D4: Would be a joke without trade

RNG-driven or not (same drops for everyone) doesn’t change the fact that trading kills the competition.

That’s the idea behind SSF. It could be extended with zero-rng Seasonal mode.

Grinding stands too, but the majority of grinders are clueless about it. In fact many of these would prefer trading and power creep.

I am for a D4 with the most modes as possible - open-trading, SSF etc… There just won’t be any meaningful competition in the open-trading ones and I would be fine with that as long as there exists some adequate competition. SSF with zero-rng (predetermined drops from a set pool) would serve for such non-luck based efficiency competition.

It cannot kill that which doesn’t exist.

It could be, and maybe I’d be inclined to try it. Though I am more of a pvper than some proud AI slayer. Again though, how many would realistically prefer such a mode?

It does, and precisely because these players make out the majority of ARPG lovers they will have it their way.

The only way I see proper competition existing in D3 without tampering with the core elements of the game would be to introduce some seperate pvp arena with different gearsets and where player skill rather than raw time (or money) spent will be decisive. This has been pretty much confirmed to not happen for D4, so what you can expect is some highly unbalanced pve dungeons similar to the map system of PoE. If you want to tell yourself that it will be a balanced proper competition (without trading) then go ahead. I wouldn’t hold my breath though.

I don’t have anything against people enjoying absurd things (grinding + trading + power creep) as long as this doesn’t cut the meaningful activities and those wanting a proper platform to measure their in-game skill.

PvP in D3 would be like 1v1 MOBA without the neutral minions - it won’t become popular due to being a sub-form of already existing competitions with higher skill cap.

Diablo PvE however could easily become an e-Sport in two directions:

  • SSF efficiency competitions
  • Improved Challenge Rifts

Well, they officially announced there won’t be any global LBs in Diablo 4. So, I guess I won’t play the game much if they don’t change their plans.

The good however is the aRPG scene would get a lot of fresh blood in 2022, so I hope the lack of global LBs in D4 won’t be the reason for me to not play any aRPG at all by that time.

You think so? I think they could be very interesting, but alas, they are not happening.

I must admit the GRs with leaderboards had a lot of potential, but the implementation was so poor because they tried to lump together everyday grind with competition in the same mode. CRs on the other hand are just straight out boring because you do not play your own toons.

I don’t think D4 engine is on the level of these to become interesting - for example having abilities manipulating the surroundings/environment (like making holes in walls, ground etc). With the current engine these would just be a sub-MOBA at best. They could be interesting for a while just because it would be something new.

There is another option how to integrate PvP into an e-Sport making it PvPvE - a battleground (large map) allowing for 100 players for example who start without items at different places, loot the environment, kill the stuff in it and eventually each other. Yes, there would be luck involved due to randomized drops, but it would be more interesting than the classic PvP option (at least for me) due to its higher replayability and player interaction (FFA PvP and looting).

1 Like

Where is success in bot-run-economy, and grinding currency to buy everything for your build? This is a total failure. Fun only for botters.

No offense. I think you should play PoE instead. Loving how D3 is now, we hunt for loots, rather than selling and buying gears. I want to go out there and kill mobs, not spending endless hours to sell loots just to buy gears I need. That’s boring to me. But, different ppl have different preferences. That’s why there are games like PoE for ppl like you.

Exactly. I get how frustrating it can be not getting that drop you need. But it feels so much better when it does drop as opposed to just buying it. Many in favor of trade have also championed the loot hunt as if trading doesn’t just ignore it.

One word: crafting. :confetti_ball:

I’m all for crafting. I’m not for crafting some junk and cubing it in hopes to get what you want.

Nope, plenty of us wouldn’t laugh, we would very much prefer not to have any trading. Trading makes A-RPGs worse.

D4 should have zero trading.

Finding loot shouldn’t be frustrating, that’s an itemization problem, it’s a completely separate issue. If you have to find that upgraded version of a specific set item or unique that gives a bonus to the one ability you want to use for your class… that’s bad. Why should devs limit this by creating specific gear with overpowered effects for specific skills?

It feels better to have a variety of ways to plan your build that organically evolves as you progress. If you are just farming the next tier of items for bigger numbers, something is wrong. And even with good itemization that diminishes reliability on specific builds, if drops from farming mobs is completely RNG it’s still not ideal.

Here are some ways other games have tried to fill in the blanks:

Enchanting. Basically, mechanics that let you somehow customize affixes and suffixes on different items. This doesn’t have to be one system either. For example, a competitor’s game lets you farm special affixes and suffixes that only drop in special areas (shaped gear, etc), you can also add a modifier to gear (labyrinth enchants), unlock modifiers through discovering enchants on items (veiled enchants), and harvesting modifiers from special monsters through a bestiary mechanic.

Crafting: Again, this doesn’t have to be one system where you farm generic ‘rare’ materials from anything. Different materials can, and probably should, do different things. Just like enchanting, at it’s core it’s also about letting you customize gear you have, too, not just creating new gear from stuff. Diablo 2 had jewels and runewords as complementary systems. Jewels weren’t like the gems that they arguably replaced, they rolled with random effects like rare items. Additionally, sockets on legendary items were relatively limited to avoid power creep and allow players more freedom to build powerful rares since they had more sockets. This can take other forms too, and you can start going more in depth by designing challenges built around unlocking the ability to do this too.

Now, even with all this trading is still desirable, because different people will want to find different stuff. You’ve got a larger variety of things to look for. If you find a rare spell material that isn’t great for your build, trading it for a rare defensive material might be something that begins to make a lot of sense. Even with this, it still isn’t guaranteed to be the only activity you do to progress since there’s still randomization involved, it just adds another layer. And even if you trade items, relative rarity and scarcity can now use more meaningful currencies like these materials instead of something that has no value in the game like gold or something generic you find anywhere… thereby mitigating people just abusing the system so that it’s easier to get power from trading than playing. You’ll notice games that get this right have both systems feeding into each other.

Agreed. I also think people way overestimate the popularity of trading. It saw small
Participation rates in D2 that Brevik wished he put in an AH. Participation in D3 below enough they canned it. And before anyone claims that legislation that would have had deal with taxes or fees for online transactions, if they were making enough revenue off the RMAH, they would have dealt with the new law.

I imagine if I had a talent for such things, with a clear and obvious method laid before me, I might view trading as an “irresistable avenue”. It’d be like if D4 could be won with calculus. I mean, what mathematician would ignore that option?

(Except, there’s a sizable “calculus community” that enjoys that option, what a bother.)

Historically, it was players (not devs) that distill “peak-performance” from games. Because in a truly dynamic game there are simply too many possibilities for one software studio to account for. If devs can do that, it means the game is easily solvable (or else they’re masterminds at their highly dynamic game, that would be nice).