Efficiency is not and should not be a goal for gaming unless the game itself is about efficiency. Efficiency in railroad simulators is good. Efficiency in a RPG is bad. Progression isn’t the main goal of an RPG immersion is. Progression should come so naturally you barely notice it because the game draws you in so deeply. This is why Diablo III is an inferior game to Diablo I even though Diablo I had none of the depth or complexity.
They should add an in-game timer so we can gauge our character effectiveness directly instead of using our own stopwatch for that. It also exposes weak builds
The game is sorely in need of a paragon per second meter. 
A-RPGs are fundamentally about efficiency.
About making better, stronger, faster builds.
I’d argue all RPGs to some degree is about efficiency, through their character builds. But of course much less so than A-RPGs, which are distilled down to being about combat.
Immersion is overrated PR talk imo. Gameplay and depth in the character building and combat is what matters in an A-RPG.
All A-RPGs should have 1) a combat log, 2) a personal DPS meter (never shared with the group however).
Give us all the information to make informed decisions.
Timers connected to rewards have nothing to do in an A-RPG however. GRifts are a disaster in that regard.
Timers can be okay for leaderboards… but even there they are kinda not great.
If that’s what they’ve become it’s tragic. They used to be some of the greatest time wasters since Pong.
D1 and D2 was about efficiency too. I dont see anything changed in that regard for the last few decades.
PoE and D3 has become about speed running (which is not the same as efficiency, especially considering I was arguing for thorough exploration to be more efficient), and watching screens full of enemies explode. Which is really really sad. But not due to being about efficiency.
Huh? Maybe that’s what you were looking for, but that’s never been part of how I experienced the game. The only “efficiency” part was making sure I wouldn’t find myself hitting a wall due to immunities.
i wish we just could have a zoom out option here in d3.
Same here. I never worry about efficiency. I find that it just takes away me having fun. But then I have a very different mindset than most. For example, I just enjoy playing competitive OW despite not being a competitive person and don’t really care if we win or lose. I just have fun playing it. And hoo boy do people get mad after a loss and I say it’s just a game.
Go play qm or vs AI. It’s just not the same. But just like on this forum with the D2 faithful who think any criticism or pointing out flaws means you hate D2, just having fun win or loss means you don’t try to some. Which isn’t the case.
Losing matches in video games, being inefficient in ARPGs, dying multiple times , and so on just doesn’t bother me. So like you, D1, D2, nor D3 were about efficiency, nor will D4 for me.
I think it’s the Sid Meier effect. Where he says players will optimize the fun out of games given enough time. Players feel that way with efficiency. As if they need to reach a certain cost/hour spent playing the game to justify their purchase and reason for playing or something. Constantly worrying about how quickly they can do things instead of just sitting back and enjoying things.
Regarding efficiency, there are 2 types:
1 - Cost efficiency
2 - Time efficiency
I’d strongly recommend for the devs to focus on the first and not only ignore but somewhat “counter” the second… Your “distance covered” should be the sole and only measure to how good you played a game (not how fast you got there or how fast you’re going)
I mean sure, IF, again, IF part of that “fast going” is have to move or will die, I’d get it, but ultimately game should resemble tactics (not ofensive impact of repeated AoEs)
1 Like
Agreed I just don’t see the need to help them do it. I’m fond of the phrase “The hurried-er I go the behind-er I get.”
1 Like
It would be hard to not have time be a significant part of efficiency. But yeah, what matters more is how far you get. Being fast at getting nowhere is not particularly efficient.
Being fast is always a way to improve efficiency though, hence rewarding speed on top of its inherent reward, in GRifts, was really stupid.
Part of the problem in D3s design is that there is nearly no penalty for being “too fast”, for playing too risky. Outside of HC of course (and not even there, since paragon remains, and items are plentiful).
An A-RPG needs a good death penalty/survival bonus. To make playing well, more efficient in the competition with playing fast.
Indeed. Which is why it should be one of the major goals for developers to make sure that the most efficient ways to play are not also the most idiotic.
Like, try to make sure farming the same boss 100000 times is not more efficient than playing a broad piece of the game.
I dont think whether we worry or care about efficiency really changes whether the game is all about efficiency. The former is our experience with a game, which is very personal. The latter is design.
Basically all the gameplay in an A-RPG is about numbers going up, through XP, and items. A character getting better and better at what it does. +2 being better and more desireable than +1.
But if the game were about efficiency then inefficient plat would not be a viable solution, yet it totally was.
They do need to make sure that it’s not game-uninstallingly painful like it is in PoE, though. Keep this measured.
Numbers going up is about improvement, not efficiency, which are vastly different things. When you fight monsters in D2, you are trying to improve your character for the sake of it being “better”, not for the sake of shaving off ten seconds in the ladder.
That does not follow. It is perfectly possible to also play games that are all about their story, while not paying attention to that story.
Besides, very inefficient play is pretty close to being unviable. You have to make your character stronger and stronger to progress.
Efficiency is not just about shaving 10 seconds off a ladder (only in D3s abomination is that the case). It is about being able to kill enemies better. Which surely includes kill speed, but also, killing with less risk of being killed yourself, or simply getting gear faster. Like, Magic Find is about efficiency, even though it might reduce your kill speed.
Being better is the same as being more efficient.
Not necessarily. Not everyone plays with the notion of efficiency that high on the list, and being “more efficient” may not be the goal, but simply a byproduct of rising numbers up. For example, in Diablo 1, I will buy (if available at Griswold’s or Wirt’s) the same version of an item with a few extra % to resistances, even if I already am at max res on the character. Because it’s not about being more efficient, it is about making the character “better”.
I’m just saying if the major role of devs is make the most efficient ways to be the beat and it brain dead, then in efficiency shouldn’t be a viable option. I can’t think of any game outside of like timed puzzles, countdown races and such where efficiency is crucial to playing the game ir segment, where efficient play is key or major. I feel this is more of a player mindset.
Measurement of ‘better’ is often from efficiency (better stat item in a given slot than the previous one. faster farm speed, etc).
In a society where it is said time equals money, we are basically programmed to find the most efficient way to do things, which behavior/mindset leads to in-game. Some people just don’t like it when a game shoves that in player’s faces. In an online game, where there is group play, where there is competition, this is somewhat inevitable though.
Exploration and progression is the usual way devs design games. That is exactly the reason why Diablo should do differently. I would do something like “anti-exploration” game. Game should punish you if you hit “deadend” in the map, you havent been succesful at navigation etc, you havent found the boss fast enough, or exit.