|
For me, a lot of enjoyment in D2 came from the mechanics underneath.
Things like how poison worked, claw build for the assassin, (2fpa anyone?), how weapon speed was handled when dual wielding (for barbs and for assassins), wth was actually killing from pit vipers (integer damage reduction ftw), I got into modding quite a bit towards the end (this led me over to Soulmancer's mod, Hell Unleashed), and I helped there on some of the earlier patches after he was done.
Also, I used melee wolfs/bears quite a bit, How their attack speed is very different from other classes, the fact that you can live through Iron Maiden since you deshift before death( gotta be quick with the juvs).
Made a barb using dual Lacerators (has Amplify Damage, but also flee on hit). Used Warcry for stuns and phys, and to hold still. And frenzy/double swing once stunned It is really mana intensive. Had to go to great lengths so solve that.
I also hunted bots, a lot. Ruined many a Chaos run where people were like lvl 9 and in Hell Chaos Sanctuary following a Hammerdin. U{sed a Trapsin, or fire/cold sorc hybrid. Oh the tears I got to consume.
Edit: clarity
and also like walking the hard content, not telporting passed it all. I would use Enigma on a few characters, but it was used to move btwn packs, and for placement. Most of my characters could out run any telesorc hammerdin in a line anyway
|
On November 06 2019 10:35 ProMeTheus112 wrote:I think grinding is ok so long as its not repetitive. That's how I feel about it as a player, if the most efficient way of grinding at some point is going to be running a single place a thousand times because that's where the best stuff drops, I won't be happy about that. But if I can go in a lot of many different places and choose which ones to go to, get challenging difficulty there, and get not just one specific but rather many different possible progression pieces in each places, then that's good. D2 has this to an extent with the bunch of lvl85 areas, but since there aren't that many of them it doesn't necessarily feel as varied as what you get while progressing through the whole game before you reach endgame. Plus, if your character is really strong in D2 you will not really get a good challenge in these areas, it may become easier than going through normal when you have no gear, if you're high level and have some amazing gear. The XP ladder doesn't cut it then cause for competing with players you'd just want to grind through easy areas to get XP for as many hours as you can, and it gets worse when you're actually competing with a lot of bots and char geared by bots etc^^ But anyway I think you can do interesting "grinding" going on so long as it's not actually repetitive, predictable and easy. If you make it hard, unpredictable and non-repetitive, involving lots of choices and open playstyles etc, then it doesn't even feel like grinding anymore and it's a good progression system instead. That's how I think of it anyway. Coop elements, versus elements, and ladder-like elements but this has to make more sense than the XP grind that is the endgame of D2 where you're dealing with easy combat in a few lvl85 areas because the top gear is too strong (1.10 items etc...) and there are too few places to go to that are at the top difficulty. One of D2's biggest issues is also the enormous incentive to rushing mindlessly because a few simple builds are very strong and you can easily skip the whole game by spamming some spells around and its nearly mindless lol (balance issues with some skill builds and some cheap very strong items such as 1.10 runewords etc, issue of playing with many characters in a single game reducing the difficulty dramatically since 1.10 too cause its only +50% health of monsters per player instead of +100% etc) I mean picture instead of running a hundred times through the same place, you can get more bonus going on if you keep a little custom quest going without resetting your game, kill some boss of your choice, then you get some piece you can use in a place you choose which makes the monsters stronger in this area then if you succeed something else happens that gives you some other options to follow up in that game etc. It doesn't have to be, go to A3 mephisto teleporting bug him in a corner and spam a spell so he dies and you just rolled very efficient dices to get most of the best items then repeat the same so many times until you get enough you're so strong nothing can nearly kill you anymore  lul three pillars I would go with balance, depth and complete features or customization, combat mechanics and open endgame
But wasnt that what D3 tried with the mini quests scattered through all acts? And also have rifts for those that wanted to grind or rush x amount of times to get the best gear?
Reading through most people's comments and what it seems to me that D3 tried to offer, dont get all the hate. Well i get that people dont like the damage scaling the way it was done and the sets taking over but still. Maybe the visuals of it, but it is not the type of complaint that im seeing most of the time.
To answer someone's question about how people go through Diablo games, i am also one of those that does the campaign with the most interesting characters, then after a few years do it again with the others. Well that was until D3 which is probably the one where I spent most time of the 3. It wasnt the best looking but after completing the story I had enough variety and challenge to keep going on the mini quests and rifts whenever I felt like.
