Number tweaking will never make throwing single weapons better because its a mechanic flaw that makes it bad, PD2 well fixed that issue by adding ricochet mechanic to throwing weapons which created a very fun build archetype
Funny you guys keep bringing the enchantress bower example when its the best example in favour of my rework lol If you change synergies from class specific to more global tag, you enable other classes to borrow that play style, you allow the enchantress to spec into projectile skill and see its enchanted arrows be better
You see that weird paladin using Hydra from dragonscale and boost it through fire skills like Holy fire, Conviction, vengeance or Projectile skills like Holy bolt, Blessed hammer, FOH
this keeps old skills good but allow multiple ways to build them rather then being dictated what synergies to take and being left with nothing when you dont have access to those synergies
Why do you call it âchange for betterâ It is only better in your eyes or in the eyes of who think your idea is good, it is only your subjective view.
learning to read is important and also replying with logic in mind, not rage in the eyes lol you sound like if i did a personal attack on you
IF means its hypothetical, an uncertainty
but yeah i do think if would make the game better since it would achieve the same thing as the current synergy system, minus the skill and class restriction, you wouldnt be forced into specific skills to synergize anymore. You still retain class identity but it doesnt needs to be ultra stiff class identity
By the way⌠that basically POEâs system adapted to diablo2âs Synergies and i think POE is pretty much a staple in terms of skill development
and what IF it change it to the worse? Like blizzard has done with wc3r, wow, d3, overtwatch and so on, its better they game, especially skills keep as untouched as possible. Im not against small numerical buffs on VERY underperforming skills. Atleast if they are just slightly buffed its hard for anyone to fk it up.
I agree that a lvl 22 skill was a massive number, but we are talking about Twister, already low damage and add to this you dont have synergies nor +skill, you lose +80% damage due to lack of synergies and plenty damage due to lack of +skill
Twister is a prime example of Synergy system doing a bad job even when it does its job, twister is bad even when optimal because the synergies dont give it enough damage for its low base damage
first of⌠it only makes sense that if you are good a doing buff, it improves your buffs skills, if you are good with fire you are better with fireskills
also, my intent isnt specifically about granted skills, its also about within same class synergies, it gives of lot of variations for a same skill build if you can take whatever skill you want to synergize with it rather than Forcing you to waste point in skills you dont want, you wont use inferno while you use meteor⌠but with my system you can buff Meteor with aoe and fire skill, so you could buff meteor by going in plenty directions, Frost nova, Nova, hydra, blizzard, thunderstorm,etc
You are basically proposing an entirely new game. Maybe you should put these ideas on the diablo 4 forums. Not even joking. Your synergy system is interesting, but it would make Diablo 2 unrecognizable.
Anyway, i saw most of your posts, you are pretty much against everything, no point arguing with somebody when his mind is already made up
What if its worse? i dont see how it could be since its the same system but with less restrictions lol but i was counting on modding to test its potential
But again, numerical changes wont change bad mechanics
So did the 1.10 synergy system that ruined most of the granted skills, trashed half of the skills while elevating a handfull to OPness
if you saw most of my posts you would know i have agreed on several suggestions that arent game breaking, like in this topic i posted small numerical buffs could be ok.
This game is a legendary classic. Youâll have to convince me and others with very compelling arguments because this game is more than 20 years old, renowned as one of the greatest of all time, and changing it so fundamentally would have significant consequences. What you propose is a radical change, more akin to a mod, and not the base D2R game.
That is your opinion of 1.10. This patch was put out by the original creators and followed their vision of the game. These changes were made in 2003, when the game was still relatively young and still being figured out. It has evolved over the last 17ish years as a consequence of those changes, and it sits in its current state, as the undisputed king of ARPGâs and still the most influential template and reference for modern ARPG design. In light of these facts, if you think you are right, then you will have to develop a very strong argument to overturn so many years of proven greatness.
If I were you, I would look into D2R mod development. I am not sure what the status on this is, but I do hope that modders can go crazy as they have with original D2. I intend to check out some of them eventually if they are interesting.
