2) Valor buff. Diablo 3 was advertised as having a wide variety of skills that can be swapped in and out at any time, even in battle (with a small delay for use). This allowed greater variety in the abilities that champion mobs could have and provide greater challenges for the player. You also then provided a Valor buff that is supposed to encourage players to kill more champion packs. But oddly you choose to have the valor buffs be removed if the player changes their skills (or even moves a skill on the hot bar from one position to another). This goes against the entire design of the buff and the goal of having players kill as many champion packs as possible, Why was this decision made and with what logic? This was actually a decision we made based off player feedback. On the one hand, there's a lot of enjoyment in being able to swap your skills at will and tailor your builds to the environment around you. On the other, there’s also gameplay to finding a build that really works for you in a variety of situations.
During beta, we received a lot of feedback from players who wanted to be able to swap skills any time. We also had a large number of players who wanted to have a sense of their characters "build," or some sort of build identity -- especially at later levels. We understood both points of view, so with Nephalem Valor you can still swap a skill out at any time, but there is a penalty for doing so (i.e. losing your stack).
As sort of an aside, we know that it can be SUPER frustrating for players who use Elective Mode to lose an NV stack due to a poorly-placed click near your Skill bar. Because of this, we're looking to add an action bar lock for Elective Mode in an upcoming patch.
During beta you received a lot of feedback? Last I checked, beta lasted what felt like 20 minutes. How much feedback could people give on NV stacks during beta? This a completely absurd statement to anyone else? My gripe is that they are saying that beta feedback resulted in the decision. Shouldn't beta have also given them insight on major problems to fix before retail release?
Yeah.... I dunno how they could get feedback related to NV buff from a Beta where the best you could do was to hit lvl 13 and kill Leoric. That statement amazed me as well but I let it slide. I will assume there was a beta for employess and F&F that went through the whole game and that's where they got the feedback. But either way, I completely agree with how NV works as it stands right now (1.0.3). I hope they leave it as is with the exception of maybe increasing the GF portion of it a little bit.
Also, the second thing you said about beta giving them insight on the major problems prior to release is more than a bit foolish on your part. Not at any point during the beta, even the stress test, did their servers get the load they got on release day. I doubt they even got 1/10th the load during the stress test that they got on release day. That being said, they had no ideas how hard the servers were going to crash since they had not been capable of experience that load volume prior to release.
for those complaining about them fixing classes post-launch: you really think lvl 13 char could do the OP Force armor/low HP/High regen build when the skill is given to you at lvl 54? same for the DH, you really couldn't get enough DIscipline in beta to make the build work, so they had no way to see those build before, beside thinking about it themselves, wich they obviously didn't, they can,t jusdge class balance based of lvl 13 char... and even not only on their personal experiences, people who played the game from start to finish before launc were just too few to get a proper feedback, so fixing the OP builds after the game lauched is the only way, same for the huge balance patch in 1.1, they had no real way to know if all spells/rune would be usefeul before launch, they made a guess, turns out a lot of runes/skills are useless and some are just a must(Wrath of the berserker/Revenge says hi, like Smokescreen etc) so they saw their guess was wrong, so their going to fix it, that's all.
for those complaining about them fixing classes post-launch: you really think lvl 13 char could do the OP Force armor/low HP/High regen build when the skill is given to you at lvl 54? same for the DH, you really couldn't get enough DIscipline in beta to make the build work, so they had no way to see those build before, beside thinking about it themselves, wich they obviously didn't, they can,t jusdge class balance based of lvl 13 char... and even not only on their personal experiences, people who played the game from start to finish before launc were just too few to get a proper feedback, so fixing the OP builds after the game lauched is the only way, same for the huge balance patch in 1.1, they had no real way to know if all spells/rune would be usefeul before launch, they made a guess, turns out a lot of runes/skills are useless and some are just a must(Wrath of the berserker/Revenge says hi, like Smokescreen etc) so they saw their guess was wrong, so their going to fix it, that's all.
Exactly this.
Just like every other Blizzard game ever made, they will make tweaks post launch. (Just like Diablo 2, and LOD, and SC1, and SC2, and WoW + all of the expansions)
Its what Blizzard has always done.
