^^I'd be fine with that. But why not N/NM/H, then?
That exact question has really been on my mind too. If that were the case, why not just hack off Inferno and rebalance the three existing difficulties?
I think one of the reasons the devs went with four difficulties instead of three is the fairly large jump between Normal, Nightmare and Hell in D2. You'd make it through Normal and think you were pretty strong, despite the mobs getting really strong by Act 5...you'd take a few steps in Nightmare...monsters are running around with elemental resists, your skills aren't as potent as they were before, and suddenly your entire approach has to shift in order to compensate.
Thus, my guess is, adding a fourth difficulty means (currently) you're guaranteed to go through the game a bunch of times before Inferno...so that once you're there, the curve isn't quite as sharp. It's a little easier to tell what's coming.
As far as dropping the game back down to 3 difficulty levels...unless they not only rebalance the three new difficulties, but insert other challenges and problems for players to face (which I'm not opposed to), those three difficulty levels will still feel reasonably the same, and continuing to require players go through them all doesn't seem to solve the problem of giving players more control over the difficulty they choose to play on, ya know?
That's the main reason I suggested Torment occur at the end as a fifth difficulty, and removing the requirement to complete easier difficulties all the way through first...to basically ask the question...would people still have a problem with adding an additional difficulty tier, one that goes even higher than Inferno (which has been pretty well nerfed since launch) if it meant they didn't have to complete the game on every difficulty before getting there? Like I said, Loot 2.0 and Paragon 2.0 will likely make it much easier for new characters (created by high end players) to survive, so removing that requirement will make it easier for veteran players to level new toons.
And meanwhile, new players to the game, if they like, can crank up the difficulty to see what harsh realities they're up against.
It's all an idea...big chance they're not going this way, and I understand.
Going back to 3 difficulties just seems like nostalgia to me. Like, "D1 and D2 had 3, why shouldn't D3?" Because 3 is some kind of neat and tidy number or something. I'm not against it, but like my original post pointed out, I keep going back to what the devs have been saying.
Nostalgia and Tradition are powerful forces in game franchises. There is a thin line between making enough changes to some of the core elements of a game to make a sequel feel 'new', and changing too many things, or changing the wrong things, to the point that the sequel feels disconnected from the original. It is very subjective, and like I said, I will trust Blizzard's judgement on this, but in my opinion, the Normal/Nightmare/Hell progression is not something that should, or needs to, be changed.
Going back to 3 difficulties just seems like nostalgia to me. Like, "D1 and D2 had 3, why shouldn't D3?" Because 3 is some kind of neat and tidy number or something. I'm not against it, but like my original post pointed out, I keep going back to what the devs have been saying.
Nostalgia and Tradition are powerful forces in game franchises. There is a thin line between making enough changes to some of the core elements of a game to make a sequel feel 'new', and changing too many things, or changing the wrong things, to the point that the sequel feels disconnected from the original. It is very subjective, and like I said, I will trust Blizzard's judgement on this, but in my opinion, the Normal/Nightmare/Hell progression is not something that should, or needs to, be changed.
Okay, well...
In all fairness...at this point, if you're worried about traditional systems going by the wayside, then maybe you'll want to play something else, if you aren't already. Skill Trees? Gone. 5 point stat allocation per level? Gone. Only 99 levels to acquire? Gone. Mana-potion spamming for near-infinite skill usage? Gone. These are things people considered "traditional" in D2, and are still being updated to be better.
Which is why I don't feel "tradition" needs to be held to so strongly. After all, "tradition" is something that gets wickedly misused and personally interpreted every day, by people who say, "well come on...that's just not 'Diablo.' Cooldowns aren't 'Diablo.'" In essence, many things that people think are tried-and-true traditions end up holding back progress. People say that all the time. "Shoulda just made D2HD." Right...they would've made D2HD, and people would've gotten bored at light speed...why? Because there would've been absolutely no progress from the predecessor. Just because certain traditions are leaned on and accepted as standard doesn't mean that ancient standard is the best and brightest way to go.
There are reasons why many of D3's features work better than D2. All of its features? No...at least, not currently. Hell, is my idea better? Not necessarily.
Like I said in my previous comment...this post is meant to ask a single question: would people really mind Blizzard adding an additional fifth difficulty, if the requirement to finish each previous one was removed? So far, people seem to be responding that three difficulties would be better than four.
