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.
I don’t think we should have unlimited gold. Diablo 3 and even Diablo 2 aren’t good examples of the amount of gold that should be dropping vs repair costs, although charges and some items in D2 do cost literally all of your gold to repair so you tend to use them sparingly.
I can agree, I would rather them go the durability route though. I would probably be fine with either tbh but I feel like % affix loss is a little harsh. I mean after a while, as the ladder/season goes by, I think trading might die out if traded items are actually inferior. Although, maybe that’s a good thing? Trading could be very prominent in the beginning of a season and as the season drags on, it would become less important and grinding would become more important? I wonder if this would be the outcome because I would enjoy that.
I get that, and agree obviously. Just seems like nearly every single game ever created has not managed to have stable long-lasting gold currency. So I’d expect the same to be true in D4. Seems better not to base any important costs on gold.
Note: obviously not gold itself that is the problem, since it is just a name. It is the endless, common supply over time, with no meaningful cap on how much you can hold.
Probably need to make it more like blood shards or whatever if it should be kept in check. Or PoEs crafting currencies, though afaik those also gets out of hand over time.
1 Like
Sure, cap how much you can hold, whatever needs to be done. Make gold important by connecting it to our gear/trading, yet don’t overload us with it, making it all moot. I feel like if a character stands in a bunch of monsters, getting wailed on, they should lose more than just health, otherwise it’s too similar to a beatemup/fighting game.
Arpg should have a little more happening, deeper systems than ‘I hit you for -100 health, now you hit me for -50 health’ because that’s just Mortal Kombat. My gear should have a chance to take damage and that’s directly connected to resources I must find in the game. Melee characters would probably have stronger armors so it’d likely take less damage than the weaker armors of casters for example. We shouldn’t throw something out the window just because previous games couldn’t do it right, we should push them to do it right this time.
3 Likes
That says nothing really, as a lot of people that bought the game(D2) likely did not go further than completing the campaign in offline.
The only relevant statistics is how many of those that actually got online and remained there to form the core online playerbase(In d2 times likely a minority, in D4 times it will be everyone that buys the game as it is a requirement) and enganged in trade/pvp(both were pretty much ‘‘end game’’ status quo online D2 as far as visible created games could indicate)
As Diablo 4 is going to be online only, this ^^ is most relevant, in order to compete with games like Path of exile 2.0 and keep the players long-term and not just profit from initial sales and stagnate as a super casual D3/console game with trashy reputation overall(thus it’s reputation over time) trade regardless of opinion is proven to create a strong community in online games, from MMOs to Arpgs(D2, PoE ). I have yet to see a valid replacement for a thriving community in online games.
@ The OP.
Of course trade doesn’t have to be ‘‘open’’ in the sense that everything goes through it, in this regard i do not agree with OP and imo that would suck as D4 is too mechanically simple/casual from the looks of it. It only works in PoE because the itemization is so friggin complex/content bloated yet it presents problem that are best avoided & D2 is obsolete in this regard.
The key judging from a lot of successful online games is to allow enough stuff through trade and create the (gold, coin etc) based economy so a thriving community is created, but leave the more worthwhile stuff outside of it, if a character wants to become ‘‘end game’’ the player needs to grind it himself and put in the effort, i highly dislike in PoE when a ‘‘noob’’ can gain access to a ‘‘Starforge’’ by grinding low level maps, removes sense of accomplishment.
Especially when D4 will involve PvP this sort of ‘‘open trade’’ must be avoided like the plague.
Should just have trading of cosmetic items only. No gear trading. Then you could have both the common and extremely rare stuff being traded. Without it affecting the gameplay.
Transmog gear, dye, mounts, pets and all that stuff we know will show up in the game.
I played it till reaching endgame. The reason I quit is because of trading. I never feel like I’m farming items myself, I feel like I’m slowly building bank to buy what my build needs.
I tried to play it many times. The only time I actually bothered to reach endgame was one I was super lucky and dropped one item that actually funded my whole endgame build.
I disagree and think that would be a mistake, i think gear should be tradable up until ‘‘end game’’, then it successively becomes restricted, otherwise it will just be a pseudo trade that carries no weight.
