DiabloFans

Quote from kNarf

Your comment please BLizzard.

Someone should probably tell you - so let me be the one to do it - that this is not Blizzard's website, and you are not going to get an answer from them.

For my opinion, though, no, I think this is a very bad idea. New stuff is added in patches to give you new things to do and new goals to pursue. It would be completely counter-productive to let you just buy your way to getting the best possible 2.1 gear without even having to play after 2.1 lands.

Also, "half of the weapons that people have found are now useless" is a wild exaggeration. That weapon you just called useless? It is exactly the same after 2.1 as it is now. Whatever difficulty you can clear with it now, you can still clear with it after 2.1. The fact that it becomes possible to find something even better does not make your weapon useless.

So I decided to do some experiments to see exactly what gems were available to be upgraded by Urshi at the end of the rift. Shuffled gems around my account and got the following results:

The following gems were offered to me as options:

• In my inventory
• Socketed in an item I was wearing
• In my stash
• Socketed in an item in my stash

The following gems were not offered to me as options:

• Socketed in an item my merc was wearing
• Socketed in an item another character was wearing
• Socketed in an item another character's merc was wearing
• On the floor in the rift next to Urshi (figured it was worth a try)

Also, for greater rift level 17, the upgrade chance it 45%. I was successful and got a single rank upgrade.

Quote from shaggy

You can upgrade gems socketed in your gear. You can upgrade gems in your stash.

Can you upgrade gems socketed in other characters gear?

And can you upgrade gems socketed in gear in your stash?

Quote from DrCheckmate

Addendum: If I am still alive at the end of T6 rift runs, I shall then use my Greater Rift keys.

I think you'll run out of stash space long before then if you plan to run 3000 rifts without ever using a GRift Key.

Quote from Catalept

I'm not even sure what problem the damn thing is supposed to solve. Sure, it was annoying having to re-roll a socket on every weapon, but now it'll be equally annoying having to re-roll the second best affix.

You "have to" re-roll an affix on every piece of gear, if you want to be truly optimal.

The problem this is trying to solve is that enchanting from no socket to socket was pretty much universally agreed to convert a weapon from completely useless to usable. Re-rolling other affixes is much more likely just take it from ok to good, or from good to really good. Not from useless to usable.

Quote from ruksak

So I gather their lazy ass solution to these bad legs is to just add a 5th primary?

Lazy. That's really concerning. Not trying to be a debbie downer..

Yes you are. You've been whining about how unhappy you are with items for as long as I can remember reading these forums. Don't even try to pretend that you're not trying to be a debbie downer.

Quote from blitzzfan

You dont understand the point of making achievments blizzard should do something that we all should start doing them.. we all should be involved with gaining more achiv points.. i want them to do something extra.. by adding some of other char skills or something like that

Horrible idea. I love achievements more than most people (I'm #2 in my guild of more than 100 people for achievement points) but I can tell you, you would piss off a LOT of people if you forced them to grind achievements to earn skills or stat points.

Leave them for their intended audience .. crazy completionists like me. :-)

The "screenshots of butthurt cheaters" are comedy gold.

Especially the "time to hit the chargeback" guy.. good thinking, dude, you just got busted cheating and now you're going to double or nothing and commit fraud as well.

Drama much? Some dude on YouTube says he's taking a break and will be back when the 2.1 patch lands.

I can only assume, from the fact that you registered an account here to post this whine, that you just got banhammered on the official forums for trolling?

OP doesn't want discussion. OP wants affirmation. OP needs a blanky and a nap.

Here's one problem with your suggestion:

Class set items recently had their drop weight increased so that they are relatively common. Set items, of course, are highly desirable. Let's say I want to get my 6-pc bonus and I want the items to actually be good. With your system in place, I'll get my first set shoulders, they'll be crap, and then I'll have to deal with other drops increasing in weight and being more common than my set shoulders (because, remember, many legendary drops share the same weight. If I get my set shoulders, the other common drops become more common than the set shoulders).