I'm disagreeing, saying that really doesn't 1) solve the problem of repetition, or 2) give players more control, like the devs want to do. There's likely going to be some amount of change happening, though. That's the most likely part.
In all fairness...at this point, if you're worried about traditional systems going by the wayside, then maybe you'll want to play something else, if you aren't already. Skill Trees? Gone. 5 point stat allocation per level? Gone. Only 99 levels to acquire? Gone. Mana-potion spamming for near-infinite skill usage? Gone. These are things people considered "traditional" in D2, and are still being updated to be better.
Which is why I don't feel "tradition" needs to be held to so strongly. After all, "tradition" is something that gets wickedly misused and personally interpreted every day, by people who say, "well come on...that's just not 'Diablo.' Cooldowns aren't 'Diablo.'" In essence, many things that people think are tried-and-true traditions end up holding back progress. People say that all the time. "Shoulda just made D2HD." Right...they would've made D2HD, and people would've gotten bored at light speed...why? Because there would've been absolutely no progress from the predecessor. Just because certain traditions are leaned on and accepted as standard doesn't mean that ancient standard is the best and brightest way to go.
Well, ya, that's what I mean when I say it's subjective. Besides, of the things you mentioned, only mana-potion spamming was something that actually started in D1, so they are hardly traditions. Also, those are things that affect the gameplay in a very direct way, and deserve to be looked at with a critical eye. There are some things that are more about "flavor". If you change those things, the game just doesn't feel like it's in the same series.
I could talk about this for pages, but let me just give you one example of what I mean: Final Fantasy 13. The FF series has a lot of traditions in it, but each game changes a lot of the mechanics, sometimes in a very extreme way. In the case of FF, the music has a huge impact on the game feel. The music changed a lot over the course of the series, but there are 3 particular pieces of music that are absolutely traditional: the opening prelude, the main theme, and the victory fanfare. These 3 pieces have been in every single game since the first. And FF13 removed all 3 of them. I still liked the game, but that REALLY put a bad taste in my mouth, and I'm not the only one.
Would changing the N/NM/H progression ruin Diablo 3? No, of course not, and while I wouldn't like that change I would still keep playing the game. They don't even necessarily need to work exactly the same way. Example: Scrolls of Identify and Town Portal. We still have those functions in D3, they just aren't scrolls. I think that's an acceptable change. It keeps the basic function, but changes it enough so that it "plays" better.
So, I'm not opposed to the system you've come up with in principle, I just think the specifics need work. As for "Torment", I just hope they don't change the current naming convention. That would just be change for the sake of change.
I could talk about this for pages, but let me just give you one example of what I mean: Final Fantasy 13. The FF series has a lot of traditions in it, but each game changes a lot of the mechanics, sometimes in a very extreme way. In the case of FF, the music has a huge impact on the game feel. The music changed a lot over the course of the series, but there are 3 particular pieces of music that are absolutely traditional: the opening prelude, the main theme, and the victory fanfare. These 3 pieces have been in every single game since the first. And FF13 removed all 3 of them. I still liked the game, but that REALLY put a bad taste in my mouth, and I'm not the only one.
So, I'm not opposed to the system you've come up with in principle, I just think the specifics need work. As for "Torment", I just hope they don't change the current naming convention. That would just be change for the sake of change.
I know how you feel about Final Fantasy, I've been a fan from around FF7, but I've played most of them retroactively.
I don't think every single game had all three of those musical pieces perfectly intact, though...for instance, I don't think FFX had the opening prelude, it had a variation of the victory fanfare, though...FFXII might've had one or two removed as well...but you're right, those three things are pretty iconic to Final Fantasy, and if at least one or two isn't in there, it'll feel "less" like Final Fantasy. I completely agree.
Then again, when people bring up stuff that they deem as traditionally "Diablo," 1) they usually mention D2...and not even D2 Classic, but D2 LOD, which came out a year later...2) they mention stuff, like you said, that affects gameplay directly and deserves a critical eye to be put on it, since so much time has passed. Even at D3's launch, I saw a lot of really small things that were improvements from D2...but since they were rather inconsequential, they didn't help the gameplay or character progression, so they weren't focused on as much. Now that a lot of aspects of the gameplay, skills, progression, itemization, etc., are all being worked on and worked out...the game may not feel as "Diablo" as it did, for some people...but I like what Diablo is becoming better than what it could've been, had it just leaned on tradition alone.
