If you please answer my question first, I will answer yours 
Okay, Iâll bite, yes itâs better for some progression to matter more than none at all.
/thread.
FATALITY!!!
That wasnât the question though, sorry 
Here it is!
And I answered that earlier. The answer is, having some progression is better than none. Your idea would equate to no progress once an arbituary âyouâve played enoughâ number is met.
Now, if you want to change your idea to something make sense, I might get behind it. But you limiting progression to 300 hrs played isnât my cup of tea.
No you didnât. This is a yes or no answer.
And I answered YES, when compared to your idea of no progression after 300 hrs.
Get it through your thick skull.
Yes, itâs good game design to encourage players to do something that isnât worth much? Interesting opinion.
Better than nothing which again, your idea would do.
Câmon, youâre smarter than this, I think, could be wrong, donât want to make assumptions.
Now, tell me how getting no progression is better than someâŚ
No, thatâs not good at all. Progression is an important aspect to an ARPG.
Actually it does not do that. Like I said, getting to paragon 2000 under the new curve is as much of a time investment as getting to 8000 now. That still gives people the option to grind levels if thatâs what they really want to do. More importantly, however, is the recalibration/rebalancing/re-itemization that comes in with my other suggestions that puts emphasis back on finding items and putting together powerful builds with multiple viable pathways to endgame performance. This way, the item hunt gameplay loop is made more relevant and interesting, like it is in Diablo 2, another game that has an arbitrary level cap. Donât let the sunken cost fallacy keep you dependant on an unoptimal gameplay loop.
But again, getting to 2000 matters less than getting to 8000, to the point that itâs practically worthless. Why spend time Grinding to 2000 in the same amount it takes to get 8000 if 2000 winds up with less progression compared to time?
To put it another wayâŚ
8000 paragon is about 6 GRâs stranger than 3000 as it stands now.
Are you telling me that youâd be okay with 2000 being 6 GRâs stronger than 1900 or 1950 or whatever but 8000 compared to 3000 is too much.
Youâre not considering the fact that what Iâm removing in pointless ânot worth muchâ progression, Iâm replacing with something more fun thatâs in line with ARPG. Itâs also similar scale in power level, but requires more thought than just âclick main stat button 50 timesâ.
This is something that should be encouraged right? Player thought, player creativity, and player agency?
Then weâre to the crux of the matter, you do not like D3 and youâve been pretending all this time that you do.
Should have known since you quit 10 years ago and decide just now to give it a try again.
Maybe not that (s)he doesnât like it, but when you come back to a game after a decade, you can sometimes return to a surprising state than what you were used to. I left FFXI, came back a decade later and none of the skilled players were considered âthe greatsâ⌠the cheaters were. Ultimate weapons were not rare, many people have several of them. Enemies that took groups to kill were now soloable. Beautiful, relevant areas were now irrelevant.
Iâm considering that you think 300 hrs is the max you think someone should play the game. All the agency, creativity or thought or whatever else isnât going to matter if you only get 300 hrs of enjoyment out of it. LOL!!!
When did I say that?
You you wrongly tried to argue that it only takes 300 hrs to get to 8000 paragon.
Now if thatâs not what you meant, how 'bout giving me number about how many hours should it take to Paragon 2000 and exactly how much stronger is 2000 compared to 1900 or 1950. Because I illustrated earlier that it takes 1600 hours for a player to achieve 8000 and you say 2000 should take the same amount of time. So, how much stronger is someone who plays 1600 compared to 300 exactly?
Mmm, nope. I very clearly stated that Iâm using simple numbers for the sake of the example, which you then acknowledged. Iâm not sure why youâre putting forth a different interpretation now.
If it actually takes 1200 hours to get to paragon 8000, then it takes 1200 hours to get to paragon 2000 under the rebalancing. Simple association. Not sure what you donât get about the remapping.
Botters will not want that to happen. Itâll make it more feasible for normal players to catch up to them. I think thatâs where some of the botters are disliking your idea.
And how much is stronger is someone who reaches 2000 than someone who reaches 1900 or for that matter 700?
You see, the number doesnât matter if progression stops once you reach a certain number of hours played.
But go ahead, how much stronger is someone that plays 1600 hours compared to someone who 300 in your scenario?
1 Like