I certainly don't like the sound of that.



Rare items are supposed to be rare. That's the design that Blizzard has chosen. We don't need to further complicate the system by having variable drop rates. It's not a bad idea, but I don't think it's a good idea for Diablo 3.

edit: I know that a lot of my posts are me saying that I don't like the suggestions being offered. Honestly, I think a lot of the suggestions being made are by people who aren't really interested in making Diablo 3 a better game. This idea, for example, will get people their ultra-rare drops earlier than intended and then what happens? Well, you've got your BIS items now, so what point is there to continue playing?

Indeed, that's my problem with a lot of ideas for Diablo 3. Diablo 3 is supposed to be a game that you play and play and play and, well, never stop playing... but most of the ideas I see are people trying to reduce the time requirement -- to get them the items they want instead of the items they don't want. These ideas shorten the lifespan of the game and that's obviously detrimental to the game's survival.

I like ideas that make our characters more powerful, but I don't like it when those ideas are attached to gear acquisition. Yes, I think we should be more powerful. Hell, I'd be fine if they increased the difficulty ceiling by giving us a few more Torment levels in exchange for making us a bit more powerful by default... but making it easier to get the items that everyone wants? I don't think that's good for the game.

It's not really about what's 'optional' or 'mandatory' (although, much like 'viable', 'forced' and 'mandatory' are words that forum idiots refuse to use correctly), it's about facilitating fun by not coupling various gameplay options together. Adding stat-points to achievements would only affect two groups of people: achievement nerds like myself who would simply be getting a free upgrade, and people whowant the upgrade enough to start doing achievements because it's the most efficient path (e.g high paragon players), but don't actually like doing them. The former group wouldn't really care, as we clearly do achievements simply because they're there, and the latter group would feel railroaded into activities they'd prefer not to do. That's a net negative, IMO.

D3 already has too many tightly coupled systems. Bounties -> Rifts -> GRifts or GTFO. That's bad enough, as it disregards anyone who just wants to do bounties (that aren't Act I Normal), just wants to do Rifts, or (God forbid) actually prefers Story Mode (assuming 99% of Story Mode fans haven't already quit playing by now). True player freedom requires decoupled game options with appropriate reward structures.

Quote from ruksak

We wanted Cows and we got "Fuck those losers". Wilson might as well Tweeted that to us, the players, directly.

I think I've isolated the problem.

You've taken this stuff far too personally. Neither Jay, nor Josh, nor Rob, nor anyone at Blizzard is carrying out some covert war against your fragile sensibilities.

You used to rally against people who wanted D2.5 and now you've become one of the pitchfork-carrying idiots who, for whatever asinine nostalgic reasons, think that nothing should change.

I'm sure you remember that in D1 the "sorceress" was actually called the "wizard" and the "barbarian" was the "warrior" and the "amazon" was the "rogue." Franchises change. If you can't deal with that then I'm not sure what to tell you other than this is 2014, not 1999. It's 15 years later. Do you also get upset that your phone has different features with potentially-different names (despite sometimes-similar functions) than your land line did 20 years ago?

Did you rage against the phone company because "voicemail" was functionally very similar to an "answering machine" and how they're just trying to one-up 1960s technology with their new naming schemes and desire to move forward? I mean, seriously, you are so far asea that you don't even know how far asea you've drifted.

No sane person sits around ranting about how "wizard" is an attempt by Jay Wilson to one-up Dave Brevik because of how ultra-paranoid it is. It makes the black helicopter stuff look rational. Do you honestly think Jay Wilson's sole directive was to design a game for fans of the Diablo series whose primary objective was to sully the name of developers past? I mean just think about it for a second. Think about how completely-unhinged that sounds. Think about how completely-schizophrenic you sound whining about the book of cain. In the absence of Cain himself, what other thing in Sanctuary could possibly be used to identify loads of magical items? A book of his writings? Nah. THAT IS CLEARLY JAY WILSON TRYING TO POOP IN DAVE BREVIK'S TUBA. Clearly.