But hey i've never considered myself a Diablo hardcore guy so what do I know.
|
On November 06 2019 18:19 KobraKay wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2019 10:35 ProMeTheus112 wrote:I think grinding is ok so long as its not repetitive. That's how I feel about it as a player, if the most efficient way of grinding at some point is going to be running a single place a thousand times because that's where the best stuff drops, I won't be happy about that. But if I can go in a lot of many different places and choose which ones to go to, get challenging difficulty there, and get not just one specific but rather many different possible progression pieces in each places, then that's good. D2 has this to an extent with the bunch of lvl85 areas, but since there aren't that many of them it doesn't necessarily feel as varied as what you get while progressing through the whole game before you reach endgame. Plus, if your character is really strong in D2 you will not really get a good challenge in these areas, it may become easier than going through normal when you have no gear, if you're high level and have some amazing gear. The XP ladder doesn't cut it then cause for competing with players you'd just want to grind through easy areas to get XP for as many hours as you can, and it gets worse when you're actually competing with a lot of bots and char geared by bots etc^^ But anyway I think you can do interesting "grinding" going on so long as it's not actually repetitive, predictable and easy. If you make it hard, unpredictable and non-repetitive, involving lots of choices and open playstyles etc, then it doesn't even feel like grinding anymore and it's a good progression system instead. That's how I think of it anyway. Coop elements, versus elements, and ladder-like elements but this has to make more sense than the XP grind that is the endgame of D2 where you're dealing with easy combat in a few lvl85 areas because the top gear is too strong (1.10 items etc...) and there are too few places to go to that are at the top difficulty. One of D2's biggest issues is also the enormous incentive to rushing mindlessly because a few simple builds are very strong and you can easily skip the whole game by spamming some spells around and its nearly mindless lol (balance issues with some skill builds and some cheap very strong items such as 1.10 runewords etc, issue of playing with many characters in a single game reducing the difficulty dramatically since 1.10 too cause its only +50% health of monsters per player instead of +100% etc) I mean picture instead of running a hundred times through the same place, you can get more bonus going on if you keep a little custom quest going without resetting your game, kill some boss of your choice, then you get some piece you can use in a place you choose which makes the monsters stronger in this area then if you succeed something else happens that gives you some other options to follow up in that game etc. It doesn't have to be, go to A3 mephisto teleporting bug him in a corner and spam a spell so he dies and you just rolled very efficient dices to get most of the best items then repeat the same so many times until you get enough you're so strong nothing can nearly kill you anymore lul three pillars I would go with balance, depth and complete features or customization, combat mechanics and open endgame But wasnt that what D3 tried with the mini quests scattered through all acts? And also have rifts for those that wanted to grind or rush x amount of times to get the best gear? Reading through most people's comments and what it seems to me that D3 tried to offer, dont get all the hate. Well i get that people dont like the damage scaling the way it was done and the sets taking over but still. Maybe the visuals of it, but it is not the type of complaint that im seeing most of the time. To answer someone's question about how people go through Diablo games, i am also one of those that does the campaign with the most interesting characters, then after a few years do it again with the others. Well that was until D3 which is probably the one where I spent most time of the 3. It wasnt the best looking but after completing the story I had enough variety and challenge to keep going on the mini quests and rifts whenever I felt like. But hey i've never considered myself a Diablo hardcore guy so what do I know.
The people still complaining are the hard core Diablo crowd. The average gamer crowd has mostly moved on by now or only occasionally come back. I never even bought Diablo 3 since I heard bad things about it at release, it was too grindy at that point. Did enjoy some coop at a friend's place on console though, so game seems fine now.
|
D3 i only played at release, I never wanted to accept buying an expansion for it sorry lul : /
It was not just a disapointment, but a feeling of being betrayed. That's why, I simply wouldn't come back to it and didn't need to : D2 is still there, although since blizzard don't care, it's ran by bots completely. I may give a chance to D4, will see.
|
D3 now vs D3 at release are completely different games. If you haven't played it since then it's worth trying, especially if you already own it.
|
I agree, Reaper of Souls finally fixed the loot problems and it is enjoyable to play up to a certain point. Up to the point where your legendaries stop being good enough and you start chasing Ancient-grade legendaries.
