lso what was very cool about D2, was the fact that the most expensive items were indeed yellow rare items, which could generate many different affixes that made this item godlike and very expensive. In D3 there is no depth in itemization. The only upgrade you can get is 20 main atribute or 10% more critical hit damage, which doesn't encourage you to further grinding/farming/exping whatever you feel like doing.
I really think people overestimate the itemization system in D2, especially when it came to rares. Sure it was nice that rares *could* be godly (ala rare circlets), but it was mostly getting +3 to your specialized skill tab. The other stats were no more interesting than All Res and other stats from D3. I loved D2, don't get me wrong, but it's itemization had tons of problems as well, and I know I mostly played it because I liked the repetition at that stage in my life.
I'm not at all saying that D3 doesn't need some itemization work, or that a suggestion like the one in the OP wouldn't be awesome and welcome. But when people try to analyze why D2 was successful, I often see more flaws that would bug me today than I see examples of how to move forward in D3. The thing I like about the proposed system is that it can also function as sort of a "rune word" type system, using existing items to combine into either something with the potential to be better (like better stats), or used to create a totally new item from the old ones (essentially the same as adding runes to a socketed white item). I do, however, hope they don't make the new items soooo OP (like enigma) that it overshadows the other items in the game. Powerful but not overly silly would be ideal.
"We want a more complex, in-depth system!" vs. "A system like this must be simplified!"
For me this generally comes down to more of a, if a system like this were to be implemented, it would have to be simplified at least bit, because the developers goals tend to include avoiding too much complexity. It would, however, be nice if something was added that either made whites, blues, and yellows worth more than crafting mats in the late game, or at least (as the OP's system does), gives options for legendaries that aren't great for much besides breaking them down.
My guess is that some new such system will come along with the the next expansion, assuming they end up making one. In fact, if they are making one, they are probably already working on some new sort of system, and things like ancient items are just cheap ways to add something in the meantime. All speculation, of course.
The way I understand it is that they have been focusing on fixing some of the problems with map generation for rifts, and spent the rest of the time theorizing and testing ways to fix sets they deemed broken for one reason or another. They realize that there needs to be an additional carrot, so they did ancient items as a stopgap, as it's cheap to implement and accomplishes the immediate goal to add more incremental power increases.
Once they feel comfortable with the way rifts work (density, monster types, map generation) and get at least one good set for each class that is both engaging and powerful, they may look to come up with another solution to add to the end-game. Perhaps something like this:
or something similar to a modified runeword system from diablo 2. The issue is that those types of systems take time to design, implement, test, and iterate through those phases a couple of times to find an acceptable system. It's likely they are working on something bigger internally, but are no where near ready to put it into production, so ancient items are the stopgap.
till, you gotta keep in mind that people on the top of the PTR leaderboard are probably well-geared when it comes to ancient items by now. So it's two levels less with the help of ancient items.
I agree that on the first PTR build, they went way overboard with damage. But comparing current PTR to live, it just feels bad. The damage feels roughly the same (though it's hard to tell exactly, considering the changes to monster hp), provided you can use spenders indefinitely, which isn't always possible. On top of that, the necessity to stand still while attacking hurts a lot, even with the buff to vitality.
It is a change of mechanics, but right now it's also a nerf. It might be more active and engaging, but it feels like a damn chore when you have to spend forever between attacking and trying to stay alive on levels where there was no problem before. And yeah, it's PTR and everything is subject to change, but the devs haven't corrected it yet, so why would I say nothing about it? If no one says anything, why would they change it any further? I know it's going to far to say that they rely on feedback for everything, but it's better to be on the safe side.
That's certainly one way to look at.
The thing that seems to get left out here is that part of that "trying to stay alive on levels where there was no problem before" is tied into the change to NightStalker and Smoke Screen, since that was where the real survivability came from. If that stuff hadn't been changed, this wouldn't be an issue with the new M6 bonuses, since you'd want to shoot to get discipline back and you'd be able to stand relatively still because SS.
The other factor is the conduit change, which also makes a straight comparison of the newest PTR M6 to the live version difficult. If you just look at GR tier's completed between newest PTR and live, you're missing the other changes that contribute to the difference, one of which affects all classes (conduit).