Also, NV was very much because of player requests for build permanence, the D3 forums wer FILLED with requests for this very thing, so Blizzard introduced the NV buff, and the response was overwhealmingly postitive, I for one love the idea.
My point is that they worried about something that doesn't mean as much as the game being fully functional on release. Did they use beta to see if people liked the game or to see if the game worked as close to "functional" as possible? I know that optimally, both should be achieved or should at least be the goal, but were either of them even near achieved?
What part of the game isn't functional? Out of the box, the game works. It may not be what people were hoping for, but from a functionality standpoint, it seems just fine. Being a Software Test Engineer, things like this peak my interests.
Not peak, pique. Your interests are piqued by things like that.
Not trying to be a dick, I just felt the need to enlighten you.
My point is that they worried about something that doesn't mean as much as the game being fully functional on release. Did they use beta to see if people liked the game or to see if the game worked as close to "functional" as possible? I know that optimally, both should be achieved or should at least be the goal, but were either of them even near achieved?
What part of the game isn't functional? Out of the box, the game works. It may not be what people were hoping for, but from a functionality standpoint, it seems just fine. Being a Software Test Engineer, things like this peak my interests.
You haven't noticed the hits killing you from 90 yards away? You haven't noticed the animation lag, you haven't noticed the level 50-58 item drops in Inferno, where you can't even possibly need gear that low a level? The scaling is swayed to support the AH, instead of making a fun game that people want to play and farm gear, they made it more like work, tedious tasks that have little reward because you're working for someone else's profit... The replay-ability of Diablo 3 is next to zero, half of what made Diablo 2 fun was being able to play it BACKWARDS, go to any point and run in any direction, no limits, and the gear, it was all good, you could actually kill with white gear and not get killed in ONE shot ... so the only thing that really changed (other than a majority of the real development staff jumping off a sinking ship) was the AH, and the need to feed the greed of a new corporate slave master ... This game sucks, Torchlight 2 is going to be what this game should have been. Twenty+ hours into playing Torchlight 1 and I see so very many similarities to Diablo 3, things that look stolen from Torchlight and slightly modified for Diablo 3, all of course to suit the RMAH, which in itself sucks because of how limited the search features, and the sorting features, and the functionality of the entire AH sytem to begin with, the # of complaints warrants an investigation into wire fraud ... BROKEN is BROKEN, fix it or start dishing out refunds ....
My point is that they worried about something that doesn't mean as much as the game being fully functional on release. Did they use beta to see if people liked the game or to see if the game worked as close to "functional" as possible? I know that optimally, both should be achieved or should at least be the goal, but were either of them even near achieved?
What part of the game isn't functional? Out of the box, the game works. It may not be what people were hoping for, but from a functionality standpoint, it seems just fine. Being a Software Test Engineer, things like this peak my interests.
You haven't noticed the hits killing you from 90 yards away? You haven't noticed the animation lag, you haven't noticed the level 50-58 item drops in Inferno, where you can't even possibly need gear that low a level? The scaling is swayed to support the AH, instead of making a fun game that people want to play and farm gear, they made it more like work, tedious tasks that have little reward because you're working for someone else's profit... The replay-ability of Diablo 3 is next to zero, half of what made Diablo 2 fun was being able to play it BACKWARDS, go to any point and run in any direction, no limits, and the gear, it was all good, you could actually kill with white gear and not get killed in ONE shot ... so the only thing that really changed (other than a majority of the real development staff jumping off a sinking ship) was the AH, and the need to feed the greed of a new corporate slave master ... This game sucks, Torchlight 2 is going to be what this game should have been. Twenty+ hours into playing Torchlight 1 and I see so very many similarities to Diablo 3, things that look stolen from Torchlight and slightly modified for Diablo 3, all of course to suit the RMAH, which in itself sucks because of how limited the search features, and the sorting features, and the functionality of the entire AH sytem to begin with, the # of complaints warrants an investigation into wire fraud ... BROKEN is BROKEN, fix it or start dishing out refunds ....
