Instead of using specific fixed HP for the mobs in various levels, why not adjust the HP based on the maximum damage output of the character? For example, at Torment 1, the mob’s HP will be 100 X the maximum damage output of a build capped at 150 times. Then at Torment 2, the mob’s HP will be 200 X the maximum damage output of the build capped at 250 times. The damage dished out by the mobs will be similarly treated as well.
With the above, all builds will be viable. Problem solved!
Easy. Just calculate the potential damage output based on the player’s gears, skills, paragons, glyphs, etc. To make the player feels powerful, use the lowest potential damage output as the base to calculate the mobs’ HP. So, if the player managed to hit a maximum damage output, he will “feel-stronger”.
when would this procedure be called? during every login or having a visit in town, or midway through fighting monsters? if at any time the character pops a potion or gets buffed by nearby friendlies, will this procedure need to be recalculated?
at the moment, i think if the devs remove the weightage of passive ranks roll, let passive ranks have an equal chance to appear on amulets, etc, it will greatly improve the chance of making builds viable.
The recalculation should take place when there is a “permanent” or “long term” change in stats such as increase in skill points, gear upgrade, additional paragon points earned, changes in skill points or re-allocation of paragons points, etc. The value can be store somewhere so that it need not be recalculated every time they encountered a mob. Need not be 100% accurate, just a rough estimate would do fine since we could be talking about billions and trillions of HP.
how about the effect of incenses, say providing a +60 bonus to all stats?
or if there are 3 more friendlies nearby, whose build should that particular monster hp be based on?
do we need to do another round of priority checks, or simply recalculate all 4 of them and apply the lower bound or upper bound? it’s getting complex though.
Asking for all monsters to scale with the player’s maximum possible output sounds good on paper, but in practice it would cause absolute havoc in a live service, multiplayer first game like Diablo 4. You’d essentially punish everyone the moment one person pushes their damage too high. Public play would become unbearable, and any sense of progression or build diversity would collapse into frustration.
On the same token, if the game were perfectly balanced tomorrow, most people probably wouldn’t even notice. Why? Because the majority of players are already chasing “what’s considered BiS” rather than what’s actually optimal for their skill and build. The itemization system is full of obfuscation, powerful outliers like Shroud of False Death or Heir of Perdition overshadow the more nuanced gear that should be shaping skill-based builds.
So balance isn’t just about monster scaling or raw numbers, it’s about giving every skill a fair path to power if the player chooses to invest in it, and making sure itemization doesn’t get dominated by a handful of overperformers.
Actually back in S1, they made every build viable using the BARBER heart by making everyone run with a BARBER heart. So basically everyone is running multiple builds but underneath is really just one build: BARBER build.
Depends on your definition of viable. But I agree the game is in better shape than it was a year ago when VoH released. Most competent builds can play in Torment 4 and hit pit 80 with work. The gap between builds has narrowed quite a bit.
So I can use a build that does 10 damage max and still be able to kill enemies in any Torment level? Basically no matter how much ‘stronger’ your character gets it’ll never matter? I’m good, but thanks.