Color me very unsurprised.
No, it is NOT. The core of Diablo and other games like it is killing hordes of enemies and getting the loot from them. You earn the loot by playing the game, not by playing the trade market.
5 Likes
Yup, the amount of people that engaged in trade or even online at was a tiny fraction of those that bought the game. Partly a product of the time. But even D3 console there is far more couch co-op than there is online grouping.
2 Likes
Give us open trading, just make finding the item yourself more desirable. First time the item is traded it permanently loses 50% durability and every time after that an additional 5%. This is what happens when things are used and passed along irl (maybe not to that extent but you know). It’s why we prefer new and in D4 new should mean having it drop from a monster.
Then maybe have a very rare drop, or a special blacksmith skill that’s limited and allows you to fix a used item. There are so many cool possibilities with blacksmiths, artisans etc. that could improve trading and the item game in general. Maybe a very rare blacksmith hammer that drops on the battlefield, giving your blacksmith a 30% chance to repair the traded item’s durability and a 5% chance to give it additional defense.
Maybe when an item is traded, there’s a chance it permanently loses 5% of its stats. Maybe a rare scroll can drop that gives players the ability to trade a specific item etc etc
2 Likes
What’s Durability?
I know you have to spend some chump change in D3:ROS to keep up your gear.
I don’t want CC Warriors to get the GG items faster then a teleporting wizard.
1 Like
We need a post minimum before you can start a thread.
2 Likes
I hate, with a passion, these posts. Telling what the game should have, cause they want it. Speaking on behalf of others. I’ve never touched PoE.
4 Likes
Well, durability is the idea that your gear takes damage from attackers. Let’s say durability on an armor is 60/60. You don’t have to repair it very often. Now that you’ve traded it, it’s 30/30. Now you’re having to visit town to repair more frequently. If they make gold meaningful, this will drive players to continue farming until the item drops with perfect durability.
Alternatively, instead of trading permanently halving the item’s durability, its durability could just be more susceptible to damage now. Let’s say before the trade your armor had a 1% chance of losing 1/60 durability per attack, it now, instead, has a 2% chance (these are just random numbers).
My bad. I left off the sarcasm tag.
My point: durability is such an underrated attribute of an iten in D3:Ros that “lose 50% durability” is meaningless.
A fully broken gear set could probably be repaired with the gold collected from killing a Quil in T16.
If the item lost 10-20% of its affixes each time it was traded, then it might have a positive effect. Should not be something you could restore however.
Durability on the other hand seems useless.
BAHAHAHAHA. Dream on.
I say we leave Trading and Economy to survival online genre. There it makes much more sense.
1 Like
Give us a game that isn’t half finished bugware. How long has it been since there was an AAA title that wasn’t garbage right out of the can.
Throw in a chance to permanently destroy the item in the attempt to repair its brokenness and we got a deal.
+1
It only makes sense that if I’m wearing something that is rather fragile, if I take a fireball explosion to the face there is a chance that the flimsy cloth hat I was wearing disintegrates.
shrug RPG mechanics, who needs them in an aRPG? sigh
Should be an eye opener as to where the lack of balance exist in the cohesion of all systems, eh?
Item durability is crucial to itemization balance. Without it necessarily being a factor, itemization is practically doomed to power-creep syndromes.
Not if you could eventually gasp lose the item.
I know, it will never fly because “the majority of the casuals” find things like “failing” to be “unnecessarily annoying”
It really ought to mean something though. Durability that is.
At the very least it should instill value in coin thereby facilitating economic sanctions on other uses for coin.
1 Like
Okay, let me rephrase, D2 and D3 durability was useless. Adding a durability loss to trades in those systems would be useless.
But, if you wanted to create a healthy economy game then items getting destroyed over time as they are used is a requirement. Not that Diablo should aim to have an economy anyway.
But no, destroying items through durability loss seems like a bad idea in a Diablo game. It changes into a very different game then. Not worse, just different, not fitting the A-RPG genre. But in Zelda Breath of the Wild for example, items breaking serves a good purpose. Forcing you to switch between items as you go.
One more bot-owner topic who wants to monetize D4 for himself.
This is a major reason why I no longer pre-order games. I’ll wait for reviews and/or a couple of months after release. That way they’ve had enough time to get rid of major bugs and it might be on sale.
If it has similar items and seasons like poe perhaps it needs to have it.
But if D4 can manage drops better than poe can it doesnt need it at all…
How is it useless when I just explained how it could drive players to continue farming for their gear? Durability makes perfect sense, it grounds the items. It makes the player care just a little bit more about getting hit. It connects the items to the gold. The items aren’t just floating there, they’re physically in the world and that means they physically take damage. It’s like my car in GTA not taking damage no matter how much the cops shoot it up. If implemented correctly, it could serve a real purpose. I think the affix % loss could work as well but it would would have to be minimal or trading would be pointless. You need to target something that affects quality of life (repairing more frequently, slowing you down), not crippling the item’s purpose.
Thank you for your input.
I agree. Diablo 3’s gold ratios are bonkers.
Gold costs also tend to be useless. If you have unlimited gold, repairing items more often would not really matter. Other than the tiniest inconvenience.
Seems reasonable to me. You are buying a “used” item. It will not be as good as if you found a shiny new one. If this was a thing, the % should be large enough that you would always much rather have the item found by yourself, rather than the weaker traded one.
Trading would still be somewhat useful, since the weaker item might still be just what you needed to complement your build.