That’s essentially no trading 
I don’t think an economy of dyes and mounts would satisfy people coming from D2. It would be a pretty big letdown imo
I never understood the trading in D3. You bought items instead of farming for them. And Diablo series is literally a HackNSlash game, where you should somewhat mindlessly explore and hack your way into the loot. I will never understand people missing the Ah or telling it should come back to D4. When real money was involved, people exploited and abused it. Why have a pay to win system at all.
1 Like
To be fair I liked d2’s straightforward trade system, but I am also aware that its freedom has been abused by a minority who ruined the majority of player’s experience.
Trading rules need a pragmatic approach. Trading without restriction will always harm both fairness and game lifespan, since :
- Third party website keep getting created after being shut down
- Bots operate without being reported/reviewed like in FPS games
Compromizes could be to allow trading to players who:
- Are in the same game, wether they play solo or together
- Have played together in the past or recently.
The goal being to discourage 2 persons who don’t know each other from trading based on external advertizing.
Anyway it is a social, game experience, technical and legal topic. Rather complex when it involves remote countries.
2 Likes
Not just destroyed as they’re used over time, potentially destroyed in combat. It would certainly make a person think twice about whether they really wanted to fight that acid corrosiveness pack, that fireball fragging pack, player, whatever.
You can even have timer on items too. Where if you go on a very long vacation and are inactive from playing the game for awhile, upon returning you’ll find you may be in nothing but a loin cloth.
Why not?
They’re aiming to create a new form of this sub-genre into an mmo-arpg. If you want a persistent world you have to begin to consider the implications of having a persistent world that doesn’t have a stable economic system, among many other game changing factors that persistent world status brings to the genre.
If you mean “i never understood the using of real money for trading” then i get your point. But i played D2 for years and loved the ability to trade items for items. Since many items in D2 were so rare you could farm for months without ever seeing a single one drop, it was a relief to be able to find OTHER rare items that other players needed that i could possibly trade for them. Im glad trading is returning and im also glad itll be restricted, so most people will be happy with it.
Should you have many important costs based on gold, you would rectify the accrual of it. The accrual becomes a problem because there are not enough important costs on gold, or rather, the supply far outweighs the demand.
Things like exorbitantly expensive respec costs (eventually), item repair, etc are mediocre but still fail to utilize the full potential that currency dropping in-game provides.
I still think placing a coin sink (other than voluntarily dumping your coin into npc vendors such as gambling) are ideal. Again we run into the problem of catering to the easy to learn crowd, and neglecting the difficult to master audience.
Imagine if you had to log out in an inn in order to keep your character safe until the next time you login.
The innkeeper should charge for storage of your belongings while you’re logged out. If you didn’t have enough coin to sustain the duration of your logout, your items get repossessed.
That way you want to make sure you have enough coin. The implications of what items cost are staggering.
All these ideas are unfortunately ‘unnecessary complexity’ to ever manifest in this franchise. It is a tragedy that potentiality is squandered for the sake of ‘mindless clickity clicking’ friendliness.
They tried that model and it didn’t work. D1 was full of bugs, D2 was controlled by third parties and finally when they decided to control market with D3, digital tax laws changed. This forced their hand to shut it down in the end but underground markets took its place.
At all previous models open trading caused devaluation on the long run and blocking off trading didn’t exactly change anything. For longevity and keeping a stable ratio you need to restricted trading when you consider visually unlimited supply of a digital market.
I saw this story repeat so many times. Either someone doing it out of spite to troll here or we really have people who are obsessed on open trading. Can’t really tell anymore. If it’s a sock puppet thing you must have realize it by now, that even moderators can tell what’s going on.
… … … demonic nudity.
Open trading would be a nice feature. I don’t know how many time someone said “I am looking for a _____________. If anyone happens to find one, I’ll even take a cruddy one.”
Most cases, I have 2 or more of the item just sitting in my stash collecting dust. Too bad I can’t “Here dude, I have a spare in my stash, take this one.” That would be nice, especially if I am playing with someone on my friends list vs. some random pug.
Who knows, ‘x’ amount of time later one of them could ask if I need an item or if I planned on starting another another build. Boom. E Z P Z! Trades should be via a window too, not dropping the item on the ground.
Edit:
To post for the actual topic… eventually all the classes available in D1, D2, and D3 plus new ones.
All I see here is = pay to win. Just cause you don’t get an item, does not justify for an AH where you can simply buy whatever you need. Wheres the fun in that? Wup I am fully geared…
1 Like