Aside from the direct quotes from Blizzard that they did not tune drops to the AH, I at least of ancedotal evidence that backs up the drop rates are similiar to D2 - In leveling two characters to a max I have found 4 Legendaries. About the same as D2, and they have about the same usefulness - none, because they aren't the highest level Legendaries, so they tend to drop after you've passed the point where they are useful. Do you have any hard evidence that the rates were changed for the AH? I'd honestly like to see it.
And for the other things - no, I haven't noticed getting killed from 90 yards away, except when it's an attack that is rolled when the mobs animation starts, which is how they designed those attacks. I also haven't noticed animation lag, but I can't say I've seen everything. And of COURSE items that you can't use are going to drop in Inferno. Items always seem to drop with a range a level or two above yours to 5-10 below yours. What did you expect? That every single item would be useful? I'm pretty sure that you could get chipped gems in Hell in D2, so it's not like this wasn't unexpected.
Anyway, the the possible exception of the animation lag, every single thing you listed is an opinion. It's not "non-functional" it's "design choice." Learn to tell the difference.
And you do realize that it's not D3 stole from TL1, it's more like TL1 stole from D2, correct? They had the same design leads.
Oh, I just noticed your penultimate line - you are correct, the UI of the AH and RMAH isn't too great.
Oh hey. I wanted to post this earlier, but was having some trouble getting logged in. I made a post on the official forums as a possible "solution" to this. On the one hand, dropping Nephalem Valor upon switching skills doesn't make a person feel like their spec is "theirs" and it certainly doesn't make players want to switch out skills for rough affixes that might be weaker to certain skills since restarting the map would normally be more efficient. So, I came up with the following post:
Well, I'd like to preface this with a simple acknowledgement. Blizzard isn't going to listen to this. They have no reason to. Diablo 3 is already a wild success regardless of its actual quality or the quality Jay Wilson et al. believe Diablo 3 to have. This is just a sort of idea to throw out there into the ether for people that might be interested in actually solving a similar problem that might crop up in their own game or custom map or whatever. That said, let's look at what one Lylirra had to say about the problem of Nephalem Valor recently:
2) Valor buff. Diablo 3 was advertised as having a wide variety of skills that can be swapped in and out at any time, even in battle (with a small delay for use). This allowed greater variety in the abilities that champion mobs could have and provide greater challenges for the player. You also then provided a Valor buff that is supposed to encourage players to kill more champion packs. But oddly you choose to have the valor buffs be removed if the player changes their skills (or even moves a skill on the hot bar from one position to another). This goes against the entire design of the buff and the goal of having players kill as many champion packs as possible, Why was this decision made and with what logic?
This was actually a decision we made based off player feedback. On the one hand, there's a lot of enjoyment in being able to swap your skills at will and tailor your builds to the environment around you. On the other, there’s also gameplay to finding a build that really works for you in a variety of situations.
During beta, we received a lot of feedback from players who wanted to be able to swap skills any time. We also had a large number of players who wanted to have a sense of their characters "build," or some sort of build identity -- especially at later levels. We understood both points of view, so with Nephalem Valor you can still swap a skill out at any time, but there is a penalty for doing so (i.e. losing your stack).
As sort of an aside, we know that it can be SUPER frustrating for players who use Elective Mode to lose an NV stack due to a poorly-placed click near your Skill bar. Because of this, we're looking to add an action bar lock for Elective Mode in an upcoming patch.
Well, it's 100% true that there's no "feeling" to the characters. They sure as hell don't give me a reason to reroll the same class, outside of a bank alt/achievement alt/hardcore version. However, Nephalem Valor hardly gives any sense of "specing" into a character. Moreover, Blizzard's response to "unbeatable" pack affix combinations is "deal with it":
Speaking in general about monster affixes:
The intention is for there to be differences in the difficulties of the monster packs. Some are hard, some are easy -- and some may seem impossible. When you are first beginning Inferno, you can pick off the easy ones without much challenge, but you may have to skip some of the harder ones. That's okay. As you become more powerful, you can survive better, deal more damage, and take on some of the affix packs you previously chose to avoid. And after gearing up even further, eventually you can take them all on. It won't be a cakewalk, but you won't run in abject terror the next time you see that Invulnerable Minions combo pack sauntering your way (okay...you might run a little). Certain monster affixes will also punish certain skill builds more than others, as many of our affixes do.
