Oh absolutely agreed, if items stayed the same the only thing what I proposed would offer is even less choice, because there's pretty obvious items for each slot that would end up being mandatory.
The reason I suggested all this in the first place is because I'm trying to look ahead, to patch 2.3, 2.4, 3.3, 3.4, ect and ect. We're going to eventually have all these legendaries, and still be stuck with limited options because of the limited slots.
How different would your example be if all those items you listed had 2-3 other items that were equal in power for those slots? Suddenly there's a lot of nice setups that *should* (in a perfect world) compete with each other.
And the 3p sets will still have fewer total options than the 6psets because you're taking larger subsets of the total pool. Item competition isn't just one way. The example doesn't change significantly. It takes a lot of potential competing items before the game starts to favor smaller sets, but the negative impacts of smaller sets start immediately.
In the far-far future? Maybe you get some extra "outfits" by having fewer pieces to hit set bonuses, but you're still essentially removing the opt-in cost.
Here's an example in the far far future -
Standard 6p slots
3 Competing legends in each slot
6p set - 19 set permutations and 729 legendary permutations (a set counts for "5" legendaries in power, ideally using 6 legendaries in place of set items should allow for effectiveness similar to using a set, we cannot project perfectly because at this juncture we don't even have competing legends in single slots)
3p set - Two options
1) 162 set permutations (3p set significantly more powerful than 3 more legendaries)
2) 162 set permutations, 729 legendary permutations (likely overestimate, set items significantly nerfed)
Now Blizz is unlikely to change the raw power of a set. If we look at the raw power available in legends right now you can see that if we had actual synergy between legendary items the items could more or less take the place of a set. In your best case scenario Sets have to be much weaker than they currently are to achieve additional balanced permutations of gear, which will also reduce the mechanical concision of set bonuses (by moving power elsewhere). In your worst case scenario you get a bunch of extra permutations of gear but they have the same pitfalls of current sets
eg
Choosing items
AAA
BBB
CCC
ABC
BCA
CAB
AAB
AAC
BBC
BBA
Etc where most permutations involve overlap similar to that experienced by the worst case 6p scenario. That is to say that your best case scenario makes sets less desirable and your worst case scenario provides a trivial effective options increase. You're trading one set of "locked items" for another really.
So ask yourself, do you want more power with similar choice matrices? Or do you want the same power with more choices but marginalized returns on those choices? Or do you think you can live with the current system where your best case scenario results in all the choice of the 3p best case AND the raw power loaded into a set to go along with mechanical clarity.
Sets are already extremely easy to get. It took me about 12 hours from level 1 to get my full Monk set, and I was playing solo. Reducing the amount needed only speeds up that process by a couple days at most with casual players, and that won't impact a thing in a months-long season.
I also have to disagree with the last thing you said. You seem to be inferring that because of the limited slots at the moment, there's somehow more diversity? And you're saying there will be LESS diversity if more slots are open? How does that work? At the moment because of the so few slots, there's one set of items, sets and legendaries alike, that are by and far better than any other choices. Will opening up more slots suddenly solve that? Probably not completely, but we as players will have a greater freedom in choosing what we want to use, and that's exactly what I'm trying to get at.
When I say easier to get I'm not talking about time to find. I'm talking about how much you "give up" for the set effects.
As for diverity: Diversity is about providing multiple competing options. Right now is not a very good representation of diversity because of current itemization pitfalls (lack of competing options for any given class). What you need to understand is that limiting flexibility has a net positive increase on player choice.
Let's look at Zunimassa. For the sake of argument we'll pretend that Zuni has a normal slot spread (Gloves/Helm/Chest/Pants/Boots/Pauldrons) because it needs to in order to accurately represent diversity.
In the current (6p) design if Zuni has "normal" slot requirements you have to make a choice.
TnT
MoJ
PTR Fetish Pants
TMF
LMF
You can have one. Or you can have two rings. Or you can have none of the above if you like. If we pretend (for the sake of argument) that options are balanced and any given one of those choices is "correct" then you have like 6 options when you wear zuni with the same relative effectiveness, and each one will favor slightly different stats or supporting skills. Not super different, but different enough that you'll be seeing different animations or numbers of pets.
