Being free plays a much bigger part and it cannot be ignored.
Obviously making a game free will boost player participation in the short run and could be a good strategy but such games are in need of high player retention in the long run. This can only be achieved by offering a quality game. So to me it doesn’t really matter how many tried out the game, it’s about how many keep playing it. That is the ultimate verdict for arpgs (including P2P ones). And features like trade is one of those things that can keep it active long after release. Being a free game is not one of those things, so in that sense trading or other features are more important.
1 Like
My 2 cents on the level cap debate between the people here…
Having a level cap is a bad system to begin with let alone a low number like 40… Just right out of the gate the many reasons why having a literal levelcap are as follows:
1. Repeat items mean virtually nothing unless gotten at level cap
2. Level caps are realistically a base level they can design content around, which sounds like a plus! But in every case so far it usually adds up to a shallow experience until you reach that “base game”
3. Tied into the #2 point, levels (like in d2 or PoE) should contribute to your character, not be the start of your “real” character.
To extrapolate on each point now so i can hopefully give some weight to my explaination.
Point 1. I personally think repeat items are garbage design… The d2 in me recognizes how well the system of having uniques to offer stats and styles that rares cant make them useful regardless of level is so much more engaging and useful than the current ‘oh a level 14 x-item! Its so cool… then again a level 31 x-item… yay its stats are a bit higher so i’ll wear that… Ahh finally a level 40 x-item… Bah it has garbo stats, try again’. The same thing goes for multiple classes. But thats a problem with itemization and the ‘mainstat’ dilemma.
Point 2. The first playthrough that you do, levels matter. You get the excitement of trying new skills, finding stronger items and learning just what the game has to offer. The reason I see it as a downside is: the level cap is essentially the games way of saying ‘this is all i can teach you, now apply it to the rest of the game’. Sure, there will be nuances and metas to discover, maybe some secrets and lore that we missed, maybe fill out achievements but ultimately that segment of the game is 1 and done… and yet we are forced to redo it over and over for every character we make, every season we replay… we’re forced to redo the ‘tutorial’ side of the game every. single. time.
Point 3. in d2, levels meant: unlocking possible drops (item classes, uniques buried in treasure classes, gambling was tied to ilvls/clvls), unlocking skill points and reaching skill level requirements, alleviating hitting/dodging mechanics of monsters, added to your statpool for meeting gear requirements or just buffering your hp, damage or accuracy. In PoE levels translate roughly the same way. Ultimately all levels were a benefit to get and yet not a requirement to get. (eg. low level dueling)
In d3… levels are merely a step towards the start of the game… each class has maybe 4-5 legendary items that can be gotten pre-70 as well as around 5-10 items for any class… of those items something like 1-2 per class can be cubed as they offer something actually valuable in the orange text. Ultimately levels were only stats to make each level feel meaningful. stats automatically boosted for leveling and stats on the new higher level items… but they aren’t useful they are required in order to survive and/or deal enough damage to get the next level… unless that level is 60 for vanilla or 70 for RoS then you’d be done “stepping” finally lol.
Its more a knock on the choice of itemization, but its still directly tied to leveling
I have a thread already on my take of the Itemization (and leveling) that i’d love it if you could either weigh in on or better yet, add to! add your own perspective and wishes.
Cheers! Thanks for reading my rant.
Edit1: didn’t address why ‘as low a level cap as 40’ was a bad idea…
The purpose of the level cap is to even the playing field and bring balance to the leveling system as a whole… As was already mentioned, having a level 20 character take a decade to level to, or a 440 character take as long as d3 doesn’t change the problem, its a seperate debate on what feels better from blizzard for its userbase. Tempo is very important to any first time users.
No the problem with it is, blizzard is madly in love with a new level cap to bridge the gap between content and expansions. If they make a system where playing for a decade to hit 40 is in play… even if somehow they make that feel amazing to do… the next grind of 40 to… say… 50? well that’d probably require another decade to achieve… If the expansion is what is inspiring you to buy the game for the first time, grats, you now have 2 dacades of play ahead of you… obviously that wouldn’t happen, they’d drastically ramp up the exp earned for new content, or merely lower the required amount to better fit in line… these changes spell out the fact that the system was actually broken to begin with.
again, i always go back to d2 as the example… vanilla… lvl 99 max level, LoD… level 99 max level, the pacing didn’t need to change at all because the system carried itself very well.
