I believe that when people are complaining/suggesting new updates to builds or sets etc, it should be at least considered and fiddled with. Then add it to the PTR immediately and dynamically update the game, rather than updating it once per season. It’s pretty tough for us players to have to wait for a PTR to test things once per season and to top it off, not really know until that time gets close what is going to be done.
When someone says, “Hey! Raiment is too squishy!” just add a damage reduction to the set, have people test it and if it ends up too strong, then you lower the effectiveness. It gives people more things to do and keeps people excited to play since they don’t have to wait for a new season to experience something new. It takes all of a week or two to have experienced most things you’re wanting to do, then learn you’ve been pigeon holed into a single build again.
Currently there are a lot of good things being done, but you’re still basically cookie cutter for the most part. Monk for instance, you can change weapons, rings and cube, but in the end we all end up using Flurry for pushing as it’s the only useful rune to use. Some people even use Sunwuko set, which is good. Definitely the right direction.
Problem is, SWK is basically the same as Patterns of Justice, it’s just played a little bit differently and has different gear options. I’ve only played barb and monk this season so far, but Frenzy barb is way too squishy to push. I think it MIGHT have potential to push far, but just like Raiment, it falls short because it’s hard to survive, mostly due to being CC’d to death.
EDIT: To be clear, don’t send a patch out for each and every test. Only do it for immediate problems like bugs or something extremely broken. Pool a bunch of stuff together, get it tested, then ship it.
Apparently you are new to how things work with regards to D3 development.
As of the last couple years, the only testing that the PTR gets involved with is a one or two week run to see what bugs the next Seasonal event will introduce, fix maybe half of them, leaving some of the others to be hot-fixed after the season starts and the rest letting us deal with them as is.
That’s it.
The current development team is based from the Classic Games department. That means there isn’t time to do incremental PTR fixing, or testing of random thread-suggested changes.
In other words, deal with what you have, because they are very unlikely to do anything new.
Eight year old game, classic game dept, little to no changes in the last few years (since the drop of Necromancer).
Yeah. D3’s state is here to stay. No I’m not trying to be glass half empty. Just being a realist.
I am far from new to the entire game. I didn’t play on release, I played about a year after release. Thanks for assuming such. I’m saying this is how it SHOULD work. It would make it a hell of a lot easier to balance things instead of having a single segment of time to do this. It doesn’t matter anyway because once D4 comes out, that’s where I’ll be heading (which I think people are giving too much flack).
Due to the lack of interest around updating the game, it’s no surprise it is the way it is, especially with D4 coming out, but it should have never been the way it is with the PTR. It should be a constant, not periodic. This game constantly needs revisions and only doing it for a couple of weeks per season just isn’t enough to get a real balance to the game.
If this were done, it would be a lot easier to focus on other things involving the game to be a better game. Again, not that it matters much because a good portion of people are going to move on to D4, same as the development focus (as in funding).
Only made the assumption because those of us that have been here a while already know how it works.
Wanting it to work a certain way doesn’t make it so.
You can state this all you want. Not going to change anything.
Hopeful thinking. That doesn’t fly well here.
Not quite sure its all about D4 and lack of funding. Its more a lack of interest in making D3 changes at this point.
We are getting these new and different seasonal themes, and they have been adding some new sets, but that has been pretty much the extent of it. So while nothing earth shattering, nor anything majorly game changing, there has been small changes.
But nothing that warrants having an extended PTR where time you invest into it, items you find, etc gain you nothing, not to mention the MANY cases where feedback was ignored, both with change suggestions as well as obvious bugs/balance issues that often were ignored till after the patch released.
Anyway.
As I said, realist, not trying to be a pessimist. Just pretty much accepted game is what it is, and I deal with it.
Another person saying how the game should be. Ok so tell us just why is your opinion valid? What games have you worked on? What large scale products have you worked on? Who was the last pc development company you worked for?
I look forward to your answers. Until then your words on how it should be have no meaning.
Come on mate, one doesn’t have to be a chef to know why you don’t like the taste of a dish. While having real-world, relevant experience definitely can help when providing critique, a layperson’s viewpoint is also valuable because they look at things from different angles (substitute layperson with whatever other demographic/group you please). It’s part of the reason why product testing is so useful.
No but it does take a chef to offer advice to another on how to fix the dish he doesnt like the taste of. Tell an award winning chef you dont like his dish when you are just a normal person and you will be laughed at.
Have you ever worked on a product testing team? You do know they are recruited from people that have experience in the medium they are testing. a Perfect example is that most programs are tested by other developers before the public ever sees it.
So no unless you have a background in the matter. All he is doing is screaming into the wind as he has zero idea about what it would take to maker any of this happen.
Despite not being an automotive design engineer I can still tell the difference between a Fiat and a Ferrari and which one is more fun to drive. It’s almost as if I can decide which end product I prefer without being able to create them.
Doesn’t matter if it should have been suggested years ago (even if I suggested it day 1 it likely wouldn’t have happened). I also don’t understand the incessant need to ask people for their credentials when they make a suggestion from outside the window. I’m not interviewing for a job and I certainly don’t require the ability (for example) to program a website to see what’s wrong with it.
I just figured I’d post my opinion and just see what happens. Like I said, it’s not entirely relevant as I’ll be going to D4 as soon as it comes out anyway. Just for the time I am here, I’d like to see it become better and more enjoyable. I don’t need to be qualified to make a suggestion.
It was an analogy to show that just because I can’t create a particular end product doesn’t mean that I can’t evaluate that product.
If there was something I didn’t like about their machines, absolutely, yes.
Have you heard of Top Gear? It’s a television program that’s been running for decades where they review cars. You know, they give opinions on what they like / don’t like about cars. None of the presenters were automotive designers. It’s entirely possible to have an opinion about something you couldn’t make yourself.
No real reason to waste your breath. When someone doesn’t know what a hypothetical or comparison are because it isn’t IDENTICAL to the original argument, they aren’t worth the energy to even consider a response.
Wow you really dont pay attention do you. They are all qualified in their own right. Go back and do your research. Everyone of them knows cars far better then you do.
Ok well by that logic you wouldnt mind me coming to your job and telling you how to do it. Even though I have no idea about it…See just how little sense that makes. Unless you really do like being told how to do your job by someone that doesnt know what they are doing.
In the car analogy, I’d have an opinion on the car, not on the processes used to make it. Likewise, if someone had an opinion over what I produced at work, that’s fine, but an opinion over how I produced it, not so much.
