What if the current design of D4 is way too narrow?

General Discussion
1

I know they are adding stuff like PvP and open world elements (yawn). But what if the skills/abilities and classes are too narrowly focused along trying to ride the well established, well traveled Diablo lane. Games like Grim Dawn and PoE are bringing nice innovations to the ARPG genre. I suggested a while back that Blizz should be stealing ideas from other games since other games steal ideas from Blizz.

In my suggestion, most likely in the old forum, I suggested the devs introduce damage conversion, much like Grim Dawn (GD). In GD the Arcanist class has a channeled beam ability called Albrecht’s Aether Ray (AAR) with does Fire and Aether damage. However, there are ways to convert % lightning to Aether, Aether to cold, etc. This would open up vastly new builds and itemization. The signature innovation that GD brings is the dual class concept. This blows the doors wide open to player innovation with respect to character customization. Obviously, there are many more good ideas out there.

Should the devs think outside the box, bring real new innovation, and go beyond the tried and true elements of the past? I think they have the means to test and bounce a lot of ideas off of the player community. Its called the Player Test Realm and D3 has a full game and engine.

Below is just a link to an Arcanist build with 1 point into every ability:
https://www.grimtools.com/calc/eVLyKA4Z

Take note of the “Tainted Power” node connected to AAR.

Before anyone dismisses this idea, consider that:

  • Druid class is in GD and has been requested to be added to D3 (and its in D4)
  • GD has pistols, shotguns
  • Multiple class combos have channeled spells
  • Multiple class combos have strong DoT spells
  • The Demolitionist class is focus around projectiles, explosive rounds, and blowing s*** up with bombs/grenades.
  • There are 9 single classes in total are used to make combos.
1 Like
2

id rather blizzard not innovate too much. stick with what works, and stick with what is already successful.

4 Likes
3

Yeah, innovation for the sake of innovation rarely ends up with a good result.

4 Likes
4

i tried to play a few ARPGs that were innovative, and… well, the result was, its too different to be playable for me, or their innovations just slapped on a much worse name for the same damn thing.

3 Likes
5

I am not suggesting/implying that the devs innovate for the sake of innovating. However, innovating to bring fresh ideas to the franchise I think is a good thing. However, when I say innovate, I mean bring ideas that can generally gel well with the already laid foundation. In D3 we do have innovation (or bastardization) for the sake of doing it in the form of Whymshire/Whymsidale, cuddly teddy bears, unicorns, rainbows, etc. I’m not suggesting something like that.

The idea of a set of unique classes that are combined in a dual class manner, that the player chooses, that then directs the character development from a skills/abilities point of view, is one example of innovation that can gel well with the franchise. Obviously, don’t do a blind copy/paste of GD.

We have hybridization in D3 already but there is no player choice in the manner in which elements are combined. For example, the DH class has Bowazon and Assassin elements combined into a single class. The Wiz class has Sorceress and Druid elements. In D2 we have hybridization through rune words (ex: CTA, HoTo, Insight, Infinity).

6

Feature bloat, pointless complexity, and lack of focus destroys games. They need to have a narrow direction and theme. Innovation is fine but instead of adding random things just to be adding them (Diablo 3 I’m looking at you) the innovation needs to be either as the core of the game or small enough to act as a new signature feature to completely replace a traditional one. It’s a case of too many cooks spoiling the broth.

3 Likes
7

Again, I’m not advocating for random crap added to the game for sake of just dumping fluff into the game. Bloat = bad. Innovation that adds diversity, new meaningful choices, new builds and game play options, are good if they gel well with the genre. So adding a pinball mini-game to the Diablo franchise would be bad. However, allowing something like dual wielding wands for Wizard could fit into the genre because Wizards and their signature weapons go together.

8

That example has the danger of removing differences between characters where there is already too little specialization. There is already a tendency to have too many classes that duplicate mechanics. If every class is a pet class, and a ranged class, and a melee class, and a DOT class, and a magician class and a transformation class, all hybridized ad infinitum why do we need classes again? Your idea for dual classes is functionally the same as sets. It’s poorly implemented in Diablo 3 but it’s the same mechanic with a different name. Rock paper scissors works because it’s simple to learn hard to master. Rock /scissors hybrid, scissors /paper hybrid, paper/rock hybrid, rock, paper, scissors, lizard, Spock isn’t an improvement. Frankly I think they made a wrong turn when they went beyond warrior= melee, sorcerer=magic, rogue=ranged.

There’s nothing fundamentally wrong with what you want I have just completely lost faith in developers to do more than one thing at a time without screwing it up.

9

I can definitely understand this and many have lost faith.

10

From what we’ve so far, I have to say that Diablo 4 has been pretty innovative (at least for the franchise), with the unique class systems, attributes unlocking skill upgrades and such, and class quests that is if they do implement them for all classes, rather than solely Rogues.

That said, much can and should be improved upon (like the Barbarian’s Arsenal System), but all in all, I’m rather satisfied with the direction that they’re currently going with.

1 Like
11

I love Diablo’s strong class fantasy. I do not like PoE/Grim Dawn/etc design where classes are almost meaningless and every skill is just some kind of AoE color blob that blows everything up instantly.

Go play Path of Exile and Grim Dawn if you want that kind of gameplay.

