I know you decided on 300 “for sake of argument” but before you setttled on that, let me inform you that I have 444 hours and 28 min on just my DH this season and and I’m only 3070 paragon. Now I admit that I’m not the most efficient of players but still, if I’m using me as an example and you’re saying it should take a person (in your new paragon) to reach 2000 as it takes to hit 8000 and gaining paragon isn’t as simple as just doubling the time gets you double the paragon, then we’re talking over 1200 hours in a season just to sniff your 2000 paragon. Bot makers are gonna love that, lol.
See, what I’m saying is, your idea is just dumb because you might think, well if they lower it 2000 at least I’ve got a chance to get to what to what 1700 or 1800, and I’m telling you, you won’t.
In the end, even in your dream scenario instead of reaching maybe a 1000 paragon, you’re going to be hitting something like 700 or so meaning, again, you’re solution doesn’t actually change anything and could even possibly set you further behind people with more time to play.
Just sayin’.
Edit:
Just checked the rank 1 DH in Season and he has around your 8000 mark, how much time does he have in the season, you might ask…
Close to a whopping 1600 hours playing this season, mostly in Wizard at 1164 hours and his next closest with over 300 in DH.
LOL!!! Good luck hitting your 2000 paragon mark in your new and improved paragon.
But why? How does that make for a better game despite all of the negative side-effects that I laid out from that particular kind of design?
Is it the majority? Some of the feedback I’m getting imply that the majority like it the way it is. Do my suggestions for the game line up with what your personal fixes wishlist would be?
Just because a decade has passed (time functions that way!) does not mean it worked for a decade.
While I definitely would not consider D3 to be anywhere close to ‘great’, liking something and pointing out issues, are not mutually exclusive. Quite the opposite.
The alternative is only fanboy logic.
Probably depends on how we define the majority here.
It makes sense that the majority of remaining players in D3 likes the game the way it is. That is why they remain. But they might also be 0.01% of the people who played D3 at some point.
However, yeah, I too think your list gets around many of the major issues people have brought up.
I don’t think you understand my point. My idea isn’t to make it easier for players to reach a high paragon level. If that was the case, I wouldn’t have added the harsh exp curve. If all I’m doing is turning Paragon 8000 into Paragon 2000 without any significant changes, then there wouldn’t be a point to it. The problem you think I’m solving isn’t the problem I’m trying to solve.
Read what I wrote in the OP again -
Problem 14: Endless grinding for Paragon and +main stat passives are boring. Grinding is fun, but making players do it forever in order to brute force their build to work is not. There needs to be more than just grinding for gradual increases in damage, which is what main stat gives you.
After a certain point, boosting up your paragon levels to an insanely high level isn’t indicative of skill. It’s indicative of time spent and/or botting/account sharing prowess. Also, high level GR clears are more impressive when they’re done with lower paragon levels, and they’re easier to compare against each other. When you’re comparing one player’s GR clear with another, and their paragon level in the current system is 6000 points of difference, how are you supposed to reliably determine if it’s the player skill that determined the score or the player’s boosted main stat?
If you cap paragon and implement diminishing returns on its effectiveness, you discourage a mindless grind at endgame and you encourage actual skill that involves gameplay and build choice.
And the point I’m making and is going completely over your head apparently is…
If you set it, let’s just say, in your dream scenario that 1900 isn’t that different but reaching 2000, then what we’re talking about is there isn’t a point to grind out from 1900 to 2000, because there’s really no difference. And if 2000 is significantly stronger than 1900 and it takes as long to grind to 2000 as it does 8000 then your idea doesn’t change anything.
Anyway, to give you a clue as to how paragon works now, I think the calculation for paragon as it stands now is to go from paragon 4000 to 5000 takes roughly the same amount of experience as it takes to go from paragon 1 to 4000.
My point is, a grind is a grind. What you really want is to put, as you put it, 300 hours in the game and reach the same power or close to someone as someone who puts rougly 1.5 X as much time in or someone who puts 5X as much time in. And I’m sorry but that’s senseless. Why should someone that puts tons more time in the game wind up at the same or only slightly stronger than someone who doesn’t?
Again, if you don’t want to compete with paragon 8000 players in the system that stands now, then don’t compete with them, don’t ask for the rest of the player base to settle for your measely amount of hours that you put in the game.
There’s even a linked site in the thread that allows you to put in your paragon and GR Clear and see where you measure up with higher paragon players and can give a rough idea of your skill level compared to others but the site seems to be broken at the moment.
The baseline is Paragon 5000 but the calculations work for lower paragon as well.
Edit:
Anyway, different paragon levels are calculable and most instances massive amounts of paragon only equate 2-5 GR Tiers and any difference that is within that or beyond is player skill solely.
Edit # such and such…lol
What I’m saying is most players think they’d compete with higher paragon players if they just had more paragon when in actuality there skill level may be well below them as well.
I know it doesn’t change anything if 2000 is significantly stronger than 1900. That’s why I didn’t make it stronger. The difference between 1900 and 2000 is only 100 main stat, which is hardly anything.
