DiabloFans

Quote from MikeyMADZ

I'm not saying it can't be done, just that you're seriously overestimating how easy it would be. You're not considering what changes you suggest would do to the game when that's all Blizzard does when they develop new ideas or try to balance the game. They purposely take their time making sure it wouldn't be overpowered or effect other aspects of the game before make such "easy" changes.

Vanilla shouldn't be a part of this discussion because of the gear changes made in 2.0. Before that everything was viable because we didn't have elemental damage and specific affixes for every single ability a class has. That's ridiculous to even compare a game which has practically nothing but stats on gear to a game that has so many affixes for every ability. Yes vanilla was more balanced, because we had less options in terms of gear customization.

They did this to themselves a bit in not testing Seasons long enough on the PTR, which is the only way to really recognize these sort of issues. They focused more on testing the development aspects of Seasons instead of balancing the game around Seasons. I have a strong feeling this will be rectified come Season 2.

To reiterate though, viable does not = GRift optimal. Viable means you can play the game with a build and be successful in it. GRifts should NOT be a part of viability discussion because at the higher levels they're the type of optimal gameplay that the majority of the player base won't ever touch and are currently an extremely limited version of playing the game. Yes, a difference in 10 or so GRift levels for builds should be worked upon, but that doesn't make those builds non-viable, they're simply non-viable for GRifts and are perfectly viable for the remainder of the game. You have to look at the game as a whole, not just at GRift ladders.

The point of the game is to level gems etc = doing GR, so more viable builds would be nice. Good luck leveling gems with a pet WD etc. I mean the point of the game is to do the best you can, and that involves GR.. I doubt most people play the game to just do normal T6.

You're missing the point. GRifts are one aspect of the game and they're actually the climactic part of the game that requires the most optimal gameplay to progress. The point of the game is to enjoy it by progressing. You can't solely focus on the epitome of progression when considering gameplay balance, as that will always have balance at it's most extreme point.

You'd have a point if GRifts were the only thing people do at end game, when the only reasons people do GRifts is to acquire legendary gems, to level legendary gems, or to progress on the leader boards. There's far more to do than GRifts so they shouldn't be the only focus here.

Quote from MikeyMADZ

Quote from sicness

You say games like this have been done before, when honestly they really haven't. Sure there have been hack and slash games for the past 20 years, but none have been even half as flexible as Diablo 3 is, where you can literally play any spec and change base stats as you want without having to re-roll a character. Furthermore, other games in this genre still to this day have the exact same issue. Path of Exile is just as bad, if not worse, because of how their ladder system works where you're not just forced to play a certain spec but in most cases a certain class just to obtain a decent ranking. So I'm sorry but this isn't as simple as you claim it to be.

Yes they have been done before, not the exact same game no. And trying something new??? Sure I get it... However you can not convince me that it would be super hard to make viable aoe builds single target builds etc.... I can often 99% of the time see a set item bonus or a buff change and just from playing the game determine, yea that is not going to be viable or work... And I am usually right. Again I know balance is hard to make perfect but like 10-20 GR level difference in builds??? Come on man, and I know 2.1 is new and they aim to balance and I hope they do. But if the game was so hard to balance like you say it is, then vanilla would not have been adjusted so easily to balance the game out. Like hyperion said vanilla up to 1.0.8 had more viable build options than now.

I'm not saying it can't be done, just that you're seriously overestimating how easy it would be. You're not considering what changes you suggest would do to the game when that's all Blizzard does when they develop new ideas or try to balance the game. They purposely take their time making sure it wouldn't be overpowered or effect other aspects of the game before make such "easy" changes.

Vanilla shouldn't be a part of this discussion because of the gear changes made in 2.0. Before that everything was viable because we didn't have elemental damage and specific affixes for every single ability a class has. That's ridiculous to even compare a game which has practically nothing but stats on gear to a game that has so many affixes for every ability. Yes vanilla was more balanced, because we had less options in terms of gear customization.

They did this to themselves a bit in not testing Seasons long enough on the PTR, which is the only way to really recognize these sort of issues. They focused more on testing the development aspects of Seasons instead of balancing the game around Seasons. I have a strong feeling this will be rectified come Season 2.

To reiterate though, viable does not = GRift optimal. Viable means you can play the game with a build and be successful in it. GRifts should NOT be a part of viability discussion because at the higher levels they're the type of optimal gameplay that the majority of the player base won't ever touch and are currently an extremely limited version of playing the game. Yes, a difference in 10 or so GRift levels for builds should be worked upon, but that doesn't make those builds non-viable, they're simply non-viable for GRifts and are perfectly viable for the remainder of the game. You have to look at the game as a whole, not just at GRift ladders.

