As I previously mentioned, I really have no stake in this argument, I was just clarifying some of the points others - including Jaetch and MannerCookie - have made. It is not just a "one side" vs "the other side" sort of explosion. There were a lot of differing points of view which were not shared by everyone, but none of which were pointless QQ and rambling.
I think it is unfair to summarize someone else's position to the strawman argument that they just "don't understand the beta."
A lot of the people that were rather upset by everything were people that have put a lot of their time and effort into being effective beta testers and should not be dismissed out of hand just because people didn't like the tone of their argument.
...as people have said before, something is rotten if you can get better items than the new high end legendaries by rerolling 1 property on current items, despite current items having 10x lower stats on them.
It's not rotten, it's called a new itemization system.
...as people have said before, something is rotten if you can get better items than the new high end legendaries by rerolling 1 property on current items, despite current items having 10x lower stats on them.
It's not rotten, it's called a new itemization system.
Except it's not really new, that's my exact point. The only "new" thing about it is 10 times bigger numbers, and a SINGLE new property on each Legendary. Many of which have already existed in D3V, but are now colored orange. I'm sure I'm not the only one who was extremely underwhelmed by Loot 2.0, especially as they worked on it for 1.5 years and after all their big talk about how they "get it" and they "have all the info to get it right in 2.0".
It is actually is completely new. I know it's fun to be reductive about it, but it is new. They changed the rules and restictions about what is allowed to roll and drop where. If an item exists in that game the cannot possibly be rolled and would break the system, you have to deprecate it. The other option is to balance the upper bound of the expansion content. When weighing the two options, the latter is incredibly expensive for really no gain. Get rid of the old stuff, bring in the new.
Re: Ratings
I was around when the switch to ratings happened and all it does is just create more confusion among players. You need more UI to convert the rating number into a percentage and then you have to worry about breakpoints between rating levels etc. A number squish is much easer for all parties in my opinion. These are problems that always occur in level-capped games since EQ and earlier. You never saw it in D2 because getting to max-level wasn't really a thing for the average player.
I think it is unfair to summarize someone else's position to the strawman argument that they just "don't understand the beta."
A lot of the people that were rather upset by everything were people that have put a lot of their time and effort into being effective beta testers and should not be dismissed out of hand just because people didn't like the tone of their argument.
How is that unfair? Following your logic, Blizzard has to give in to people that clearly did not read the "everything is subject to change" disclaimer, sticking to all bad design decisions. Essentially, you're saying that even arguments based on a misunderstanding of the beta should hold up and be considered in further iterations. This will eventually lead to worse design. Is that fairer? Just because some people neglect the beta disclaimer, everyone has to live with the consequences of half-assed iterations and bad design decisions? I think this is not fair at all.
By the way, the tone has obviously a huge impact on how something is perceived, but if an argument is valid, it will not be automatically dismissed because of its tone. However, many people just don't have an argument at all. Jaetch brought forward very good arguments as to why legacy enchanting should be implemented. Blizzard acknowledged that the arguments are valid, but the implementation is not possible because of time issues. However, simply stating "70 > 60" is not valid because many many people highlighted that there are indeed level 60 items that trump level 70 items. Saying "we want legacy enchanting because it was promised to us in F&F beta" is not valid because absolutely everything has always been subject to change.
This is not about tone or fairness. This is about what's best for the long-term enjoyment of the game.
One of the huge mistakes of itemization in D3V was that some legendaries did not have a SINGLE property that made them unique, but multiple advantages (e.g., Witching Hour with not one, but two slot-exlcusive affixes). Quality > quantity. Also, there are hundreds of new properties that did not exist in D3V, so saying "it's the same but just in orange" is very cynical and raises the question as to how much you really looked into itemization 2.0. Tell me that Frostburn Gloves are just the same but just in new color, please? They went from most boring and useless item ever to an amazing boost for frost wizards, with a simple change of applying itemization 2.0 to them.
It's okay to doubt the success of loot 2.0, because it's certainly not for everyone. But I really urge those who judge RoS just based on some rage posts to give it a try themselves once it hits the shelf. In particular the PTR seems to work against RoS - I get the feeling that the PTR works as an "anti hype" for RoS, as it leaves out some of the best things from RoS and combines a system that is designed for a new experience (skills were designed with the removal of life steal in mind) with old gear, skills, and gameplay. So much for "Blizzard just wants to hype RoS"... I think if they'd really wanted to do this, they'd start an open beta of RoS asap and many many people would be surprised how well it works out.
