Don’t you guys have 4K displays ?
Okay, I added a textual version.
But I still recommend to look at the poster image to get the big picture.
People said that for my shadow clone proposal.
And it landed somehow (with modifications) on Season 22.
That won’t happen since you need to equip Hemorrhagic Shard to enable effects of Slaughtering Agreement, but Hemorrhagic Shard negates all your damage (no power creep). This is where you need to read all the proposal
As of 2.7, Set powers are personal.
Think damage reduction, it is not cumulative.
if you have 2 people with 50% damage reduction, they don’t get 100%.
Since in this proposal damage is negated and damage reduction from Sets is reduced by 80%, then the conditions are met (no power creep) to allow party members to share set powers. That’s totally new.
Yes !
I added a warning in the first post.
One week might be necessary to fully understand the proposal.
I added a summary for impatient readers.
That should synthetize the intents behind the proposal.
There is a long discussion on these forums about power creep, how blizzard was simple-minded to write big multipliers on sets, that it wasn’t gameplay but just lazyness and panic over ARPG competitors, which have more depth in their itemization, and complex interactions between items.
I tried to fix this by rebooting the damage mechanic for one season, and see what happens.
Items bonuses that increase damage are negated (90%)
Others items bonuses are still functional (10%)
Items bonuses can be shared among party members
Since you deal zero damage, but still need to kill monsters (core mechanic) I introduced another alteration mechanic, called Hemorrhage, dealing Hemorrhagic loss, with its own, dedicated, low multipliers. The sum of these low multipliers distributed on many items should do the trick and make reasonable numbers to seriously injure monsters.
That said, the game will become a little bit harder, more challenging.
Isend, are you seriously asking people to dedicate a week of their lives reading over your proposal? Man, I don’t know about anyone else, but I have a life.
So can you do damage or not? If not than what’s the point? Your whole ideia is bleeding from lack of thought.
When want constructive feed back from us, you only want us to agree whit you. And if we don’t agree and say what is the problem, for example it’s over complicated, you start to defend your idea. You don’t even consider our opinions, and say we are the idiots. But if the fish can’t swimm, it’s not the waters fault.
Based on what I’m reading in the post here, you’re basically trying to revamp the game to have damage not be damage to remove power creep or something? We only have what we have and trying to revamp this game not only isn’t going to happen, there’s no point. Just keep with the OP damage theme. The items you are providing are literally something the programmers can do without making those items, from what I know about them. Effectively, you made items that would completely gimp a player for no reason other then to bring a different perspective to the game. If it were hardcoded to be this way, these might have some reason to be in the game, but as it stands, you may as well just tell people to take their sets off. It would have a similar reaction to this.
Yes !
Remove set clothes and go naked.
And take pics or it didn’t happen.
Nah you can keep sets for bonuses different than “increased damage”.
Precisely !
As you figured, the only reason is the underlying seasonal theme:
{ no power creep + shared inventory }
It is not possible to create a shared inventory without reseting the damage mechanic. I tried many times but the current damage system carries the very notion of power creep. The only escape route I see now, in order to create a shared inventory, is to cast aside the current damage mechanic, then create a new one, as a separated / siloted alteration, just like a new timeline, at least for the time of a Season.
When did this become an idea for a seasonal theme? Also, the last quote you made was made out of context, which was used to support the apparent seasonal theme. You know well and good that’s not what I meant. I appreciate the time you put into all of this, but it absolutely does not work and it never will. Just the idea that you need to WEAR items to LOSE damage is in itself, ridiculous. Nobody would ever use this even if they were trying to challenge themselves or something.
Depends on the Seasonal theme.
If the seasonal theme makes you deal 20000% less damage, I bet that giving a try with Hemo Shard is clearly an option. Only pro gamers would challenge to do it without Hemo Shard.
If you speak out of Seasonal Theme, then yes, the challenge is reversed, because challenge is now to max GR level with Hemo Shard.
NB : A Hemo Leaderboard would be required then to properly reward users going for this mechanic.
In both cases, the Hemo mechanic brings more challenge to the game, and this is great, I’d say better than falling in the trap of simple minded big flat multipliers.
O…K… Well, I’ve never seen such an elaborate, effort ridden suggestion where it shows, clearly-but it’s like the most short sighted and dumbest thing at the same time. I tried giving criticism, clearly, but you’ve made it not only overly complicated, it’s extremely ridiculous. I give up.
I don’t think introducing new challenges to the game, after 10 years of existence, is ridiculous. Far from that.
If you look gamers on Youtube they are desperately asking for new mechanics, because after 10 years they are just bored of the current game. They tried all modes, all combinations, all mechanics, and are no longer surprised.
There is no fun do do the same thing over and over each season.
The Diablo fatigue is durably installed, but only because nothing change fundamentally, whereas the ARPG landscape has evolved, with competitors renewing their gameplay every 3 months.
This proposal is ambitious, fresh but also complex, is powerly progressive through 30 items, has depth inside its itemization interactions.
I might be wrong but I sincerely think this is precisely what Diablo III 10 years veterans are asking for (at least on YouTube).
If not than what’s the point? Your whole ideia is bleeding from lack of thought.
