Get an Epic Experience with Premium
  • posted a message on A proposed change to sets.

    @ Autocthon


    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.

    Posted in: Diablo III General Discussion
  • posted a message on A proposed change to sets.
    Quote from Autocthongo-next

    Quote from Bleu42go-next

    Quote from Autocthongo-next

    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".


    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.

    Posted in: Diablo III General Discussion
  • posted a message on A proposed change to sets.
    Quote from Autocthongo-next

    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.

    Posted in: Diablo III General Discussion
  • posted a message on A proposed change to sets.
    Quote from Autocthongo-next

    Quote from Bleu42go-next

    Quote from Autocthongo-next

    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.


    eg - time


    I guess that will end up being a wait-and-see. If Blizzard is doing their job right, the only time Diablo will ever see power creep is when a brand new expansion is released, and the level cap on players and items is increased.


    New items for Diablo shouldn't actually introduce the standard power-creep. It's a different environment than something such as World of Warcraft, where power creep is needed because new items and tiers mean you need higher and higher numbers, and thus power creep is actually essential.


    In Diablo, a new set "shouldn't" suddenly be better than all other previous sets. It should be put in to compete with them, not beat them. Same goes for the rarest of legendaries. Now I say rarest because there's an obvious system here where the more common legendaries just flat out aren't as powerful as the hardest to find. I think at the moment the new Ashbringer sword is a great example. I don't think anyone's about to say it beats The Furnace, so The Furnace is now obsolete. Ashbringer has an awesome proc, but at the moment that proc is going to be hard to maintain, and 50% damage to elites would win out in a long RG battle that doesn't have adds.


    So in essence, if new items introduced by Blizzard continue to compete with existing items, then there won't be a power creep until it gets to the point that every idea of a unique affix is used up, which is pretty far off. So with that said, my whole OP's point is that I think we would all have a lot more fun if we had the majority of our slots to play around with. Currently it doesn't seem like Blizzard is going to back down on how much more powerful sets are than stand alone legendaries, so I tried to come up with a compromise; if sets are going to stay mandatory, can we at least see the amount of slots they take up reduced from 6 to 3? (see OP for a better explenation).

    Posted in: Diablo III General Discussion
  • posted a message on A proposed change to sets.
    Quote from Autocthongo-next

    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?"

    Posted in: Diablo III General Discussion
  • posted a message on A proposed change to sets.

    Although I agree with your sentiment, removing RoRG and and lowering sets to 5 pieces raises a possibly worse problem, doubling down and using 2 sets, whose combined power outweigh any legendary. I could see this happening IF and ONLY IF, sets were made exclusionary, ie you run one, you can (either by arrangement of pieces or direct block) never run 2 sets of that scale. For example, giving M6 DH's the new Natalyas would be... hilarious to say the least. I don't play monk much, but I can only assume the insanity that would ensue of being able to run both Sunwuko and Innas or Rainment at the same time.


    The customization can only come about by making things exclusionary, of being an either/or proposition. Making your suggested changes to sets will only allow for more customization if the slots freed up ONLY permit the usage of other one off legendaries, not simply combining known power set with other lesser sets (whos bonuses beat any single legendary usually).


    The other alternative, which is far more painful and time consuming, would be to make way way more powerful single piece legs and depower sets. This is impossible probably (both for wasted time and design reasons).


    Well I had actually tried to address your concern. With no RoRG, only 5 pieces in the set and the set taking up the same slots as every other set for that class, you can only get the full benefit ( three pieces ) from one set at a time, and whatever half - bonus from the 2 piece of another set.

    Posted in: Diablo III General Discussion
  • posted a message on A proposed change to sets.

    Hey guys! I just posted this on the Bnet forums, but had to throw it here to see how you guys felt. Am I being too crazy? Too nit-picky? You decide! lol

    (Bnet thread; http://us.battle.net/d3/en/forum/topic/16490869094#1)


    I'll start with all the qualifiers; the following is my own opinion and I'm not about to say it's how every player feels. It IS however how all of my friends that I play D3 with feel, albeit to varying degrees.