I actually think that the latest patch has improved the "Vanilla 2.0" experience a lot. The quest reset in particular basically makes the whole thing viable now. Tooling around on my monk felt good and getting a legendary here and there felt good and rewarding enough that I didn't want to continue too far because I would be reset back a month once the patchhits
These are problems that always occur in level-capped games since EQ and earlier. You never saw it in D2 because getting to max-level wasn't really a thing for the average player.
And we finally get to the root of the problem.
Quote fromBagstone»In particular the PTR seems to work against RoS - I get the feeling that the PTR works as an "anti hype" for RoS, as it leaves out some of the best things from RoS and combines a system that is designed for a new experience (skills were designed with the removal of life steal in mind) with old gear, skills, and gameplay. So much for "Blizzard just wants to hype RoS"... I think if they'd really wanted to do this, they'd start an open beta of RoS asap and many many people would be surprised how well it works out.
The PTR is supposed to stand on its own, because it will have to do just that when the patch goes live. If they want to completely abandon D3 classic, then just come out and say it. But to say that "the PTR seems bad because you haven't played RoS" is ridiculous, because, guess what: not everyone will buy it.
Finally for some. For those that have played a game with a level cap before, obselting max level gear is just par for the course.
These are problems that always occur in level-capped games since EQ and earlier. You never saw it in D2 because getting to max-level wasn't really a thing for the average player.
And we finally get to the root of the problem.
So why not allow gear requirements be tied to Paragon Level?
These are problems that always occur in level-capped games since EQ and earlier. You never saw it in D2 because getting to max-level wasn't really a thing for the average player.
And we finally get to the root of the problem.
So why not allow gear requirements be tied to Paragon Level?
A better vector here would be an item unlocks additional power as you gain more paragon.
Think about the non-MMO games you've played where the playerbase expects a game to have enough content for a full year of gameplay (in gamplay hours), if not 10 years. Then think about how many of those games are not Diablo 3.
Yeah, I can think of a few. Diablo 2, Titan's Quest, Torchlight, Elder Scrolls games (with mods), the Disgaea series......that's just off the top of my head. I'm sure I can come up with more if I think about it for a while. None of these operated under the philosophy of "max level or die".
You *EXPECTED* those games to have 12+ months worth of content? I don't think so.
Most people I knew who picked up Skyrim, for example, played it for about 100-200 hours then moved on. There was absolutely no expectation that they'd be playing the game two years post-release. When I bought D2 I don't think I actually *EXPECTED* to play it for five years. I can't be sure because it was a damn long time ago but I sincerely doubt I picked up the box and said to myself "If I don't play this game for AT LEAST A YEAR then it's terrible." I know when I purchased Titan Quest it surely wasn't under the expectation that it HAD to last 12+ months otherwise it was a failure.
Hell, I just recently gave RIFT a shot... and RIFT is an MMORPG... and I don't recall going into it with the assumption that I had to play the game for a year. The point being anyone who thinks ANY game should last them that long needs to take some fucking medication because they are seriously delusional.
I mean, seriously, I played WoW for 8-ish years, and I played EQ for around 5 years. I never EXPECTED either of those games (and they are/were subscription-based MMORPGs) to entertain me for that long. For people to EXPECT non-subscription games to entertain them for 12+ months is lunacy.
EDIT
eman was also talking about the playerbase, not you as an individual. It would be hard to argue that the average gamer holds the expectation that any title should entertain them for a year, or more, because that's simply nonsensical. It just doesn't make any kind of sense. If you think that MOST people purchased any of those titles with the expectation that they would be playing them 12+ months later, you're really projecting some extreme expectations on people who almost certainly never gave a thought to it and probably couldn't care either way.
Yeah, I can think of a few. Diablo 2, Titan's Quest, Torchlight, Elder Scrolls games (with mods), the Disgaea series......that's just off the top of my head. I'm sure I can come up with more if I think about it for a while. None of these operated under the philosophy of "max level or die".