EDIT
As far as Cain's actual death, there have been millions of games/films/plays/books where a loveable, endearing, character has died at some point. Final Fantasy 7 comes to mind. Aerieth had a very untimely demise which on a personal level caught me horribly off-guard. The Walking Dead has killed off Dale and Hershel, both were very-loved characters. I'm sure it pissed off fans, I know Hershel's death particularly angered me, but it's completely irrational to try to portray any of that as some kind of coup d'etat.

In order to have a compelling story loved characters MUST be at-risk. Would now be an appropriate time to mention Game of Thrones? Cain dying may or may not have been a good idea, but killing off a loved character is NOTHING NEW TO STORYTELLING. How you can interpret an age-old mechanic of literature as some kind of nose-thumbing is just beyond me. Was J.K. Rowling trying to piss off Harry Potter fans by killing off Dumbledore? Fuck no. But Dumbledore's death was so good because it was controversial, shocking, and because most people fell into the "Dumbledore couldn't possibly die" trap.

EDIT 2
I used to watch Boy Meets World religiously on TGIF when I was young. Recently I watched Girl Meets World because Boy Meets World was a nostalgic thing for me. Girl Meets World disappointed me. For me it fell way short of Boy Meets World. But the reality is that Girl Meets World is developed by different people at a different point in history (the second episode was somewhat about cell phones... whereas no one had cell phones when Boy Meets World was filmed). It's naive of me to think that Girl Meets World wouldn't be written and filmed with 2014 in mind and not 1996.

There isn't anything criminal about that, there isn't any conspiracy to piss me off by the producers. It's just how things work. The show is good for what it is, but it's not good for a 30-year-old guy who expects Boy Meets World with a female lead. If that's the attitude you go in with, you end up disappointed. Hence my disappointment. If you go in expecting it to be a show where the stars of Boy Meets World are now parents and their daughter is going through coming-of-age stuff with similar themes (focus on friends and family, importance of school, etc.), some of which may happen to be similar to that of her parents.... well then you'll get what you're bargaining for.

1) "Brawling" is stupid and is a retarded name. But I'd point out that "dueling" was a player-created term in D2 and not actually an official term. I believe the correct in-game term was "hostile." It should be obvious why "hostile" isn't used in the context of D3, right?

2) That's an issue with storyline, right? Someone decided Cain had to die. There had to be a replacement for ID All... a feature I remember you complaining they took too long to implement. I'm not sure why anyone would believe that replacement would have to be an NPC. In fact, that "table" to me was actually a subtle reference to a tome of identify. I mean when you use it you do shuffle through a pretty big tome on the table.... if anything this is a not-so-obvious throwback to something from D2 and not a snub to it.

3) Uniques imply 100% static statistics. Again, there actually is a functional difference between a D2 "unique" and a D3 "legendary" ... namely the RMP. D2 established the pattern that a unique had fixed stats, albeit variable ranges on those stats. It would be entirely misleading to refer to D3 legendaries with the same name since they don't actually behave the same way. In fact, uniques go back to D1 where they also had set stats. Uniques and legendaries inherently are not the same concept so why in the world would they get the same name? To confuse everyone?

4) So? There's no Arcane Sanctuary either. You can't visit Midgar in FF8. Must mean FF8 was just trying to snub FF7, right? Must mean the FF8 developers were arrogant and wanted to spit in the faces of the FF7 devs. I mean, god forbid, a sequel/prequel doesn't have all the same levels/areas as the previous title in the series... the world could end?

5) If anything they probably called them "seasons" over "ladders" because the emphasis is on much more than just a single XP-based leaderboard? Seems reasonable to me, although this is probably the best of the points you made, since the other four are pretty weak.

In the case of 1), 3), and 5), it seems pretty clear that NOT using the D2 terminology was actually out of respect for the fact that the D3 systems didn't behave the same way. And, probably, to keep confusion to a minimum. If they referred to "brawling" as "hostile" then you'd have a different expectation based on playing D2. And, I'm not sure why it's so evil that they'd want to avoid that. If anything it seems logical.

