That’s an interesting maths problem : given a set S of bonuses from an item and its own drop-chance P, while taking into account that it can drop from a smaller set S’ of bosses, compute an increasing function f : (S,S’,P) → |N that provides a good item evaluation. By good we would assume at the very least :
- it gives a higher score to items serving great purpose in the given meta.
- it gives a higher score to rare (in terms of drop chance) items.
- Not mandatory but it outputs different values over time for the exact same parameters, since it would take into account the total mass of items already looted : this would mean that if everybody has very good items but almost no Shako has dropped yet, the value for the Shako should be high. But the Law of large numbers should already help you in giving constant scores for items so this is unnecessary in the long run.
And now you can already see you are asking too much of the developers, and your proposition will never be in, although it would be fun, it has nothing to do in Diablo 2 as it wasn’t in the original game in the first place. The “button” idea also makes absolutely no sense, it can just be part of the network protocol to also automatically update the “player’s wealth” as you define it, upon item discard/trade or loot.
It doesn’t need to be that complicated.
Nagelring - 1
Jah Rune - 300
Ber Rune - 500
Templars Might - 1000
Random numbers but see what I’m saying? Value would only be applied to items the developers choose. Random rare items (which can be good, I understand) wouldn’t be part of this.
High end Unique items (Harlequin Crest - 100, Occulus - 100, Jalals Mane - 100)
Mid Runes (Lem - Ist Value: 25-50?)
High Runes (Gul-Zod Value: 100-500?)
Just throwing together numbers. Doesn’t need to be an exact ultra mathematical meta gg. Diablo II isn’t about balance. (Just look at volcano, magic arrow, just to name a few)
Thats part of the beauty of D2 is that it isn’t balanced. Games with perfect mathematical balance I’m starting to see it’s actually not a good thing.
For example: I have been playing Magic: Legends. The cards they have use an obvious math formula not visible to the player but it really makes the game feel “the same”. Every card feels “the same” because of this ultra gg meta math to get everything balanced. Perfect balance is not fun. But I also see that having 1 meta is also not fun. (Hammerdin for example, only viable farm build for paladin. Sure you can be a zealer, but you will never clear as fast as a hammerdin. There is a difference between meta math balance and viability I think. If they buffed fist of the heavens like some of the mods, then you can be a hammerdin or a fist of the heavens. But then it just shifts the meta but at the price of having more options, which is good. Now, if fist of the heavens and hammers were balanced in a way where they were EXACTLY the same dps, the choice would become quality of use rather than what I feel like using if that makes any sense.)
What it comes down to is if the skill is fun to use. If the meta is some boring ability and the next best thing is fun but performs at 1% efficiency, we have a problem. (That is Diablo 3’s problem. Where multipliers determine viability, if skill one does 10e7 dmg and your fun ability does 10e3 dmg, you are out of luck not having that multiplier)
It would in theory be more logical and simpler to just add up the drop chance of any and all items actually picked up in whatever circumstance it happened given the MF of the user if applicable and the loot odds of the item.
Otherwise you picking and choosing what accounts for wealth when rares/sockets/ethbugged or differently rolled runewords have the same value or no value if not considered.
I see where your coming from but I dunno how accurate it would be.
Very Important in my opinion
Diablo II’s “ladder” is about reaching level 99 first.
Diablo II’s “ladder” lasts 6 months.
Diablo II’s “ladder” is over after 1-2 weeks because players will reach 99.
Logically, this suggestion of a “Wealth” leaderboard makes sense. Players continue the “ladder” to compete for nothing. They simply have fun finding items, trading, farming for some build, holy grail, etc…
-----------> It makes sense to have a leaderboard that lasts the duration of the ladder rather than only one ladder that lasts 2 weeks. <----------
I would prefer various different kinds of leaderboard than just level. For example, speed run leaderboard from normal to hell, just as an example.
I want to see a leaderboard that lasts the duration of the ladder as opposed to a one time victory and its over.
I say “wealth” leaderboard, because EVERYONE farms items the duration of the ladder. Whether its holy grail or general wealth farming, it would be cool to keep track of it all.
I mean, I’m not against a speedrun leaderboard or even a 1st dclone/uber trist but doesn’t solve the issue I’m bringing up. A ladder that lasts the duration of the ladder itself. (6 months) Otherwise, there are only a few reasons to play multiplayer ladder as opposed to singleplayer, might as well just do a plugy holy grail.