We've been watching feedback closely about all the affix types and we've seen a lot of responses to concerns such as "I have no problem with them" or "use skill X instead and you'll be fine" or "I used to have trouble but then I got some X gear and now I'm fine". This is what we intend to happen over time.
Speaking of Invulnerable Minions specifically:
All that said, we definitely are paying attention to your feedback (as mentioned earlier), and we'll make adjustments to monster affixes as we see necessary. We will always intend that some affixes are harder than others, and we'll mostly be making adjustments to ensure some affixes aren't radically out of line.
Actually, it's a little more than "deal with it." Notice how Lylirra blatantly says that people should switch out skills for certain affixes? This actually ruins the entire point of Nephalem Valor. If you run into a pack that seems unbeatable or requires a different skill, then you're better off restarting the entire map.
So, I have a pretty simple solution to both these problems and I think I know a way one could implement this solution on an already existing system similar to Diablo 3 or in a project still being worked on from scratch.
First of all, I would get rid of losing Nephalem Valor for switching out skills. I would focus on making an optional "skill swap" system similar to Diablo 1 (where you could assign skills to be switched to your left or right mouse buttons after using an F key) or a system of alternate sets of action bars similar to World of Warcraft and other contemporary MMOs (some kind of cooldown for switching skills would still exist, I suppose). The point isn't that such systems as weapon swap, skill swap, or elective mode are "too confusing" for new players - being able to take advantage of such complex systems should simply be a mark of a good player. There's no need to dumb down a game so that players with better skill or talent can't exceed the capabilities of players unable to comprehend the idea of using a skill of a different class in a different numbered area.
Next, I would completely revamp the passive traits system as it is now and make it a sort of quasi-permanent investment. If I remember correctly, a number of people during the beta complimented the companions' skill system because of its sense of quasi-permanence (even though the skills could be swapped out very easily) and the requirement to choose one or the other. This is why I feel the passive traits system would be a good way for players to make their character their own. Instead of being able to switch out any skill or trait on the fly, I would require a trainer-type trait reset which clears a player's Nephalem Valor and, of course, costs a pretty heft amount of gold (maybe something like 400k, I don't know). Obviously, players would be given a free reset upon hitting level 60 and a notification when they try to add a passive.
This is where, I'm afraid, things have to diverge a bit. In an already released game, there's almost no chance for any kind of major overhaul of any system unless there are going to be people paying for said overhaul (via an expansion). Again, Blizzard would never do anything like I'm going to suggest here, but if I were to iterate on the current system, I would simply add another three passive trait slots (for levels 40, 50, and 60, obviously) and rebuff the monsters and Acts a bit. The sheer number of passives should be enough for players to feel like they can make a character "theirs" even if there are four or five "must-have" passives for their class to be able to survive Inferno.
If I were making a suggestion for a game that's still a work-in-progress, however, I would do something slightly different. I would still go with the "six passive traits" system, but I would make levels 10, 30, and 50's passive traits into "skill traits." These traits would affect skills exclusively in ways that Runes don't. For example, Inspiring Presence, a Barbarian passive trait that causes Shouts to regenerate health, would become a "skill trait." Other examples include Tactical Advantage (Demon Hunter), Chant of Resonance (Monk), Bad Medicine (Witch Doctor), and Prodigy (Wizard). Since this theoretical game would still be a work-in-progress, I would suggest that passive and skill traits be a lot more in number so that even should a series of optimal builds emerge, there would still be a number of different viable builds for players to mess around with. Additionally, I would probably make them more extreme than the examples I listed so that it actually feels like a player might want to mostly use the skills they specialize into through their traits. For example, instead of Shouts regenerating health, I would make a skill trait that turns Shouts into Auras that are deactivated when the skill is swapped out or another Shout is used. The things in the current passive system (regenerating life while Shouts are active, lol) would work better as item affixes so that some items are actually interesting as well.
tl;dr:
I wrote a bunch of words that noone will care about (especially not Blizzard). Also, make passive traits a more permanent type of specialization while removing the Nephalem Valor punishment for switching out skills.