And thank you, yeah I do agree, the specifics would need to be worked out, most assuredly. I never once thought this idea was perfect from inception. Like I said, it was just an idea and I only proposed it because it seemed to solve more issues than simply removing a difficulty would. :-D
I know how you feel about Final Fantasy, I've been a fan from around FF7, but I've played most of them retroactively.
I don't think every single game had all three of those musical pieces perfectly intact, though...for instance, I don't think FFX had the opening prelude, it had a variation of the victory fanfare, though...FFXII might've had one or two removed as well...but you're right, those three things are pretty iconic to Final Fantasy, and if at least one or two isn't in there, it'll feel "less" like Final Fantasy. I completely agree.
First of all, FFX DOES have the prelude, it plays during the intro scene with Tidus coming out of his house and talking to his fans, and also during the sphere grid tutorial. FFXII has the victory fanfare but it only plays after boss fights.
/fanboy
Then again, when people bring up stuff that they deem as traditionally "Diablo," 1) they usually mention D2...and not even D2 Classic, but D2 LOD, which came out a year later...2) they mention stuff, like you said, that affects gameplay directly and deserves a critical eye to be put on it, since so much time has passed. Even at D3's launch, I saw a lot of really small things that were improvements from D2...but since they were rather inconsequential, they didn't help the gameplay or character progression, so they weren't focused on as much. Now that a lot of aspects of the gameplay, skills, progression, itemization, etc., are all being worked on and worked out...the game may not feel as "Diablo" as it did, for some people...but I like what Diablo is becoming better than what it could've been, had it just leaned on tradition alone.
And thank you, yeah I do agree, the specifics would need to be worked out, most assuredly. I never once thought this idea was perfect from inception. Like I said, it was just an idea and I only proposed it because it seemed to solve more issues than simply removing a difficulty would. :-D
You're right, people argue about different things when it comes to what they think of as the "core" of the game. Bottom line is, we really don't know what Torment means or how it will change the game, I just hope Blizzard doesn't start changing stuff that could be handled another way without "breaking" it. Either way, it doesn't hurt to speculate.
I think Torment is a totally different in that the difficulty scales with your character's power, i.e. dps * toughness. If you make paragon levels almost uncapped (max 9999) you can also make the difficulty (almost) uncapped. You can start Torment with any gear at any level and the difficulty will scale along with your increasing power.
This way you can go through all acts and reach max level or higher in one run through all acts.
This also solves the problem that characters with uber equip will have no challenge left.
It's much like the Mario Kart principle, where the competition will adapt to your skill.
Note: I like the original post and I really like the discussion. Very good thinking.
Thanks...that was really my goal, to get us all talking.
Well see, I'm not sure they could make a difficulty that scales to character power, or stats like Toughness or DPS. I think it'd have too much room for screwing up. Of course, on the opposite of that argument, if they were able to make that kind of a system perfect, you wouldn't really need Normal, Nightmare, Hell, or Inferno, as no matter how powerful you got, the monsters were always a few feet outside of your reach, and the game was constantly challenging. Which seems good, but I've played games like that, and while it kept battle engaging and dangerous...I never felt like I was making any ground in regard to character development, ya know? Like, I'd grind and grind and grind, I'd get better and better gear...but I'd never feel, even for a minute, like I was really totally kickass. The battles all felt pretty much as hard as each other no matter where I went, or what I fought. They all kinda followed the pacing, too.
That's why I figured my idea would be best. Five tiers of difficulty, each with Monster Power to fine-tune...or you could even have Torment be harder than Inferno MP10, and not allow Torment to have MP settings. But all in all, being able to control difficulty to that degree would be pretty fantastic. It would also make it so that each difficulty's areas were places players wanted to go, as opposed to requiring that time. There would be some pretty brave souls out there, trying to get far in Inferno MPs with Level 1 characters.
I think Torment is a totally different in that the difficulty scales with your character's power, i.e. dps * toughness. If you make paragon levels almost uncapped (max 9999) you can also make the difficulty (almost) uncapped. You can start Torment with any gear at any level and the difficulty will scale along with your increasing power.
This way you can go through all acts and reach max level or higher in one run through all acts.
This also solves the problem that characters with uber equip will have no challenge left.
It's much like the Mario Kart principle, where the competition will adapt to your skill.
Note: I like the original post and I really like the discussion. Very good thinking.
