Diablo 3 was always billed as a Single Player game with a multi-player aspect.
When was this the case? I seem to recall it being promoted as a multi-player game that could be played solo. The fact that it requires an internet connection kind of undermines the solo-first aspect that you are suggesting. While it is true that in early vanilla MP was garbage compared to SP, Blizzard immediately recognized that as a MASSIVE problem, because they wanted to promote MP over SP.
Regarding solo players not wanting to be forced into grouping, your solution would PREVENT them from grouping if they ever decide that they want to. To me, that is an unacceptable solution.
@Kazgrel, I think that is exactly what the OP is proposing (except with a convert from solo to group button). Personally, I think doing so is a bad idea.
I'm not arguing that playing solo is more advantageous than playing in a group, simply that it has some advantages. Group play, when you have a dedicated and similarly skilled group, is clearly the optimal way to play. As it should be, since blizzard designed this as a multiplayer game. I would, however, agree that the gap might be too large presently.
I'm opposed to separate boards because, as I see it, separate boards only have two effects. One, they discourage those players from playing with other players. If I was at the top of the solo boards it wouldn't matter if a best friend or a girlfriend or family member or the president of the queen started playing... I wouldn't play with them because I would lose my ranking. Two, because it only reveals time spent, not skill, and time spent boards are silly. There is absolutely nothing in this game that requires a group to achieve, and there is no insurmountable solo benefit acquired by playing in a group. To me, hating group play is no different from hating adventure mode or hating the new cube or hating bounties or hating anything else the game was designed around, and I don't see why a different board needs to exist just for players who have chosen to neglect that aspect of the game.
Through all this you have assumed that I'm a multiplayer player primarily. I do play in groups more often than I would prefer due to the many benefits of doing so. However, in about 95% of cases I would rather play alone. I would be part of the target audience of those new boards. That doesn't make them a good idea.
Why stop there? Why not leaderboards for players who only play 1 hour a day, or two, or four? Should players who have ever played alone be banned from 4 player boards, since playing alone often has advantages over public games? Should we have different public and private boards? Should anyone who has ever joined a 4 player game be banned from a 3 player board? If your suggestion is implemented does that mean that you can't ever join a friend's game to help them no matter what? Would the solo leaderboard ban anyone who has visited these forums because they are still getting assistance from other players, even though it is from outside the game?
I don't think the premise is ludicrous, but I do think it is impractical to implement and not particularly useful. Playing in a group doesn't give any advantage in the solo boards that can't be earned with time. I feel as though your solution would heavily encourage hitting the high paragon levels needed to compete, and result in a board that told more about a person's ability to grind and less about their skill.
Solo rifts are the main event. Everything else is just training. Most golfers, track stars, swimmers, and skiiers all have practice partners to help them get better more quickly. It would seem silly to exclude them from competitions simply because of this fact. I think many view rift leaderboards the same way
I said many, not most, for a reason. I would guess that far more play it safe than you think, though likely fewer than I would guess. Either way, nobody on hardcore ever attempted 77. The challenges of a clock on 77 are inherently different than the same clock 9 levels lower, even if you add no death as a restriction. To some it is more of a challenge. To you it is less. I think we could both agree that softcore 77 is more of a challenge than hardcore 1, and similarly that hardcore 77 is more of a challenge than softcore 77... The question is where the inversion point is.
To say otherwise is to say that peewee football is more of a challenge than Olympic slalom skiing, because in skiing you are just facing a clock...that's it. It utterly disregards the fact that a clock can be more of a challenge than anything else. Whether you enjoy racing a clock is a different matter entirely, but it doesn't speak to "challenge".
The truth is; HC is more of a challenge than Standard, this cannot be argued. It isn't up for debate.
The game isn't more of a challenge, it just has a lose condition. In fact, the way many people play HC the game ends up being significantly LESS of a challenge, because you avoid anything that could seriously threaten the life of your character. In Season 3, a Softcore group of 4 cleared grift 77. In Hardcore, the higher cleared grift was 68. I would wager that nobody in Hardcore ever even attempted a 77.