You haven't noticed the hits killing you from 90 yards away? You haven't noticed the animation lag, you haven't noticed the level 50-58 item drops in Inferno, where you can't even possibly need gear that low a level? The scaling is swayed to support the AH, instead of making a fun game that people want to play and farm gear, they made it more like work, tedious tasks that have little reward because you're working for someone else's profit... The replay-ability of Diablo 3 is next to zero, half of what made Diablo 2 fun was being able to play it BACKWARDS, go to any point and run in any direction, no limits, and the gear, it was all good, you could actually kill with white gear and not get killed in ONE shot ... so the only thing that really changed (other than a majority of the real development staff jumping off a sinking ship) was the AH, and the need to feed the greed of a new corporate slave master ... This game sucks, Torchlight 2 is going to be what this game should have been. Twenty+ hours into playing Torchlight 1 and I see so very many similarities to Diablo 3, things that look stolen from Torchlight and slightly modified for Diablo 3, all of course to suit the RMAH, which in itself sucks because of how limited the search features, and the sorting features, and the functionality of the entire AH sytem to begin with, the # of complaints warrants an investigation into wire fraud ... BROKEN is BROKEN, fix it or start dishing out refunds ....
I used a ton of mid 50s items on my barb when I clearing A1. I clear a3 now and I'm still using an ilvl 59 set of bracers. L2play?
My big problem with losing the NV buff when switching skills is that Blizzard wanted us to find ways not to do corpse runs, but when you come across certain mobs you really do not have a choice but to release/rez and try to keep the mob in combat until dead or enraged.
Do you see what I am saying here? Yes I would like to have a set build. Problem is set builds do not always work unless you feel like paying 40k a pop in repairs. So how do you find a better way I wonder?
My big problem with losing the NV buff when switching skills is that Blizzard wanted us to find ways not to do corpse runs, but when you come across certain mobs you really do not have a choice but to release/rez and try to keep the mob in combat until dead or enraged.
Do you see what I am saying here? Yes I would like to have a set build. Problem is set builds do not always work unless you feel like paying 40k a pop in repairs. So how do you find a better way I wonder?
My big problem with losing the NV buff when switching skills is that Blizzard wanted us to find ways not to do corpse runs, but when you come across certain mobs you really do not have a choice but to release/rez and try to keep the mob in combat until dead or enraged.
Do you see what I am saying here? Yes I would like to have a set build. Problem is set builds do not always work unless you feel like paying 40k a pop in repairs. So how do you find a better way I wonder?
Find a set build, and dont die constantly?
I have yet to hit 40k in repairs.
I know that you are trolling with that reply, but I will humor you expand on what I was trying to say.
If I solo farm act 1-2 it is yawnsville and very easy to do. If I run with the same build in Act3 in some places and Act4 in most places either in a group or solo it can be pure BS. Now granted I could get some easier Affixes, get 3-4 buffs or even 5, but against Fast Affix I might as well skip the group as a Wizard unless they are casters. Then I might be able to out manuver them.
Now with those same Fast pacts if I could change my build up for melee survivability, knock back, nova etc all in the same build then yeah I stand a chance, but why would i bother/ I lose the NV buff. So my only other choice is to burn the mobs, die, burn mobs, die, repeat ad nauseum. So, if I feel like I should not have to skip those mobs I have 2 choices:
1) Run a build that is ultra defensive all the time - which is not my play style
2) Die more often to play more of a DPS build and still get buffs.
My first point could have been clearer in that I should not have to use a build that I do not want to play in order to play a game.
One last point, If you have done open games with 4 players, then you have gotten extremely lucky to never have high repair bills. Even with close friends from WoW from an end game guild we still have high repairs sometimes.