The other thing is that... most other builds require a balance between doing damage and trying to avoid taking damage. The fact that the DH (on live) can basically negate that because it's damage is mostly passive (sentries fire spenders by themselves) and they can focus on trying to keep SS either 100% up, or dodging attacks in the small time it isn't, was an outlier that needed to be fixed. If they just made every class be able to do passive damage and be nearly invulnerable, they may as well remove elite affixes from the game.
I haven't had a ton of time to test the newest changes myself, but I did take a look at the PTR leaderboards, and saw bit of a stream with someone playing it while I was working, and it looks like the DH is still pretty competitive as far as both solo and group GR. That to me, makes the changes seem legit.
Now I just hope they can work to make a solo and group viable build available for every class, and then work to make more than 1 for each class. That'd be the dream.
span>TLDR: It might suck for those who enjoy it the way it is now, but Raekors needs to scale in a more linear fashion, and Barbs as a whole class need more durability - that way we wouldn't "need" the perma freeze CC abuse. Ultimately, baseline class adjustments/buffs are the answer, we're in this situation because of a few specific pieces of gear that push certain builds far and leave others in the dust.
I just took the TLDR version, since it's the easiest way to refer back to your post without doubling a wall of text
The Vile Wards were only such a mistake because of the Dreadnaught rune. My guess is that Blizz determined that either vile wards needed to be toned down, or the rune needed to be changed. Since there is a case in which the rune itself can be frustrating for party members, they decided to change it. While that's only speculation, it leads to the conclusion that the rational given in the blue post is true, it's just not all of the truth. They were going to make changes to the set (and/or supporting items) anyway, and decided to also address the issue of run forward and clump enemies. The fact that there are other builds that can do this (WD, Sader), doesn't mean it wasn't a good reason to change it.
As for the durability issues, unless they decide to Significantly change the damage scaling of monsters post GR 35 (or as someone else suggested, just stop scaling the damage after 40 or so), it's always going to be an issue. There will always end up being a class or build (or a few) that can go way higher through some broken mechanic that allows them to not die (or have the speed to make up for it), as long as damage keeps scaling, because there will always end up being the 1-shot wall and where ever it starts, builds (live M6 DH, FC barbs) that have built in mechanics to avoid damage (or do it without being near enemies) are going to be able to push a little further. If you change the baseline class, you just move the bar of 1-shot to a higher tier. If greater rifts are to be the measuring stick, they need some modification before builds can be properly evaluated. In the current iteration (even on the PTR), there's a 1-shot wall, and after that, the only thing that makes it harder is monster life vs your DPS.
That's not to say that barbs don't need a little love in their kit. It's just to say that other factors will prevent that from correcting some of the issues with reliance on perma freeze builds in higher GR.
If they do make changes to the M6 build, I hope they are careful. As has been stated, DH's currently suffer from being total garbage until they finish M6. If they make changes to sentries to "balance" M6, they risk making DH's completely irrelevant. For instance, if they give the sentries a life bar, it could make M6 DH's stronger solo in the early stages of progression (as the turrets would attract and tank enemies, keeping them away from the DH and in the line of fire of turrets), then some rapid falloff would happen once the turrets die before they do any DPS (much like how pet doctors currently feel).
I lean more towards the idea of trying to make other, different play styles available for all of the classes. M6 is powerful, but it's a very non-active play style to me, and it makes it less fun. If there was a more active play style that was at least 95% as effective as M6, that'd be close enough for me. It would mean that doing the highest GR possible would still require M6, but the current gap between M6 and all other builds is pretty damn huge. This problem isn't specific to DH either. While I understand that completely balancing multiple builds per class isn't feasible, it'd be nice if there were some that were within 5-10% efficiency with the current "cookie cutter builds". It's a shame that for every class, there is an exact path to success: start building whichever set is currently good -> get supporting items for the only build that works -> ? -> profit.
At least with crusader, there are a couple of viable builds to use with the one set.
Before I get going on my response, I'd like to preface it by saying that I have strong opinions about this stuff, and it may sound as if I'm being condescending at some point. That's not my intent, as the OPs opinion is every bit as valid as mine, just that sometimes the blinders get the best of me.