You *EXPECTED* those games to have 12+ months worth of content? I don't think so.
Most people I knew who picked up Skyrim, for example, played it for about 100-200 hours then moved on. There was absolutely no expectation that they'd be playing the game two years post-release. When I bought D2 I don't think I actually *EXPECTED* to play it for five years. I can't be sure because it was a damn long time ago but I sincerely doubt I picked up the box and said to myself "If I don't play this game for AT LEAST A YEAR then it's terrible." I know when I purchased Titan Quest it surely wasn't under the expectation that it HAD to last 12+ months otherwise it was a failure.
Hell, I just recently gave RIFT a shot... and RIFT is an MMORPG... and I don't recall going into it with the assumption that I had to play the game for a year. The point being anyone who thinks ANY game should last them that long needs to take some fucking medication because they are seriously delusional.
I mean, seriously, I played WoW for 8-ish years, and I played EQ for around 5 years. I never EXPECTED either of those games (and they are/were subscription-based MMORPGs) to entertain me for that long. For people to EXPECT non-subscription games to entertain them for 12+ months is lunacy.
I totally agree with this statement. However, I think that a good community can extend the life of a game. A productive community can come up with new ways to play the game and extend the life of the content. If the devs partner with the community, then they can build patches in that drive the efforts in the community.
Full Disclosure: I am not in the beta. I do not post on the official forums outside of bug reports. I do not really subscribe to any one side of this argument, I just read and listened a lot after the explosion happened.
Well said. I have to agree with you. I don't care to take sides on this one as im not in the beta and don't expect anything until im actually using it. Even then i take it with a grain of salt, because anything is subject to change at a moments notice.
Tbh it would have been kinda nice to have viable gear that isn´t max level. worked for d1,d2 and path of exile.sadly the gearing is the way it is and the whole "only max level counts" wow mentality plauges it.still, not being allowed to enchant legacy gear is just another lame ass reason for hating. Im more upset that we have yet to hear a single word on ladders for RoS.
For what it's worth, the piece of the equation that you're missing here is that legacy gear doesn't drop anymore. So the problem is less that it's a mid-level piece of gear being effective at top-level, but that that piece of gear no longer drops anymore. And if you allow it to continue to drop, you have this really weird niche item that doesn't follow modern legendary patterns and is only useful if you know to enchant it.
Not only is it a bit stupid that so-called "rare" items are by far the most common ones, but I could also do with the increase in white and blue crafting mats.
I think they just need to update the nomenclature. The magic/rare dichotomy doesn't work anymore; I don't think I can remember a single instance of replacing a rare item with a magic item in D3. Like maybe it should be magic and really magic. That'd even leave room for a future really really magic tier.
I'd like magic items to have similar Primary stat rolls to rares, and rares just get more Secondary rolls so that at least from a basic damage perspective, they'd compete.
I totally agree with this statement. However, I think that a good community can extend the life of a game. A productive community can come up with new ways to play the game and extend the life of the content. If the devs partner with the community, then they can build patches in that drive the efforts in the community.
I think this is a very big factor in player satisfaction that often goes unseen when it comes to longevity. Maybe I'm just crazy, but I just don't feel like modern gamers are as interested in "making their own fun" as they used to be. And I think gaming companies in general prefer it this way and are much more interested in controlling the experience for the player as well (especially Blizzard), so that just compounds it.
This always comes up in my mind when people reminisce about D2 PvP, which was entirely a community thing. There were literally no PvP rules other than "your spells now hurt players," Blizzard made no PvP gear, and made no changes to skills based on PvP feedback. The community developed its own PvP etiquette, and had fun with the tools they had. I don't think you'd see that in D3. I think you'd just have a lot of people rage-quitting and saying horrible things about the game until they balance whatever class turns out to be the most OP. Which I guess they are doing anyway, so....
Yeah, I can think of a few. Diablo 2, Titan's Quest, Torchlight, Elder Scrolls games (with mods), the Disgaea series......that's just off the top of my head. I'm sure I can come up with more if I think about it for a while. None of these operated under the philosophy of "max level or die".
You *EXPECTED* those games to have 12+ months worth of content? I don't think so.