Thanks...that was really my goal, to get us all talking.
Well see, I'm not sure they could make a difficulty that scales to character power, or stats like Toughness or DPS. I think it'd have too much room for screwing up. Of course, on the opposite of that argument, if they were able to make that kind of a system perfect, you wouldn't really need Normal, Nightmare, Hell, or Inferno, as no matter how powerful you got, the monsters were always a few feet outside of your reach, and the game was constantly challenging. Which seems good, but I've played games like that, and while it kept battle engaging and dangerous...I never felt like I was making any ground in regard to character development, ya know? Like, I'd grind and grind and grind, I'd get better and better gear...but I'd never feel, even for a minute, like I was really totally kickass. The battles all felt pretty much as hard as each other no matter where I went, or what I fought. They all kinda followed the pacing, too.
That's why I figured my idea would be best. Five tiers of difficulty, each with Monster Power to fine-tune...or you could even have Torment be harder than Inferno MP10, and not allow Torment to have MP settings. But all in all, being able to control difficulty to that degree would be pretty fantastic. It would also make it so that each difficulty's areas were places players wanted to go, as opposed to requiring that time. There would be some pretty brave souls out there, trying to get far in Inferno MPs with Level 1 characters.
Two words: Too Human. That game demonstrated quite well why a system that increases the difficulty based solely on your character's stats does not work.
Two words: Too Human. That game demonstrated quite well why a system that increases the difficulty based solely on your character's stats does not work.
Never played it. Heard it was supposed to be pretty awesome, but...didn't hear much more after that.
But yeah, like I said, I've played other games with that kind of mechanic. It's a nice idea on paper, as the challenge and difficulty constantly change with you...but there's never any time when you feel strong enough to CHOOSE to move on.
And that's what the devs say they want to add: more choice.
Tuning the game up to Hell with a Level 1 character and killing Risen on the Outlook Road? That's having control over difficulty. And like I said, too...with Paragon Points, new Level 1 characters are absolutely going to be stronger going forward. Sure, Miles was talking about brand new players. Okay, given...a brand new player won't have more than 1 or 2 characters at a time, so they won't have Paragon Points to boost the strength of their new characters after that.
But higher end players, who have been in this since launch, they're going to have a ton of Paragon Points to make a brand new character they create pretty badass. Normal MP10 might be way too easy for that character. Nightmare MP5 might be more their speed, though.
No disrespect intended, but if that were to happen (players earning massive levels by twinking lower level chars / inviting their OP mates and starting games on high difficulties), that'd be really, really stupid. I know you see that as a really good thing (going from your posts, which I've read), so we're not gonna agree, but I really dislike that.
As far as paragon points for new chars is concerned: I don't think pre-max-level chars should benefit from paragon points. That's my opinion.
Also, would 'your' Torment drop the same items as Inferno? Different ones? The same ones but more of them?
For starters, no disrespect taken.
Admittedly, I don't have any of the math or numbers for what early Act 1 monsters give out in terms of XP, whether on MP0 or any other MP. So I really don't know how much XP a brand new Level 1 character could get from killing the first zombie on the Outlook Road on Nightmare MP0 or higher. Thus, I don't know if they'd be getting "massive" levels by doing that necessarily. Faster XP, certainly, but I don't know how massive the level gains would be, nor do I know the extent to which it could be exploited for really rushed level gaining.
The way D3 is designed, with the freedom to switch skills and the huge stash for storing lots of alternate gear and sidegrades, most characters get tons of hours invested into them. "Rerolling" outside of Hardcore isn't all that common, so 1) even if a new player gets rushed, it's not a service that needs to be done a ton of times to deem it an "exploit"...2) with the ability to tune difficulty however a player wants, even if they're starting a new character and they want to get more out of it, if they're not doing it with another player helping them, they're earning it by themselves. I'd have a lot of respect for a player starting a level 1 character on Hell MP5 and getting far without touching the difficulty knob. That'd be pretty cool.
I'm fairly certain the way that Paragon 2.0 will work, new characters won't be able to contribute to the shared Paragon XP pool for the account, but they do have Paragon Points to spend. I could be wrong about that, and obviously they're still developing the system, so for all I know...they could intend for new characters to be able to use Paragon Points now, then when it goes live, they won't be able to. But I think that's how it works. You're welcome to your opinion, I'm sorry if you don't think it's a good idea. I think it's a great idea, but...like I may have said in this thread somewhere, if Paragon Points do make new Level 1 characters much stronger, there will likely be a need to increase the out-of-the-gate difficulty, or at least, the choice to raise it if a player would like to do so.