My big problem with losing the NV buff when switching skills is that Blizzard wanted us to find ways not to do corpse runs, but when you come across certain mobs you really do not have a choice but to release/rez and try to keep the mob in combat until dead or enraged.
Do you see what I am saying here? Yes I would like to have a set build. Problem is set builds do not always work unless you feel like paying 40k a pop in repairs. So how do you find a better way I wonder?
Find a set build, and dont die constantly?
I have yet to hit 40k in repairs.
I know that you are trolling with that reply, but I will humor you expand on what I was trying to say.
If I solo farm act 1-2 it is yawnsville and very easy to do. If I run with the same build in Act3 in some places and Act4 in most places either in a group or solo it can be pure BS. Now granted I could get some easier Affixes, get 3-4 buffs or even 5, but against Fast Affix I might as well skip the group as a Wizard unless they are casters. Then I might be able to out manuver them.
Now with those same Fast pacts if I could change my build up for melee survivability, knock back, nova etc all in the same build then yeah I stand a chance, but why would i bother/ I lose the NV buff. So my only other choice is to burn the mobs, die, burn mobs, die, repeat ad nauseum. So, if I feel like I should not have to skip those mobs I have 2 choices:
1) Run a build that is ultra defensive all the time - which is not my play style
2) Die more often to play more of a DPS build and still get buffs.
My first point could have been clearer in that I should not have to use a build that I do not want to play in order to play a game.
One last point, If you have done open games with 4 players, then you have gotten extremely lucky to never have high repair bills. Even with close friends from WoW from an end game guild we still have high repairs sometimes.
Not trolling at all, actually, how exactly was I trolling? My statement still stands.
And dont get me wrong, I totally understand what you are saying, I myself run with a "Sub optimal" build because thats what I like to use. (Barbarian with exactly 0 LOH.)
HOWEVER
There is also the simple reality that some skills are just plain not up to snuff ATM, in games like this that is ALWAYS the case (this literally applies to every game of this type), you may have to drop a certain skill or two in Inferno until it gets a buff. (I personally want to drop WoTB, but cannot right now because it is just so much better then my other options, heres hoping after the Skills balance patch I have a few more options.)
Also, survivability, you NEED it in Inferno, period. (You also needed a Vit dump in D2 as well, this has been universal in the Diablo series) There are different ways to get that, depending on your build/gear/etc.
I am just saying, it seems like your build/gear needs some tweaks towards survivability (I am NOT saying you need to go pure defensive), I understand dying against certain packs/affixes, and yeah, sometimes it takes a death or two to push through.
Just dont get into the mindset that every pack takes 5 deaths to get though, that is the wrong approach, if you keep finding yourself in that situation you need to tweak your set up.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Yeah.... I dunno how they could get feedback related to NV buff from a Beta where the best you could do was to hit lvl 13 and kill Leoric. That statement amazed me as well but I let it slide. I will assume there was a beta for employess and F&F that went through the whole game and that's where they got the feedback. But either way, I completely agree with how NV works as it stands right now (1.0.3). I hope they leave it as is with the exception of maybe increasing the GF portion of it a little bit.
Also, the second thing you said about beta giving them insight on the major problems prior to release is more than a bit foolish on your part. Not at any point during the beta, even the stress test, did their servers get the load they got on release day. I doubt they even got 1/10th the load during the stress test that they got on release day. That being said, they had no ideas how hard the servers were going to crash since they had not been capable of experience that load volume prior to release.
removing skill points, one of the best things they ever did, sorry you dont like it buddy.
Exactly this.
Just like every other Blizzard game ever made, they will make tweaks post launch. (Just like Diablo 2, and LOD, and SC1, and SC2, and WoW + all of the expansions)
Its what Blizzard has always done.
Also, NV was very much because of player requests for build permanence, the D3 forums wer FILLED with requests for this very thing, so Blizzard introduced the NV buff, and the response was overwhealmingly postitive, I for one love the idea.
Not peak, pique. Your interests are piqued by things like that.
Not trying to be a dick, I just felt the need to enlighten you.
Ditto, the skills system is easily one of the best changes they made.