Most people I knew who picked up Skyrim, for example, played it for about 100-200 hours then moved on. There was absolutely no expectation that they'd be playing the game two years post-release. When I bought D2 I don't think I actually *EXPECTED* to play it for five years. I can't be sure because it was a damn long time ago but I sincerely doubt I picked up the box and said to myself "If I don't play this game for AT LEAST A YEAR then it's terrible." I know when I purchased Titan Quest it surely wasn't under the expectation that it HAD to last 12+ months otherwise it was a failure.
Hell, I just recently gave RIFT a shot... and RIFT is an MMORPG... and I don't recall going into it with the assumption that I had to play the game for a year. The point being anyone who thinks ANY game should last them that long needs to take some fucking medication because they are seriously delusional.
I mean, seriously, I played WoW for 8-ish years, and I played EQ for around 5 years. I never EXPECTED either of those games (and they are/were subscription-based MMORPGs) to entertain me for that long. For people to EXPECT non-subscription games to entertain them for 12+ months is lunacy.
I totally agree with this statement. However, I think that a good community can extend the life of a game. A productive community can come up with new ways to play the game and extend the life of the content. If the devs partner with the community, then they can build patches in that drive the efforts in the community.
I agree with your statement and I think your points are valid, but I think on the topic of mods for games it's just a difference of opinion. I personally have NEVER liked mods for games, even D2. The only thing I can really pinpoint as to why I don't like them is that they just don't feel like the original game, and for some reason that bugs me. I like playing the game with all the of the exact same rules as everybody else.
But I could defiantly see the need some people have for mods, especially when there's really no end game. In a game like D3, I'd argue that farming for items WAS the endgame, but now that they are BoA we need something else. I really think a ladder system as well as something akin to challenges would really help the game, and alleviate some people's need of mods.
Yeah, I can think of a few. Diablo 2, Titan's Quest, Torchlight, Elder Scrolls games (with mods), the Disgaea series......that's just off the top of my head. I'm sure I can come up with more if I think about it for a while. None of these operated under the philosophy of "max level or die".
You *EXPECTED* those games to have 12+ months worth of content? I don't think so.
Most people I knew who picked up Skyrim, for example, played it for about 100-200 hours then moved on. There was absolutely no expectation that they'd be playing the game two years post-release. When I bought D2 I don't think I actually *EXPECTED* to play it for five years. I can't be sure because it was a damn long time ago but I sincerely doubt I picked up the box and said to myself "If I don't play this game for AT LEAST A YEAR then it's terrible." I know when I purchased Titan Quest it surely wasn't under the expectation that it HAD to last 12+ months otherwise it was a failure.
Hell, I just recently gave RIFT a shot... and RIFT is an MMORPG... and I don't recall going into it with the assumption that I had to play the game for a year. The point being anyone who thinks ANY game should last them that long needs to take some fucking medication because they are seriously delusional.
I mean, seriously, I played WoW for 8-ish years, and I played EQ for around 5 years. I never EXPECTED either of those games (and they are/were subscription-based MMORPGs) to entertain me for that long. For people to EXPECT non-subscription games to entertain them for 12+ months is lunacy.
EDIT
eman was also talking about the playerbase, not you as an individual. It would be hard to argue that the average gamer holds the expectation that any title should entertain them for a year, or more, because that's simply nonsensical. It just doesn't make any kind of sense. If you think that MOST people purchased any of those titles with the expectation that they would be playing them 12+ months later, you're really projecting some extreme expectations on people who almost certainly never gave a thought to it and probably couldn't care either way.
Why exactly should I care about, or take responsibility for, what other people think? He asked a question, I answered. You didn't like the answer? It went against what you think? Well....tough sh*t. I'm sure the people that run Nexus Mod Manager, for example, fully expected Skyrim to entertain players for more than a year. And so did I. And we are still entertained! In fact, I'm still playing it. Installed some new mods, made a rogue-ish character, that I hadn't played before, and I'm playing it. And it's a game that doesn't rely on grinding the way Diablo does.
Also, way to address the Disgaea series. Ask any fan of those games how long they expect to be entertained.
You know nothing.
Also, at least I answered his question. Still waiting on an answer for mine.
Borderlands. Torchlight 2. Marvel Heroes. Which, like D3, that "end game max level" content is only there for <5% of players.