As for items...I was thinking of that in another thread...figure it shouldn't be too hard. Currently, Inferno drops (and I could be wrong) items between levels 58 and 63, right? So if Torment were to occur after Inferno, and if we add in the expansion levels, we could have items in Inferno drop level 58-65, and then in Torment, have 66-73?
Two words: Too Human. That game demonstrated quite well why a system that increases the difficulty based solely on your character's stats does not work.
Never played it. Heard it was supposed to be pretty awesome, but...didn't hear much more after that.
But yeah, like I said, I've played other games with that kind of mechanic. It's a nice idea on paper, as the challenge and difficulty constantly change with you...but there's never any time when you feel strong enough to CHOOSE to move on.
And that's what the devs say they want to add: more choice.
If they leave Normal, Nightmare, Hell and Inferno the way they are you have all the choices you had before. Now if they then include a difficulty that scales with the player's ability you have one more choice.
Players that dislike this mechanic can just play regular N-N-H-I. Players who on the other hand are not even challenged by Inferno anymore, can try Torment, where they are always facing a worthy foe. Players can start at level 1, but every fight would be challenge and bags of XP would be the reward. It could even be so that dying would result in a death penalty.
I know what you meant, MKIII...I wasn't trying to say the idea was bad or stupid. I was just saying that by making it scale with character power, like we said, ensures there's always challenge, BUT...that amount of challenge will pretty much always be the same, regardless of how powerful you get. There wouldn't be a time when you say, "sweet! I got this kick ass legendary, and finished this set...now look how powerful I am! Ha!" Conversely, there wouldn't be a feelng of, "sheeeeeeeit, these guys are badass! I need to gear up way hardere to take these guys on."
So I guess, to me, a mode/difficulty like that in D3 would basically be either TOO appealing at first, but boring kinda fast...or almost feel unconquerable. Ever play old school games on Atari? Where, no matter how far you got, it just get kept getting faster and faster? I feel like a mode like this would feel like that.
Meanwhile, removing the requirement to beat every difficulty means a player can amp up the challenge out of the gate...but adding an additional difficulty on the end means the highest level areas are extended further.
Just remember that if you give the new difficulty the best items then you're making it mandatory. There's no way around that.
It's something to keep in mind.
Just remember that if you give the new difficulty the best items then you're making it mandatory. There's no way around that.
It's something to keep in mind.
This is so true. It has to feel "just right".
Keep in mind, first...the idea of what the "best" items are will be changing with Loot 2.0...and Paragon 2.0 as well.
Currently, "best" refers simply to items with the highest stats, and the tightest bundle of the following: Crit Chance, Crit Damage, Main Stat, Attack Speed, Vitality, %Life, All Res...maybe Armor. With Loot 2.0, a legendary that drops that doesn't have one or more of those things can still be amazing based solely on the extra aspect(s) it has, that adjust a player's skills to work way better. And with Paragon 2.0, if an item drops that doesn't have one or more of the above mentioned stats, Paragon Points can be spec'ed in such a way to make up the difference. Meaning, in addition to making a wider range of items "good," there may even be a slightly higher demand for either class-specific rares with skill changing aspects, or general rares with skill changing aspects.
Thus, the "best" items for one person may not be the "best" items for another. Obviously, sure, some items will likely be incredible for most players' characters...but for the most part, Loot 2.0 and Paragon 2.0 not only seek to improve item and character quality, they'll allow players to place their own value on items, and not so much "everyone wants X, Y and Z."
That being said...you guys are correct, in a way. I was honestly just riffing off an idea on where to put different levels of items. Like I told Miles, specifics would definitely need to be worked out in that area. However, I understand the concept...wherever the most potent items are, that's where people want to go to farm and battle, in hopes of acquiring those great items. Then again, I think that can be slightly mitigated by exact difficulty, though.
If Torment were to be added to the very end (i.e., made harder than Inferno MP10), and maybe only a scant few special high end (perhaps BOA items) drop there, how "mandatory" can it really be if a vast majority of folks can't farm there? Mandatory means "farm here, and you can get the items that allow you to handle the entire game." Mandatory isn't, "this area is ridiculously too hard, and you can still handle the rest of the game even if you never go here."