When they introduced those into the game, that's when I stopped playing D3.
|
On November 07 2019 06:52 Latham wrote:
I agree, Reaper of Souls finally fixed the loot problems and it is enjoyable to play up to a certain point. Up to the point where your legendaries stop being good enough and you start chasing Ancient-grade legendaries.
When they introduced those into the game, that's when I stopped playing D3.
Augments are far worse for me than ancient items.
|
United Kingdom20344 Posts
Buy to play + Expansions + Microtransactions 
|
On November 09 2019 03:45 Cyro wrote:Buy to play + Expansions + Microtransactions
Why the sadface? Anything else would have been a complete suprise.
|
United Kingdom20344 Posts
On November 09 2019 04:54 iXphobos wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2019 03:45 Cyro wrote:Buy to play + Expansions + Microtransactions Why the sadface? Anything else would have been a complete suprise.
Usually games are either buy to play or they're free to play that is funded by microtransactions. Not both!
|
On November 09 2019 06:55 Cyro wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2019 04:54 iXphobos wrote:On November 09 2019 03:45 Cyro wrote:Buy to play + Expansions + Microtransactions Why the sadface? Anything else would have been a complete suprise. Usually games are either buy to play or they're free to play that is funded by microtransactions. Not both!
Looks at world of warcraft. Looks at overwatch.
This isn't exactly inconsistent for blizzard let alone Activision.
|
On November 09 2019 07:26 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2019 06:55 Cyro wrote:On November 09 2019 04:54 iXphobos wrote:On November 09 2019 03:45 Cyro wrote:Buy to play + Expansions + Microtransactions Why the sadface? Anything else would have been a complete suprise. Usually games are either buy to play or they're free to play that is funded by microtransactions. Not both! Looks at world of warcraft. Looks at overwatch. This isn't exactly inconsistent for blizzard let alone Activision.
And SC2.
Actually most AAA games do this now.
|
United Kingdom20344 Posts
On November 09 2019 08:52 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2019 07:26 Sermokala wrote:On November 09 2019 06:55 Cyro wrote:On November 09 2019 04:54 iXphobos wrote:On November 09 2019 03:45 Cyro wrote:Buy to play + Expansions + Microtransactions Why the sadface? Anything else would have been a complete suprise. Usually games are either buy to play or they're free to play that is funded by microtransactions. Not both! Looks at world of warcraft. Looks at overwatch. This isn't exactly inconsistent for blizzard let alone Activision. And SC2. Actually most AAA games do this now.
I gave SC2 as an example earlier, it's free to play. You have to buy several of the campaigns, a lot of co-op commanders, skins etc - but you don't have to buy the box or even other expansion features.
|
What are you even arguing about? You have to define your terms.
When it comes to RTS you usually expect:
a) game you pay for with full campaign and maybe multiplayer (no need to be online when playing singleplayer or LAN)
b) expansions that you pay for which give you extended campaign, new units etc.
When it comes to ARPG:
a) game with full campaing and maybe multiplayer (no need to be online when playing sp or LAN)
b) expansions that you buy which give you new characters, extra story etc.
Cosmetics etc. can be added as an extra source of income for the developer. But guess what? If you adhered to points a and b in both of the previous lists you don't really need cosmetics. I mean, they might only matter in mp games on ladder and such but that's maybe 10% of people who play your game, of those most won't buy them. If you have extra cash, your game is doing really well and your graphic designers are into it, why the hell not? The other option is that while you were creating a game your gds came up with a bunch of variant designs and you can sell them as extras.
Challenge: Name recent Blizz games that adhere to this model.
Current game trends are atrocious. I absolutely hate the current model. I'm now something most people would call a whale. If the game is good, I don't really mind pouring my money into it. I despise microtransactions and have subsequently uninstalled all games that have it (even though I absolutely loved them) and I'm still supporting games that I believe in. Take for example Dead or Alive. Its most recent incarnation is the best and at the same time the most diappointing entry in the series. It is by far the best looking fighting game out there (considering 3d games, when it comes to 2d it's guilty gear), with really interesting mechanics, base game being free etc. They have super ridiculous pricing model of $80/season pass, which I am still paying, even though the contents are mostly garbage. I mean, there's no innovation (previous version had different halloween costumes for each character, now they just do only female with basically the same costume, it's lazy and shit) and no vision. Even though, I've decided to buy every single season pass for this game (which you totally don't need at all), even though it's super overpriced (this I can understand, with low player numbers you need to somehow make up for it). Don't get me wrong, the quality on all the cosmetics and everything in this game is superb, it just lacks the variation of previous iterations etc. I will support them this time because I believe in them, but if it won't get better during this iteration of the game I won't be supporting the next one. It won't matter that I love the series and what they have done so far. I am more than willing to support them for a while even if they produce sub-par stuff that I got used to, but it can't continue forever. I'm old enough to understand that less popular games might need more money, I'm also old enough to not be a super blind fanboy and support a franchise not just through a rough patch but way past beyond it.