Quote from MikeyMADZ

That is the issue, there is a difference between a build being superior and having a close 2nd option/build... Then having a superior build that is 900 miles above anything else.... I agree with the post about the game being too item dependent, it really is. I have been saying this from day 1, the damage etc is all based off of % weapon damage, and any unique effect you get is from items... It is a poor design flaw simply because it leaves no room for actual level based diversity... Things they could do imo is add tabs in paragon that let you boost certain % damage of skills you like, and or boost % element damage, this way you could drop those Mage Fist gloves for something else etc... This is just a small example but it goes on to a much larger scale. It would let you play that Bola build that you like etc... I am not saying every build has to be the best for GR 35...... However, it is simply put like this. Do make a strong hungering arrow build, what it may lack in AOE make it crazy good at single target damage. Do make a strong Bola shot build, what it lacks in single target it makes up for in AOE... And this trend can go on for each class.... The issue with this game and how it was made is the fact that games like this have been done before, and at times blizzard acts like they are shooting in the dark and "testing" things this many years into the game. Like I have said I understand a new game taking time to work kinks out, but this game guys? Come on it has been out for some time now..

As I said before though, the examples you list and that other people suggest are typically band-aid fixes that Blizzard seriously frowns upon doing because all that does is hold off the issue for another time. They're much more keen to actually make fundamental baseline changes where the root of the problem actually lies - which is good and bad. It's good because they care about the game as a whole and want it to be fixed correctly. It's bad because it tends to take much more time because those issues can't typically be resolved outside of expansion-like development time.

You say games like this have been done before, when honestly they really haven't. Sure there have been hack and slash games for the past 20 years, but none have been even half as flexible as Diablo 3 is, where you can literally play any spec and change base stats as you want without having to re-roll a character. Furthermore, other games in this genre still to this day have the exact same issue. Path of Exile is just as bad, if not worse, because of how their ladder system works where you're not just forced to play a certain spec but in most cases a certain class just to obtain a decent ranking. So I'm sorry but this isn't as simple as you claim it to be.

Quote from Hyperion1407

I do see your point, and I know that there will always be one class that is on top, but is it really to much to ask for blizzard to supply at least 1 decent damage build for every class? It took blizzard 8 months yes EIGHT MONTHS to give monks a viable DPS build for T6 and literally all they did was increase the damage on the Sunwuko's set, either Blizzard really does not care that much or they have serious problems with their company if it takes them 8 months to increase the damage on 1 set and all of a sudden make a class a viable DPS class.

Thanks you for sharing your opinion though, and yes you are most likely unfortunately correct that there will always be one spec/class on top

There's something to keep in mind with the time it takes Blizzard to develop and balance game mechanics. They're no longer making anything on this game outside of game sales. So all development costs for between expansion patches is on their own dime. I'm not saying that's an excuse, but something people seriously take for granted in this day and age when the majority of released games have literally zero development effort post launch.

Compared to their other games, Diablo 3 is much slower in development of patches that effect gameplay, and money is a big reason why. WoW has sub fees, SC2 makes them money in tournament royalty fees, Hearthstone is a constant source of revenue, but Diablo 3 has nothing beyond it's original sales. That's a significant difference that likely does effect how much development gets spent on D3.

Quote from Vaestmannaeyjar

That is true, but the delta is significant. I have all the gear to play all monk specs and the difference is staggering. You can do T6 with all of them, but remember gem leveling is now part of your character progress and reaching higher rifts is necessary. I can actually play a basic lightning spec because I leveled the necessary gems with the SWK spec. I wouldn't mind a 1 or 2 GRs difference, but that can go as high as 10. Around GR 30 my lightning DW spec starts to actually lack the needed DPS. (And I have the full lightning gear complement with good rolls and max %dmg, TF, OS etc) That's too big a gap.

I agree with most of what you're saying. I just wanted to point out that disparity in specs and classes isn't that easy to fix and will always exist. Closing the gap as much as possible is what they should focus on balance-wise, but the gap will always exist. Some minor issues, such as how gems are leveled, can be remedied without changing balance. Such as creating a currency similar to blood shards that only GRift bosses drop and increased drop rate on higher levels as a means to upgrade gems.

The problem is that some of this, specifically disparity in GRifts, are flawed due to fundamental game mechanics that would require an expansion-like development cycle, or more, in order to change.

Quote from Vaestmannaeyjar

The thing is, as a customer this is nothign of our concern. What happens is, stuff is broken and every time it takes months to fix. Is DIII better now ? Yes. Does it mean we should be happy with one spec ruling all the others even after a major expansion and a major patch and the leftover classes each having one marginally efficient spec that requires to have THE item ? No.
Sorry, but having only "set of items X+Y+Z" as a gearing option is pretty bad, if only because it enforces a single style of gameplay. Monk ? Flying dragon and stupid spam (seriously, some people are macroing it), mandatory Unity and RoRG and 3 pieces SWK. DH ? Sentries and a specific set of items. The worst ? There are other specs that I like the gameplay of way better, but I can't play them !