1 Like
Apart from what I’ve previously said about carrots, I had the feeling about that lv40 meaning another “Max level to start playing”, but I couldn’t explain where did that feeling came from. Now you’ve given me the key.
Lv40 is an abnormally low level for what we’re used to coming from Blizzard. Given that the usual strat by Blizzard, used both with WoW and D3, is “+10lv/expansion”, that seems to be pointing to an even stronger relying on that, and given the treatment both those 2 games give to the concept of “max level” as a requirement, I see hints of the story repeating.
¿Can they “stop” the player at 32-35 before the exponential is too huge when the max level is 40? Sure. ¿Can they do the same at 42-45 for a max of 50 in the first expansion? Sure. ¿Can they do the same at 52-55/60? Sure. But given that they seem to be looking to (in my opinion) the wrong reference of D3/WoW, if I had to put my money on which (max “unreachable” level vs reachable required level) of them will choose, I’d have to put it in the D3/WoW one. That’s why I needed to say that before it’s too late.
I also agree with Shadout about the bad designed affixes having its part in the issue.
However, in my opinion, 4/2 means a simplification of the items. You always have that streamlined soulless and constrained structure not allowing for the “have only 3 rolls instead of 6, but make them godly rolls”, or “have 9 less powerful ones, but equivalent”. Even those 9 rolls could consist in 3 pretty much “universally good”, and the other 6 being class/build dependant: affixes 4 and 5 could be good for you and the other 6 to 9 serve as utility, while in the hands of another character, affixes 5,6,7 and 8 be good for him, 9th an utility and 4th useless. I know, a nightmare balance-wise, so that’s one of the points of not having things like GR.
Not having a lvl cap would be a terrible idea. Paragon all over again.
Which should certainly be the case.
D2 and PoE got lvl caps too though, so the two are not contradictory.
Well, I actually do think the 4/2 system is inherently bad. You should not have categories of “stronger affixes” and “weaker affixes” on purpose. That is kinda like giving up on balancing the affixes.
It was also a quite arbitrary separation, the secondary affixes ended up as a garbage collector of various stuff that was either completely useless, and other affixes that were sometimes really strong. Some of the best designed affixes in D3 was in the secondary affix category; like Pick up radius had some interesting synergy with a few skills/passives. Quite useless for many other builds.
Hence I’d rather see a affix separation based on dmg/survival/utility.
So we cant get a rare full of dmg affixes. That doesn’t mean dmg affixes should be considered as stronger than defense affixes though. The goal should still be that all affixes are highly useful and valuable for some builds. If an affix exists in the game, that is not, then buff or change it. And if an affix is desired by everyone, then nerf the heck out of it (or better, change it, so it simply cant be used by all builds).
Edit: ONLY talking rare items here. Legendaries should not be limited by any rules on how many dmg/defense/utility affixes an item can have. Maybe you have a legendary with a strong defensive legendary affix, but maybe then it has 4 fixed dmg affixes as a counter balance. Legendary design should be ‘handcrafted’. Breaking the rules that exists for rare item generation should be the norm.
Outside of having some of the stats be universally good (should be avoided, with vitality/HP maybe being the one exception), I 100% agree this is how itemization should be. Imo only Grim Dawn really manages this. D2 did it to a lesser degree too.
If some players really desire an item, even though only 4 of 8 affixes is something that is really good for them, while other players want the same items, due to some of the other affixes, then your itemization is on the right track. Since it indicates that “perfect” items does not really exist, and everything you equip is a trade-off, as it should be.
2 Likes
I believe that there can be more universally good stats if they’re reserved for certain cases and not belonging to the “random roll pool”. The “+1 to all skills” from D2 as an example, I believe that it was a very sexy roll, the only flaw it had was balance-wise in a certain case (Spirit, I’m looking at you). Others like “% reduced damage” and so are in the same case, as long as they are not in a generic loot pool turning them into a “requirement”, I find them OK and even desirable.