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I think one of the reasons the devs went with four difficulties instead of three is the fairly large jump between Normal, Nightmare and Hell in D2. You'd make it through Normal and think you were pretty strong, despite the mobs getting really strong by Act 5...you'd take a few steps in Nightmare...monsters are running around with elemental resists, your skills aren't as potent as they were before, and suddenly your entire approach has to shift in order to compensate.
Thus, my guess is, adding a fourth difficulty means (currently) you're guaranteed to go through the game a bunch of times before Inferno...so that once you're there, the curve isn't quite as sharp. It's a little easier to tell what's coming.
As far as dropping the game back down to 3 difficulty levels...unless they not only rebalance the three new difficulties, but insert other challenges and problems for players to face (which I'm not opposed to), those three difficulty levels will still feel reasonably the same, and continuing to require players go through them all doesn't seem to solve the problem of giving players more control over the difficulty they choose to play on, ya know?
That's the main reason I suggested Torment occur at the end as a fifth difficulty, and removing the requirement to complete easier difficulties all the way through first...to basically ask the question...would people still have a problem with adding an additional difficulty tier, one that goes even higher than Inferno (which has been pretty well nerfed since launch) if it meant they didn't have to complete the game on every difficulty before getting there? Like I said, Loot 2.0 and Paragon 2.0 will likely make it much easier for new characters (created by high end players) to survive, so removing that requirement will make it easier for veteran players to level new toons.
And meanwhile, new players to the game, if they like, can crank up the difficulty to see what harsh realities they're up against.
It's all an idea...big chance they're not going this way, and I understand.
Nostalgia and Tradition are powerful forces in game franchises. There is a thin line between making enough changes to some of the core elements of a game to make a sequel feel 'new', and changing too many things, or changing the wrong things, to the point that the sequel feels disconnected from the original. It is very subjective, and like I said, I will trust Blizzard's judgement on this, but in my opinion, the Normal/Nightmare/Hell progression is not something that should, or needs to, be changed.
Okay, well...
In all fairness...at this point, if you're worried about traditional systems going by the wayside, then maybe you'll want to play something else, if you aren't already. Skill Trees? Gone. 5 point stat allocation per level? Gone. Only 99 levels to acquire? Gone. Mana-potion spamming for near-infinite skill usage? Gone. These are things people considered "traditional" in D2, and are still being updated to be better.
Which is why I don't feel "tradition" needs to be held to so strongly. After all, "tradition" is something that gets wickedly misused and personally interpreted every day, by people who say, "well come on...that's just not 'Diablo.' Cooldowns aren't 'Diablo.'" In essence, many things that people think are tried-and-true traditions end up holding back progress. People say that all the time. "Shoulda just made D2HD." Right...they would've made D2HD, and people would've gotten bored at light speed...why? Because there would've been absolutely no progress from the predecessor. Just because certain traditions are leaned on and accepted as standard doesn't mean that ancient standard is the best and brightest way to go.
There are reasons why many of D3's features work better than D2. All of its features? No...at least, not currently. Hell, is my idea better? Not necessarily.
Like I said in my previous comment...this post is meant to ask a single question: would people really mind Blizzard adding an additional fifth difficulty, if the requirement to finish each previous one was removed? So far, people seem to be responding that three difficulties would be better than four.
I'm disagreeing, saying that really doesn't 1) solve the problem of repetition, or 2) give players more control, like the devs want to do. There's likely going to be some amount of change happening, though. That's the most likely part.
Well, ya, that's what I mean when I say it's subjective. Besides, of the things you mentioned, only mana-potion spamming was something that actually started in D1, so they are hardly traditions. Also, those are things that affect the gameplay in a very direct way, and deserve to be looked at with a critical eye. There are some things that are more about "flavor". If you change those things, the game just doesn't feel like it's in the same series.
I could talk about this for pages, but let me just give you one example of what I mean: Final Fantasy 13. The FF series has a lot of traditions in it, but each game changes a lot of the mechanics, sometimes in a very extreme way. In the case of FF, the music has a huge impact on the game feel. The music changed a lot over the course of the series, but there are 3 particular pieces of music that are absolutely traditional: the opening prelude, the main theme, and the victory fanfare. These 3 pieces have been in every single game since the first. And FF13 removed all 3 of them. I still liked the game, but that REALLY put a bad taste in my mouth, and I'm not the only one.
