I think the above post highlights that some and maybe even allot of the problems with itemization are the result of systematic changes which have been made between D2 and D3. Thus allot of the dissatisfaction with items can be attributed to those changes and not items specifically.
Thus the three most fundamental changes i would like to see from D3
1.Make damage type have efficacy.(this esp)
2. diversify drop rates and types across areas. (eg. make so certain items only drop in certain acts/certain monsters)
3. Reduce the the dependence on gear, primary stat, and weapon dps.
With regards to this image the problems are not simply itemization. its more to do with the way itemization interacts with, skills and attributes. So just working on items (more different affixes) will not be sufficient, the weapon dps dependence and primary stat dependence are what causes many of the issues with itemization. So realistically for the problems with items to be solved it would require an admission from the design team that some of the key decisions they have made are flawed that being the complete gear and weapon dps dependence.
Second, the problem with efficiency currently is that it is one dimensional. The only way to make a class more efficient is to increase its dps and damage output over time which centralises and thus hinders build diversity.
Efficiency is one dimensional because the only problem which players have to solve is how to minimise run time with as much dps as possible. for example as i stated earlier there is no damage type problem to be solved, the kind of damage you are dealing makes no difference. thus rather than having people who specialise in dealing fire damage and ice damage or physical damage or a combination thereof. players simply seek to maximise damage in general.
When there is a damage type problem to be solved(as there was in D2 because of immunities) people specialise in one type of damage or another and gain a certain kind of efficiency or proficiency and then are rewarded by being more or less successful depending on what kind of monster they are fighting. In D3 the kind of specialisation is identical no matter what class you are playing everyone specialises towards maximising damage output. This is a strong reason for the lack of build diversity.
what i want to know is: WHAT THE HELL IS THE POINT OF HAVING WEAPONS AND SKILLS THAT DO DIFFERENT KINDS OF DAMAGE WHEN IT MAKES NO DIFFERENCE TO THE GAME-PLAY!!??
seriously i dont get it, maybe it made the game easier to tune, but so far as i am concerned the decision sucks, and its has not helped make the game more fun in any clear way.
I think it's all about itemization, once "it's fixed" the game will become much better.
OP if you could make a video just discussing about it, You'll need follow some steps:
- Show D3 actual problem;
- Show why D2 itemization was so much sucessful compared to D3;
- Possible solution to make it as good as D2, but without having to revamp all game.
That image is just too good. I don't know if it can ever be changed because of the rmah and all the whine there would be from people having bought -stupid- gear, but maybe it will at the expansion.
The 'expert' has already covered what you mention under play-style.. the point is that there should be an advantage to choosing a particular play style but there is not one because everyone is equally balanced and thus able to perform equally in all situations, there is no unique advantage in loot terms to playing a barbarian vs a wizard because wizard and barbarian can farm equally well in all areas.
Hm, still don't get it. So please correct me if I understood you wrong, but what I read from this is: there should be classes that are less efficient in farming and classes that have clear advantages over the others. Is that what you're saying? So if I like to play a wizard just because of play style, I'm getting my ass kicked because just by design this is supposed to be the challenging class and it's tough to farm efficiently with it? Sounds odd... besides, as soon as there's even a slight hint of a class having an advantage over others, everyone rolls that class (see the recent rise of thousands of new barbs). I'm sorry if I'm derailing this topic here, in this case just ignore my question - just trying to understand what's going on here.
Im not talking in absolute terms. at the moment everyone is equally capable of farming all areas just as efficiently when you hold gear constant.
So if we take a barb and a wizard each who have 40000 Dps and decent defensive gear then there is very little to differentiate them, they will both be equally capable of farming equally well in all areas. What i would argue is that there should be certain advantages gained from choosing a wizard or a barbarian. Barbarians should be able to farm better in some areas than wizards and vice versa atm this is not the case. Once you take gear out of the equation and the mode by which damage is dealt, eg ranged vs me-lee there is no difference in which class you play.
So i'm not necessarily saying that some characters should be less powerful in quantity terms but i am saying that in certain areas certain classes should be able to perform better.
otherwise there is no comparative advantage and classes will only specialise in builds that maximise damage because the only problem to be solved is how to deal the maximum amount of damage. which is uninteresting.
For example in D2 a 2 tree sorceress had a competitive advantage over a 1 tree sorceress because they could farm more areas. Even though a 1 damage type sorceress had and competitive advantage in max damage.
Hope that clarifies.
