DiabloFans

But still, I want to know what happens to our current gear...

What if I have rare items that have: primary stat + trifecta (IAS, CD, CC) and All Res?

If there wasn't an inflation in stats no rare would ever be better than this as rares can't have this quintfecta any longer.

I would say if they added commas and then maybe used different font sizes in the numbers as a subtle denotation for numbers with different amounts of digits it would be fine. The more characters the number has the bigger the number.

Is this why they had to make the new gear so much better than the current gear? If they didn't then our current quadfecta gear, albeit somewhat rare and difficult to obtain, would easily outperform the new items being forced to have multiple secondary stats.

Right now we have quadfecta gear which is no longer possible in the new system on most items I presume. Will those items flesh out into the divided categories or just remain the same? How does this work exactly?

Yay. Closed Beta coming soon! I might as well buy a lottery ticket and go for the mega millions, because I have a better chance at getting that.

This thread topic seems pretty reasonable to me... are we being just a tad over sensitive?

I still want to echo that I think transmog is great to be able to change a legendary that you find ugly into just a regular piece of tiered armor. There are over 10 choices now for each character class as far as those options go. But changing a legendary into another legendary or a non-legendary into a legendary has a duplicity that I personally cannot get behind. Seeing other people running around wearing legendary skins for legendaries they aren't actually utilizing kind of kills the lore aspect for me.

Not to mention that if each legendary is being given a unique ability, it seems overly deceptive to see another player wearing legendaries when they don't actually have those unique abilities that are supposed to be specifically attributed to said legendaries. It kind of has a disjointed feeling, that I'm sure I will adapt to but won't ever truly feel quite right about. It almost feels like these two new features (transmog and new legendary passives) have a conflict of interest as far as perception goes that I think Blizzard usually tries to avoid but is definitely being overlooked here.

An example that would apply, if transmog existed now, might be seeing someone using a FireWalkers skin over another set of boots, but not seeing any fire trail being left behind. It just has a blatant mismatch feeling to it that I don't particularly care for. It ruins some of the mystique that these legendaries are supposed to carry in their own individuality. If you thought the Firewalkers were ugly and just wanted to cover them up with the skin of a tier 8 boot skin, no big deal there.

On the other side of the spectrum, I want to clarify that I'd be fine with Firewalker boots that were covered by a tier 8 boot skin, to still display the fire trail passive effect, because at least you are actually wearing Firewalkers. It's a little deceptive, but at least the effect matches the actual item equipped to the owner. So if I see the trail I know they are Firewalkers underneath the transmog skin. It's deceptive, but it's a deception to a lesser degree that has a clear logical flow that leads to a clear logical outcome solely based upon immediate visual inspection.

I would have to argue there is a delicate and subtle finesse to this situation that the devs are overlooking.

I don't care about being "manly" with my gear. I've admitted that I will probably suffer as a result of this change, but I don't care. I think in the scope of the community it will make the game more fun on a grand scale. It may not be a positive for every single person (no solution will), but I think it has the greatest net positivity to offer in the grand scheme of things. The most important to me being not to show off my gear and make people envious but to actually have finding a legendary FEEL legendary. Look at my gear now, all of it is from flipping or pay to win (RMAH). The only reason I did it is because gear is uninspiring and impossible to improve upon right now by playing the game. I'd gladly be half as strong if the item hunt was more alluring. I won't be that powerful again in comparison to the average player with this new change, I guarantee it.

With BoA legendaries, everyone will be playing on an equal level sharing mutual experiences within the confines and limitations the game has in place. I'm not ostracizing myself, I WANT to be able to play with anyone at random and have had the same mutual experience. To share in mutual triumphs and commiserate over items we have not yet found.

As I said before, trading causes the entire community as a whole to gain stat boosts because legendaries flood the market (which wouldn't exist without mass trading) and cause oversaturation of easily exchangeable items. This overarching boost in power effects everyone who trades by a significant margin. It's not on a case by case basis, it's a systemic problem of a global bartering system. Everyone gets stronger collectively as item irrelevancy becomes prominent amongst the lower echelon of items quicker. Any new player that starts playing Diablo 3 very quickly becomes as strong as whatever quality of legendaries has floundered their way to the bottom of the bargain bin, instead of slowly building their way up by finding their own stuff. That bar keeps lowering as time progresses because there's just this huge pool of excess legendaries in the global market that there aren't enough players to create enough demand for (which bots also contribute greatly to). It is a system that gauges how strong a player is not based on how long they have been slaying monsters, but by how long the global economy has actively been in effect.

Keep in mind my position is willing to compromise with ideas involving smaller scale trading. I'm really only arguing against a global economy.

I'm only saying it supports ostracism if you are trying to play in a way that leaves you unaffected by what other people are doing outside of your games. If you say that "other people trading has no influence on me" then that is only the case if you ostracize yourself from any other player that does trade, either by playing alone or by playing only with a select group of like-minded players. In the end you are selectively avoiding a certain player set which would make up a significant portion of the player base.

Even then you can't be 100% sure that the people you are playing with aren't trading with others when you aren't around. The game doesn't enforce it, so you have no foolproof way of knowing for sure.

If you don't care that you are playing with traders, then it's a different story. But don't say it has no bearing on your gameplay experience, because it without a doubt does.

I really thought my opinion about this was the unpopular one... I'm kind of surprised by the poll results to be honest. But it is a small sample size, so pretty much negligible.

Even with my viewpoint though "necessary for D3's survival" is definitely an overstatement.

And yes, you can choose to play solo or with a self-found clan, but again that supports ostracism in a game that is supposed to be about the multiplayer experience. The fact that you are sharing a mutual experience that is relatable to any other person you could join a game with, friend or stranger, within the limitations of the game's constructs and boundaries that are evenly applied to everyone.