Aside from the direct quotes from Blizzard that they did not tune drops to the AH, I at least of ancedotal evidence that backs up the drop rates are similiar to D2 - In leveling two characters to a max I have found 4 Legendaries. About the same as D2, and they have about the same usefulness - none, because they aren't the highest level Legendaries, so they tend to drop after you've passed the point where they are useful. Do you have any hard evidence that the rates were changed for the AH? I'd honestly like to see it.
And for the other things - no, I haven't noticed getting killed from 90 yards away, except when it's an attack that is rolled when the mobs animation starts, which is how they designed those attacks. I also haven't noticed animation lag, but I can't say I've seen everything. And of COURSE items that you can't use are going to drop in Inferno. Items always seem to drop with a range a level or two above yours to 5-10 below yours. What did you expect? That every single item would be useful? I'm pretty sure that you could get chipped gems in Hell in D2, so it's not like this wasn't unexpected.
Anyway, the the possible exception of the animation lag, every single thing you listed is an opinion. It's not "non-functional" it's "design choice." Learn to tell the difference.
And you do realize that it's not D3 stole from TL1, it's more like TL1 stole from D2, correct? They had the same design leads.
Oh, I just noticed your penultimate line - you are correct, the UI of the AH and RMAH isn't too great.
http://us.battle.net/d3/en/forum/topic/5912162711
Well, I'd like to preface this with a simple acknowledgement. Blizzard isn't going to listen to this. They have no reason to. Diablo 3 is already a wild success regardless of its actual quality or the quality Jay Wilson et al. believe Diablo 3 to have. This is just a sort of idea to throw out there into the ether for people that might be interested in actually solving a similar problem that might crop up in their own game or custom map or whatever. That said, let's look at what one Lylirra had to say about the problem of Nephalem Valor recently:
Well, it's 100% true that there's no "feeling" to the characters. They sure as hell don't give me a reason to reroll the same class, outside of a bank alt/achievement alt/hardcore version. However, Nephalem Valor hardly gives any sense of "specing" into a character. Moreover, Blizzard's response to "unbeatable" pack affix combinations is "deal with it":
Actually, it's a little more than "deal with it." Notice how Lylirra blatantly says that people should switch out skills for certain affixes? This actually ruins the entire point of Nephalem Valor. If you run into a pack that seems unbeatable or requires a different skill, then you're better off restarting the entire map.
So, I have a pretty simple solution to both these problems and I think I know a way one could implement this solution on an already existing system similar to Diablo 3 or in a project still being worked on from scratch.
First of all, I would get rid of losing Nephalem Valor for switching out skills. I would focus on making an optional "skill swap" system similar to Diablo 1 (where you could assign skills to be switched to your left or right mouse buttons after using an F key) or a system of alternate sets of action bars similar to World of Warcraft and other contemporary MMOs (some kind of cooldown for switching skills would still exist, I suppose). The point isn't that such systems as weapon swap, skill swap, or elective mode are "too confusing" for new players - being able to take advantage of such complex systems should simply be a mark of a good player. There's no need to dumb down a game so that players with better skill or talent can't exceed the capabilities of players unable to comprehend the idea of using a skill of a different class in a different numbered area.
Next, I would completely revamp the passive traits system as it is now and make it a sort of quasi-permanent investment. If I remember correctly, a number of people during the beta complimented the companions' skill system because of its sense of quasi-permanence (even though the skills could be swapped out very easily) and the requirement to choose one or the other. This is why I feel the passive traits system would be a good way for players to make their character their own. Instead of being able to switch out any skill or trait on the fly, I would require a trainer-type trait reset which clears a player's Nephalem Valor and, of course, costs a pretty heft amount of gold (maybe something like 400k, I don't know). Obviously, players would be given a free reset upon hitting level 60 and a notification when they try to add a passive.
This is where, I'm afraid, things have to diverge a bit. In an already released game, there's almost no chance for any kind of major overhaul of any system unless there are going to be people paying for said overhaul (via an expansion). Again, Blizzard would never do anything like I'm going to suggest here, but if I were to iterate on the current system, I would simply add another three passive trait slots (for levels 40, 50, and 60, obviously) and rebuff the monsters and Acts a bit. The sheer number of passives should be enough for players to feel like they can make a character "theirs" even if there are four or five "must-have" passives for their class to be able to survive Inferno.