One very clear aspect of the problem is that it does not matter what KIND of damage you are dealing all that matters is HOW MUCH. which creates a very clear centralisation of build towards maximum damage dealers.----not the whole issue but understanding that leads to a whole bunch of insights about team play and the economy of playing different classes.
noob; which class should i pick?
Expert; just pick the one which best suits your playstyle
noob; i want to play the class which is best at farming diablo.
Expert; there is no best class there all the same
Noob;:so no class is better at doing anything than any other class?
Expert: nar blizzard balances them to be equal in all situations Noob: so whats the point of having classes in the first place?
Expert: um....they look different and have different skills?
What a stupid "expert" would that be who would give that last answer?
There are different classes because some people like the glass canon ranged damage dealers, some like the heavily hitting barbarians, some like to be supporters (tank/heal/buffs/...), some like nice magical spell animations while others like to smash things with a big mace...
Creating all these different play styles while maintaining balance is the most difficult challenge for any game design, btw.
The 'expert' has already covered what you mention under play-style.. the point is that there should be an advantage to choosing a particular play style but there is not one because everyone is equally balanced and thus able to perform equally in all situations, there is no unique advantage in loot terms to playing a barbarian vs a wizard because wizard and barbarian can farm equally well in all areas.
ive got to say i really agree with the OP. Especially regarding class balancing a drop balancing across acts. Ive said before that it it is boring to have the same items be able to drop from all monsters. The ubers/hellfire works around this abit but it is nowhere near enough. Diablo as the final boss should have a much better chance and potentially even exclusively drop certain epic items and the same for other final act bosses. otherwise there is no incentive to run them. the cost in terms of time relative to Alkaizer runs is too high compared with the reward.
There other problem which arises because of this is class specialisation and differentiation. because of the way characters are balanced every class is just as good as every other class at farming a given area. There is no such thing as having a competitive or comparative advantage between classes.
A Dialogue between D3 noob and.D3 expert
noob; which class should i pick?
Expert; just pick the one which best suits your playstyle
noob; i want to play the class which is best at farming diablo.
Expert; there is no best class there all the same
Noob;:so no class is better at doing anything than any other class?
Expert: nar blizzard balances them to be equal in all situations
Noob: so whats the point of having classes in the first place?
Expert: um....they look different and have different skills?
You get the idea. The classes are different but only in a very superficial way, and areas are different but loot drops are the same in all areas.
1.So people only farm the most efficient area. because there is no comparative to farming one area vs another
2. there is no comparative advantage to playing a different class so most people just play one class.
It all results in boring centralisation of stats, skills, farming, gear and classes for the individual
Doing random magic find runs? oh , you can't .. you must fight the same path all over again looking for elites ..
While some of your whines are perfectly valid opinions (opinions, mind you, not facts), this one is pure nonsense.
In what possible universe does D3 force you to "fight the same path all over again looking for elites" to do a magic find run?
You feel that you must run a certain specific zone because the mobs are a tiny bit more densely packed than the second-densest zone? Do you realize what a tiny, tiny difference that is compared to magic-find runs in D2, where nobody ever ran anything except a short, short list of bosses?
Why do ppl keep justifying Diablo 3 flaws by comparing it to Diablo 2?... it's a logical fallacy, and nothing else.
Because people also say that certain things in are D3 are flaws by reference to D2. I have done it plenty of times. The games are sufficiently similar to do so.
The above qoute however is a complaint which applies equally well to both D2 and D3. You have to repeat the same process many of times, buy hey that's Diablo.
No trade games
Barely anyone in chat , lack of social aspect , totally .
The lack of a social aspect is definitely an issue. When they announced the new improved battle net i imagined new improved social functions, but in terms of the ability and incentives to socialise and play with each other the user interface and design is worse than D2.
Of course the 4 player game limit has not helped the situation, Friends functions have improved. Chat is abit easier to manoeuvre. But on the whole its pretty lacking.
What do people do together D3?
In D2 you power levelled together, Trist runs, tomb runs, chaos runs, Baal runs, cow runs. Got rushes from high level characters, Ubered, if you wanted to get to 99 or even 80-90 for that matter you had to play with other people.
The very nature of D2 Encouraged community play, as a Cold sorceress it was almost impossible to complete hell by yourself due to cold immune's. You either had to have multiple kinds of damage, or play with other people. IF you wanted to be a super powered cold sorc you had to play with other people. D3 with its class balancing has destroyed this kind of specialisation Vs diversification problem and the social and economic implications which resulted, everyone can farm everywhere, every item drops everywhere.( excluding key runs which have brought back some d2 flavour---and everyone loves)
Monster power(while i like it) has further worsened this issue.