    I'm really having a hard time enjoying how sets have turned out. I have two personal problems with them; they are absolutely mandatory, and they take up 6 slots. However since I understand why they need to feel powerful, this thread is focused on the second problem.


    No matter how you slice it, a class set will eat up six slots out of a mere 12 (or 13 with an off-hand). That means that HALF of your characters gear automatically goes towards that set, whether it's 6 pieces or 5 pieces and a ring of royal grandeur. That's also six pieces with no unique affixes or anything fun on them, and the worst part is that's six slots where you COULD put something fun in!


    A huge problem in vanilla Diablo 3 was that legendaries didn't actually DO anything. Blizzard has since then worked really hard on providing unique affixes to many of the legendaries. I was really excited when these first started rolling out because (and again this is just personal opinion) one of my favorite things is to mix and match gear, and there's a whole pool of HUNDREDS of legendaries to pick from!


    ...Except that now, while there's interesting unique affixes for every slot, we're reduced to having either two rings, an amulet, a belt and a weapon to pick from. Some sets have one or two of their pieces out of the ordinary, such as a belt and a weapon in place of gloves and shoulders, but that doesn't solve this problem, it just mixes it around.


    What I'm getting at is that it's really not fun to have all of these legendaries at my disposal, and yet because sets are mandatory now for any sort of progress, most of them are left in the stash. This of course leads me to an extreme proposal. I get that this would be a huge undertaking, and I don't actually expect anything to come of it. However, at least I'll feel better having gotten it out there. So, if I had a chance to re-work the structure of sets in D3, but had to keep them so powerful that they are required, this is what I'd do;


    A) Remove the RoRG's power.

    B ) Reduce all set items in any given set to five (5).

    C) Re-work the set's bonuses to tiers of 2 and 3 pieces.


    What I mean by this is that even though a set has five pieces, you only need any combination of three to achieve the full powerful bonus. Now obviously there's a couple problems here, such as mixing and matching current set pieces because there's inconsistency in which slots the set pieces take up. I would solve that by the following;


    D) The armor slots that the sets take up in any given class are different, depending on what armor slot the class specific armor is on. For example, the special armor for Monks is the spirit stone, or helmet. Therefore all the Monk sets will have shoulders / gloves / chest / belt / pants / boots. The reason to have the sets all take up the same slots is the same reason why the number of pieces a set has in total was reduces to five; you can't get the full 3 piece bonus out of two sets at once. And since the set powers have been combined into a 2 piece and 3 piece bonus, you can only get one full bonus and a partial from another set if you wish.


    All this change will have one colossal benefit; customization. Instead of HALF of our gear slots taken up by items that don't have any of the unique affixes that I have no doubt Blizzard has slaved over, it's reduced to three. Your choice out of five armor slots which three will be taken up, and then it's a free for all on all the other slots. Suddenly I CAN use that spirit stone for my Monk I really wanted to, AND pair it with those gloves I found!


    In closing I absolutely understand this is a case of too little too late; Heck we're in PTR as we speak testing brand new six piece sets. However, this problem has bothered me for so long that I just felt I needed to at least get it out there. If you managed to get through this, thank you for reading and have an awesome day.

    Posted in: Diablo III General Discussion
  • posted a message on [PTR 2.2] Undocumented changes

    Stormshield's reduce melee damage range is back down to a max of 30%. Unless I'm wrong I seem to remember it being up to 50% last patch or something.

    Posted in: Diablo III General Discussion
  • posted a message on [PTR 2.2] Undocumented changes

    Wings from the CE show up on the character selection screen, before you make a game.

    Posted in: Diablo III General Discussion
  • posted a message on Diablo 3 new expansion

    All I know is I want at least the Druid for a new class. Also, let's go off the board here and try a whole new type of zone like the Skovos isles, and make it a beach / coastline / tropical island forest with lots of ruins.

    Posted in: Diablo III General Discussion
  • To post a comment, please or register a new account.