Yeah a lot of set fobia comes from D3.
1 Like
You are obviously against sets in all shapes and forms no matter what so there is no pleasing you Gibs (
+ 
) !
I tried!
Time to exit this thread.
1 Like
You have provided no compelling evidence to convince me otherwise and the examples you just gave prove that.
Explain to me why this isn’t just an affix roll + aspect + unique item?
I am against it because you are trying to reinvent a wheel that already exists in the game…there is nothing compelling about this idea of adding Set Bonuses.
I guess you missed my entire design where these aspects go on unique items. Uniques dont currently get aspects. Just one possibility on what they could do but u do u and have a closed mind.
Im out officially now.
1 Like
You are proposing to redesign all these systems when the existing system already solves the problem you are inventing - its bordering on insanity!
Your own example just proved that, categorically.
I think set items could only work well if they didn’t impede the current item system.
for example you could collect a set and equip the pieces as you find them. But equipping them doesn’t mean you unequip your other gear pieces.
Maybe you have to find some pieces, craft others, and complete a season journey to get another one. All sorts of options, but if you have to choose between equipping a set and the way we equip items now, then the game is going to either have sets be terrible or sets be the only way to gear. And either of those options would be bad.
I would have it like this:
-
Legendaries go through the tempering / codex leveling / imprinting journey to get to a strong state and have aspects that provide general utility, defense, and positive skill transformations (that is, power-increases)
-
Uniques are fully formed when they drop (except for masterworking) and have aspects that create new skill synergies or effects
-
Runewords are nothing until the full journey of finding base and runes is complete, at which point they become powerful stat sticks with transformative utility or resource aspects (change how you evade or move or earn resources or interact with environments
-
Set items go through a journey to compile the set but after that are fully formed (except for masterworking): no enchanting, no tempering. Each item in the set adds an affix, eventually unlocking the aspect too. They have aspects centered around skill transformations (change shape, damage type, damage method) and defensive procs.
1 Like
I love the 6 pieces D2 style with a cosmetic aspect. Trag oul vampire was so cool. Balancing should be on par with equiping 3 or 6 aspects so you have quite a lot of power to play with
So that they can introduce exciting new powers without adding to the power creep, especially if the new powers are powerful. Building a character is more about optimization (“give and take”) rather than piling powers on top of another as the game progresses.
Adam Jackson talked about this in an interview (timestamped to the relevant point):
In D4s case, the best implementation of sets likely is: Don’t!
In general terms, sets should imo be:
- Only 2-3 pieces
- Thematic and broad. No skill buffs etc.
You can have the “shield tanky set”, the “dualwielding fast attacks set”, the “mobility set”, the “minion set”, the “stun CC set”, the “dmg if it rains on a tuesday set”
, and so on.
Since Diablo 4 is in love with limiting item types to specific classes, for no apparent reason, also make these set items break those limitations.
So a Sword and Shield set might be equipped by any class for example. A bow and 2 rings set? No problem, any class can use that bow.
I guess I could add that the bonuses should not just be % dmg or defense buffs… But that goes for ALL special affix itemization (legendary aspects, unique affixes etc.), so it seems redundant.
3 Likes
I think there’s a few different ways of making sets work that doesn’t really affect the current itemization at all.
-
Set items are basically Legendary Rares - i.e., they have no aspects on them, but they have the same power as Legendaries and can therefore be used as the base item in which you apply your aspects, tempering, and masterworking. But they’re “unique”, so the affixes you get on those items can only roll between their ranges, not change what they are (and cannot be rolled with enchanting). When you have 2-3 of the set, you get the associated bonus.
-
Set items are not equipment, but rather gems. We’re currently limited to how many gems we can socket, but if we had ‘gem sets’ where equipping 5 of the same gem gave you a bonus that wouldn’t impact unique/legendary/aspects at all, but would give you another layer of damage choice to add to your gear. This could also be achieved in a similar manner with ‘additional’ affixes on items but I think tempering and runewords will hold that space.
-
A new mechanic where you collect items and salvage them to collect the essence of the items. Once you’ve collected all of the essences of that set, you can place them in to your essence board to activate the sets bonus power.
Even if they do it as gear, it can be done without removing diversity.
They had already mentioned that they don’t want 6 piece sets, that they don’t really want class sets, and that they don’t want to take up important slots.