To me, D3 (especially v2) is very much a Diablo game. Many things have changed from D2, but many things changed between D1 and D2. Also, as much as I loved D2, there were quite a few glaring issues that I always hoped would be resolved in some way in D3.
On the skill system. It's true that the devs probably could have come up with a way to keep skill trees and make it work, but they also had a lot of data that we as players only make assumptions about. They probably noticed that there was very little usage of many of the skills, and very few points invested in most (minus very niche specs). They probably also realized that no matter what they did, there would be skills that were mostly unused. It's just too hard to balance them . The problem with skill trees is that they (at least in every RPG I've ever played that used them), never really add as much depth as they appear to. Most skills fall into one of three categories for any particular spec/build:
If you want to use it, you max it
one point wonder (this includes prerequisite skills)
not worth a point
Basically, you either max it, only put a single point in it, or don't use it at all. That means that all of the levels in the middle are useless at the end game, and only useful during the leveling phase of the game. The lone exceptions are the final skill you try to max in your build if you don't have enough points to finish it off, or skills that have diminishing returns and there is a point where you have effectively maxed it.
The reason I bring up other RPGs is that many have tried to break this trend, but I've never played one that successfully did for the majority of the player base. When skills trees are looked at in that light, you can start to see how they are really almost as binary as the D3 trend (you are either using it or you aren't).
That's not to say that I think the current skill system is perfect, but just to say that I see reasons for designing this way, and don't really think it's a step backward, or not in the spirit of Diablo.
1
I'm not at all saying that D3 doesn't need some itemization work, or that a suggestion like the one in the OP wouldn't be awesome and welcome. But when people try to analyze why D2 was successful, I often see more flaws that would bug me today than I see examples of how to move forward in D3. The thing I like about the proposed system is that it can also function as sort of a "rune word" type system, using existing items to combine into either something with the potential to be better (like better stats), or used to create a totally new item from the old ones (essentially the same as adding runes to a socketed white item). I do, however, hope they don't make the new items soooo OP (like enigma) that it overshadows the other items in the game. Powerful but not overly silly would be ideal.
1
My guess is that some new such system will come along with the the next expansion, assuming they end up making one. In fact, if they are making one, they are probably already working on some new sort of system, and things like ancient items are just cheap ways to add something in the meantime. All speculation, of course.
1
The way I understand it is that they have been focusing on fixing some of the problems with map generation for rifts, and spent the rest of the time theorizing and testing ways to fix sets they deemed broken for one reason or another. They realize that there needs to be an additional carrot, so they did ancient items as a stopgap, as it's cheap to implement and accomplishes the immediate goal to add more incremental power increases.
Once they feel comfortable with the way rifts work (density, monster types, map generation) and get at least one good set for each class that is both engaging and powerful, they may look to come up with another solution to add to the end-game. Perhaps something like this:
http://www.diablofans.com/forums/diablo-iii-general-forums/diablo-iii-general-discussion/97863-item-synthesis-system-christmas-wish
or something similar to a modified runeword system from diablo 2. The issue is that those types of systems take time to design, implement, test, and iterate through those phases a couple of times to find an acceptable system. It's likely they are working on something bigger internally, but are no where near ready to put it into production, so ancient items are the stopgap.
2
The thing that seems to get left out here is that part of that "trying to stay alive on levels where there was no problem before" is tied into the change to NightStalker and Smoke Screen, since that was where the real survivability came from. If that stuff hadn't been changed, this wouldn't be an issue with the new M6 bonuses, since you'd want to shoot to get discipline back and you'd be able to stand relatively still because SS.
The other factor is the conduit change, which also makes a straight comparison of the newest PTR M6 to the live version difficult. If you just look at GR tier's completed between newest PTR and live, you're missing the other changes that contribute to the difference, one of which affects all classes (conduit).
The other thing is that... most other builds require a balance between doing damage and trying to avoid taking damage. The fact that the DH (on live) can basically negate that because it's damage is mostly passive (sentries fire spenders by themselves) and they can focus on trying to keep SS either 100% up, or dodging attacks in the small time it isn't, was an outlier that needed to be fixed. If they just made every class be able to do passive damage and be nearly invulnerable, they may as well remove elite affixes from the game.
