I’m thrilled that the Diablo 3 team have been able to try new things and give the community what we’ve been asking for. I think the Paragon cap of 800 along with Solo Self Found provided a new way to play and compete on a level playing field. However with the increasing rumors that the D3 team are looking to community feedback to decide whether to keep the 800 Paragon cap post-season 29, I feel it necessary to add my voice against it.
it truncates the season to just a few days for dedicated blasters
it invalidates all but 2-3 builds for pushing GR150
it forced everyone into Guardians gear, reducing build flexibility
The frantic competitive battle for the top of the leaderboards for augments and primals to try to squeeze performance out of P800 characters largely did not materialize. Streamers moved on in 3 days.
So I’m asking, begging reality, if you keep the Paragon Cap, please set it to something the average player can reach in 2 weeks. A cap of 2k would still provide a level playing field but without cutting the builds and shortening the season as severely as S29 did. Thanks!
If you take the time to read the Season 29 Blog, so far it says:
We are introducing changes to Paragon Points to work in tandem with Solo Self Found and the Season 29 theme. You can now assign a total of 800 Paragon Points to your solo Self Found character. Previously, you were only able to assign a total of 50 Paragon Points to each attribute within the Core, Defense, Offense, and Utility categories, but now you can assign up to 200 in each attribute. Each category can only have 200 Paragon Points placed into them.
This change is exclusive to Season 29 and applies to all modes.
Of course, Blizzard has been known to change their minds.
Don’t design games around botters imo.
Ban the botters.
That said, even with a 75% XP nerf, reaching paragon 800-1200 would be nothing compared to paragon 5000 or whatever a botter might get to.
Could reduce XP gain by 90% and paragon 800 would still be nothing compared to reaching 5000 before.
So the cap would still very much have an effect on the power gap a botter could achieve.
Diablo 2 and 3’s problem were that their “ladders” were designed as they were… so enticing to botters. But when you don’t ban them**, we get issues like this.
** I’m on the fence about the whole “they’ve been banned” thing. I’ve seen people claim they’ve reported people and they were banned (no proof). I’ve seen Blizzard say they ban people but others have shown people who’ve cheated for a long time. I really don’t know. I do know they exist.
Its when games release those endless, nearly endless, or ends that take so damn long that it would be ridiculous amounts of hours to reach that people get so enticed. I left FFXI because of master levels. Spending 5 hours to get the first 10 levels, then 25 hours to get the next 10… and the cap is 50… and that’s for just 1 job, gets to a point where it’s just not even worth it.
My point is that some people on these forums are starting to think how they should think in regards to understanding acti-blizzard’s decisions. That means thinking realistically as “dollar signs are king” instead of an idealistic blizzard that existed 20 years ago.
And man, we do miss those days. I love game companies who’s goal is to make actual good games. They don’t spend most of their resources on trying to nickel/dime everyone and release absolute hits. Sure, some have expansions and I’m ok with those.
Yes. One of the best things about D4. Sadly Blizzards lack of spine seem to have made them stop, so it can end up as yet another bad game.
In any cases, the person I was responding to was complaining about everyone being forced into Guadrian, or a few builds being the only ones that matter. Nerfing is the only real fix for that.
If you don’t want the ridiculous power creep gone overall, for some reason, you can then go on to buff everything together, or nerf monsters. But the targeted nerfs always need to come first.
True, but I am definitely not alone on this.
You can’t ever make a good game without using nerfs as a tool. Never going to happen.
Debatable. But even if true, don’t design games for “most people”. It will be a disaster of a game without any direction.
Making a game for one person, is going to be a lot more successful than making a game for everyone. There will be many more people who like what that one person like. Even if they didnt know it before.
However, devs also have a responsibility not to train people to become complacent.
If people dont like nerfs, it is likely because devs didnt dare to use nerfs, to show players that it was for the best. Don’t let the inmates run the asylum.