There's a few problems that you're overlooking here. Just because a spec/gear setup has optimal efficiency doesn't mean you have to play it. Technically at this point in the season you only really have to play it for GRifts. So you're not being forced to play it against your will, you're simply choosing to because it's the most efficient. The only time you're really forced to play a certain way is based on the gear you have available, and even then for most people on the ladder it isn't that big of an issue at this point because you have at least several sets that are viable for the top specs. Nothing is stopping you from playing a spec you prefer but yourself and your need to be optimally efficient.


Most importantly though, the game will always, always, have a spec/class that is the most superior. This won't ever change because of the way games work. Granted, it could be overall better for some classes and specs, but generally whatever spec is the most efficient people will tend to flock toward it regardless of anything else and people will always complain about it without realizing that it's out of the developer's control - short of homogenizing all specs/classes. It's also not an easy flip of a switch to make other specs as viable, as well as it's not all that worthwhile to commit development time to making sure all specs are perfectly efficient across each other because that's just not possible.

No offense, but it's pretty obvious why your post got deleted. You offer no insight as to how they can overcome their issues and are basically just complaining.

Quote from hifiboi

I read an article about a guy who made 100k botting in a year, apparently Blizzard doesn't see that as cheating either, someone making 100k is not even grounds for investigation.

Not catching a botter doesn't equate to thinking botting is ok. On the other hand, Blizzard are well aware of the "exploits" that levelers use to level as quickly as possible. There's a significant difference here.

Quote from ConundrumNSA

Actually no one is "hysterical".

You're just making convoluted excuses for people who are cheating. And yes, they are cheating and exploiting no matter how people try to dress it up as some sort of legitimate gameplay.

In fact I would have more respect for them if they just admitted they know it's an exploit and used it anyway. By lying to everyone and trying to pretend it's a valid play style, you're just insulting everyone who knows better.

Of course, I guess the cheaters and exploiters would actually have to admit to themselves what they are, and honestly, I don't think many of them are mature enough for that. (maturity has little to do with age).

To be fair, you or anyone else don't really get to decide whether it's cheating or not, Blizzard does. Just because you disagree with using those methods doesn't mean it's cheating.

Quote from Mini641

I agree that we should have gone through the campaign at least once. Oh well i'm doing it anyway. The season mechanic is a fail, it doesn't feel like a new start just a bunch of tools hitting 70 in 3 hours and doing exactly what they were doing on standard.

With that said understand even if played the right way, through campaign and then through adventure up to para 200+ there are players that could do that in a very short time anyway.

Even in a superior game like Path of Exile leveling to 85+ through three difficulties and maps all the best guys get there in like 3 days.

PoEs ladders are better because they actually add something new to the game but ultimately neither should be seen as a competition for 99.9% of the playerbase.

The primary difference is that in PoE leveling matters. However, in D3 it isn't as significant because it's not the focus, it's just a means of getting to end game where there are other points of focus. So comparing the two like this doesn't really work.

People are way too focused on the fact that people have already hit level cap for Seasons when leveling in Seasons is just about the most insignificant aspect of them.

Quote from UndeadProtoss

I don't mean gaining longevity that way, if you look at the Diablo 2 system, which surely had some major flaws it still provided many people with a lot to do.in the words of one commentator "I had three sorceresses, each of them with thier own different playstyle. And it was enough to keep me entertained for years" That's what I mean by longevity. I would loathe, i repeat LOATHE nerfing drop rates for the point of longevity. I agree it's not a primary aim but it's still important. Besides that little bit of character permanence sets your character apart from every other character with that same class. I know many don't care about it. which is fine but it's not the only benefit.

Yes, D2 had longevity. But in this day and age of video games, that type of longevity is bad. I'd even argue the primary reason D2 got away with that type of longevity is because it had no competition. Providing longevity by preventing people from playing whatever spec they want, which is a staple of D3, is bad in every possible way.

I find it odd when people complain of personal customization in order to set yourself apart in a game like D3. This isn't an MMO where you can go to a town to look at idling peoples' gear. Concerning yourself so much with how other people see you is no way to enjoy a video game. I'm not saying you can't do it, just suggesting that D3 isn't the game for that sort of thing.

