D4 - Class fantasies ARE more important than Balance

General Discussion
21

Yep. Barbarians since the ancient Romans was never a glamorous therm.

But in a RPG context, people hear barbarian and expect to see “Conan”

1 - Be a antiquated concept doesn’t means that is bad
2 - There are a lot of classic RPG’s without classes. Arcanum for eg, you don’t choose a class. On Gothic, you also doesn’t choose a class. You start in the bottom of the food chain and needs to find someone capable and willing to teach you to learn anything. Your animations and stances changes once you become trained on one/two handed fighting and it is amazing. Never saw it in any other game.

And to learn magic for example, Corristo only teaches you on mid of chapter 2 if you joined his camp and answered his questionnaire rightfully . You can join the Fire/Water mages or the Sect camp and if you don’t talk to a master to teach you magical circles, you will never learn magic. You “class” is more like your “title” on Gothic 1/2/3.

Dark/Demon Souls classes affect the starting equipment and starting stats. But you can pick royalty and never use soul arrow.

Games without classes can work but IDK if Diablo could work without classes.

RPG codex is the biggest RPG forum in the world, almost everyone liked the implementation of D2’s necro. Except a guy who argued that be able to raise skeletons from a swarm of insects corpse makes no sense.

https://rpgcodex.net/forums/index.php?threads/best-necromancy-on-rpgs.130867/

Yep. When every monster felt like just different health and damage bars, the games becomes very monotonous.

22

A quick glance shows a lot of people listing other games rather than going on about how great D2 is, though this is blatantly missing my point.

I do like the D2 necromancer, but your arguments as to why we should stick to the past almost always boil down to an appeal to tradition fallacy or an attempt to claim that “that’s what people want”.

Which as I pointed out to you in another thread: If we stuck to what was popular and what we had been doing already, we’d be stuck in an infinite loop of making the same games and Diablo wouldn’t even exist as it does now. You’d never have the D2 necromancer if somebody didn’t decide to try something new.

I’d also have to agree with the first response there: Path of Exile does necromancy better, even including D2’s verison. It’s more interactive and I get to actually command my minions.

23

They are mentioning a lot of RTS exactly because there are few RPG’s who did this archetype right. But my point is that people automatically assume create, controlling and commanding undead and negative energies when you say “necromancer”.

The fact that Necro spells on D2 deal Magical or Poison damage instead of elementals makes even his offensive spells different mechanic wise. Be able to make a iron golem from a item is also amazing. The IA curses too.

D3 has good blood spells BUT be able to use it VS skeletons is just silly.

Having they scaling with WD when they disappear during animation, is ludicrous silly.

But people who make products SHOULD deliver what people want and expect. I saw relative medium sized studios failing after they created a product that nobody cares. Spellbound Entertainment last developed game was ArcaniA. The last game developed by N-Space was Sword Coast Legends. This while GGG with a small budget managed to develop the most played isometric diablo like ARPG.

I don’t believe that if D4 becomes a D3 clone Blizzard will fail because Blizzard is extremely bigger. Blizzard would need at least a dozen of WC3 reforged failures to fail(and is likely that in that case, Bliz will switch to 100% mobile)… The worst thing that can happen is another 10 years with GGG dominating the SUBgenre.

BioWare is not big as Blizzard and see how many awful games they are releasing. The last good Bioware game was DA:O and even DA:O is extremely inferior to NWN1 or BG1/2

24

I hope the arsenal system doesn’t pigeonhole Barbarians into dual wielding only. I hope there is a viable option to use a single 2-handed weapon.

25

Which given that I didn’t say a necromancer shouldn’t have this stuff, it doesn’t run contrary to my point which is that the specifics about how they create, control, and command the undead and negative energies don’t need to follow any sort of rules.

People who make games should also not be afraid to innovate or do something different, and it’s not just about Diablo sticking to being a dark and gothic game like previous games have established is part of the Diablo formula.

In most of the threads you make, you argue against just about any idea that doesn’t stick to the old ways of doing things.

You argue against new ideas all while ignoring the fact that your beloved Diablo 2 necromancer only exists because Blizzard gambled on a new idea that wasn’t what was popular or what “everybody liked” back in the 90s.

Sure those gambles don’t always pay off, but without developers taking them the video game industry would have stagnated a long time ago way more than some genres already are because of the mentality of “X game made a lot of money, so let’s just copy what they did”.

The only BioWare game I’d say is truly awful is Anthem.

ME:A the hilarious animation problems aside, the combat itself and the gunplay is really quite solid. The characters and story aren’t amazing, but neither are they terrible.