EDIT: now an exception came to my mind: elemental resistances. These are, in my opinion, one of the ingredients that make the monster types matter. D3 added more, so there’re something like 10 different elements. However, this, instead of making it richer, turned in into making the game poorer. With so many resistances, single resistances became meaningless, so it all turned into “all resistances”, so “toughness”, making the element of the monster irrelevant. As long as it’s clearly capped it’s OK to me.
1 Like
One of my main issues with Diablo 2 itemization was exactly the +1 all skills. Too universally good. Too dominant. Too boring.
I’d much rather see +1 fire skills, +1 AoE skills, +1 summoning skills etc.
On the other hand, I also dont think affixes should be too narrow (no class-based affixes). So there shouldnt be +1 fireball skill, that only Sorc can use.
Make it +1 fire projectile skills or whatever, so that potentially multiple classes can use that affix.
Even for resource affixes, do the same. Dont have “+100 mana”. Have the affix “+100 base resource”, where the tooltip is automatically translated to whatever class is looking at the item. Might be 100 mana, 20 rage etc. So items with resource affecting affixes are not locked down to one class.
Make it ‘% reduced melee/ranged/magic dmg’ instead, and they are already much more interesting and diversified.
Mostly talking normal affixes here. On rares in particular, but also legendaries.
Legendaries can break all rules. But they shouldn’t for the most part. There might be a few (few as in 2-5 in the entire game) legendaries which had ‘% reduce all dmg’ as part of what makes them special. And a few legendaries with +1 all skills. But in most cases, they too should use the more specialized affixes. To give each item a specific purpose and indentity.
Then you can always (and should imo) have ways to create/change items, to make “randomized legendaries”. Whether true Blizzards legendary consumable, or (hopefully) somewhat better methods. Those should however then follow the rules and limits of rare item generation. With the benefits and drawbacks that adds. Resulting in both legendaries, “randomized legendaries” and rares fulfilling different niches in end-game.
I agree that you should be careful not to make affixes too specialized. And yeah, not have 10 different dmg types or resistances, making each seem irrelevant.
Somewhere in the middle is best. Affixes that are useful for a decent share of all builds. Like if less than 1% of all builds might desires in an affix (still not talking legendary affixes) then maybe it is too narrow. If more than 50% desires an affix, it is probably too broad.
Can you give me your source where you saw/read/heard that level 1 to 39 would be a 1 hour tutorial and that the end game would unlock at level 40 like on Diablo 3 ?
All we know is that the D4 team decided that level cap would be 40 and that they want to implement a Paragon system to continue the character’s progression. This gives us no idea how fast our characters will progress (is that it takes 1 hour or 10 years to reach level 40), nor if they will increase level max with the expansions, nor when the End game content will unlock, nor how the Paragon system will work (and if it will be similar to D3’s). I just hope that D4 team will give us answers in their future quarterly reports, instead of throwing ourselves into assumptions we are unable to verify.
I’m not sure about that. I own Grim Dawn and just played a couple hundred hours before taking a very long break.
PoE however, I keep getting more and more impressed every time I try it. This last update, the graphics and combat looks better than Diablo 3’s, I have a ton of rpg elements, the uniques I’ve found have been unique, powerful and fun, I’m enjoying the flask system for now, I just keep getting more and more impressed with PoE. No longer is PoE the game with deeper rpg elements and poorer graphic, the graphics are as good or better. My Wizard or whatever it is looks so cool.
1 Like
Different games will appeal to different players. I never get comparing a game to another specially diablo to games like GD or PoE. If every game was like PoE in this genre…then what’s the point of playing other games? I have said it and will continue to say it, keep Diablo…diablo and play PoE or GD if you like it better with what they incorporate in their ARPG game.
I don’t want the PoE system in the diablo games I enjoy playing.
1 Like
I want many of the PoE systems in Diablo because a lot of PoE systems have a lot of Diablo 2 influence and are a lot of fun imo.
I don’t want to see the skill gem and orb currencies of PoE moved to Diablo, those are definitely unique to PoE and it would start feeling like a ripoff if Diablo started dropping currency orbs.
1 Like
Apart from that balance issue I’ve previously mentioned, I should also say that it was a bit abused in my opinion.