Simply put, some people enjoy the challenge of taking on content that pushes the limits of their gear more than the "challenge" of not disconnecting and not having a partner that gets you killed. Some people enjoy trying again when they fail to meet that challenge, rather than giving up and starting over. Which isn't to discount the challenge of keeping yourself alive, but just to say that it is a very different challenge, and not necessarily "more" of one.
Any time something is the best, it feels mandatory. Sure, you pray not to have a socket on a ring or amulet, but you also pray not to have the wrong elemental skill or resource cost reduction (probably). For some builds, CDR or IAS.
Here's the problem, as I see it. I didn't play D2, so I don't have a problem with sockets being a trade-off. I see them as any other affix. You did play D2, so you are used to them being a pure bonus, and anything less than that makes them seem problematic. If they are mandatory now, though, as soon as they don't replace an affix they will be even more mandatory. If they can be added to gear without any trade-off, they might as well be removed. So if your goal is adding gearing options, what you really want is sockets/gems to be nerfed.
Why are you only looking at sockets that way? Why not look at primary stat the same way? "Man, for chest armor to be good it *has* to have str/dex/int. Those should be secondary stats so they don't feel like trade-offs." Or, "Man, for bracers to be good they *have* to have elemental skill damage. It's so much stronger than anything else. That should really be a secondary stat."
Bonus or substitution you will make the same decision either way. Personally, I use them for AR at the moment, because you get a better return on investment (1 ar for 2 primary instead of the 1 ar for 4 primary trade that you typically would make on gear... though of course at the end you hope to make neither trade).
As long as sockets are mandatory, how does changing what slot they fill change anything? Personally I don't mind the current system all that much. Trade-offs are a good thing. On an Andariel's which 4 do you want, between elemental damage, skill damage, dex, vit, attack speed, crit chance, and a socket? You can't have it all, and that's okay.
Frankly paragon levels never really meant anything in terms of either skill or gear, other than when they FIRST came out - after that, time spent can trump everything else. But, in general, I agree that these runs aren't good for the game - they are really grindy in an already grindy game, and they are so much better than anything else that they feel mandatory. Every time one of these things comes out, I hope it will get nerfed, but in the meantime I will be running it over and over and over, because doing anything else feels like a waste.
That being said, I think Blizzard compounded the problem by instituting this patch without RoS, because most gear you get will feel meaningless at 70, so there isn't much left to do but grind paragon levels.
I'm one of the people who ran cursed chests over and over and am now running CotA over and over, and I really really do hope it gets fixed. When I'm getting close to 10 paragon levels an hour at 200ish, it is just way too fast. If this was purely a single-player game, I wouldn't feel compelled to do these runs. But when I'm playing with other people, and a competitive person, it feels like doing anything else is just a waste of time, and leads to me falling behind, especially given all gear found at the moment will be quickly replaced at level 70. I like doing other things, and don't love these runs (though in the scheme of grindy things they aren't all that bad, unlike Mira runs), but until they are nerfed I will feel compelled to do them.
Recently returned to the game, after not having really played since the IAS nerf shortly after launch. Looking to cap paragon levels on at least a few toons before RoS launch. Willing to gear toons to fill whatever role necessary for crypt runs, though at the moment I just have a barb (capable of doing MP8 with ease and MP10 with some difficulty) and my old glass-cannon WD. All classes, however, are leveled, and I expect I have enough battle.net balance to get the gold/gear necessary to contribute to runs.
Shame that has no socket, no crit damage, and relies entirely on something that is about to be nerfed to hell tomorrow for its damage Still looking, especially for bracers!
0
Regarding solo players not wanting to be forced into grouping, your solution would PREVENT them from grouping if they ever decide that they want to. To me, that is an unacceptable solution.
0
@Kazgrel, I think that is exactly what the OP is proposing (except with a convert from solo to group button). Personally, I think doing so is a bad idea.
0
I'm not arguing that playing solo is more advantageous than playing in a group, simply that it has some advantages. Group play, when you have a dedicated and similarly skilled group, is clearly the optimal way to play. As it should be, since blizzard designed this as a multiplayer game. I would, however, agree that the gap might be too large presently.
