making too many of them.

Unfortunately even if they fix it they'd have to make a seperate realm to start over because people have untold amounts of gold on the live servers. maybe the go with a similar solution to D2 and keep classic seperate. I would want that to be a clean cut, no muddling. But I see how that would piss the playerbase off so maybe allow people to bring over characters but their gear gets account-bound in the process, and dont transfer the stash/gold.

Mr Creed_sl said:

It's a decent solution for the ladder play, but the default league was always cesspool. It would be nice if that could be designed to be a sorta healthy environment/economy. Much broader itemization would be part of the solution. I hope the mystic enchanting system sucks up items/gold like a vacuum in exchange for optimizing your precious, sorta like rolling the right links in PoE. They just designed their game with too few money outlets, hence this insane inflation. I dont see the harm in having too many money sinks, so err on the side of making too many of them.

Unfortunately even if they fix it they'd have to make a seperate realm to start over because people have untold amounts of gold on the live servers. maybe the go with a similar solution to D2 and keep classic seperate. I would want that to be a clean cut, no muddling. But I see how that would piss the playerbase off so maybe allow people to bring over characters but their gear gets account-bound in the process, and dont transfer the stash/gold.

Click to expand...

My solution was to always play Ladder. It makes it more fun as well when there's some resets and you start up the rush with friends, create a cool synergy team and go at it. Of course that won't work in Diablo 3 as you can for some reason only be 4 people and everyone always has everything, but hey hey. I remember having a group where I played a supporting wolf druid with the damage spirit, we had a barb who just focused on shouting and some necro with summons for cc, a couple of sorcs/amazons for damage and then a paladin or two for some good auras

The fact that you still can't play all 5 classes in the same game is dumb as bricks

http://www.rerolled.org/showthread.p...iance)-FTP-MMOfunnest/best supported ARPG to play right now. These dudes push patches every 2 weeks and has a shitload of classes. Board guild is quite dead though.

Deathwing_sl said:

Don't try to blame this on WoW. Just accept that you liked tedious mechanics and the industry has moved beyond punishing players to lengthen gameplay and replayability. Diablo has more competition, arpg-wise and just video game wise. You can't get away with requiringhours of boring gameplayjust to try a cool piece of gear.

Also, don't presume you're in the majority on this. Just because people stuck out playing D2 for years doesn't mean they liked the mechanic.

Click to expand...

I'm not blaming it on WoW - I'm blaming it on video gaming going mainstream which happened independent of WoW, and mainstream players wanting this to be made easier and faster all the time. A demand that isnt going away when a game is made more accessible one time. So the game is made more accessible another time, and another. This interation of Diablo removed the skill trees as advancement path and makes alot of things acount-wide instead of per character. You may like it or not, that's irrelevant. Another step in another iteration will be removing character classes. You then just level your character and activate your pre-chosen demon hunter or wizard kit whenever you like. Because leveling twice is a tedious mechanic that punishes players to lengthen gameplay.

The bottom line is that today, anything that lengthens gameplay is tedium - if you follow that line of thought eventually all you do between intro cinematic and closing credits is make your character and click buttons for 10 minutes.

The line between entertainment and tedium is a very personal stance though, so you are still correct. I liked it, for you its tedium, your opinion is the right one in this case. I dont "need" tedium but I would like more long time motivation like many older games presented (not just D2, but in general). I'm absolutely fine with playing just my one lvl60 wizard for just as longas I rerolled sorcs in D2 if the game offers that long term motivation. This is of course opinion but in my eyes Diablo 3 simply failed to do that. Your opinion may vary.

But do you feel games in general have as much staying power as they had a decade ago, across all genres?

Re: Bolded part: The gameplay at level 40 and level60/paragon90 is the same, I dont see your point in that regard I guess.