What's the point? Less Monks? It's coincidence that multiple endgame-viable specs are cumulated on one class.
You'd only create an even worse gap between group and solo play.
Blueprint would be too good.
Stash space can be fixed much simpler:
a) new stash tabs = old stash tabs x 10
keep 1 or 2 tabs account-wide and make all the others char specific
This. I cannot even begin to comprehend the ridiculousness of the stash limitation. The given space is fine for one character. Leaves enough room for multiple, complete gear sets and allows to keep some sort of organisation instead of throwing an item wherever there is space.
When they made the decision to make the stash account-wide, which was a great idea, originated in D2 mods, they somehow overlooked the fact that this would shrink the size to 1/5 of the intended value.
And even now they still turn a blind eye on this. There is nothing sillier in a collection-based game then to stop collecting to throw away stuff you might wanna use at some point in time. Like in a new patch with modified set bonuses....
edit: Forgot to mention: Why couldn't they put the 6th tab in the same "directory" as the other 5? Now we get page 1 with tabs 1-5 and page 2 with tab 1 (-5 eventually). Why?!
I remember the one you did previously, that was a decent read with information that I'd consider useful. This new one has no content imo. Just some motivational speech, sorry.
Yes, I only got 1/6. Mobs die too fast. Now that I think about it, I suppose one could use a lvl1 bow until that objective is done and then clear the rest with the Yang's. There was nothing else to worry about. Best thing for me was finding the dungeon based on the clue. I somehow went to the right spot on the first try, took like 20sec.
the problem in case of equality (4 playing together earn the same as one player alone) are the followings.
1-ungeared friend and clanmate: sometimes the other player are not well geared...if you play social you can't simple say no to when they ask to play with you.
2-different activities...sometimes your friend want to do something that is not what you need the most...if you play social you can't simple leave saying "do by yourself I'l play alone"
So, imo to incentive the social play the gain in group play should be at least 2x or 3x compared to play solo
Well, first of all, I don't think anyone needs compensation for playing with friends. If you wanna play together, that should be an inherent improvement of your enjoyment. I can't remember how many hours of my life have been spent on carrying friends through these games.
If you want to do different things, either find some common ground or do your stuff individually while talking/chatting to each other. That was the norm in vanilla D2.
Your first point is more tricky, that's where the core of the issue lies and where Blizz went so extremely far in the wrong direction (in my opinion, that is). You can't tune the game so that any 4 player grp will be as effective as a solo player. Now the starting point for multiplayer balancing would be: each monster gets its hp multiplied by the number of players etc (not the damage). Then 4 equally geared and skilled dps classes would be as effective as each of them solo. Now what do you think, are there more players who are able to outperform this bar by complementing each other and applying some teamwork or are there more players who would not make that for whatever reason (gear/skill discrepancy)?
I'd think the former but Blizzard must think the bulk of their playerbase to be utterly degenerated morons. So they tuned this to the effect that you get an easier game by virtually bringing anyone. Monsters don't have nearly 100% hp per player, several classes bring buffs that affect everyone and to add insult to injury there's even an independent exp bonus just for not playing solo.
in dubio pro reo
Yes, these extensions would open up a hell of a lot combination options, out of which some might turn out to be op. Is that an issue? I don't think so. Something ridiculous would probably be found during the ptr testing and if something truly op, that nobody thought about were to be discovered after 10 weeks of the season, so what? I'd actually like that. We could puzzle all season long with new combinations instead of making the choice of which set and which bracers.
edit: Forgot to mention. Legendary chests, heads and pants are basically useless, which is sad. Some of them are ok to find once for the cube and than that's it.
Plain and simple: no.
I appreciate your change of tone, but I still cannot agree with this opinion. In my opinion the baseline should be equality, let everyone play how they want to play and not force them into either solo or group. If I remember correctly, Blizzard once stated that this was the ultimate design goal, yet they would ensure that inevitable differences would always end up in favor of the multiplayer side. To me, that'd be as good as it gets.
Problem is, they missed that point by only a small number of galaxies. And that's no wonder given the examples they come up with when talking about that. Like "Imagine your 3yr old brother wants to play with you but needs both hands to handle the mouse. Should you experience a more difficult game then?"
