Everything that folks like you like about PoE should stay in PoE. If you want that experience, play PoE. Not every game needs to be PoE. It’s pretty clear from the game changes Blizz made even back in the day that it does not want to be PoE.
For trade community yes. But it hurts the pvp community. Infact if ppl can trade for gears it might even mean less parties as trading is a shortcut for ppl to get gears.
Without trade ppl will focus more on joining clans and finding parties which does the highest content for the best gears rather than w8ng for cheap sales on websites. The negative impact of trade is very clear. Ppl rather sit on websites to buy gears from botters instead of playing is not something i wanna see.
2 Likes
if anything is BOP and not tradable. then the game will die off and be like d3. people come for a quick season and then log off for 3 months.
No it isn’t. Standards are about quality. Trading isn’t a standard, it’s a preference. The reason I say it’s shallow thinking is because, again, you’re so close-minded that you can’t imagine any other way of doing things. It’s sad that you’re so stuck on what 1 game did 22 years ago that you can’t get over it.
You’re free to have that opinion, but you haven’t said anything objective.
Given that the majority of people didn’t have internet in 1996 or 2000, yes, both D1 and D2 were offline games and many people played it that way. You don’t get to dismiss facts just because you don’t want them to exist.
Uh huh. The thing is that you’re set on an economy being necessary, and it isn’t. Especially a fully player driven one.
I would much rather have mechanics that allow me to pursue the items I want rather than need to trade for them.
None of those titles have been games that trading would help.
I’m glad that you and yours won’t buy D4 if it isn’t open trading. You can keep living in the past with your 22 year old interpretation of how games should be made and not bother the rest of us. Go ahead and play D2:R until the end of time.
2 Likes
It really, really should not be.
Diablo should be about making character builds, killing monsters with said build, and gathering gear from the dead monsters to improve your build or make new builds. Trading does not belong in that. It goes against the basic premise.
If D4 has trading, Blizzard is repeating the same mistakes all over again.
2 Likes
Look at all these backseat devs deciding what makes Diablo good or great.
The only reason you’re even playing Diablo II Resurrected is because of D2 trading. This game only held on for so long because the trade community created player interaction which kept the game going far longer than most looter clones.
D4 without trading or limited trading will indeed be dead after 2 or 3 years provided they don’t slam an expansion with powercreep to save it like RoS. I suppose that’s fine for most of you. I don’t even use trading websites or trade at all really, but even I’m not so oblivious and self centered to imagine Diablo will survive with a bunch of loners logging on grinding personal loot drops that can only be traded for an hour.
D3 is kept on life support only because it’s one of Blizzards most notable IPs. To think that game would have survived as long as it has on it’s own merits is a joke. Games that survive are games that encourage player interaction on nearly every facet of the game’s design. Sincerely, an old millennial.
1 Like
D2r 2k viewers on twitch.
D3 4k viewers.
D3 still doing better than d2r it seem. And d2r is much newer. Trade didnt save d2r infact it might even be a reason to why the ladders need to be shorter. Ppl being done 1 week after release thx to trade.
1 Like
There are other ways to encourage player interaction.
Unlimited trading causes much more harm than good.
I am pretty sure D2 would be still played even without trading at all.
You have very rare items to seek after and you have PvP to show these items off. Just those 2 things would easily keep the game alive. It would actually cause much more players to play the game (well it would be mostly bots but thats another problem) instead of browsing websites with items.
And with D4, a brand new game, they can think of much more options than that. No trading is the last concern I have about that game. The fact it starts to look more and more like D3 is much more worrying to me.
Not allowing trading facilitates more player interaction. Encouraging people to actually play together if they want to share gear.
Not that I buy the argument about longevity. I’d rather have a great game for 3 years than a bad one for 30 years.
A great game will survive though. Baldurs Gate is still great today, trading or “social interaction” is not needed for that.
Yeah. What made D3 bad was not the lack of trading, it was… well, basically everything else. And D4 does seem to repeat at least some of those mistakes.