The social implications of D3 are individualised play which is fun to a point, PVP will increase socialisation and co-operation and hopefully bring back some of the lacking social aspect. But at this point socialising is completely unnecessary. and alot of fun is lost because of this.
For these reasons i think that, individualised game names would be great rather than auto matching depending on quest alone. What if id like someone to rush my low level and a high level character wants a chance to show-off, chill and shoot the wind...? its just not going to happen the way the multi-player interface works right now.
The game as it is now has vastly improved from when i first started playing, i have very few complaints and still feel something is lacking. On the whole i think id like;
More random side quests.
More items, and more item types.
greater depth within the skill system.---more synergies
Secondary attributes.
Open exploration.
For me the game is now has now met my basic expectations,--its very enjoyable to play on a day to day basis. post release that was certainly not the case. Now im hoping they will come up with something that will blow me away.
IMO that's the problem. Leveling up in D2 was fun, in D3 it's a horrible chore. The game's much better at 60 than below.
Totally agree, levelling in D2 was awesome because you had important choices to make, and each level was a chance for an improvement in power. In D3 power improvement in completely the result of items and you have very few choices to make other than what skills to put in your bar on any given occasion. even then skill choices matter very little untill you are level 60, most of the fun starts at 60.
There's no intention of being "purposely vague", as you put. The question itself is inherently vague itself, because the very definition of "fun" is 'vague' and 'individual'.
The bottom line is that I'm not having fun playing this game; not because the actual gameplay of killing demons is not fun (it mostly is, with kinks to iron out, ofc), but because I don't feel the reward is rewarding enough (i.e., I'm unhappy with the quality of loot dropped by monsters I kill). And I believe that the decision to design loot as it is designed is inextricably linked to the existence of an Auction House (the RMAH only serves to reinforce that belief).
I don't want to 'force everyone to play the way I play', as I've read; I just want to be able to have fun playing in a style that, let's be honest, is not unorthodox at all. In D2, the mass-traders were a minority; there were so many people that didn't even play on bnet, much, just in SP or LANs, but still played consistently. Now all of a sudden not wanting to buy my gear with gold is seen as some weird obsession, and I should 'L2P'.
No thanks.
Being as this is central to your argument I assume you can cite this as a fact, and not some random statement that anyone can make on the internet.
I think one of the main points made was that, there used to be a single player mode wherein trading was not even possible so you had to find all your gear yourself, forgoing the internet connectivity issues. For those players the balancing of drops with regard to the auction house, has reduced their return to time invested thus the game is much less rewarding for them because being self sufficient is now much less satisfying and to achieve the same results they must invest more time.
If we assume to begin that Diablo 2 had the return to time invested equilibrium/sweet spot between trade and farming. Then we take into account the fact that D3 has the AH which is a more efficient means of trade than in D2. This entails that farming in D3 must have a higher return to time invested than in D2 to counteract the efficiency of the auction house and achieve equilibrium.
Now personally I think that at the moment that return to time invested is higher on the auction house before you even reach inferno and that this is undesirable and unsatisfying for alot of people including me.
But i will now go try 1.05 and the farming returns have been increased! so lets see how it goes Plvl 14 here i come!
Forcing us to trade instead of using the AH would make Diablo 3 at least 10 times worse than it currently is, because instead of spending 1/2 our time on the AH to be optimal, we'd need to spend a lot more than 1/2 our time trading to achieve something.
If you wanted to be optimal in D2 you didn't fart around trying to find every last piece of gear for yourself. That's obviously the least-optimal way to play a game where the obvious inference is that damn near everything is tradeable. Yet time and time again, people cry about the AH saying they're "forced" to use it. Yet somehow people believe that in D3 they should be able to be "optimal" and also not have to use the AH at the same time. That is precisely what the saying "having your cake and eating it too" refers to.
i liked your post but...
Its not as if this is about being strictly optimal or not optimal . In D2 you could progress quite far before the point where trading became necessary to be optimal hit. It was basically a case of decreasing returns to time invested. The more time you invested in farming the more difficult it became to find items which would be useful on your character. In Diablo 3 so far the point where you had to start trading to be optimal hit much earlier. Specifically farming became inefficient relative to trading much faster. Thus the auction house felt 'necessary' because, It was more efficient than trading in D2 and the returns to time invested in farming were too low. So complaints about the AH are more about players wanting to be MORE optimal without the AH not Absolutely optimal without the AH.
Increasing drop-rates will increase the efficiency of Farming and thus make players more optimal without using the auction house. However clearly to be Absolutely optimal use of the AH will still be required.