Now let's drop it to a 3p requirement. You can now have all the things. You just dropped 6 options down to 1. Now of course given enough time there could be competing legendary items in those slots which would increase choice pallette but either way you have fewer choices to make with the lower set requirements.
In a perfectly executed system restricting player flexibility will therefore increase choices made by the player. The problem isn't that you have to dog-ear 6 pieces toward completing a set. It's that the best sets have absolutely no competition from legendaries OR other sets. That's what's constraining you.
And of course. Just reducing the set requirements to 3p will just make the current best sets better and worst sets worse. You won't be solving anything, only exacerbating the problem.
But removal of RoRG and reduction of set item requirements by 1 in "compensation" IS power creep. Very significant power creep at that.
So is reduction in set number drastically, even if you say sets are exclusive.
Okay I see what you mean by that; if my system were to be placed in, the power of every class across the board would rise because of all the new combinations. Whiiiich admittedly would be one downside, but something that could also be remedied by more number crunching when it comes to Greater Rifts.
I was commenting more on how after the initial burst of new combinations of items (and possibly some OP ones), the introduction of more legendaries down the road combined with the ~3 more open slots to play around with won't eventually lead to everyone being able to infinitely beat greater rifts, it would stabilize such as it is now, and we wouldn't see continual power creep.
It will also significantly homogenize set gearing. The fact that sets are so restrictive allows for more potential build diversity than if the sets are less restrictive.
There's a problem with competitive balance of items in slots more than anything else. Sure it would be fun to have 3+ more legend affixes to go with your sets, but it'll also make sets less special, easier to get, and most importantly will mean there are fewer limiters on what items you can use in combination which will result in a greater number of builds that are doing "everything".
woooo more requests to have all the things at once without needing to make any trades.
While I guess I can't argue with you that I AM trying to gain 'more things', I'd like to think it's in the interest of having more fun with D3. Currently having half of our gear slots spoken for before we even make the character, simply because they ARE BiS and have no competition isn't, in my own opinion, 'fun'. For me it's turned into "Collect your class set in the first few hours of the season, then spend the next couple of weeks farming for the weapon you really want" The Game.
But hey if I'm in the small minority of people here who sees this as a problem, that's okay with me it's not like I'm going to quit the game. I would just love to be able to say to myself while playing "Okay, I found my set and it takes up 3 slots. Now, what items do I want to use in the other 9-10 slots that can really make this build unique?"
The alternative is to have non-set item combinations that are competitive with sets. It's healthier for game itemization and avoids power creep.
There's nothing preventing sets and legendaries to inhabit different itemization niches. We just need a lot more legendary affixes in more slots in orer for the competition to really become possible.
In other words: Reducing the "opt-in" to having fewer setpieces to achieve current levels of power will cause power creep as more legendary effects get added to the game or existing sets get updated. You're right that too many items are spoken for, so what we REALLY need is more options as to what is BiS for our builds, and the solution to that is more different items not ways to equip more existing items.
And the 3p sets will still have fewer total options than the 6psets because you're taking larger subsets of the total pool. Item competition isn't just one way. The example doesn't change significantly. It takes a lot of potential competing items before the game starts to favor smaller sets, but the negative impacts of smaller sets start immediately.
In the far-far future? Maybe you get some extra "outfits" by having fewer pieces to hit set bonuses, but you're still essentially removing the opt-in cost.
Here's an example in the far far future -
Standard 6p slots
3 Competing legends in each slot
6p set - 19 set permutations and 729 legendary permutations (a set counts for "5" legendaries in power, ideally using 6 legendaries in place of set items should allow for effectiveness similar to using a set, we cannot project perfectly because at this juncture we don't even have competing legends in single slots)
3p set - Two options
1) 162 set permutations (3p set significantly more powerful than 3 more legendaries)
2) 162 set permutations, 729 legendary permutations (likely overestimate, set items significantly nerfed)
Now Blizz is unlikely to change the raw power of a set. If we look at the raw power available in legends right now you can see that if we had actual synergy between legendary items the items could more or less take the place of a set. In your best case scenario Sets have to be much weaker than they currently are to achieve additional balanced permutations of gear, which will also reduce the mechanical concision of set bonuses (by moving power elsewhere). In your worst case scenario you get a bunch of extra permutations of gear but they have the same pitfalls of current sets
eg
Choosing items
AAA
BBB
CCC
ABC
BCA
CAB
AAB
AAC
BBC
BBA
Etc where most permutations involve overlap similar to that experienced by the worst case 6p scenario. That is to say that your best case scenario makes sets less desirable and your worst case scenario provides a trivial effective options increase. You're trading one set of "locked items" for another really.