I haven't had a ton of time to test the newest changes myself, but I did take a look at the PTR leaderboards, and saw bit of a stream with someone playing it while I was working, and it looks like the DH is still pretty competitive as far as both solo and group GR. That to me, makes the changes seem legit.
Now I just hope they can work to make a solo and group viable build available for every class, and then work to make more than 1 for each class. That'd be the dream.
1
I just took the TLDR version, since it's the easiest way to refer back to your post without doubling a wall of text
The Vile Wards were only such a mistake because of the Dreadnaught rune. My guess is that Blizz determined that either vile wards needed to be toned down, or the rune needed to be changed. Since there is a case in which the rune itself can be frustrating for party members, they decided to change it. While that's only speculation, it leads to the conclusion that the rational given in the blue post is true, it's just not all of the truth. They were going to make changes to the set (and/or supporting items) anyway, and decided to also address the issue of run forward and clump enemies. The fact that there are other builds that can do this (WD, Sader), doesn't mean it wasn't a good reason to change it.
As for the durability issues, unless they decide to Significantly change the damage scaling of monsters post GR 35 (or as someone else suggested, just stop scaling the damage after 40 or so), it's always going to be an issue. There will always end up being a class or build (or a few) that can go way higher through some broken mechanic that allows them to not die (or have the speed to make up for it), as long as damage keeps scaling, because there will always end up being the 1-shot wall and where ever it starts, builds (live M6 DH, FC barbs) that have built in mechanics to avoid damage (or do it without being near enemies) are going to be able to push a little further. If you change the baseline class, you just move the bar of 1-shot to a higher tier. If greater rifts are to be the measuring stick, they need some modification before builds can be properly evaluated. In the current iteration (even on the PTR), there's a 1-shot wall, and after that, the only thing that makes it harder is monster life vs your DPS.
That's not to say that barbs don't need a little love in their kit. It's just to say that other factors will prevent that from correcting some of the issues with reliance on perma freeze builds in higher GR.
2
I lean more towards the idea of trying to make other, different play styles available for all of the classes. M6 is powerful, but it's a very non-active play style to me, and it makes it less fun. If there was a more active play style that was at least 95% as effective as M6, that'd be close enough for me. It would mean that doing the highest GR possible would still require M6, but the current gap between M6 and all other builds is pretty damn huge. This problem isn't specific to DH either. While I understand that completely balancing multiple builds per class isn't feasible, it'd be nice if there were some that were within 5-10% efficiency with the current "cookie cutter builds". It's a shame that for every class, there is an exact path to success: start building whichever set is currently good -> get supporting items for the only build that works -> ? -> profit.
At least with crusader, there are a couple of viable builds to use with the one set.
1
To me, D3 (especially v2) is very much a Diablo game. Many things have changed from D2, but many things changed between D1 and D2. Also, as much as I loved D2, there were quite a few glaring issues that I always hoped would be resolved in some way in D3.
On the skill system. It's true that the devs probably could have come up with a way to keep skill trees and make it work, but they also had a lot of data that we as players only make assumptions about. They probably noticed that there was very little usage of many of the skills, and very few points invested in most (minus very niche specs). They probably also realized that no matter what they did, there would be skills that were mostly unused. It's just too hard to balance them . The problem with skill trees is that they (at least in every RPG I've ever played that used them), never really add as much depth as they appear to. Most skills fall into one of three categories for any particular spec/build:
- If you want to use it, you max it
- one point wonder (this includes prerequisite skills)
- not worth a point
Basically, you either max it, only put a single point in it, or don't use it at all. That means that all of the levels in the middle are useless at the end game, and only useful during the leveling phase of the game. The lone exceptions are the final skill you try to max in your build if you don't have enough points to finish it off, or skills that have diminishing returns and there is a point where you have effectively maxed it.The reason I bring up other RPGs is that many have tried to break this trend, but I've never played one that successfully did for the majority of the player base. When skills trees are looked at in that light, you can start to see how they are really almost as binary as the D3 trend (you are either using it or you aren't).
That's not to say that I think the current skill system is perfect, but just to say that I see reasons for designing this way, and don't really think it's a step backward, or not in the spirit of Diablo.