There are still ways to improve your character over time. All I’m doing is lessening the importance of the most braindead method. This is the same design philosophy that governs Diablo 2. There is a max level in Diablo 2. Does that make it any less desirable to grind out lots of hours in that game? No, it doesn’t.
It has nothing to do with me not wanting to compete. I’m trying to make the game more challenging.
No, what you’re trying to do is make time in game worthless. At least be honest. You’re saying, “I want to put 300 hours in the game and I want that to matter as much as someone that put 450 or 1600 or 2000 or 10,000.” And I’m sorry, friend, but that makes no sense. Especially when you consider that there’s non-season as well.
What you would do, is make season the one and only way to play and the rollover at end of season wouldn’t matter at all. People with tons more time would be competing with people with much less. That’s also unfair.
Edit:
You took a 10 year break from the game, explain to me why someone who was away from the game should be competing with people who’ve been playing the game for that 10 years?
Generally speaking, I tend to agree with both those idioms. However, the point of those idioms are that the unforseen consequences of changes are not worth the benefits of those changes. I don’t think there are any unforeseen consequences here that can’t just be patched out again. We are living in the modern age of gaming with games that are developed in iterations. This is especially true of Diablo 3 which has seasons - a game element that is designed for temporary testing of new concepts.
Why obviously? My mind can be changed. You just need to make your case with logical reasons that demonstrate progress towards a stated game design goal.
2000 is equivalent to 8000 only in time spent. This isn’t about ruining competition. The goal is to increase competition and make it more relevant. And reduce the impact of botting.
No, again, I know I editted in but the question is, why should you, who took a 10 year break from the game be competing with people who’ve been playing for that 10 year span?
This is what non season does. But your idea, unless you’re saying that your paragon limit only applies to season, which also makes no sense, would cause you to be competing with people that have played tons and tons more than you.
You took a 10 year break, and all of sudden, you want to be treated the same as people who didn’t? Talk about unfair, lol.
Not saying Idolis is like that, but there are people out there who have no intention of changing their mind regardless of how much you prove them wrong or debunk them. They’re willing to die on their hill despite death being inevitable. Some do it because they’re just plain stubborn and don’t like to admit they made a mistake in general. Some do it because they’re ignorant and don’t know any better. And some do it because they have an issue with the opposition and have no intention of giving them the satisfaction.
What does my personal competitiveness have to do with anything? This isn’t about me. This is about what changes I think would help ameliorate the stated problems I outlined in the OP and why I think they would help to improve the playability of the game overall.
What does this even matter when there’s seasonal play? Everyone starts off the same each season - with nothing. I’m also not sure where you’re getting the “wanted to be treated” part from. Again, this isn’t about me. It’s about the gameplay and game design.
Whether you intend to or not, and I’m talking the general you, which could or could not apply to you, but I’ll rephase…
What you’re asking is for people who’ve taken 10 year breaks from the game to compete with people who haven’t in non season. And also asking for people who’ve put 300 hours into the game to not have to grind any more than that which hurts people who wish to put more time in the game.
In other words, those people are being selfish because their play time should be the baseline and to hell with everyone else.
Edit:
As an example, I’ve got 7000+ hours in this game total. Tell me why 6700 more hours shouldn’t matter, please, and make it make sense.
That’s not what I’m asking. I’m asking that the game mechanics that led to the current power creep and gameplay imbalance be recalibrated into something a little more sane.
Nope. There’s still a grind. There’s just more of a point to it now. I don’t know how many more times I can tell you there’s still a grind. Diablo 2 has a max level. Do you think Diablo 2 doesn’t have an endgame grind?
I’m actually doing this because “to hell with everyone else” is the opposite of what I’m feeling. In fact, I want the expert players especially to have their skills rewarded.
The baseline is 5000 paragon, but if you’re paragon is lower, it’ll adjust to the point, that it’ll be equivalent to 5000 and tell you what GR Tier you should be clearing in a site that link toward the end of the thread.
The site was broken when I tried to use it, but the point is paragon doesn’t matter as much as you think it does.
Good point. I can tell you for a fact that I am part of that theoretical 99.99% of the playerbase who gave up on the game a long time ago and didn’t really have any plans to revisit the game until recently. That’s a testament to how good of an impression Diablo 4 made on me.
As an example, Rage, a forumite that kept up with “State of the Sets” threads, did a calculation of my GR 150 clear with the Nat’s set at 2750 paragon and around 12 minute time.
My adjusted clear at the time was 154 while the top adjusted clear was 157. Meaning their was a 3 GR difference between my time and the top player with that set. Some of that is a difference in skill and some is a difference in gear. But the calculations adjust us both to 5000 paragon.
3 GR’s is nothing when it just depends on paragon and gear and skill can make up that difference.
Um, the fact that this person has to do math in order to make sense of the leaderboards and put them into context is indicative of the problem here lol.
I think your example proves my point more than it proves yours, to be honest.
If Paragon doesn’t matter as much as I think it does, then why is it “unfair” according to you that I think capping it is a good idea?
If Paragon doesn’t matter as much as I think it does, then why are you okay with an endgame grind that serves to work towards a form of progress that “doesn’t matter”? Seems like a waste of time.
Diablo 2 has a max level. Do you think the D2 endgame grind meta is therefore weak?