So ask yourself, do you want more power with similar choice matrices? Or do you want the same power with more choices but marginalized returns on those choices? Or do you think you can live with the current system where your best case scenario results in all the choice of the 3p best case AND the raw power loaded into a set to go along with mechanical clarity.
[quote=Bleu42;/members/48712-bleu42]
Sets are already extremely easy to get. It took me about 12 hours from level 1 to get my full Monk set, and I was playing solo. Reducing the amount needed only speeds up that process by a couple days at most with casual players, and that won't impact a thing in a months-long season.
I also have to disagree with the last thing you said. You seem to be inferring that because of the limited slots at the moment, there's somehow more diversity? And you're saying there will be LESS diversity if more slots are open? How does that work? At the moment because of the so few slots, there's one set of items, sets and legendaries alike, that are by and far better than any other choices. Will opening up more slots suddenly solve that? Probably not completely, but we as players will have a greater freedom in choosing what we want to use, and that's exactly what I'm trying to get at.
When I say easier to get I'm not talking about time to find. I'm talking about how much you "give up" for the set effects.
As for diverity: Diversity is about providing multiple competing options. Right now is not a very good representation of diversity because of current itemization pitfalls (lack of competing options for any given class). What you need to understand is that limiting flexibility has a net positive increase on player choice.
Let's look at Zunimassa. For the sake of argument we'll pretend that Zuni has a normal slot spread (Gloves/Helm/Chest/Pants/Boots/Pauldrons) because it needs to in order to accurately represent diversity.
In the current (6p) design if Zuni has "normal" slot requirements you have to make a choice.
TnT
MoJ
PTR Fetish Pants
TMF
LMF
You can have one. Or you can have two rings. Or you can have none of the above if you like. If we pretend (for the sake of argument) that options are balanced and any given one of those choices is "correct" then you have like 6 options when you wear zuni with the same relative effectiveness, and each one will favor slightly different stats or supporting skills. Not super different, but different enough that you'll be seeing different animations or numbers of pets.
Now let's drop it to a 3p requirement. You can now have all the things. You just dropped 6 options down to 1. Now of course given enough time there could be competing legendary items in those slots which would increase choice pallette but either way you have fewer choices to make with the lower set requirements.
In a perfectly executed system restricting player flexibility will therefore increase choices made by the player. The problem isn't that you have to dog-ear 6 pieces toward completing a set. It's that the best sets have absolutely no competition from legendaries OR other sets. That's what's constraining you.
And of course. Just reducing the set requirements to 3p will just make the current best sets better and worst sets worse. You won't be solving anything, only exacerbating the problem.
It will also significantly homogenize set gearing. The fact that sets are so restrictive allows for more potential build diversity than if the sets are less restrictive.
There's a problem with competitive balance of items in slots more than anything else. Sure it would be fun to have 3+ more legend affixes to go with your sets, but it'll also make sets less special, easier to get, and most importantly will mean there are fewer limiters on what items you can use in combination which will result in a greater number of builds that are doing "everything".
But removal of RoRG and reduction of set item requirements by 1 in "compensation" IS power creep. Very significant power creep at that.
So is reduction in set number drastically, even if you say sets are exclusive.
The alternative is to have non-set item combinations that are competitive with sets. It's healthier for game itemization and avoids power creep.
There's nothing preventing sets and legendaries to inhabit different itemization niches. We just need a lot more legendary affixes in more slots in orer for the competition to really become possible.
In other words: Reducing the "opt-in" to having fewer setpieces to achieve current levels of power will cause power creep as more legendary effects get added to the game or existing sets get updated. You're right that too many items are spoken for, so what we REALLY need is more options as to what is BiS for our builds, and the solution to that is more different items not ways to equip more existing items.
eg - time
woooo more requests to have all the things at once without needing to make any trades.