Anyway, I believe that the stat itself wasn’t that dominant, and here comes balance again: Spirit for shields had +2 to all skills, and still many builds prefer a Stormshield, which has no bonus to all skills. Imagine if it were just a +1 instead given that the runes are that common. Or Exile rw, which is a bit closer to your proposal, buffing just offensive auras. Or whatever having +1 to all skills if combined with other affixes (example: melee rating, etc) that make the item overall more useful for a certain type of builds than others.
I mean, the huge sexyness of +1 to all skills can be retained if it’s properly restricted to some cases and in combination with other affixes, that is, in items which are 100% specifically designed and not completely left to randomization.
EDIT: lol, exactly what you’ve said here, missed that part, sorry XD
I agree that part was horribly explained by me. I’ll update the OP accordingly. In the meantime, you have the detailed explanation about what I wanted to say here:
1 Like
This is the stuff I’m talking about. People rant about PoE and wanting diablo to become this where as stuff like skills being gems socketed into items…??? Nah, that’s insulting to diablo.
I would have to delve back into PoE to list all the stuff that is not diablo and should not be in diablo but I quite PoE for a reason, it’s not my style of ARPG I like. Would be like me trying to remember sacred 2 when I played it to “compare” another ARPG to diablo.
If you look at a lot of posts comparing PoE to Diablo…you’ll see why I respond with “just no” as many of these people literally want diablo to be PoE.
I’ve been a bit disconnected from PoE lately. Have they already updated the graphics and animations? I thought it was coming with PoE2 (or perhaps Chris said something at Exilecon about bringing them if they were available earlier?). Have they already fixed the dancing shoulders and the neck of Mr. Longneck, the weird ballet walk of the Marauder (specially with 2Hers) and so on?
I love the design philosophy of PoE, however there’re some things that make me not really enjoy it like:
-
As opposite to D3, excessive importance of yellows. I really think that D2 really nailed it balancing rares vs uniques. Not useless but not too predominant (just personal taste, now way to state it as an “universal truth” or anything XD ).
-
Maps: as with rifts, I find them forgettable, I can’t recall what I’ve fighting against once I finish it. Baal runs or Mephisto runs, or whatever, they have the issue of being too repetitive, but on the other hand, they’re more iconic. I prefer that. It’s the same reason why I never do Pindle runs (again, personal taste).
-
Rich but confusing itemization: most of the times is about “you’ll find this in the middle of the ground during this league and the items will be modified that way”. And the result of the nature of the development with quarterly leagues, so after that many leagues, too many made to the core content, and now I feel it’s flooded with redundant hard to track features while rejecting clear ones like sets or normal-exceptional-elite equivalences.
-
Story: it’s pretty obvious how they started with the idea of making a Diablo clone (“Vaal”, “Submerged Passage” as one of the starting zones", …), without having a clear idea about the story thew were going to tell. Very confusing, so it’s very hard to me to feel neither Kitava, Atziri, The Maker, etc as iconic. Lets see how it goes with PoE2.
-
Cinematics: related with the above, the indie beginings of GGG made it hard to have good cinematics.
-
Boss design: I find many of them plain ugly and not impressive. Special remark to “Uncle Fester” Dominus. Vaal Oversoul could aso be a bit more “stylished” IMO. I mean, neither Mephisto or Diablo are going to win a beauty prize… Hard to explain, not sure if you get what I mean. Again, personal taste.
-
Inconsistent UI design: I miss a lot of polishment there regarding menus and so on, skill icons breaking the dark aesthetic being too cartoony, skill gems excessively colorful, …
-
Geared character aesthetic: the simplistic limitation of D2 made possible few different appearances, but at least it avoided the weird look of PoE chars. I mean, Torture Cages, Ursine Pelts, the “Iron Man” helm and all those characteristically designed helms look amazing when isolated, but lead to weird looks once combined with the rest of your gear.
EDIT: uhm… New league starting in 3 hours… Funny coincidence. Let’s give it a try.
1 Like
Not to mention you can just change your spec(active abilities) on the fly, all the time, whenever you want. Sure it may not mesh as good with the passive tree. But it something many here complain about being in D3.