So while i think your right that if you take demands about wanting to be optimal without the AH to the extreme they seem ridiculous you need to consider the spectrum of optimisation not just the extremes.
0
Thus the three most fundamental changes i would like to see from D3
1.Make damage type have efficacy.(this esp)
2. diversify drop rates and types across areas. (eg. make so certain items only drop in certain acts/certain monsters)
3. Reduce the the dependence on gear, primary stat, and weapon dps.
0
With regards to this image the problems are not simply itemization. its more to do with the way itemization interacts with, skills and attributes. So just working on items (more different affixes) will not be sufficient, the weapon dps dependence and primary stat dependence are what causes many of the issues with itemization. So realistically for the problems with items to be solved it would require an admission from the design team that some of the key decisions they have made are flawed that being the complete gear and weapon dps dependence.
Second, the problem with efficiency currently is that it is one dimensional. The only way to make a class more efficient is to increase its dps and damage output over time which centralises and thus hinders build diversity.
Efficiency is one dimensional because the only problem which players have to solve is how to minimise run time with as much dps as possible. for example as i stated earlier there is no damage type problem to be solved, the kind of damage you are dealing makes no difference. thus rather than having people who specialise in dealing fire damage and ice damage or physical damage or a combination thereof. players simply seek to maximise damage in general.
When there is a damage type problem to be solved(as there was in D2 because of immunities) people specialise in one type of damage or another and gain a certain kind of efficiency or proficiency and then are rewarded by being more or less successful depending on what kind of monster they are fighting. In D3 the kind of specialisation is identical no matter what class you are playing everyone specialises towards maximising damage output. This is a strong reason for the lack of build diversity.
what i want to know is: WHAT THE HELL IS THE POINT OF HAVING WEAPONS AND SKILLS THAT DO DIFFERENT KINDS OF DAMAGE WHEN IT MAKES NO DIFFERENCE TO THE GAME-PLAY!!??
seriously i dont get it, maybe it made the game easier to tune, but so far as i am concerned the decision sucks, and its has not helped make the game more fun in any clear way.
0
Yup that image rocks!!
1
Im not talking in absolute terms. at the moment everyone is equally capable of farming all areas just as efficiently when you hold gear constant.
So if we take a barb and a wizard each who have 40000 Dps and decent defensive gear then there is very little to differentiate them, they will both be equally capable of farming equally well in all areas. What i would argue is that there should be certain advantages gained from choosing a wizard or a barbarian. Barbarians should be able to farm better in some areas than wizards and vice versa atm this is not the case. Once you take gear out of the equation and the mode by which damage is dealt, eg ranged vs me-lee there is no difference in which class you play.
So i'm not necessarily saying that some characters should be less powerful in quantity terms but i am saying that in certain areas certain classes should be able to perform better.
otherwise there is no comparative advantage and classes will only specialise in builds that maximise damage because the only problem to be solved is how to deal the maximum amount of damage. which is uninteresting.
For example in D2 a 2 tree sorceress had a competitive advantage over a 1 tree sorceress because they could farm more areas. Even though a 1 damage type sorceress had and competitive advantage in max damage.
Hope that clarifies.
One very clear aspect of the problem is that it does not matter what KIND of damage you are dealing all that matters is HOW MUCH. which creates a very clear centralisation of build towards maximum damage dealers.----not the whole issue but understanding that leads to a whole bunch of insights about team play and the economy of playing different classes.
Bring back damage type immunities anyone?....hmmm
0
The 'expert' has already covered what you mention under play-style.. the point is that there should be an advantage to choosing a particular play style but there is not one because everyone is equally balanced and thus able to perform equally in all situations, there is no unique advantage in loot terms to playing a barbarian vs a wizard because wizard and barbarian can farm equally well in all areas.
0
There other problem which arises because of this is class specialisation and differentiation. because of the way characters are balanced every class is just as good as every other class at farming a given area. There is no such thing as having a competitive or comparative advantage between classes.
A Dialogue between D3 noob and.D3 expert
noob; which class should i pick?
Expert; just pick the one which best suits your playstyle
noob; i want to play the class which is best at farming diablo.
Expert; there is no best class there all the same
Noob;:so no class is better at doing anything than any other class?
Expert: nar blizzard balances them to be equal in all situations
Noob: so whats the point of having classes in the first place?
Expert: um....they look different and have different skills?
You get the idea. The classes are different but only in a very superficial way, and areas are different but loot drops are the same in all areas.
