[Subtitle] And How D4 could profit from making a greater/more-fundamental set of change/s
Hi forum folks & fellas, perhaps this is a bit of “lazy writing” on my part and I’m just bored, BUT, think that did some “homework” lately that would rather discuss about:
Think I’ve found SOME issue/s with aRPGs (in general) that might be “getting old” at a relatively fast pace, therefore probably not be the best move to “follow the genre” quite as much in D4, so here are some of them:
Unpopular opinion #1: the less things a weapon affects the better the final effect
Although it’s surely true that noone wants the +800% damage of skill X as was the case in D3, it’s not really much of an interesting concept either if a weapon affects plethora of stuff at the same time either, IDK what some games (LE) have done wrong in this regard but having the following:
- Wand: 8 + 5 Spell damage, +20% damage overtime, +22% Fire damage, 19% chance to burn
- Sword: 12 + 4 Spell damage, +30% critical hit chance, 22% chance to stun
- Magic branch: 3 + 4 spell damage, +65% Fire damage, 14% chance to slow
Kinda end up being/performing the same, in fact the sword overperforms to the other two most of the time even for a Mage (yes, even Meteor doesn’t seem to be affected by the Branch that much more than the others, perhaps slightly despite having that “huge” factor of 65%), and the only real difference is at 2-hands where outperform most of the time compared to other hand setups (as intended I guess )
On the other hand, things like: 5% chance to cast everyone back to stone-age lol (i.e. things like GD’s Doom Bolt), make the game a “hunt the right type of secondary damage” often, i.e. clearly starts outperforming the one that’s “primary”/intended by your skills (or your own attacks)
So the issue is kinda clear:
- Weapons should not contain too many components cause they “blend in” on each other often
- Main damage should still be from the “intended” sources, not some 5% chance to Execute an Elite or whatever
i.e. the weapons should feel a bit more “specific for you” (not entirely D3 but you get the idea), something like:
- Wand: 8 + 5 Spell damage, +1 to Fire skills, 15% chance to for burned minions to explode on death for 16% of their HP
- Sword: 12 + 4 Spell damage, +2 to Sword Mastery, 33% chance to add additional stack of Rend
- Magic branch: 3 + 4 spell damage, +4 to Fireball, +65% Overtime fire damage
These may feel “too narrow” or “too specific” (in a way), but also adds that bit of “context” of “I’m searching for X, Y and Z for my build” kind of thing, i.e. feels like you’ve been more rewarded the right way (i.e. +4 to Fireball and + 65% stackable fire damage feels more rewarding than +25% elemental damage, +35% damage overtime)
Unpopular opinion #2: Med/Long CDs can be good for the game
Well, both yes and no, the thing I’m gonna suggest here is the following
Let there be skills that have larger CDs (no ultimates), but allow us to be able to select the same skill at our skill bar multiple times
Have an 10 sec CD Meteor but have crazy good mana return (per kill or otherwise) ?, no prob, equip Meteor TWICE at your skill bar (heck put a Meteor on all of them if need be)
Think this allows for more of a “high risk high reward” approach on players, and think it’s a nice “change of pace” compared to the regular a/RPG games
The downside sure is there (or may be), just make most of the non-melee skills dodgeable (or at least have some sort of counterplay)
Unpopular opinion #3: Don't add a summoner class (or at least don't cater the game towards it), treat it as an afterthought in a way
The problem of Summoner classes is that you either feel too vulnerable or too safe, i.e. there’s almost no middleground for it… If summons are part of an “assistance plan” (like say traps) then might work
And what usually ends up being almost always the case is either people just summon all the stuff, all the time (and struggle in places where there’s barely stuff to die), or just use one summon for the vast majority of frontline tanking of damage (which arguably gets boring after a while) and die the next millisecond after the “tank” dies (or at least can often feel like that :P)
Unpopular opinion #4: "Traditional" inventory doesn't impact the game, even if/when some tetris involved here & there
Have been thinking this for quite a while now but the more I think about it, the “right” it feels tbh
Make a separate inventory for each type of item (swords in a sword inventory, off-hands in an off-hand inv, potions in a potion inv, relics/amulets/dreamcatchers/whatever in a separate)
The main reason behind that idea is the following “hypothesys” IMO:
The main effect of an inventory should be HOW MUCH OF WHAT (and being ready to “swap” in the right moment), not just a “disk defragment arrangements”… It’s kinda boring if you’re able to carry all the same things all the time (i.e. have same capacity in total), therefore would rather have a “separate inventory” for each type of an item, and how w/could it work ?, well simple:
- Want carry more weapons ?, equip a squire armor
- Want carry “secondary offhands” ?, equip a templar armor
- Want carry more relics/amulets/dreamcatchers ?, equip a Warlock Robe (or coif whatever)
- Want carry more armor pieces ?, equip the mount with a secondary armor-rack (instead of a chest, which would make you being able to carry significantly less gold for ex.)