The video literally dispute it. One guy programmed most of the patch, but Brevik stated that design was not only by that one guy. And I hope we can agree design is a fairly significant part.
pretty sure that when he talks about other doing designs, hes talking about graphic design
Pretty sure peter hu is a great developer, great at coding but doesnt make him great at Designing Black Diablo CLone or the model of the 100 new items that came with that patch
Yeah Iâve watched this before. Thatâs looking at it with some obvious bias. A good chunk of it was done by Hu he says, but it wasnât a solo project without any outside feedback. Regardless, there isnât anything controversial about this. Balance and maintenance patches during this era of Blizzard were often done by one person, under the lead producerâs direction and testers to help. StarCraft 1 and 2 were like this for a long time. That said, David Hu was a very talented part of the original D2/LoD development team and worked under the creators, Brevik, and the Schaefers. Ultimately the patch came from a legitimate source and thatâs the main point of importance, which you conveniently forget. Hu headed the programming of 1.10, and contributed to the design, but there were others too that contributed to the design and testing as stated. He isnât specific about who contributed to what design exactly so you canât make any assumptions.
You also conveniently forget (this seems to be a habit of yours) that Brevik gives a very positive endorsement of the patch and the work that was done, praising Huâs work as it pertained to their ongoing vision of the game:
âThis brought Diablo 2 into the modern era and it became the game that we know and love at this point, but this took literally three and a half years to get to this point.â
It was a patch that contained ideas that were intended for the game for a long time but the team didnât have the time to implement them yet. They were also at that time primarily working on Blizzard Northâs version of Diablo 3, and shortly after, Blizzard North was shut down. So Huâs work was instrumental considering what was going on internally at that time. Iâm not understanding why youâre upset and trying to prove the illegitimacy of 1.10. You just posted proof from one of the three original creators of Diablo, very positively endorsing the work that was done in 1.10 and itâs legitimacy. D2 has been this way since 2003 and it hasnât caused the game to implode, but rather has achieved critical success and long term popularity.
I would still prefer to live in a world where you could choose which patch you play online, with all of the later bug fixes, in D2R of course. More options can sometimes be better and 1.08 and 1.09 are good, but I doubt modern blizzard would consider that. D2R is likely stuck at 1.14 for now, and will receive ongoing bug fix patches for the foreseeable future. Beyond that is unknown and up to VV.
Obviously 1.10 had lots of good ideas but it would have needed some more iterations to iron out certain problems that always occur on larger changes. Especially a remaster could be used to iron out those things. But we do not want each skill equally viable and fun. This is what we got in D3 and it appears very generic to me. But most of the skills should make sense to have for some use cases.
I think one large problem of the synergy system is that (as I remember) it came together with immunities. Without immunities, the build diversity would be probably better.
Another problem that the game has is that because of their auras only Act 2 mercenaries are considered useful (only might and holy frost by the way).
And the existence of teleport makes the sorceress practically without alternative for farming good items except if you already posses some crazy difficult to get items. It shouldnt be removed but if it had a slight cast delay (like half a second) then it would be less op for certain runs but still a great and useful skill.
If those tip points were be improved D2 could be a better game without killing the D2 experience. But it is very important for the game that you can do more wrong than right if you dont care where to put your skill points.
I think it is not very easy to grasp what problems really need improvements. E.g., I remember that in early D3 development the devs talked about the drawbacks of the statting system of D2 which they tried to improve since they thought it was boring in D2. I also think that it is a bit dull, but I never found it annoying since it is not very important, but still it is a bit sad. However, I dont think that the stat point system in D3 is better.
So it is difficult to say if something makes the game better or worse beforehand without trying. But the fear that the devs make things worse for the sake of changing is by all means justified as have lots of other failures shown us in the gaming industry.
Thatâs correct. Changing D2 is not something that should be taken lightly, and these ideas need to be really thought through, even seemingly minor QoL additions. They can have significant negative effects on the game.
Your example of putting a casting delay on teleport is a good example of âgood intentionsâ but a bad outcome. Youâre just going to make the game much less fun for the majority of players. Thatâs also a lot to ask players to adjust to, after playing the game this way for 20 years. Rebalancing should never take away fun or make the game feel more clunky or like more of a chore. Casting delay is kind of a crap mechanic forced into certain abilities so they canât be spammed. Putting that on teleport would literally make a huge portion of players just not play the game anymore.
People just throw out bad ideas here without carefully considering all of the implications.
Power creep is more to do with damage/health scaling out of control. The Torment system in D3 is the prime example.
Changing powerful abilities to be mechanically annoying to use isnât working against power creep, thatâs working against a gameâs inherent fun and fluidity and ultimately itâs long term health.
I agree they shouldnât make it mechanically annoying. But some people would find it less fun, even if you manage to nerf teleport in a way that doesnât make it annoying to use. Just because they wanted to be able to spam it. Just like some people claim they find it less fun to deal 1000 dmg instead of 10000 dmg. Only saying that it is bad not to nerf stuff because some people find it less fun.