1.So people only farm the most efficient area. because there is no comparative to farming one area vs another
2. there is no comparative advantage to playing a different class so most people just play one class.
It all results in boring centralisation of stats, skills, farming, gear and classes for the individual
0
Because people also say that certain things in are D3 are flaws by reference to D2. I have done it plenty of times. The games are sufficiently similar to do so.
The above qoute however is a complaint which applies equally well to both D2 and D3. You have to repeat the same process many of times, buy hey that's Diablo.
0
The lack of a social aspect is definitely an issue. When they announced the new improved battle net i imagined new improved social functions, but in terms of the ability and incentives to socialise and play with each other the user interface and design is worse than D2.
Of course the 4 player game limit has not helped the situation, Friends functions have improved. Chat is abit easier to manoeuvre. But on the whole its pretty lacking.
What do people do together D3?
In D2 you power levelled together, Trist runs, tomb runs, chaos runs, Baal runs, cow runs. Got rushes from high level characters, Ubered, if you wanted to get to 99 or even 80-90 for that matter you had to play with other people.
The very nature of D2 Encouraged community play, as a Cold sorceress it was almost impossible to complete hell by yourself due to cold immune's. You either had to have multiple kinds of damage, or play with other people. IF you wanted to be a super powered cold sorc you had to play with other people. D3 with its class balancing has destroyed this kind of specialisation Vs diversification problem and the social and economic implications which resulted, everyone can farm everywhere, every item drops everywhere.( excluding key runs which have brought back some d2 flavour---and everyone loves)
Monster power(while i like it) has further worsened this issue.
The social implications of D3 are individualised play which is fun to a point, PVP will increase socialisation and co-operation and hopefully bring back some of the lacking social aspect. But at this point socialising is completely unnecessary. and alot of fun is lost because of this.
For these reasons i think that, individualised game names would be great rather than auto matching depending on quest alone. What if id like someone to rush my low level and a high level character wants a chance to show-off, chill and shoot the wind...? its just not going to happen the way the multi-player interface works right now.
0
More random side quests.
More items, and more item types.
greater depth within the skill system.---more synergies
Secondary attributes.
Open exploration.
For me the game is now has now met my basic expectations,--its very enjoyable to play on a day to day basis. post release that was certainly not the case. Now im hoping they will come up with something that will blow me away.
0
Totally agree, levelling in D2 was awesome because you had important choices to make, and each level was a chance for an improvement in power. In D3 power improvement in completely the result of items and you have very few choices to make other than what skills to put in your bar on any given occasion. even then skill choices matter very little untill you are level 60, most of the fun starts at 60.
0
Would like this very much, and custom game creation could be nice potentially. we know pvp is coming i dont mind the wait.
1
I think one of the main points made was that, there used to be a single player mode wherein trading was not even possible so you had to find all your gear yourself, forgoing the internet connectivity issues. For those players the balancing of drops with regard to the auction house, has reduced their return to time invested thus the game is much less rewarding for them because being self sufficient is now much less satisfying and to achieve the same results they must invest more time.
If we assume to begin that Diablo 2 had the return to time invested equilibrium/sweet spot between trade and farming. Then we take into account the fact that D3 has the AH which is a more efficient means of trade than in D2. This entails that farming in D3 must have a higher return to time invested than in D2 to counteract the efficiency of the auction house and achieve equilibrium.
Now personally I think that at the moment that return to time invested is higher on the auction house before you even reach inferno and that this is undesirable and unsatisfying for alot of people including me.
But i will now go try 1.05 and the farming returns have been increased! so lets see how it goes Plvl 14 here i come!
1
i liked your post but...
Its not as if this is about being strictly optimal or not optimal . In D2 you could progress quite far before the point where trading became necessary to be optimal hit. It was basically a case of decreasing returns to time invested. The more time you invested in farming the more difficult it became to find items which would be useful on your character. In Diablo 3 so far the point where you had to start trading to be optimal hit much earlier. Specifically farming became inefficient relative to trading much faster. Thus the auction house felt 'necessary' because, It was more efficient than trading in D2 and the returns to time invested in farming were too low. So complaints about the AH are more about players wanting to be MORE optimal without the AH not Absolutely optimal without the AH.
Increasing drop-rates will increase the efficiency of Farming and thus make players more optimal without using the auction house. However clearly to be Absolutely optimal use of the AH will still be required.
So while i think your right that if you take demands about wanting to be optimal without the AH to the extreme they seem ridiculous you need to consider the spectrum of optimisation not just the extremes.
0
Which solution would that be? and how does it force everyone else to play 'their' way?
0