Of course I wouldn’t say any of BioWare’s actual stories are all that great anyway, even the old BioWare. Their characters have always been the more interesting part and the story is usually serviceable at best.

Which DA:I is still a pretty good game. DA2 is even mediocre, and Mass Effect 1-3 are all good games even if they screwed up the ending to 3.

Though I will acknowledge that Mass Effect had a split community primarily because the game is part RPG part Third Person Shooter, and the later games shifted the focus towards better shooting mechanics.

26

Class fantasies ARE more important than Balance

I’d say you’re wrong.

People care about balance in PvE as well. If one out of five classes is extremely OP on release, while the others are weak, the players might not like that.
Sure, you can tell them “just play the OP character till Blizzard fixes the rest few months down the line” and some might be fine with that, but some wont be, they might refund the game and quit for good, because their inicial experience was ruined.
First impressions matter.

I’d also say, that Blizzard can’t afford another launch fiasco.

1 Like
27

Not true. M&M VI(1996) had reanimation and curses as “dark magic” and M&M VII/VIII allowed you to even become a Lich. Baldur’s Gate 1/2 also allowed you to be a Wizard focused on necromancy(1998)

But again. Innovations that increase the replay value, increases the diversity and cool factor are one thing.

“”“innovations”“” like removing features and homogenization is not a good thing.

You are assuming that a little diferentiations in each class/build will lead to one build being 500000 times better than another.

And is not. Each class with a uniqueness like Barb Arsenal system is not the same thing as having nonviable classes

28

Arsenal should apply to all classes in D4. Really ridiculous if arsenal is a class trait for barbs only in D4 unless Barbs have weaker skills.

D2 allowed two weapon sets for all classes with skills assigned with each weapons set. That allowed a character to change attack style when one style was ineffective. A sorceress could switch from a cold style to a fire style instantly or an amazon from bow to spear, etc.

29

Sure the concept of a necromancer existed but the idea of an action RPG was not something that was all that popular and the way in which Diablo did it was basically unheard of.

In an era where combat was secondary to other game systems for the genre, reducing a RPG to primarily combat isn’t something that would really be seen as increasing diversity, cool factor, or replayability.

Based purely on what was popular and what people liked in the mid 90s, the original Diablo actually shouldn’t have worked all that well and without that you’d never get Diablo 2 in the way that it ended up being,

I’ve also not said that removing features or homogenization was a good thing, but I’ve also seen you argue against new ideas that weren’t doing either of those and your arguments always is to fall back on the old “but that’s not how games have done it before”.

Which innovation usually requires trying something in a way that isn’t the way it’s already being done or the way that “everybody likes”.

30

I think something like DH with perpetual invulnerability back when D3 launched was pretty OP.

I didn’t say anything about “little diferentiations”. I said, that gameplay and balance should come first an fantasy – second.

I never brought up the Arsenal system. I was responding in general.
As to the arsenal system, we would first have to wait and see many things, before we can tell.
For example:
Do weapons have big offensive or defensive stats… let’s say something like Doombringer from D2 with 20% increased maximum life.

If bonuses like that even exist on weapons in D4 and are all active, Barb could potentially be a bit OP… but we really don’t know at this point in time.

31

I don’t get some people here…

Druid getting a unique trait making his magic felt mechanic wise more “primal” than sorceress, increasing class identity, replay value and the overall gameplay experience = No.
Making druid unarmed shifting attacks and spell scaling with the size and shaprness of his axe = Amazing, lets implement this “”““inovation””“”

Yep. But i was talking more about “unique traits”, like Arsenal system. Having a little damage bonus if your assassin is attacking the enemy back will be a cool unique trait and will not break the game.

I don’t think that the Barb will be using the affixes of all equipped weapons.

Well, dungeon crawlers like Dungeon Hack and “Free-Roam Blobbers” like Wizardry and M&M was extremely action focused with tiny story. Blizzard is amazing in popularizing genres and sub genres but is not innovative as people portrait.

The mmo genre becomed far bigger with WoW. Ultima online on 90s had the peak subscribers at 240,000 and was a huge success. The peak subscriber number for WoW is 15 million.

Hero Shooters. Overwatch was not the first hero shooter but arguably made it mainstream.

EDIT : The first RPG’s on 70s and 80s had poor story due HW limitations…

32

Can’t really compare to D2 as there were no rifts. There wasn’t a constant competition to see who could do the highest rift. Also, there was no real monster scaling in D2, so all classes became gods in the end game.

If D4 can come up with some sort of end game that doesn’t have classes competing against each other, balance wouldn’t matter as much. Especially if there is no monster scaling.