The question is irrelevant since this line of discussion stemmed from how items rolled under an old leveling system are being deprecated since they no longer fit inside the new system's contraints. It would be the same as if there was a weird item that dropped at level 50, but (due to a bug) is better than most of the items at level 60.
Why exactly should I care about, or take responsibility for, what other people think? He asked a question, I answered. You didn't like the answer? It went against what you think? Well....tough sh*t.
It has nothing to do with your personal opinion or what I think of it.
None of our INDIVIDUAL opinions matter. Our COLLECTIVE opinions do matter.
If you genuinely think that the average gamer picked up D2, D3, Skyrim, or ANY OTHER GAME IN THE HISTORY OF VIDEO GAMES and *expected* that game to entertain them for a year, or more, then you're completely delusional. Period.
Whether you like it or not, whether I like it or not, what the AVERAGE GAMER expects matters and not what you, or I, individually expect. Therefore what YOU expected from D2 is completely irrelevant because it simply doesn't mesh with what the average gamer expects. Until the landscape changes, there isn't jack shit you can do about it.
If you're going to sit here and expect *anyone* to believe that you said to yourself, before purchasing Skyrim, "If this game doesn't last 12+ months then it's terrible" well... you'll have an easier time getting anyone with a functioning brain to believe that I can shoot rainbows out of my ass on Valentine's Day. You may have HOPED it would last you a long time, but the difference between a WISH and an EXPECTATION is severe. So to say that people EXPECT D2, D3, Skyrim, etc. to last 12 months, or longer, is just completely irrational. No one with any semblance of perspective EXPECTS a game to last 12+ months.
You can EXPECT anything you like. That's your prerogative. But if you really think your expectations for some $50 or $60 game to give you 1000+ hours of entertainment over 12+ months falls in line with what the average gamer expects of a title.... you really need to meet some real gamers.
Developers make games for the entire market, not just for you. If you cannot differentiate your personal feelings from what the general gaming audience wants then you're going to be constantly disappointed... like you clearly are in this case. But that's not the developers fault. It's yours for having completely-irrational expectations of games. You can't possibly expect someone to take you seriously when you said that you EXPECTED Skyrim to last you 12+ months... you know that, right? That'd be like throwing a forum shitfit because Skyward Sword only lasted you 75 hours. The response would be "no duh" not "oh, we're so sorry, next time we make a game we'll design it specifically to last at least 15 years for you, bub."
cus theyve been changing the game drastically and still can never get it right. Blizzard doesn't even know what they want anymore, other than create something extremely polished. Other companies can make the game Blizzard's fans want more than Blizzard themselves can *cough Path of Exile
I think it is unfair to summarize someone else's position to the strawman argument that they just "don't understand the beta." A lot of the people that were rather upset by everything were people that have put a lot of their time and effort into being effective beta testers and should not be dismissed out of hand just because people didn't like the tone of their argument. How is that unfair? Following your logic, Blizzard has to give in to people that clearly did not read the "everything is subject to change" disclaimer, sticking to all bad design decisions. Essentially, you're saying that even arguments based on a misunderstanding of the beta should hold up and be considered in further iterations. This will eventually lead to worse design. Is that fairer? Just because some people neglect the beta disclaimer, everyone has to live with the consequences of half-assed iterations and bad design decisions? I think this is not fair at all.
By the way, the tone has obviously a huge impact on how something is perceived, but if an argument is valid, it will not be automatically dismissed because of its tone. However, many people just don't have an argument at all. Jaetch brought forward very good arguments as to why legacy enchanting should be implemented. Blizzard acknowledged that the arguments are valid, but the implementation is not possible because of time issues. However, simply stating "70 > 60" is not valid because many many people highlighted that there are indeed level 60 items that trump level 70 items. Saying "we want legacy enchanting because it was promised to us in F&F beta" is not valid because absolutely everything has always been subject to change.
This is not about tone or fairness. This is about what's best for the long-term enjoyment of the game.
I don't really know how to be any clearer that I am not making any actual arguments to advocate for one side or the other, but rather clarifying the arguments of one side that were being incorrectly summarized. Strawman arguments are always unfair by simple fact of being logical fallacies to begin with. If an argument is to be made, it should be made against all of the merits of what it contests.
