DiabloFans

Quote from shaggy

Quote from Sabvre

@Shaggy - You are forgetting something important about D2 vs D3: Diablo 2 wiped your accounts every 90 days of inactivity.

This was a MASSIVE item sink, and required you to re-level and regear multiple times over the course of D2's lifespan. I mean seriously, how many people literally never let their account(s) get wiped?

And you're forgetting that RoS has the enchanter.... which does what again?

Right, takes the *desireable* items out of the economy when you enchant them. The problem with D3C was that there wasn't a shred of an item sink. That inflated the effect of trading because it allowed people to "rent" items. This simply won't be the case in RoS by and large. Furthermore, in RoS, you have to crush down two legendaries every time you enchant one. Even without enchanting making the item BoA, this is an infinitely better item sink than anything we have in D3C.

The effects of the AH would be much less dramatized and severe if we actually had item sinks in D3 which seems to be something they're actually addressing in RoS, which further emphasizes why BoA tags all over everything simply aren't necessary. People have been bitching about this for over a year, though. Let's not pretend as if it isn't a compounding problem and let's not pretend as if it hasn't been mostly addressed in RoS.

Why do people trade in D3C? Because they feel it's the only way to "succeed." That alone should clue you in that trading isn't the problem, much like the AH, but a symptom of drop rates, loot, and crafting that just don't work synergistically to give the player a good experience... so they go to the next-best thing: AH/trade.

If I had a dollar for every poster on these very forums who said they have used the AH because they felt they had no alternative, even though they really don't want to... I'd be able to retire. Let's not pretend like the average AH-user is some kind of trade-addicted heroin junky who can't kick their habit here.

The average AH-user is someone who has turned to the AH because they haven't found their own gear in a reasonable amount of time. This is precisely why you still need trading as a safety net. The game becomes frustrating if you can't find what you feel you need. This was a recurring problem with D3C design that made so many people feel forced into the AH. Taking the safety net away means you're being ignorant of why people want that safety net there in the first place.

Quote from Tralfamadore

Quote from Sabvre

@Shaggy - You are forgetting something important about D2 vs D3: Diablo 2 wiped your accounts every 90 days of inactivity.

This was a MASSIVE item sink, and required you to re-level and regear multiple times over the course of D2's lifespan. I mean seriously, how many people literally never let their account(s) get wiped?

In Diablo 3s case, items in circulation- stay in circulation. Once you gear up, you never have to again. As Blizzard has said, trading short circuits what is intended to be the game life cycle.

I plan on buying the ps4 version for multiple reasons, but included is the replayability inherent in a complete reset. If I leave the game for a while, only to come back to my OP in a day geared account (from trading/ah/3rd party sites)... I have nothing further to do.

Plain and fricking simple... trading breaks the games INTENDED life cycle. It causes the INTENDED end game of the item hunt to be short circuitable via economic trading or twinking.

So, you're telling me if trading was enabled on the PS4 version you just would lack any sort of control to play the game without trading? You can't play self-found on your own volition? You need to be forced to play self-found otherwise you just can't help yourself?

The only person the "life cycle" should matter to is the individual person who bought the game. They are the one who spent $60 on the game. This isn't a subscription based game, it doesn't matter to Blizzard (and shouldn't matter to your neighbor) if you play 200 hours or 4000 hours. If someone wants to trade and cut down their "life cycle" to 20 hours ... well then that is their choice.

I really think what everyone should be more focused on is whether or not the game itself actually fun to play or not. Because if it sucks, it doesn't matter if the "life cycle" is 6000 hours or 10 ... the game still sucks.

Quote from Twoflower

Quote from Sabvre

Traders are a minority, and people in trade channels are a minority. Seems like people would fill their friends lists with anyone and everyone ever encountered in a trade channel or forum.

Oh allmighty master of numbers, please share a link with us to the statistics that show that traders are a minority.

Quote from maka

Quote from Bleu42

Quote from maka

Quote from DesmondTiny

I don't think there should be drastic death penalty's honestly the people who want that will play hardcore. Why does death have to mean something? Corpse runs in D2 wasn't all that fun or enjoyable which caused most people to use chicken or some such to avoid it.

So, there should be nothing between "perma-death" and "res instantly at corpse with minor repair bill"?

Yes, that exactly. Dying hurts your gear slightly, and hurts your farming momentum slightly as well, it also makes you fail any boss fight that you're playing solo on, and that's all that is needed in softcore. If you really want a death penalty, that's LITERALLY why hardcore was brought to D3.

Yeah, permanently losing a character because of a lag spike is awesome.

As things stand in RoS, you're losing 5 seconds (res on corpse) and 500-5000 gold (repair) when you die. It's ridiculous.

Quote from Bleu42

Quote from Sabvre

+1 for death penalties.

I remember playing a S&B barb around launch (either before or after the insane repair costs)... and I will never forget the day someone called me a noob for it: "Dude this is SC, it doesn't matter if you die. Anyone that gimps themselves with a shield is retarded."

Honestly, I fucking hate all the people that think Diablo should be a mindless spam fest with zero tactics. DPS is boring.

Elitist much? Just because some people ( I would wager around half the player base) would rather find ways to zerg down champ packs with the highest dps possible rather than play how YOU want to play, doesn't make them wrong.

Quote from shaggy

Quote from Sabvre

DPS is boring.

Except that statement is a complete paradox.

There has to be a tradeoff on the "glass cannon" vs "survivability" spectrum which inherently means the more survivability you stack on your character the slower he should kill (allowing characters to achieve both high survivability AND high killing efficiency is a bad design decision for patently-obvious reasons).

In an A-RPG where the A stands for "action" it makes sense that people gravitate towards "big numbers" and not towards "herp derp imma tank." I'm happy that you like tank-y characters, but it flies in the face of most of us who just want to kill monsters.

Do I think tanks should be viable? Of course. But in a game where killing monsters faster gives more rewards than killing them slower... I don't think the hatred towards "DPS" is anything short of completely misplaced. Unless you are dying a lot, why would you stack on more defense? It's completely, 100%, counter-intuitive.

DPS does not mean people want "no tactics." What we need is more reason to have higher survivability thresholds, not reasons to be forced back to tank builds. Removing Life Leech is actually a major step in the right direction on this subject because Life Leech, by itself, gave survivability based on DPS.

Quote from RasAlgethi24

Quote from Sabvre

Crusaders don't get + damage from off hands and cannot dual wield. This is their one option to make their DPS comparable. (Only certain skills get bonuses from shield block amount)

Yeah but a Crusader's shield's armor rating contributes to damage. That's the balancing factor.