33

I don’t think there will be any fair competition early on in any aspect of the game due to skill points. depending on how high a skill can go, you may see some people with maxed out 2 skills and low for the rest, maybe even some without a full compliment of 6, if that is allowed.

Frankly, as long as there is no endless difficulty system like the way GRS work, any competition should be fine.

34

The way I understood the Arsenal system was that, while you could have 2 sets of weapons equipped, you only get the benefit from one weapon set at any given time. Basically making it an automated weapon switch button. No reason that should be overpowered.
Just an interesting gimmick that sets the class apart from the other classes.

35

Even Vanilla D3 din’t had GR and GR is not a good source of competition is just “do the same thing over and over with bigger multipliers everywhere”

Diablo 2 difficulty not only dictates the damage/health. Each monster “level up” and has a character sheet changing completely on his resistances, immunities, moddifiers, spells that he can cast(…)

Yep. Same with druid being more dependent on the environment. I an not suggesting “no damage” or “highest DPS”, only a minor bonus and penalty

36

At this point you’re just trying to argue semantics while ignoring my actual point that innovation requires doing something that isn’t just repeating what is currently popular or what is believed that everybody likes.

Your arguing against my example rather than my point. It doesn’t really matter if it was Diablo or M&M that was the innovative game when it came to the genre. The point still stands that somebody had to go against what was popular for a game like Diablo 2 to even exist.

There’s a lot of games and genres we wouldn’t have right now if somebody hadn’t decided to go against what was popular and what was thought that people wanted.

Also games like WoW aren’t lacking in innovation just because they weren’t the very first game to use the concept. The way in which you approach a genre can be innovative.

Diablo 4 classes don’t need to play to some very specific old fantasies of classes in order for those classes to be good, and assuming it even has a necromancer it doesn’t specifically have to try to be a Diablo 2 necromancer for it to be good.

37

By that logic Diablo should have never been created because in 1996 an isometric RPG wasn’t something people expected or wanted.

No. Developers should be free to put their own spin on things, not merely make a graphically enhanced version of the playstyle you like every few years. That’s how the genre evolves.

38

Actually, it should have stayed true to its turn based origins. Plenty of run of the mill turn based RPGs. Good thing the guys at Irvine insisted it be real time combat or David Brevik would still be an unknown.

39

I strongly agree with the mindset “immersion doesn’t matter and changes for the sake of changes”

Sorry if i an oversharing BUT IDK how to explain my point without entering in certain details. I an Brazilian. And an descendant of a Baron. Just see portraits of the lands that my ancestor owned and comparing with now after the fall of monarchy is heartbreaking. Such place that looked like a paradise on earth now looks like a “favela”… And was not only his lands. Brazil was one the most prosperous countries in Americas during imperial times is now the most violent hellhole in this world. Will not enter in much detail about everything, but i hate everything about where i live and passed a lot of troubles. Lost my job, my girlfriend, failed at university and got skin cancer in less than 6 months. Also lost a opportunity to live in another country due awful “diversity hiring” but will try not get much political. I will not post prove of everything. But my skin is very sun sensitive, here is a photo of what one day of sun does to my skin and yes. I used “protection”

https://imgur.com/a/iEqQfFb

So, RPG’s was a good escapism for me. Doesn’t matter how many “shirt” i an needing to pass in my life. When i play a CRPG, i an in another world and don’t need to care about my IRL problems.

Games like D3 felt more like a boring mindless “”“work”“” exactly because the game mechanics are completely dissociated from the game’s lore and universe. This is why also isekai novels/anime/etc are becoming so popular.

Nobody is wanting to take out devs freedom. Only voicing his opinions and if they will not read, read and ignore, read and consider or read and implement, is up to the devs;

The competition is important but even on PvP focused games. The most requested weapon on BF1 was a version of Springfield M1903 without scope, only because people wanna play “US rifleman”, that weapon variant would be awful because Springfield is a good rifle to be used at long range in the game, best sweetspot, less drag and 800 m/s muzzle speed(lose only to GW 98 with 880 m/s).

DICE is a example of company who cares about his players. They had a CTE test server and changes before implemented in the final game was tested on CTE. While BF 1 was amazing, BF 5 in other hands, was made with complete disregard to the fan base.

Yep. But the “organs” mechanics should have been maintained IMO.

40

and the point is you aren’t everyone
and putting necromancer in D2 was a new idea for Blizzard

Druid is just a spell casting barbarian in the first place
And second D2 which is where it is has your favourite skill system and damage is more inline with skills than how sharp their weapon is
and D4 is going to have a skill system
So why are you inventing problems where none exist