I'm opposed to separate boards because, as I see it, separate boards only have two effects. One, they discourage those players from playing with other players. If I was at the top of the solo boards it wouldn't matter if a best friend or a girlfriend or family member or the president of the queen started playing... I wouldn't play with them because I would lose my ranking. Two, because it only reveals time spent, not skill, and time spent boards are silly. There is absolutely nothing in this game that requires a group to achieve, and there is no insurmountable solo benefit acquired by playing in a group. To me, hating group play is no different from hating adventure mode or hating the new cube or hating bounties or hating anything else the game was designed around, and I don't see why a different board needs to exist just for players who have chosen to neglect that aspect of the game.
Through all this you have assumed that I'm a multiplayer player primarily. I do play in groups more often than I would prefer due to the many benefits of doing so. However, in about 95% of cases I would rather play alone. I would be part of the target audience of those new boards. That doesn't make them a good idea.
0
Why stop there? Why not leaderboards for players who only play 1 hour a day, or two, or four? Should players who have ever played alone be banned from 4 player boards, since playing alone often has advantages over public games? Should we have different public and private boards? Should anyone who has ever joined a 4 player game be banned from a 3 player board? If your suggestion is implemented does that mean that you can't ever join a friend's game to help them no matter what? Would the solo leaderboard ban anyone who has visited these forums because they are still getting assistance from other players, even though it is from outside the game?
I don't think the premise is ludicrous, but I do think it is impractical to implement and not particularly useful. Playing in a group doesn't give any advantage in the solo boards that can't be earned with time. I feel as though your solution would heavily encourage hitting the high paragon levels needed to compete, and result in a board that told more about a person's ability to grind and less about their skill.
Solo rifts are the main event. Everything else is just training. Most golfers, track stars, swimmers, and skiiers all have practice partners to help them get better more quickly. It would seem silly to exclude them from competitions simply because of this fact. I think many view rift leaderboards the same way
0
I said many, not most, for a reason. I would guess that far more play it safe than you think, though likely fewer than I would guess. Either way, nobody on hardcore ever attempted 77. The challenges of a clock on 77 are inherently different than the same clock 9 levels lower, even if you add no death as a restriction. To some it is more of a challenge. To you it is less. I think we could both agree that softcore 77 is more of a challenge than hardcore 1, and similarly that hardcore 77 is more of a challenge than softcore 77... The question is where the inversion point is.
To say otherwise is to say that peewee football is more of a challenge than Olympic slalom skiing, because in skiing you are just facing a clock...that's it. It utterly disregards the fact that a clock can be more of a challenge than anything else. Whether you enjoy racing a clock is a different matter entirely, but it doesn't speak to "challenge".
1
Simply put, some people enjoy the challenge of taking on content that pushes the limits of their gear more than the "challenge" of not disconnecting and not having a partner that gets you killed. Some people enjoy trying again when they fail to meet that challenge, rather than giving up and starting over. Which isn't to discount the challenge of keeping yourself alive, but just to say that it is a very different challenge, and not necessarily "more" of one.
0
Here's the problem, as I see it. I didn't play D2, so I don't have a problem with sockets being a trade-off. I see them as any other affix. You did play D2, so you are used to them being a pure bonus, and anything less than that makes them seem problematic. If they are mandatory now, though, as soon as they don't replace an affix they will be even more mandatory. If they can be added to gear without any trade-off, they might as well be removed. So if your goal is adding gearing options, what you really want is sockets/gems to be nerfed.
0
0
As long as sockets are mandatory, how does changing what slot they fill change anything? Personally I don't mind the current system all that much. Trade-offs are a good thing. On an Andariel's which 4 do you want, between elemental damage, skill damage, dex, vit, attack speed, crit chance, and a socket? You can't have it all, and that's okay.
0
0
That being said, I think Blizzard compounded the problem by instituting this patch without RoS, because most gear you get will feel meaningless at 70, so there isn't much left to do but grind paragon levels.
0
0
Recently returned to the game, after not having really played since the IAS nerf shortly after launch. Looking to cap paragon levels on at least a few toons before RoS launch. Willing to gear toons to fill whatever role necessary for crypt runs, though at the moment I just have a barb (capable of doing MP8 with ease and MP10 with some difficulty) and my old glass-cannon WD. All classes, however, are leveled, and I expect I have enough battle.net balance to get the gold/gear necessary to contribute to runs.
Battletag: Harleym#1698
0
0