If I were making a suggestion for a game that's still a work-in-progress, however, I would do something slightly different. I would still go with the "six passive traits" system, but I would make levels 10, 30, and 50's passive traits into "skill traits." These traits would affect skills exclusively in ways that Runes don't. For example, Inspiring Presence, a Barbarian passive trait that causes Shouts to regenerate health, would become a "skill trait." Other examples include Tactical Advantage (Demon Hunter), Chant of Resonance (Monk), Bad Medicine (Witch Doctor), and Prodigy (Wizard). Since this theoretical game would still be a work-in-progress, I would suggest that passive and skill traits be a lot more in number so that even should a series of optimal builds emerge, there would still be a number of different viable builds for players to mess around with. Additionally, I would probably make them more extreme than the examples I listed so that it actually feels like a player might want to mostly use the skills they specialize into through their traits. For example, instead of Shouts regenerating health, I would make a skill trait that turns Shouts into Auras that are deactivated when the skill is swapped out or another Shout is used. The things in the current passive system (regenerating life while Shouts are active, lol) would work better as item affixes so that some items are actually interesting as well.
tl;dr:
I wrote a bunch of words that noone will care about (especially not Blizzard). Also, make passive traits a more permanent type of specialization while removing the Nephalem Valor punishment for switching out skills.
Just another person complaining to join the bandwagon.
I used a ton of mid 50s items on my barb when I clearing A1. I clear a3 now and I'm still using an ilvl 59 set of bracers. L2play?
Do you see what I am saying here? Yes I would like to have a set build. Problem is set builds do not always work unless you feel like paying 40k a pop in repairs. So how do you find a better way I wonder?
Find a set build, and dont die constantly?
I have yet to hit 40k in repairs.
If I solo farm act 1-2 it is yawnsville and very easy to do. If I run with the same build in Act3 in some places and Act4 in most places either in a group or solo it can be pure BS. Now granted I could get some easier Affixes, get 3-4 buffs or even 5, but against Fast Affix I might as well skip the group as a Wizard unless they are casters. Then I might be able to out manuver them.
Now with those same Fast pacts if I could change my build up for melee survivability, knock back, nova etc all in the same build then yeah I stand a chance, but why would i bother/ I lose the NV buff. So my only other choice is to burn the mobs, die, burn mobs, die, repeat ad nauseum. So, if I feel like I should not have to skip those mobs I have 2 choices:
1) Run a build that is ultra defensive all the time - which is not my play style
2) Die more often to play more of a DPS build and still get buffs.
My first point could have been clearer in that I should not have to use a build that I do not want to play in order to play a game.
One last point, If you have done open games with 4 players, then you have gotten extremely lucky to never have high repair bills. Even with close friends from WoW from an end game guild we still have high repairs sometimes.
Not trolling at all, actually, how exactly was I trolling? My statement still stands.
And dont get me wrong, I totally understand what you are saying, I myself run with a "Sub optimal" build because thats what I like to use. (Barbarian with exactly 0 LOH.)
HOWEVER
There is also the simple reality that some skills are just plain not up to snuff ATM, in games like this that is ALWAYS the case (this literally applies to every game of this type), you may have to drop a certain skill or two in Inferno until it gets a buff. (I personally want to drop WoTB, but cannot right now because it is just so much better then my other options, heres hoping after the Skills balance patch I have a few more options.)
Also, survivability, you NEED it in Inferno, period. (You also needed a Vit dump in D2 as well, this has been universal in the Diablo series) There are different ways to get that, depending on your build/gear/etc.
I am just saying, it seems like your build/gear needs some tweaks towards survivability (I am NOT saying you need to go pure defensive), I understand dying against certain packs/affixes, and yeah, sometimes it takes a death or two to push through.
Just dont get into the mindset that every pack takes 5 deaths to get though, that is the wrong approach, if you keep finding yourself in that situation you need to tweak your set up.