Totally agreed, Playaah!
I agree with the idea that characters in D2 should not be able to freely respec. My point relates to costs and immersion. There are subtle respecs and more dramatic respecs.
For example, a players keeps the exact same skills but just want to shift a few skill points around, should that be costly?
If a player wants to shift from a duel elemental build to solely a singe element, should that be costly since the player already knows how to use that element already?
If a player want to shift from a fire to a lightning build, should that be costly? Much of the build is the same (defense/teleport), but it is just the offensive skills that change.
In your example, you used the analogy of an architect becoming a restaurant owner. These are quite different. In my two examples above, one is more like an architect choosing different tile floors in the bathroom or deciding to specialize more on brutalist architecture versus modern designs. A respect is not making a sorceress into an amazon.
This is not like your architect/restaurant example. There are not switching professions.
Yes, because changing elements is a game breaking factor in terms of difficulty. What would happen is that everyone would change their spec based on the area they are trying to clear. That would eliminate the need for immunities, and heavily reduce difficulty. If people did have access to unlimited respecs without costs, then the next step would probably be to ask to remove immunities as a QoL. Because respeccing to beat immunities would be too tedious and immunities would serve no purpose other than having to respecc all the time.
You already have 3 free chances to respecc, if you manage to screw up all those chances you still have the possibility to respecc for a cost. It has worked for so many years, it’s a great system, so why would anyone change it, i don’t get it.
I haven’t read the whole topic because its all about respecs, I doubt we will change from the current 3 free and unlimited with token. I wanted to touch on gem/rune stacking.
With shared stash the “decision” on whether to pick up is already gone. A huge portion of my shared tab will be gem/rune storage to unload on mules as it fills up. I will not need to make decisions on that whatsoever. Stacking just makes it so I don’t need quite as many mules, gems/runes can all go on one mule along with other items.
I’m even happy to have them ONLY stack within the stash so you have to decide if you want to pick them up as they take quite a bit of room in your bag, but not a ton in your stash
I halfway agree with that statement. The decision is still there, but it will be easier for you to choose to pick up gems since you will have an easier time to mule and some more storage space. As long as there is limited storage, you will always have to choose what to store and what not to store.
And we don’t know yet, or atleast i don’t know, how many characters we are allowed to have on one account, so how many mules or how much storage you will have for each account is still uncertain. Therefore, you still have to choose how many mules of gems and runes you would like to have, instead of playable characters, or mules with other items. Stacking just means there will be no limit or no reason not to pick them up.
It’s more of a “give him a finger, and he takes the whole arm” kinda situation. “We already get more stash space, why not give us unlimited space for gems and runes.”
Ok that’s a fair point. Perhaps a more apt comparison would be a orthopedic surgeon wanting to become a neurosurgeon. They are both surgeons (with the same basic skills) but their roles are not interchangeable at will. The orthopedist is going back to school to make this change.
Leaving aside for the moment the role play and immersion aspects since those cannot be easily quantified, the short answer to your question is yes. It should be costly because it has very real gameplay implications, which is likely the reason it is the way it is.
As others have pointed out, different farming areas in hell difficulty have different immunities. Being able to easily switch based on the area you want to farm that day would dramatically alter gameplay, hell difficulty in particular.
The existing respec system (three free with a gated ability to earn more) fits with the current design of the game. Just leave it be. Designing and coding and balancing a “subtle vs dramatic” respec system would be complicated and not a value added use of dev time.
1 Like
First, I did not say that respecs should be free but simply reduced costs. As of now, players use cookie cutter builds , team up, other tactics, or simply skip monsters with an immunity that they can not deal with easily.
Therefore, you can make a case that free respecs could be game changing (which by the way I never said to begin with. I said reduced costs.), but “game breaking” seems to be hyperbole to me.
Are you planning on playing D2R exclusively with a screen aspect ratio of 4:3?
If not, some may claim that this is game breaking since:
- You can see and kill monsters that previously were off screen before they pose a threat to you.
- You can teleport further to get out of trouble (depending on the map of course).
Therefore, one can even claim (I think it is not a big deal) that 16:9, 21:9, and 32:9 are game breaking in comparison to the old 4:3 aspect ratio.
Don’t really see higher aspect ratio as a game breaking change. I do feel being able to teleport further is a very bad change, and i don’t think that will be there on launch.
That said, i would much rather keep 4:3 ratio on the remaster, rather then free respecs. But do not mistake my statement by saying that i do not want 16:9 or better aspect ratio.
Many of the changes adopted or could be adopted change the game. In some respects, which are which are in the eye of the beholder. For example, Blizzard in their survey listed a dedicated charm inventory as a QoL feature. You disagree. That is fine. My point is that even the simplest of changes (e.g., graphics updates) impacts the game.
My idea is that the core gameplay are features shared by hardcore/softcore, ladder/non-ladder, and single/multiplayer games. Even within this, I support multiple changes for various reasons that can impact gameplay but are not catastrophic changs that other perceive.
Well, i think there shouldn’t be any changes period. I can agree with auto-gold pickup because you actually have to run over the gold, not just near it, but i still don’t think it’s necessary, but it doesn’t really change anything. I can tolerate shared stash because of the new bnet 2.0 will change the way muling works, especially with one account. All these changes i have read on this forum and reddit are just way to much, and will impact longevity, depth, feel and balance in ways that will damage, if not destroy the game. And when i say destroy the game, i mean destroy Diablo 2. Because this is remastered version Diablo 2, not a sequel.