Quote from Ruluku

Quote from itirnitii

If legendaries are tradeable they flood the market and over time become too abundant and too accessible to everyone on a scale that dwarfs their designed integrity. This is especially true when you consider botting, third party sales, and pay to win which is all hindered greatly and effectively by BoA. When this happens the overall strength of the community as a whole rises by a large margin. This means everyone you play with, despite your efforts to play self-found, has a higher level of power. When you play with them, they kill monsters faster thereby impacting your rewards; both experience gain and item drops. So, even if you try to keep to yourself, you are still affected unless you play completely solo or isolate yourself from a large percentage of the player base (people who trade); neither of which make sense from a design standpoint in what is supported by Blizzard as a game with an emphasis on the multiplayer experience.

This still doesn't address why your play style should be more valid than mine. You can play solo, or you can play with only people on your friends list, or in a clan with people who have take a solemn oath not to trade, and you can avoid the effects you mentioned. But again, it fails to address the larger idea. What happens when you're in a game with people who got lucky/are just better/have outleveled you because they've played longer, and the same thing starts to happen. Now they're killing monsters faster and impact your rewards but it has nothing to do with their ability to trade. What then. Why take out a valid option that others enjoy when those same effects that are supposedly being addressed will come up elsewhere?

If they played longer, that is fine and fair. It's a false analogy. As long as the game's constructs are similar for both players it is fair game. How long one chooses to play is not a game construct.

Quote from Ruluku

Quote from Zeyk23

Quote from maka

Trading only 'took control' of the game in vanilla because they made it that way.
Just saying.

The whole point of trading is that it's better for getting what you want than just playing the game yourself. Otherwise no one would bother. So when people ask for trading to remain in the game, they're asking to be given an advantage over self-found players, which is exactly what Blizzard wants to prevent. They've very explicitly stated that their design goal is to make self-found loot the best way to gear up. That leaves no room for trading no matter how you look at it.

In a game thats supposed to be about enjoying killing monsters and finding loot, I want to know how you quantify an advantage. How do you even begin to compare what I enjoy doing to what you enjoy doing? Where do you mark off the degrees of enjoyment? Where is the baseline of enjoyable? Sure, trading offers an advantage in killing monsters, but with the number of times Blizzard has stated this game is not becoming e-sport, how can you say Blizzard is trying to keep someone from "gaining an advantage". I want trading to stay in the game because its a part of the game that I enjoy. You want trading kept out because it gives other people an advantage and yet doesn't actually impact how you play your character one way or another. If that's the end result, and this is a game people play for fun, who is Blizzard's choice actually giving an advantage to?

If legendaries are tradeable they flood the market and over time become too abundant and too accessible to everyone on a scale that dwarfs their designed integrity. This is especially true when you consider botting, third party sales, and pay to win which is all hindered greatly and effectively by BoA. When this happens the overall strength of the community as a whole rises by a large margin. This means everyone you play with, despite your efforts to play self-found, has a higher level of power. When you play with them, they kill monsters faster thereby impacting your rewards; both experience gain and item drops. So, even if you try to keep to your own drops, you are still affected unless you play completely solo or isolate yourself from a large percentage of the player base (people who trade); neither of which make sense from a design standpoint in what is supported by Blizzard as a game with an emphasis on the multiplayer experience. The idea that you could join a game with anyone at random and know that they received their items from actually playing the game is an invaluable and mutual experience and also a legitimate concern shared by many. Again, this is even more reasonable when you consider that Blizzard greatly supports Diablo 3 as a multiplayer game. This indeed affects almost everyone in some fashion or another whether they care to admit it or not.

Quote from Enril766

Quote from skritsarn

Its a good idea imo, it would really make it feel special to find that awesome legendary
But they'll definitely need to improve on it. Maybe limit each item to be traded just once to whoever you want,
or just make the very best gear soulbound. It does feel a little extreme to make all legendaries 100% soulbound since they don't seem to have any plans replace the AH with some other kind of trading function anyway which would make it alot harder to find the right trade.

i remember during blizzcon that they said , only the best legendaries would be soulbound

It is an easy mistake to make. He says "all the best items in the game" and then continues on by stating those as all legendaries and sets.

Quote from Ethezial

I don't understand how replacing the look of an item on my character can have such a drastic effect on YOUR gameplay.


So I want these boots, right? They let me move through enemies, awesome. But here's the thing. They look stupid with the other Legendaries I'm wearing that suit my build. So in your world I have to just let it go because it ruins the item's "uniqueness". So in your world, I have two options: deal with the fact that these boots look dumb with my other gear, or sacrifice the stat I want for something that looks better, but stat wise doesn't complement the build I'm aiming for. Nothing about that sounds logically sound to me.

I've read your posts, and I get that you're passionate about this topic. (On a side note, a lot of your posts come across extremely condescending which is what led me to post in here in the first place). But your logic, while it may make perfect sense to you, makes no sense to me or a lot of people in here.

You would still be able to transmog the boots to look like normal boots for your class from the 10+ tiers that come with normal gear. You just wouldn't be able to make them look like another legendary.

At least, that's the line of reasoning I support.

The problem with that line of reasoning is that you're ignoring a skill not because of what it does, but because it is boring to use. You love what it has to offer, but it is so uninspiring that you feel the need to choose something else. What does that say about the skill in question? It speaks volumes in and of itself that the skill should be replaced or redesigned. If you're not considering all of your active skill choices mutually for their effects, but instead choosing your skills based on their lack of tedium and level of contribution to your action oriented gameplay, to me that is a huge warning sign of a design problem.