I think, we need additional set pieces for the existing class sets, so that we have more choice, which 6 slots to use for the set bonus and which to keep open for regular legendaries. I've seen new models of the same old chest, pants, head stuff again, which might be to keep their art guys entertained but from a gameplay point of view, sets with like 10 pieces (but only 2, 4, and 6 bonuses obviously) would open up so many choices, that it's ridiculous to not include that now.
This is under the assumption that the new ring set won't render every other set obsolete, which certainly won't make it to live.
1 accomplishes nothing and 2 is super-naive. Of course it'd be the best scenario to remove the predators, but in absence of that possibility, Blizz might as well limit their prey. Though botting is not the only issue. It's also nice to not have to log your meta char 24/7 until a week before the season ends to then push for your final rank.
If we cap Paragon on grifts, what's the point of having them work outside of grifts? Are you going to need to be paragon 4k to farm T7 bounties or play TX Rifts? If we brought up the torment levels to 20+ would these kids start whining that Torment levels are too high and unfair now?
Might overthink your choice of words if you want to be taken seriously. I agree that having higher plvl for non-gr content is pointless, I'd make the distinction between season and non-season. Go ahead and accumulate plvl 10k there through your various seasonal chars.
If we cap paragon at 1k, then all the kids at 400 paragon will start whining that only players with 1k paragon are on top and now that's unfair.
Won't please everyone, but I don't expect the people arguing here to actually act that childish
Is grinding for paragon the single most fun aspect of Diablo 3, of course not. But combined with trying new builds, the possibility of getting new/better gear, and playing with a good group to push grifts/do rifts/ubers/bounties it makes it so that even the most hardcore players will always theoretically have a reason to keep playing.
Trying new builds? Farming ubers? Enjoying the game? Interesting ideas. How about not possible because it costs x amount of experience? Someone like me wouldn't care, but those truly competitive guys shouldn't "waste" too much time on having fun. And that's the other core problem.
Less reward for something that is not fun in the first place can actually have a positive effect by reducing the incentive to pursue that thing.
That's THE question that drives development: Would the change be fun? Would people still play the game if Paragon was capped or would they lose interest? If people keep playing, then it's safe to assume that it's fun, because if you keep playing although you don't like it, then what are you even doing with your life?
Better hope that Blizz doesn't measure their changes by the amount of time being spent ingame. That might very well go down without the "need" to grind plvl, especially from those loyal accounts that are online 24 hours. It's the quality of the time spent playing that matters.
And to think that people would still be playing for many hours without getting ANYTHING out of the game (because equip and level are maxed out) is very naive.
Don't agree with naive, but yes, this has been the reason for introducing infinite plvl in the first place. However imo it turned out as a failure. The role model of D2s almost infinite exp progression that did have a cap, was better. They just need to find a cap that's comparable to D2s lvl 99.
I don't mean any disrespect but it seems that anytime a anti-paragoner can't convince someone with the "its not fair!" argument, they resort to "but bots!". Of course I'm all for getting rid of botting. And I understand that there are people who are cheating/botting to make it to leaderboards.
Maybe you don't understand the scale of the issue that is botting (and thud for that matter). If there were visible flags on the leaderboards showing which accounts used either, you'd hardly find anyone without such a flag. It's not like a small minority exploits those things to "compete".
You're right that the gameplay component of getting experience and thus progressing your character isn't directly connected to that and that good things shouldn't be harmed just because of cheaters.
But think about actual paragon leveling: Which level have you reached this season? Is it fun to chase from 1445 to 1446? I don't think, people love to do that all day, especially those who don't bot trying desperately to catch up(see that letter thread).
Capping it for season only at a sane point would be such a minor intrusion, yet on the plus side would remove most of the advantage of bots. I can also imagine many top competitors rejoicing when they won't get up in the morning with a day of 16 hours of grinding waiting for them.
That's lame, lowers sympathy for your desire. Maybe try to pm a mod.
Quote from maka
All damage is the same, though, regardless of whether it comes from Str, CC+CD, whatever; it's all the same damage. Armour is different from each of the resistances, which are specific to each element, and HP is also different.
Quote from maka
No, you see, I prefer Armor, because that's a real stat. Items actually increase your Armor, and you can look at them and see they give you 400 Armor. Toughness is just a made up stat, that amalgamates a few different 'real' stats; the same with Healing - it's not a 'real' stat, it's mos likely composed of a few different stats. That's why I don't like them.
Damage is fine.