TL;DR
If your opinion amounts to "They're arrogant because they used the term 'brawling' instead of 'dueling' even though they clearly have some differences" then I'm not sure what to say to you because that's so completely irrational and tin-hatty it's bordering on some of the worst tinhattery we've seen.

Josh is arrogant for thinking that there is only one "right" way to play. Sure, I'm with you there. But giving different names to systems that are similar, but still hold important differences? That's not arrogant. That's common sense if only to avoid confusion among players who used the old systems.

Quote from iPeedInMySpacesuit

Your misconstruing my point terribly, I don't feel the need to try and re-explain things in a different manner in hopes you'll understand.

The point you articulated was that people won't care about imbalances because things will just get reset.

I think that point is well-intentioned, but simply ignores the fact that people aren't going to keep playing seasons if they're plagued by bugs and lack of balance allowing a subset of people to succeed. When "competition" is involved then people are more likely to want an even playing field, so the suggestion that no one will care about "broken" items in seasons is simply myopic. It's like saying that people are more likely to care about steroid use in single-A baseball than in the major leagues. It sounds cute, but it defies logic.

With seasons, it's actually more likely that the people left playing standard will be more tolerant of bugs and imbalances than those playing seasons.

If Season #1 has a bug with whatever new wizard-specific season-only item is introduced, which allows wizard to get triple the XP/hr as anyone else, is that going to make you more, or less, excited for the second season? How many people are going to see it as a sign and just migrate back to standard?

Quote from futility

Quote from Ashy_Larry

Unreal, people... who cares if items are rendered useless after the gift is implemented... its designed to make a shitty item with no socket useful... you're using your current weapon now, right? Who cares if you already rolled a different stat? In 2 months after the patch hits its not gonna matter. New items drop every day. *wait for it* work for a better weapon, what's the problem? You wanna know a solution to this? Save weapons that roll well minus a socket, and has a stat you can roll to whatever you want. There are no 'problems' with this item. You people need to wake up and stop complaining about having to work to get things.

What makes you think nobody worked to get the weapons they currently have? *wait for it* Maybe that's why people are upset the weapon they worked for will be rendered useless.

I'm getting reaaaally sick of arguments like this.


Here's a piece of advice: If you don't want your items to be "rendered useless" (aka, slightly less useful than other items but still as useful as it was before the patch), then maybe you shouldn't play an online game that is regularly updated with improved items and functionality.


OMG: My hammer jammers are USELESS because the new version has a better secondary. OMG: My thunderfury is USELESS because it came with a socket and I already enchanted another stat. OMG: I can still use all of my items and they're just as useful as they were pre-patch, how USELESS!

Seriously, don't play online games if you want everything in-game to stay the same forever. If you're going to play Diablo 3, accept that new items will arrive, old items will be improved, and AWESOME CHANGES like Ramalandi's Gift might make newer weapons better than the weapons you already have. Understand, please, that adding an item that improves weapons does not make your current weapon useless. It works for you right now, right? Well, guess what: It's still going to work in 2.1.

This community is turning into a bunch of whiny bitches who can't even accept good changes, changes that we specifically asked for, without complaining about it. In fact, if you're going to complain about Ramalandi's Gift, which, by the way, is Blizzard giving us exactly what we asked for,like, literally, word-for-word, then maybe you don't deserve to be playing games like this.


"Blizzard, we want an item that adds a socket to our weapons." "Okay, here you go!" "WTF, Blizz? Now all my old weapons SUCK!" Just stop fucking posting if that's how it's going to be.

Quote from chadwx

I hope it comes in two weeks. Ppl are enjoying the ptr but its useless so just farming keys and para lvling. Lots of people taking a break until its live

Two weeks?

Hello. My name is reality. I don't believe we've met.

They removed Legendary drops from the game on Tuesday, saying that too many people complained the game was becoming casual.