- Want more quivers and throwables ?, equip a leather armor (some leather armors could have additional slot for quivers, i.e. the “chamber” at your chest area feel like a real rambo with all those arrows and throwables)
- Want more potions and Scrolls ?, equip a Mage robe (some of them could even give you some extra abilities that otherwise wouldn’t have, say smoke bomb for example)
- Want more belts ?, equip an “Imperial” armor (yeah I know the name is lame but will let your imagination work :D, where you can carry 2 or even 3 of them at the same time, or equip a small shield “inside” your Imperial armor’s belt)
Things like that, regardless of the class
What is gained by such a move is that your “inventory arrangement” focus is now taken away from Can I put this here into do I want to swap this for that at this very moment and pick it up tbh
The downside ?, probably would need to create a more advanced consumables and throwables system (i.e. have “recycleable or rechargeable but not always reliable” consumables/throwables that can feel like having a real impact in game, instead of just focus it all on gear piece/s)
The upside ?, wouldn’t you feel completely bad-a*s when you swap your weapon/armor right on the spot just to do that “extra thing” that you otherwise wouldn’t…
Long-story-short - the change should (at least on paper) make it for a dynamic inventory and a one where “rearrange stuff” may (or may not) become part of the combat ITSELF (should you choose to do that), and lo & behold, doesn’t this really go well paired with the #1 point above about weapons ?
Unpopular opinion #5 - Resistances are way too effective for what they are (semi-permanent passive upgrades)
Been hit by a Lightning spear that deals 500 damage while having 300 HP ?, yeah, that can happen, only the difference between receiving 125 damage (75% res) and 250 damage (50% res) is wayy too big
Perhaps “swap” the Resistances into absorption (how much of which damage type can you absorb before getting hit by full damage), can work with somewhere between 25% and 50% absorption rates (and keep this as a separate affix to work with, similar to how X% damage taken goes to mana works)
Guess could work with some lesser amount of resistance rates as well (cap them at 50% and add a separate affix to give you the chance to go above that), but what is important is to not allow “hoarding” of resistances, it should probably be done/designed in a way to be intended and more “part of a character’s plan” rather than a “must have”
Also don’t think that having 8, 9, 10 types of Resistances is a good idea either, keep it simple, up to 4, 5, (6 is probably the highest cap), and swap the “all resist” affix into “spell damage taken reduced by X” (i.e. reduce linearly, not percentage-wise on the “all res”)
Unpopular opinion #6: WHY all this ?
Don’t think Blizz would need to make “yet another aRPG game”, they need to REINVENT an aRPG by providing something else, something different… NOT the same thing but with a different flavour but the “same” thing largerly reinvented
The market is kinda big, and gets bigger every month arguably, the “autopilot” becomes stronger and stronger, and think that people can strongly feel/dislike the similarities all over the place
Might be a bit of “overreaction” by my part, but think that people will get “bored” if D4 kinda “copies” to what already is out there, i.e. the release/impact should feel more like a '99 UT release (or Doom Eternal in 2020) that was the case for FPS…, So should (probably) be the feel/impact of “D4 release everybody” for the genre of aRPGs I’d say
That’s it for my part, open for some discussion/s I guess