But i do think that it should be moddable, with the possibilities of modded servers, so we, the original Diablo 2 fans can play as we used to 20 years ago, and the PoD, PlugY or any of the modded fans can play what they loved. But i do not agree that the game should turn into one off, or mixed versions of the mods.
1 Like
Yes… but not all changes impact the game equally. One change doesnt justify a different change. We do have the ability to interpret these things…
Correct.
There is a beauty of gray (if you recall the old song by Live). From one perspective, there is lets keep everything the same and any deviation is bad. This perspective in relation to D2R is problematic because it already is not the same gameplay wise if you play with a non- 4:3 aspect ratio.
I know that you support a subset of QoL changes. I think my issue is more with conservative D2R absolutists who do not recognize some change already exists in D2R.
But the D2 absolutists do recognize change already exists in D2R. We all know there’s autogold, shared stash, and graphics/screen ratio updates. These changes are acceptable for the vast majority of “absolutists” though, unlike loot filters, stackables, lunchables, etc. If Blizz announced a charm inventory Id bet there’d be a lot more protest than there’s been against the shared stash. So it’s a pretty basic point Im making, but I think the issue is - for the most part - the larger changes rather than the ones already announced, which only very few people consider to be too different from D2. =)
Not all (I think) but let’s say most.
By extension, since some changes are acceptable (and presumably this list is framed by what has already been announced), it is not implausible to assume a few more changes could be palatable (may be or may not be).
I think this is a shades of gray issue about what is QoL, minor, and major.
Side tangent: For many people, their musical preference/fondness often are based on the “contemporary” music of the time when they were teenagers/young adults. I am curious a bit about the age demographics of the D2R forum. Someone asked this in another thread, and it seemed like many people started playing D2 in the 10-19 age range, meaning that they are in their 30s now. I wonder if nostalgia and remembering the fondness of D2 from youth has made it so some deficiencies in D2 may not be as vividly remembered or subject to critical analysis.
That was all I needed to hear, not in favor of it then. D3 was the biggest letdown of any serious D2 fan and anything that was changed D2->D3 should be considered a bad idea by default.
And no, I’m not being funny. D3 took the fun and character development aspects of D2 and threw it in the trash.
2 Likes
Globally agree, all changes have an impact and The Devil wants sacrifices, not QoL!
Btw, I’m currently playing the game in SP mode without any 3rd party program: the biggest challenge is to handle the stash room ! You almost can’t do several things in parallel (i.e store items + runes for RW + gems for craft).
However, this constraint is maybe a bit excessive since you can’t even keep some stuff for another character (making low-level set items totally useless, for example), or for MF, or for a major respec of your character (that you may want to do only when you have several pieces of stuff).
I’m happy with the QoL improvements of the Alpha. More isn’t really needed according to me, but I’ll play D2R whatever changes it will contain.
Decision making is a great frame for Diablo II. We definitely have to do a lot of that. I agree with many of your points and the underlying philosophy, though I want to add an element to the decision-making context.
With old D2, deciding which loot to keep was easy, because we could be conservative and make as many mules as we wanted. Even with shared stash, it isn’t clear whether or not we will be able to acquire unlimited space in D2R. In that context, I feel:
- No charm inventory, since charms are entirely about decision-making. Space/choice is at the core of charm mechanics.
- Stash sizes should be larger and shared to get as close to the previously-unlimited space we had before. Less about individual space and more about overall space.
- Inventory size should be the same. Increase space for storage, not active play (since that would make decision-making too easy).
- Gems and runes should be stackable to conserve precious overall space.
My thoughts.
That may be, but I’d still think it’d be worthwhile to let the nostalgia happen. It seems like Blizzard’s through-line has been to potentially adjust the game based on player feedback, so maybe this has been their intention the entire time? The original experience at first for everyone so excited about it, and then perhaps making some more significant adjustments if those players ask for them? I think it’d be really dangerous to make large changes before everyone’s played the new game together for a while, though.
The word “decision-making” has been throw around (togther with buzzword like complexity) like is a unviersally good thing without needing context, & do not need to be contested. Its NOT
Not all “decision-making” are meaningful, & not all “decision-making” is net positive.
Imagine if somone buy a car with a small S truck & say he purposely buy one with small truck so there is “decision-making” what to put in the truck, what to buy during goccery shopping so as not to over fill the truck. You will laugh , will you not.
Most people are rational enough to want bigger storage space (all else equal) so they do less “decison-making” what to put in their car.
Decison making of what & how much you can squeeze in your car is NOT meaningful/fun decision making.
I am all for decision making, but only meaningful ones that enchance the game experience, like more viable skills, more item synergy, more runeword that open more build deversity.
Inventory management is not meaningful/fun decision making.
Change my mind.
Not all decisions in life are fun.
If managing your inventory ment nothing, then people wouldnt care if they got more space because it wouldnt mean anything to them.
Inventory management is meaningful because you have to pick and choose what you want. Doesnt mean its “Fun”, but some people enjoy that kind of thing. Kind of like how some people find horror movies/games “Fun” and others cant get why you would want to put yourself through that.
In Mass Effect, there are many moral choices. Some have lose lose, outcomes or varying degrees of horrible, does that make the game not “Fun”? I would say no, not everything should be just there for “Fun”.
Not everything in a game is a pleasure drip.