1 Like
People already play together. You’re fixing something that doesn’t need fixing to solve a problem that doesn’t exist. That being said, I don’t think D4 is going to be more than a footnote if they do trading D3 style.
Disagree and this is coming from someone that doesn’t trade really at all, but my game list is populated with people grinding for xp and gear to trade with others to fill holes in their builds.
Not everyone wants to collect an entire set with a 30,000% damage mod on 2 skills in 2 days and spend months rolling for primals in a corner somewhere. D3 is trash and so is the trading system within.
Huh, I am not trying to make people play more together. Simply saying that trading does not make people play more together. You were the one arguing that player interaction was important for longevity. But that player interaction can exist just fine, even more so, without trading.
D3 sure is trash, but the above issues have nothing to do with trading or lack thereof.
D3 is trash because it was a perfect storm of bad game design choices, this includes the trading system.
This is due to a myriad of factors. D2R being new, buggier, more taxing on system requirements in an era of GPUs being cannibalized from the gaming market to farm cryptocurrency. D3 being so old you can run it on a smartphone (Diablo Immortal anyone?)
And possibly the most damning of all, views on twitch does not a game make. WoW is consistently in the top but as a WoW player from 2005 I can tell you Shadowlands is stinking heap of trash and no one I know plays it anymore.
Similarly, you’d have to check the viewers to see if it’s one large streamer carrying 90% of the current viewing capacity vs. a bunch of lesser streamers. You’d also have to compile and average out the views over many weeks.
In other words, your statement is lacking in scope and research.
No it had free trading at the start, even build-in RMT and that was even worse experience.
The best times of D3 were shortly after expansion release (which removed free trading), before monster power and greater rifts infinite scaling were introduced, killing all but very few builds and starting that nonsense 30000% buff spiral.
1 Like
Look at you, saying that and then doing it.
Trading doesn’t create player interaction. You joining my game for 30 seconds to trade me an item and then leaving isn’t player interaction. Grouping and playing the game is player interaction.
I would argue mods kept the game going more than any supposed benefits of trading.
D3 lost most of its players in the classic era - when there WAS open trading. RoS in 2015 was good, but Greater Rifts and calls for higher Torments ruined things.
It’s 2 hours.
Also ironic that you mention loners, since most people seem to play solo and then engage in trading. If you love “player interaction” so much, you should want mechanics that encourage grouping.
So then why do we need trade to “create player interaction?”
1 Like
The cognitive dissonance here is not surprising. Agreeing with well known design choices from successful Diablo iterations is not altering their decisions, it’s suggesting they adhere to them going forward. Your desire to “gotcha” has left your point lacking.
You are implying that the trading is the only reason of success of diablo games, but you have no way to prove that.
D3 had trading when released and it sucked even more with it.
Trading is not a recipe for success of arpg game. I’d argue its actually the opossite, but yea, I also have no way to really prove that (but its obvious it causes people to spend less time playing the game).
I am sure people would play D2 till this day even if it didn’t have unlimited trading. At least I definately would. And there have to be more people like me.
Anyway, saying no trade = dead on arrival, like OP did, is funny, at least. As that is definately not the case. He’s probably just one of those with hoarded forum gold and is afraid he won’t be able to use it to gain unfair advantage right from the start.
Edit:
Just curious, you think it’s okay to be able to spend real cash / forum gold / whatever else out-of-game resources to gain advantage right at the start of a new game (or new ladder) and bypass the whole idea of having equal playing field for everyone ? Because free trading will always be abused for this.
D2 was mostly successful despite its trading tbh. Probably because most people played offline, or solo/friend groups online, anyway, so they never ran into the trading aspect.
To make an A-RPG with meaningful gear progression and joy of finding interesting items yourself, trading has to go away.
2 Likes
Saying a future game should be designed a certain way is still armchair development, and it doesn’t get you the high ground. Sorry.