So I vote for reducing Spirit from +2 skills to +1ganseng wrote: 11 hours agothe powercreep happened a few decaded ago when Spirit was introduced. now it's meta, and if alternatives that are <= Spirit rather than << Spirit are introduced, there won't be any powercreep.
45
replies
3412 views
Description
Description by
Teebling
Can be used to make Runewords:
let's agree to disagree
dionisy_cn wrote: 4 hours ago
I agree, naturally, that buffs and nerfs are a natural part of the process. To clarify, the items mentioned, while good, are not breaking anything, while half the skills in the game languish unused. My personal holy grail is that perhaps one day I will be able to select the element of Skeletal Mage. Yesterday, trying to raise one mage in act 5, I had to use the skill 9 times in a row just to get anything except cold or poison. It never really feels random. Honestly, if they only guaranteed that, with each cast, you would get a different element, I would be alright with that, as at least I could be sure that within 4 uses of the skill I would have a viable minion, but ...Trang Oul wrote: 18 hours agoIf you want to maintain proper balance, you need both buffs and nerfs. Otherwise it’s a straightforward power creep - and we know how such a series of buffs ends (D3)…
Maybe if the game difficulty was cranked up to compensate the buffs, but I’d still be afraid of an infinite treadmill.
I ask you, in all seriousness, what does it add to the game to force necros to have to cast the same skill over and over again just to get the mage they were looking for? And would fixing this cause an imbalance? There are pain points like this where an adjustment would simply remove pointless friction.
But not all friction is bad. Inventory tetris has a real place in the game and I would not adjust that. Giving everyone the same charm inventory would, in fact, lessen the game. Right now you have to decide how much space to Sacrifice, but if the inventory was dedicated charms just become the same for everyone. That decision is part of the strategy of the game.
That said, this is academic until we see what they actually do, but whatever it is I pray they do it slowly enough to allow the community to test and weigh in on it and for those who want more, more, more, and that more easily, I would suggest, respectfully, that they choose another game and let us keep our old fashioned, difficult, quirky, beautiful D2.
Yes, good point, I'm sure it could be adjusted well. I suppose my anxiety stems from an uncertainty over whether Blizzard is still capable of such fine tuning.AardvarksAdvance wrote: 21 hours agoThat will depend on how inactive is characterised.. most items disappear after x time on Ground anyway, so having a rule that terminates games longer than that a certain time frame beyond that should hopefully not cause any lost item issues described above.. I’m thinking mainly of those 6- 126 hour long running games on the servers…Inethil wrote: 21 hours ago"Improve the lobby so perhaps play games and trade games are separated or colour coded. Use AI to terminate inactive games. ID and get rid of the ad bots and auto channel pushing."
Most of that I agree with, but I've passed Horadric cubes between alts in games and would hate to lose items on the Ground just because an overly aggressive AI sees the game before I swap in.
After the D5 announcement and hearing a dev stating that D4 combat was in a good place ... my anxiety only grew. D4 and whatever comes next can keep its millions of damage, numbers so large they lack any meaning at all, and skills aimed more at waves of monsters without individual threat identity. One of the reasons I cherish D2 is that the pace and strong monster identity allows for actual tactics, rather that just blowing up the screen.
In 2020, Blizzard's then CEO got 154M USD "compensation" for his hard work. 50M in revenues might sound like a lot to you. For him it does not.ganseng wrote: 9 hours agoSo my interpretation why D2 didn't receive any updates was the economy. There is an article from polygon indicating 1.9 million warlocks, we may infer 1.5-2 million copies or some $50m in revenue. sounds like a lot and probably covers the development payroll many times over, but not sure what other operating expenses/return on investments expectations are. companies not necessarily treat their capacities as variable but can rather allocate resources to projects with higher returns. plus, there are cannibalization effects draining player base from other products, and the funnel effect with each subsequent DLC bringing in less money than the first one.
It's all a bit vague, but to make it short, is there another explanation other than economy?
don't really believe it's about not willing to make mona lisa imperfect
In addition, your estimation is for too high, expectating every player only made one warlock character.
Playing HC SSF right now.
Hell completed: Sorc, Druid, Paladin, Ama, Assa, Necro, Barb
Iron Man (Paladin): Nightmare A1
Hell completed: Sorc, Druid, Paladin, Ama, Assa, Necro, Barb
Iron Man (Paladin): Nightmare A1
you are probably right, must have been deprioritized somewhere in the corporate bureaucracy..
they can't chase every project, even if it has a positive contribution, when there are more lucrative alternatives
they can't chase every project, even if it has a positive contribution, when there are more lucrative alternatives
vued wrote: 1 hour agoIn 2020, Blizzard's then CEO got 154M USD "compensation" for his hard work. 50M in revenues might sound like a lot to you. For him it does not.ganseng wrote: 9 hours agoSo my interpretation why D2 didn't receive any updates was the economy. There is an article from polygon indicating 1.9 million warlocks, we may infer 1.5-2 million copies or some $50m in revenue. sounds like a lot and probably covers the development payroll many times over, but not sure what other operating expenses/return on investments expectations are. companies not necessarily treat their capacities as variable but can rather allocate resources to projects with higher returns. plus, there are cannibalization effects draining player base from other products, and the funnel effect with each subsequent DLC bringing in less money than the first one.
It's all a bit vague, but to make it short, is there another explanation other than economy?
don't really believe it's about not willing to make mona lisa imperfect
In addition, your estimation is for too high, expectating every player only made one warlock character.
Similar pages
Advertisment
Hide ads
Greetings stranger!
You don't appear to be logged in...
99
Who is online
Users browsing Forums: 
dejavue, 
Google Feedfetcher, 
Harpomarps, 
illdizposed, 
Kakumba, 
kerph, 
Michal, 
oOKIWIOo, Tbot [Bot], 
Wubbo and 310 guests.
No matches
dionisy_cn
121