4 Likes
12

Likely unpopular opinion, but if going the route of limited skillpoints, I’d rather variable elemental damage (and enemy resistances) not be a thing at all.

D3 had the right of it in acknowledging that immunities were build killers. How other games have “handled” them is also a known, with dubious methods like mandating Infinity mercs in D2 or annoying wand swaps. Element conversion also doesn’t solve the problem of targets being immune or very highly resistant to your 2 choices. And if the answer is more that people need 3+ “what if” buttons, it comes off as both mandating (and killing actual flexibility) while forcing the question, “What’s the point?”

Considerations of what happens to the affix pool, I’d say it eliminates iterative same-y mods (like flat or % elemental boosts) and gives room for more interesting possibilities. Side effect benefits like slowing/freezing or inflicting a DoT can be emulated in other ways. It also avoids the “Fire is the most damaging element” problem because whatever quirks get associated with the others usually don’t outpace raw damage in games about killing ASAP.

This also avoids the problem of “this build is only good for x area(s)” because immunities are minimal or non-existent. Mind, part of this was a D2 problem because of how the treasure class system worked. And while part of me is fine with the idea of targeting specific drops, doing so needs to be more intuitive than needing outside info/data mines. It also sucks when a build you do like is completely unplayable in a prime farming location, or worse, the good builds feel horrible to play.

There’s also the general element of player fantasy. “I want to be the master of all elements!” is not exactly something readily achieved when limited skill points are at play. The token response is usually something along the lines of, “Well specialists should be better because they gave up flexibility!” but this just winds up a mechanical death knell for hybrids, and in turn, a death of a fantasy. Further usually because hybrids actually aren’t given the tools they need to succeed without gimmicks like conversions or mandatory resist reductions. Funnily enough, it turns out both specialists and hybrids suffer when the proper tools aren’t readily available. So, again, what’s the point? A cyclical problem masquerading as depth? Or not going far enough because tradition dictates otherwise?

With all the variable ways to inflict damage between things like ST, AoE, Linear, Conal, DoT, Reactive, and more alongside resource costs, I’d say a fair bit of variety already exists before introducing quirks like proc chances or synergistic effects. And that’s not accounting how targets may defend or evade, assuming a system that isn’t just some mindless “charge the player until one or the other dies” going on.

Give players the means to master everything without consequence, though, and I’d be more open to the idea. Being inefficient in a moment otherwise reflects the player’s lack of reasonable preparation (ultra-rare gear or blowing gold on repeated town runs is not, I repeat, not reasonable) and not a chance failure because immune mobs merely exist.

13

POE classes aren’t meaningless and haven’t been ever since they added ascendencies.

2 Likes
14

While I enjoy what I can do in GD most “classes” don’t feel unique.

1 Like
15

I wouldn’t mind Diablo 4 going a step backwards to something more akin to Diablo I in that each “class” has certain benefits but each skill/spell can be learned/gained separately. For example, a “Barbarian” might be defined as gaining some bonus with weapon types, wearing certain armor types, and probably having some sort of innate rage to boost attack speed (or whatever.) But, if you want a barbarian that can summon ghastly poison pigs, go find that book, NPC, quest, whatever it is to get… the difference between D1 and D4 being you don’t have to keep finding the book/etc., as once you have it, you can then pump points in. It could even have “less desirable skills” which have non-native skill caps - this could mean a barbarian can only get to level 5 pig popping naturally but can exceed via item buffs.

It would lend more to customization anyway, possibly.

Some people really want their archetypes though and that’s fine.

16

Wish Blizz would take some hardcore notes from GD. Love everything about their class system. POE’s Gem system is awesome too. Both far superior & more satisfying to anything in the Diablo universe to date. Though PoE’s skill map thing is awful & seems redundant, imo.

GD was everything D3 should have been and more.

The gameplay and class build depth that you get in GD or PoE mixed with Blizz’s end game support would be incredible. Throw in some loot goblins and its perfect.

Innovate just to innovate? Some of you guys need to get around more and experience what the rest of the world has to offer. Innovating is already done. There are some seriously great experiences with already tried innovation that blizz could just put their own spin on that would add a whole world of depth to the gameplay.

1 Like
17

“If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it” Plenty of good things that got real bad real fast because people changed things for the sake of change.

1 Like
18

I disagree, its not fixing it, its improving it. What makes the genre so fun is building your character/class. Tweaking them in all kinds of different ways to do all kinds of different things. You can role the same class multiple times and experience it differently every time. Switch between those builds and have an entirely different animal with each one, but equally as fun and effective. I think anything that can expand and improve on the formula and drive the point home even further should be a key point in development.

19

No, it’s changing it, whether it’s an improvement is entirely debatable.

For an actual RPG, sure, it’s a key point, for an ARPG though it’s at least to me way down on the list of what the enjoyment of the game is about.

2 Likes
20

This ^^ is dead end, narrow focused thinking. If you are concerned with things going bad real fast or lost faith in the devs/management I can understand your PoV. The D3 and D2R teams aren’t the same team (hopefully) that is working on D4. However, the management and corporate culture still linger so that could still cast a stench on D4. Again no one is advocating changing just for the sake of change. I am advocating for innovation that will gel well with the genre and franchise because the tried and true has grown stale to a degree and the D3 bastardizations aren’t good ideas to replicate.