Recently I've made my decision. I stopped supporting any franchise with mtx (which meant saying goodbye to some of the games I've been playing for years and still love) and will not support anything that doesn't meet the minimum requirements I have (in case of DoA I will not be buying any more season passes, costume packs etc. and if their current trend continues I won't even download the f2p base game).
Sorry, I'm drunk and have absolutely no idea if anything posted above makes any sense. I will review it tomorrow and edit/fix stuff. I just needed to take some stuff off my chest. And it seems that at least some of it is relevant to D4.
|
On November 09 2019 04:54 iXphobos wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2019 03:45 Cyro wrote:Buy to play + Expansions + Microtransactions Why the sadface? Anything else would have been a complete suprise.
if the microtransaction is auction house then its a fuck yes
|
You know what I think about cosmetics, I don't like them being the object of microtransactions either, cause if you're gonna have access to cosmetic in the game I'd much rather they be obtainable through something you do in the game so they actually have game meaning. Honestly the one way I would much rather be able to contribute to the developper for further support is donation. I also think that adding expansions to a game can be both a good and a bad thing and I'd rather just see some sort of free patches and just be able to donate if I like it all or something like that. Infinite expansions are bad, or expansions that break stuff that was in the original game by adding things that make part of the previous structure irrelevant, simplify the game instead of actually adding to it etc. Or mandatory expansions where you can't even play the game you had in the first place when you prefer it over the new version etc.
|
Cosmetic items in online gaming are vanity items and just like IRL, the only purpose of vanity stuff is making you feel special. Usually I don't buy them, except when they tickle my funny bone or touch my nerd heart in some way and then I might spend a few bucks on them. I really don't see any harm in that.
Infinite expansions are bad, or expansions that break stuff that was in the original game by adding things that make part of the previous structure irrelevant, simplify the game instead of actually adding to it etc. Or mandatory expansions where you can't even play the game you had in the first place when you prefer it over the new version etc.
I've never played a game, that had mandatory expansions, so idk which game(s) you're refering to.
But as long as the expansions improve the game and actually manage to make the game exciting again with fresh new content (which Blizzard's expansion usually do), I'm all for it.
I know there are shitty expansions and dlcs out there, which are nothing more than a cash grab, but that's what refunds are for. (edit: been awake for 36 hours, sorry for any nonsensical rambling sentences)
|
Example cosmetics : Bnet icons for wins. They represent how many wins you achieved.
If it's a RPG item, I would want it to mean some ingame achievement (or traded using in game items), and also if affecting my character perhaps the same way as another item in that slot would (so that it makes sense the way a character looks, if you see a character yours or another you can gather information about their equipement stats / thats why I dislike ideas like "transmogrification" that's a terrible idea imo). It's not terrible when some cosmetics can be bought, I'd just rather most or all of them be obtainable by playing the game instead, I think it's more fun and interesting. If you see someone having this or that cosmetic thing it means they did this achievement which is required to have it, it's more fun to even show them then.
Wow has been like that with mandatory expansions, no way to access vanilla for over a decade after BC came out (other than private servers occasionally threatened of lawsuit), even though BC killed the part of the game I play for (open world pvp) with flying mounts. It's been a trend for a few games to release expansions constantly (wow or hearthstone) and I just stay away from these games yeah. I believe if the game fails to remain interesting or exciting without expansions it's probably because it's not that good in the first place lul.
My suggestion really is, just add content and further develop as needed for game quality, and just put a donation button someplace on the interface. Crazy eh.
|
I think that transmogs are a brilliant idea. I absolutely loathe it when some item has good stats that I want but looks terrible and/or its looks don't fit with the rest of my gear.
|
I'm on the other side of the spectrum, I really don't like transmogs and almost never use them. My char changing in look over time gives me a sense of progression and I'd much rather have my unique item be visible as a unique item to me than optically wearing the same items all the time.
Recolors are fine though and I wouldn't mind a transmog feature for the money-store, I just wouldn't buy it ever.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