You even see it in chat. People will say “omg, people are already 95”. I think deep down other people want something more too but don’t voice there opinion on the forums. I see it in PD2, I see it in Path of Diablo, and vanilla D2 LoD. Once players hit 98/99, the ladder feels over.
If there was a wealth leaderboard, promoting finding items, for the duration of the ladder, it would give purpose for those that need it. A ladder that even a solo player can possible be a part of. (solo players have 0% chance at 1st 99 or even top 10)
We need different kinds of, some of one time first grab, some can be continuously improved in.
1 Like
I’ll say the same thing last time I saw this suggested also a pvp ladder.
no…just…no
1 Like
I really dont know if having leaderboard with perfect targets for account stealing is right way to go…
This is not a good idea because it will be very easily abused by twitch streamers and people with huge followings. Bad, bad idea.
What if the items were scanned when you pick them up? So you would need to find the item yourself or pick it up in a multiplayer game to count. How is that exploitable?
If you think a trade route would be exploitable, then we can go the non-trade route and have it so items you pick up are “scanned”. And remember, items can only be scanned once per unique item ID.
I’ll be honest with you though. I would much rather there be no leaderboards. I feel like the 99 leaderboard measures nothing except “how much sleep you lost with your group”. Its always 8 players farming baal 20 hours a day, 4 hours sleep, rinse repeat. And THAT is all we have for a leaderboard. For a timeless game like Diablo II, I find that depressing. Knowing that no matter what you do as a solo player, you can’t be competitive in anyway shape or form. A wealth leaderboard or even a high rune leaderboard would be about luck and time played, something a solo player might be able to win. We are playing a game about luck and time, so it makes sense.
All leaderboards would be dominated by the people willing to play 16 hours a day for a week straight on release.
I’m not sure what you’re talking about that introducing new and different leaderboards would allow more diverse competition. It would all be the same lifeless, super hardcore players on all of them.
The only realistic leader board of this nature would be for the players who found the highest quantity of distinct uniques - holy grail. It would be insane luck if anyone completed this during a ladder season, but it would be interesting to see. I guarantee it would cause some people to dedicate an unhealthy number of hours to this game over many ladder seasons.
You can’t value wealth objectively in this game. Zod is not more valuable than Jah just because it is higher and more rare, nor is 1 Sur worth as much as two Lo, even though it requires two Lo to make one Sur.
A Holy Grail leaderboard would largely comprise of the same people who are on the leveling leaderboard.
People who play more get more items and therefore more chances to complete the item list. So it would largely all be the same people, barring someone having freakish luck and getting all their drops back to back.
Yup. There is no real pvm leaderboard that would not include the people who play the most. Nor should there be.
Put in the time, reap the rewards… thats generally how reality works.
Why should anyone who casually does anything deserve to be at the top of that respective thing.
That’s not the point of a leaderboard.
i like the idea to having an additional reason of continuing the ladder, besides the leaderboard. but i agree with the others that it should not be another leaderboard just for the sake of lasting till ladder end. (Bots will win this wealth leaderboard anyways)
I would rather try to find something else that keeps the players playing.
maybe some kind of “Loot Index” (ála PokéIndex). Try to find or trade all uniques, set items in the game and get a reward at the end, or after completing 80%, or whatever. Gotta Loot em all ! 
Once someone reaches 99 the ladder is over?
Your proposal is not solving the issue. The person who reaches level 99 first will be so much ahead on your “wealth” leaderboards that nobody will even think they can get ahead of them even if they stop playing for this ladder.
That’s what a leaderboard is. Whoever can spent the most time playing will be ahead (Hardcore might be different due to the fact that you can die)
What you are asking for is not a redesigned leaderboards but an Achievements board. Where you will get an achievement for big events like completing every difficulty, crafting your fisrt runeword, finding a high rune, completing the game with every char, killing andariel 1000 times etc…
Completing the most achievements you can per season will give you more sense of accomplishment as casual players will never be able to compete on the leaderboards. And that is how it must be.
I personally have no issue with the way it is now.
Does a marathon end when the first one reaches the goal?, no, it ends when the last one reaches the goal.
Same for the diablo 2 seasons.
Yes it ends for the first? and afterwards ends for all other reaching the goal!
Imo, I do have some better ideas: Competition improvements! - #3 by RedMunch-2849