Would changing the N/NM/H progression ruin Diablo 3? No, of course not, and while I wouldn't like that change I would still keep playing the game. They don't even necessarily need to work exactly the same way. Example: Scrolls of Identify and Town Portal. We still have those functions in D3, they just aren't scrolls. I think that's an acceptable change. It keeps the basic function, but changes it enough so that it "plays" better.
So, I'm not opposed to the system you've come up with in principle, I just think the specifics need work. As for "Torment", I just hope they don't change the current naming convention. That would just be change for the sake of change.
I know how you feel about Final Fantasy, I've been a fan from around FF7, but I've played most of them retroactively.
I don't think every single game had all three of those musical pieces perfectly intact, though...for instance, I don't think FFX had the opening prelude, it had a variation of the victory fanfare, though...FFXII might've had one or two removed as well...but you're right, those three things are pretty iconic to Final Fantasy, and if at least one or two isn't in there, it'll feel "less" like Final Fantasy. I completely agree.
Then again, when people bring up stuff that they deem as traditionally "Diablo," 1) they usually mention D2...and not even D2 Classic, but D2 LOD, which came out a year later...2) they mention stuff, like you said, that affects gameplay directly and deserves a critical eye to be put on it, since so much time has passed. Even at D3's launch, I saw a lot of really small things that were improvements from D2...but since they were rather inconsequential, they didn't help the gameplay or character progression, so they weren't focused on as much. Now that a lot of aspects of the gameplay, skills, progression, itemization, etc., are all being worked on and worked out...the game may not feel as "Diablo" as it did, for some people...but I like what Diablo is becoming better than what it could've been, had it just leaned on tradition alone.
And thank you, yeah I do agree, the specifics would need to be worked out, most assuredly. I never once thought this idea was perfect from inception. Like I said, it was just an idea and I only proposed it because it seemed to solve more issues than simply removing a difficulty would. :-D
/fanboy
You're right, people argue about different things when it comes to what they think of as the "core" of the game. Bottom line is, we really don't know what Torment means or how it will change the game, I just hope Blizzard doesn't start changing stuff that could be handled another way without "breaking" it. Either way, it doesn't hurt to speculate.
Thanks...that was really my goal, to get us all talking.
Well see, I'm not sure they could make a difficulty that scales to character power, or stats like Toughness or DPS. I think it'd have too much room for screwing up. Of course, on the opposite of that argument, if they were able to make that kind of a system perfect, you wouldn't really need Normal, Nightmare, Hell, or Inferno, as no matter how powerful you got, the monsters were always a few feet outside of your reach, and the game was constantly challenging. Which seems good, but I've played games like that, and while it kept battle engaging and dangerous...I never felt like I was making any ground in regard to character development, ya know? Like, I'd grind and grind and grind, I'd get better and better gear...but I'd never feel, even for a minute, like I was really totally kickass. The battles all felt pretty much as hard as each other no matter where I went, or what I fought. They all kinda followed the pacing, too.
That's why I figured my idea would be best. Five tiers of difficulty, each with Monster Power to fine-tune...or you could even have Torment be harder than Inferno MP10, and not allow Torment to have MP settings. But all in all, being able to control difficulty to that degree would be pretty fantastic. It would also make it so that each difficulty's areas were places players wanted to go, as opposed to requiring that time. There would be some pretty brave souls out there, trying to get far in Inferno MPs with Level 1 characters.
Two words: Too Human. That game demonstrated quite well why a system that increases the difficulty based solely on your character's stats does not work.
Never played it. Heard it was supposed to be pretty awesome, but...didn't hear much more after that.
But yeah, like I said, I've played other games with that kind of mechanic. It's a nice idea on paper, as the challenge and difficulty constantly change with you...but there's never any time when you feel strong enough to CHOOSE to move on.
And that's what the devs say they want to add: more choice.
Damnit, I think you're right lol
For starters, no disrespect taken.
Admittedly, I don't have any of the math or numbers for what early Act 1 monsters give out in terms of XP, whether on MP0 or any other MP. So I really don't know how much XP a brand new Level 1 character could get from killing the first zombie on the Outlook Road on Nightmare MP0 or higher. Thus, I don't know if they'd be getting "massive" levels by doing that necessarily. Faster XP, certainly, but I don't know how massive the level gains would be, nor do I know the extent to which it could be exploited for really rushed level gaining.