Quote from UndeadProtoss

It's true it would take the average player a long long time to do that. But take a look at a game like diablo 2. People are still able to play and enjoy it after 13 years! It would be impossible to conceive that with the current system we have. In diablo 2 it took a year to get to level 99 and then you had more playstyles to try out and level. I did misjudge RoS replayability. BUt still it dosen't live up to the longevity of the other games

Firstly, while it's still played, let's not act like it's played by so many people it matters. Sure I could start it up and play it and enjoy it right now, but I could do that with a lot of decade old games that I've spent enough time in already and don't any more because there are better options. That's more fed by nostalgia than actually enjoying the gameplay. Secondly, why would that be impossible with the current system? Because it doesn't take as long to get to level cap? You'd be hard pressed to sell a game designed in the same manner that D2 was for several reasons. For instance, competition for D2 in it's own genre was basically non-existent, while D3 has considerable competition that's as worthy of being played.

The problem I have with your suggestions is that while they may appeal to you, they're still overall bad game designs in the modern gaming era. You want longevity for longevity's sake, instead of for entertainment. And no offense, to claim it doesn't live up to the longevity of other games is just ignorant. Just because it took longer to do something in D2 may mean it has more longevity, but that's not anywhere near the type of longevity that's actually good for a game. They could easily increase leveling experience to the point of it taking just as long in D3 to reach level cap as it did in D2, but what exactly would that accomplish?

Quote from UndeadProtoss

I will concede that to many people character ownership/identity does not matter as much. But to the point on replay ability, what happens if for example your single barbrian beocmes fully geared? That's it! You don't get any more gameplay out of that barbrian aside from hunting from small upgrades which aren't as rewarding.

There's two issues I take with your example. One, is the fact that there are other classes you can play, as well as paragon levels you could grind, or even start the class all over again. There are options outside of gearing up a single character. The other is the idea that a fully geared barb is what the average player is going to achieve and something we should be concerned about.

People spending hundreds of hours playing the game complaining that their character is max geared is one thing, but the average player will never come close to reaching that. With that, why should we concern ourselves with the end game of a player who has already put thousands of hours into the game over the average player? It's basically a non-factor for Blizzard because so few people have reached that point. Forcing people to re-level characters just to try new builds is not the way to improve the game's replay-ability.

The next patch helps this problem a lot though. Between ladders and legendary gems, it gives players who've achieved most, or even all, of what is possible in the game more to do. I think they should have focused on releasing a ladder with the expansion rather than as it's first major patch, but I'll gladly welcome it.

Quote from UndeadProtoss

You can but only 3 times each difficulty. Diablo 3 lets you change your character in a fundamental way on the fly. I'm still mostly referring to before that patch because that's what most people played but I do think being able to change into totally different builds three times just by completing a simple quest was a bit generous.

Every system is a weigh of benefits versus costs. If you look at the costs of the Diablo 3 system you see. Lack of character identity, lack of replay ability, you can't specialize in builds that aren't predetermined to you through the passive skill system. At the same time you get the freedom to try out new builds. But is that really a good thing? When you can try all unique builds in minutes rather than weeks you lose replay ability, when you can change your tanky barbarian into a damage oriented one within a few seconds what does that do to character identity?

Patches changing around the landscape of a build surely is a problem. But it's not one that can't be worked You can give those affected re specs like you pointed out.

The problem with this is the notion that replay-ability in order to enjoy different skill builds shouldn't be considered such a good thing. I mean, is it really necessary to spend hours upon hours just to enjoy a different spec? What makes that better than the ability to respec whenever you like to whatever you like as often as you want? No offense, but the thought that this sort of replay-ability is needed seems like bullshit to me because that's not real replay-ability of a game, that's forced and not necessarily a good design just because you desire it. Instead of spending time leveling a new character to try out a particular build people now spend time leveling other classes or farming. There's still plenty of replay-ability in the game without the need to add bad game designs just to force players to play the game more.

Character identity isn't as important as you're making it out to be in Diablo 3, neither is the idea that just because we have the ability to respec means we lack character identity. In fact, it could enrich the experience because instead of having to level new characters every time you want to try a new build out you don't need to because the character you've spent hours on can simply change to that build. Again I mean no offense, but it sounds like you're nostalgically caught up in archaic designs of old rpgs as though they're so superior to the player having actual options in a game.

Quote from zachafella831

Don't you guys feel that the gap between the lucky and the unlucky is too huge? There should be some middle ground or separate option for the players that will NEVER find a set item / decent legendary.

And just because one person finds legendarys every hour doesn't mean the other person does too...

I know several players who find good items every day, and I know other players (who just quit) who grind hours and hours a day and never found anything even remotely decent.

There needs to be a middle ground.

No, I don't, for several reasons. One of which is that people always over-exaggerate when it comes to these sort of situations. I'm not saying the OP is, but most people do. Another is that regardless of how many people complain on these or the official forums that's still an extremely small sample size to compare. Especially when you consider that people who have no reason to complain typically have no reason to post about it, and is why the majority of posts you see will be complaining. To claim that there's no middle ground is a bit foolish when you look at the overall picture. There is a middle ground, you're just choosing to ignore it.