So it’ll be something like a ring and a weapon. Or boots and an amulet etc… 2, or maybe 3 pieces from different aspect slot types, and the bonuses would be equivalent to what you might want to put in those slots.
For example, you could have an Offensive + Defensive + Utility set, by equipping a Ring, Chest, and Boots sets.
It wouldn’t be something crazy that everyone would want, it would be something that works for ‘some’ builds.
E.g., Core skills have 20% increased critical chance. When critically striking enemies with a Core skill you gain a barrier for 50% of your life. While you have a barrier you have +25% movement speed.
Stuff like this wouldn’t negate taking aspects, but in builds where you effectively have 3 ‘useless’ aspects, you could replace them with a set and get a nice bonus that might not work for others builds. It wouldn’t be the thing that defines your build, and it wouldn’t reduce build diversity.
1 Like
IMO they better find a way to make Uniques & Rares useful again (or at least potentially useful)
Yes, we need something in between Legendaries and Rares, but one step at a time, not sure if Sets are the way to go 
While is still hope sets never see the light of day, that’s probably the best suggestion I have seen so far.
I still think that between Legendary, unique, Uber unique and probably Runewords by the sound of it is more than enough, this game doesnt need to entertain sets.
1 Like
Uniques definitely, Rares nah, they had their time in the sun, one less thing to look at when I go to the blacksmith to destroy stuff.
To each of their own desire…
Think Rares would be really nice addition if they continued to roll (or had a chance to continue rolling) old affixes (i.e. conditionals & all that)
That way the affix pool differs (or has a chance to differ enough)
If not caring 99% of the rares are probably not gonna be useful anyway, but that 1% of the time they could offer stuff that you might wanna have 
Well I’m also going off of what they said. They want to reduce the clutter and the time spent looking over items for hours on end. Bringing Rares back into the fold would go against this whole idea. They want people to have a quick glance, figure out what they can destroy, and what they can keep.
Also why we have 3 affixes now instead of 4, far easier to look for 2 affixes, then it is to look for 2, then see if it has the third you want, with the possibility of the holy grail at 4.
Definitely don’t see that happening either, based on the above, but I get it, you just want rares to be valuable again. I just see it as a natural progression Copper to Iron to Bronze to Steel. Maybe in an expansion down the road, or D5, you never know.
You realize you’re sacrificing the whole game (the whole concept of picking and selecting gear) so that instead of looking at gear IDK 30 seconds when you go to town you do it in 5 ?
Let me ask you a simple question, is there any time you won’t just use the “salvage all rare” button ?
Why are you FOR such a bad tradeoff/outcome ?, what are those 30 seconds gonna do to you to check out whether you may have some cool affix roll on gear ? (they can even mark the affixes themseleves as such with some mark or label like “legacy” or “conditional”)… ?
I get it, people don’t want to play “read-ablo” in town but we can’t put everything on the Axe if not shiny/steamy/beamed-up either
Never said I was for or against it, I’m explaining what they’ve said in livestreams/campfires and their philosophy about it. From their standpoint of wanting to clean up the clutter, this decision makes perfect sense. It’s irrelevant what I think about it.
I don’t mind natural progression of items. I don’t look at normal items, I don’t look at Magical items, and pretty soon I won’t look at Rare items, I’m ok with this. I’m just far more accepting of their philosophy is all. Plenty of other games do it this way, I don’t see why this particular iteration of the game is singled out for trying to clean up the game and make it simpler.
All Diablo games have done this, they make things simpler. D2 set a new standard by making things simpler, D3 I would say took it too far, but numbers would prove otherwise. D4 is trying to find the balance, and this is their current idea on how to do it. Which I fully accept for the moment.
I don’t see this as a bad tradeoff/outcome at all. I see it as natural progression toward a game that wants you to get back out there and fighting demons at your earliest convenience. This isn’t PoE, or LE, where you can spend hours in town, meticulously crafting and experimenting, it’s a Diablo game. At it’s core, it’s kill and loot, anything aside from that, from the Developers point of view, is wasting time.
1 Like
It is still an overreaction, that much is certain
In S1 we had 99.999% of gear being useless, we’re heading back to that territory again
We’ll agree to disagree on this one. As this is very subjective and opinionated. We just don’t share the same opinion is all.