Taking this a step further, I do not understand how you can in the same post say that the people who were arguing for the inclusion of legacy items in enchanting, such as Jaetch, do not understand the purpose of a beta and then go on to say that Jaetch brought forward good arguments. Either he does not understand the purpose of a beta and thus does not have valid arguments to make, or his arguments are valid and he thus does understand the purpose of a beta, since all of his arguments are based on the testing therein. The two are mutually exclusive.
I will agree that it should not be about tone, but really, when it comes down to it, that is the main issue the community is having right now. Some people agree with the changes, some people disagree, but the majority of the commentary I have read on both boards about the changes has been an insult war about people paying to win, rabble, rambling, elitism and so on. Saying someone does not understand the purpose of the beta because they vehemently disagree with proposed changes is right up there.
As I previously mentioned, I really have no stake in this argument, I was just clarifying some of the points others - including Jaetch and MannerCookie - have made. It is not just a "one side" vs "the other side" sort of explosion. There were a lot of differing points of view which were not shared by everyone, but none of which were pointless QQ and rambling.
I think it is unfair to summarize someone else's position to the strawman argument that they just "don't understand the beta."
A lot of the people that were rather upset by everything were people that have put a lot of their time and effort into being effective beta testers and should not be dismissed out of hand just because people didn't like the tone of their argument.
--
Re: Ratings
I was around when the switch to ratings happened and all it does is just create more confusion among players. You need more UI to convert the rating number into a percentage and then you have to worry about breakpoints between rating levels etc. A number squish is much easer for all parties in my opinion. These are problems that always occur in level-capped games since EQ and earlier. You never saw it in D2 because getting to max-level wasn't really a thing for the average player.
By the way, the tone has obviously a huge impact on how something is perceived, but if an argument is valid, it will not be automatically dismissed because of its tone. However, many people just don't have an argument at all. Jaetch brought forward very good arguments as to why legacy enchanting should be implemented. Blizzard acknowledged that the arguments are valid, but the implementation is not possible because of time issues. However, simply stating "70 > 60" is not valid because many many people highlighted that there are indeed level 60 items that trump level 70 items. Saying "we want legacy enchanting because it was promised to us in F&F beta" is not valid because absolutely everything has always been subject to change.
This is not about tone or fairness. This is about what's best for the long-term enjoyment of the game.
One of the huge mistakes of itemization in D3V was that some legendaries did not have a SINGLE property that made them unique, but multiple advantages (e.g., Witching Hour with not one, but two slot-exlcusive affixes). Quality > quantity. Also, there are hundreds of new properties that did not exist in D3V, so saying "it's the same but just in orange" is very cynical and raises the question as to how much you really looked into itemization 2.0. Tell me that Frostburn Gloves are just the same but just in new color, please? They went from most boring and useless item ever to an amazing boost for frost wizards, with a simple change of applying itemization 2.0 to them.
It's okay to doubt the success of loot 2.0, because it's certainly not for everyone. But I really urge those who judge RoS just based on some rage posts to give it a try themselves once it hits the shelf. In particular the PTR seems to work against RoS - I get the feeling that the PTR works as an "anti hype" for RoS, as it leaves out some of the best things from RoS and combines a system that is designed for a new experience (skills were designed with the removal of life steal in mind) with old gear, skills, and gameplay. So much for "Blizzard just wants to hype RoS"... I think if they'd really wanted to do this, they'd start an open beta of RoS asap and many many people would be surprised how well it works out.
Most people I knew who picked up Skyrim, for example, played it for about 100-200 hours then moved on. There was absolutely no expectation that they'd be playing the game two years post-release. When I bought D2 I don't think I actually *EXPECTED* to play it for five years. I can't be sure because it was a damn long time ago but I sincerely doubt I picked up the box and said to myself "If I don't play this game for AT LEAST A YEAR then it's terrible." I know when I purchased Titan Quest it surely wasn't under the expectation that it HAD to last 12+ months otherwise it was a failure.
Hell, I just recently gave RIFT a shot... and RIFT is an MMORPG... and I don't recall going into it with the assumption that I had to play the game for a year. The point being anyone who thinks ANY game should last them that long needs to take some fucking medication because they are seriously delusional.