The way D3 is designed, with the freedom to switch skills and the huge stash for storing lots of alternate gear and sidegrades, most characters get tons of hours invested into them. "Rerolling" outside of Hardcore isn't all that common, so 1) even if a new player gets rushed, it's not a service that needs to be done a ton of times to deem it an "exploit"...2) with the ability to tune difficulty however a player wants, even if they're starting a new character and they want to get more out of it, if they're not doing it with another player helping them, they're earning it by themselves. I'd have a lot of respect for a player starting a level 1 character on Hell MP5 and getting far without touching the difficulty knob. That'd be pretty cool.
I'm fairly certain the way that Paragon 2.0 will work, new characters won't be able to contribute to the shared Paragon XP pool for the account, but they do have Paragon Points to spend. I could be wrong about that, and obviously they're still developing the system, so for all I know...they could intend for new characters to be able to use Paragon Points now, then when it goes live, they won't be able to. But I think that's how it works. You're welcome to your opinion, I'm sorry if you don't think it's a good idea. I think it's a great idea, but...like I may have said in this thread somewhere, if Paragon Points do make new Level 1 characters much stronger, there will likely be a need to increase the out-of-the-gate difficulty, or at least, the choice to raise it if a player would like to do so.
As for items...I was thinking of that in another thread...figure it shouldn't be too hard. Currently, Inferno drops (and I could be wrong) items between levels 58 and 63, right? So if Torment were to occur after Inferno, and if we add in the expansion levels, we could have items in Inferno drop level 58-65, and then in Torment, have 66-73?
I know what you meant, MKIII...I wasn't trying to say the idea was bad or stupid. I was just saying that by making it scale with character power, like we said, ensures there's always challenge, BUT...that amount of challenge will pretty much always be the same, regardless of how powerful you get. There wouldn't be a time when you say, "sweet! I got this kick ass legendary, and finished this set...now look how powerful I am! Ha!" Conversely, there wouldn't be a feelng of, "sheeeeeeeit, these guys are badass! I need to gear up way hardere to take these guys on."
So I guess, to me, a mode/difficulty like that in D3 would basically be either TOO appealing at first, but boring kinda fast...or almost feel unconquerable. Ever play old school games on Atari? Where, no matter how far you got, it just get kept getting faster and faster? I feel like a mode like this would feel like that.
Meanwhile, removing the requirement to beat every difficulty means a player can amp up the challenge out of the gate...but adding an additional difficulty on the end means the highest level areas are extended further.
Keep in mind, first...the idea of what the "best" items are will be changing with Loot 2.0...and Paragon 2.0 as well.
Currently, "best" refers simply to items with the highest stats, and the tightest bundle of the following: Crit Chance, Crit Damage, Main Stat, Attack Speed, Vitality, %Life, All Res...maybe Armor. With Loot 2.0, a legendary that drops that doesn't have one or more of those things can still be amazing based solely on the extra aspect(s) it has, that adjust a player's skills to work way better. And with Paragon 2.0, if an item drops that doesn't have one or more of the above mentioned stats, Paragon Points can be spec'ed in such a way to make up the difference. Meaning, in addition to making a wider range of items "good," there may even be a slightly higher demand for either class-specific rares with skill changing aspects, or general rares with skill changing aspects.
Thus, the "best" items for one person may not be the "best" items for another. Obviously, sure, some items will likely be incredible for most players' characters...but for the most part, Loot 2.0 and Paragon 2.0 not only seek to improve item and character quality, they'll allow players to place their own value on items, and not so much "everyone wants X, Y and Z."
That being said...you guys are correct, in a way. I was honestly just riffing off an idea on where to put different levels of items. Like I told Miles, specifics would definitely need to be worked out in that area. However, I understand the concept...wherever the most potent items are, that's where people want to go to farm and battle, in hopes of acquiring those great items. Then again, I think that can be slightly mitigated by exact difficulty, though.
If Torment were to be added to the very end (i.e., made harder than Inferno MP10), and maybe only a scant few special high end (perhaps BOA items) drop there, how "mandatory" can it really be if a vast majority of folks can't farm there? Mandatory means "farm here, and you can get the items that allow you to handle the entire game." Mandatory isn't, "this area is ridiculously too hard, and you can still handle the rest of the game even if you never go here."