I mean, seriously, I played WoW for 8-ish years, and I played EQ for around 5 years. I never EXPECTED either of those games (and they are/were subscription-based MMORPGs) to entertain me for that long. For people to EXPECT non-subscription games to entertain them for 12+ months is lunacy.
EDIT
eman was also talking about the playerbase, not you as an individual. It would be hard to argue that the average gamer holds the expectation that any title should entertain them for a year, or more, because that's simply nonsensical. It just doesn't make any kind of sense. If you think that MOST people purchased any of those titles with the expectation that they would be playing them 12+ months later, you're really projecting some extreme expectations on people who almost certainly never gave a thought to it and probably couldn't care either way.
But I could defiantly see the need some people have for mods, especially when there's really no end game. In a game like D3, I'd argue that farming for items WAS the endgame, but now that they are BoA we need something else. I really think a ladder system as well as something akin to challenges would really help the game, and alleviate some people's need of mods.
The question is irrelevant since this line of discussion stemmed from how items rolled under an old leveling system are being deprecated since they no longer fit inside the new system's contraints. It would be the same as if there was a weird item that dropped at level 50, but (due to a bug) is better than most of the items at level 60.
None of our INDIVIDUAL opinions matter. Our COLLECTIVE opinions do matter.
If you genuinely think that the average gamer picked up D2, D3, Skyrim, or ANY OTHER GAME IN THE HISTORY OF VIDEO GAMES and *expected* that game to entertain them for a year, or more, then you're completely delusional. Period.
Whether you like it or not, whether I like it or not, what the AVERAGE GAMER expects matters and not what you, or I, individually expect. Therefore what YOU expected from D2 is completely irrelevant because it simply doesn't mesh with what the average gamer expects. Until the landscape changes, there isn't jack shit you can do about it.
If you're going to sit here and expect *anyone* to believe that you said to yourself, before purchasing Skyrim, "If this game doesn't last 12+ months then it's terrible" well... you'll have an easier time getting anyone with a functioning brain to believe that I can shoot rainbows out of my ass on Valentine's Day. You may have HOPED it would last you a long time, but the difference between a WISH and an EXPECTATION is severe. So to say that people EXPECT D2, D3, Skyrim, etc. to last 12 months, or longer, is just completely irrational. No one with any semblance of perspective EXPECTS a game to last 12+ months.
You can EXPECT anything you like. That's your prerogative. But if you really think your expectations for some $50 or $60 game to give you 1000+ hours of entertainment over 12+ months falls in line with what the average gamer expects of a title.... you really need to meet some real gamers.
Developers make games for the entire market, not just for you. If you cannot differentiate your personal feelings from what the general gaming audience wants then you're going to be constantly disappointed... like you clearly are in this case. But that's not the developers fault. It's yours for having completely-irrational expectations of games. You can't possibly expect someone to take you seriously when you said that you EXPECTED Skyrim to last you 12+ months... you know that, right? That'd be like throwing a forum shitfit because Skyward Sword only lasted you 75 hours. The response would be "no duh" not "oh, we're so sorry, next time we make a game we'll design it specifically to last at least 15 years for you, bub."
I don't really know how to be any clearer that I am not making any actual arguments to advocate for one side or the other, but rather clarifying the arguments of one side that were being incorrectly summarized. Strawman arguments are always unfair by simple fact of being logical fallacies to begin with. If an argument is to be made, it should be made against all of the merits of what it contests.
Taking this a step further, I do not understand how you can in the same post say that the people who were arguing for the inclusion of legacy items in enchanting, such as Jaetch, do not understand the purpose of a beta and then go on to say that Jaetch brought forward good arguments. Either he does not understand the purpose of a beta and thus does not have valid arguments to make, or his arguments are valid and he thus does understand the purpose of a beta, since all of his arguments are based on the testing therein. The two are mutually exclusive.
I will agree that it should not be about tone, but really, when it comes down to it, that is the main issue the community is having right now. Some people agree with the changes, some people disagree, but the majority of the commentary I have read on both boards about the changes has been an insult war about people paying to win, rabble, rambling, elitism and so on. Saying someone does not understand the purpose of the beta because they vehemently disagree with proposed changes is right up there.