Sets from Diablo

After Elden Ring, i'm forever spoiled by item sets

Now 2.4 is improving partial set bonuses (finally - after decades of no change) but what do you all think should make sets EVEN more relevant?

Should completed sets be made more apparent (Cosmetically) or level requirements adjusted?

General's Radahn's completed set looks awesome after that epic fight:
Spoiler fight

Spoiler

Underused sets should make specific builds endgame-viable. Give Trang-Oul's Avatar a high-level

Conviction aura and +20 to

Skeleton Mage or something in that vein.

The simple, most basic truth is that set stats suck. So long as they don't even compare against runewords and the like, no amount of baller appearance will make them be worth it. I mean..most of them actually do look pretty good as is (in their own way). But that's no saving grace.

Balancing them out is of course a touchy subject because if you just generally make them as good (or better) to get them to be used, then they'll just replace runewords and the like, leading to the same discussion in reverse.

Must admit, I never thought of it as an idea..but I really like what iamergo just suggested up there. Make sets specifically aimed at a particular build or two, ideally ones that aren't currently part of the top tier builds, balanced in such a way that it gets them up to par (but not beyond that). That way, sets have an actual purpose and reason for existence, they'd be worth using (for those builds), they'd make those builds worth using (increasing variety overall) but they wouldn't replace all other items across the board because they wouldn't flat out win in all other builds.

Schnorki wrote: 2 years ago

The simple, most basic truth is that set stats suck. So long as they don't even compare against runewords and the like, no amount of baller appearance will make them be worth it. I mean..most of them actually do look pretty good as is (in their own way). But that's no saving grace.

Balancing them out is of course a touchy subject because if you just generally make them as good (or better) to get them to be used, then they'll just replace runewords and the like, leading to the same discussion in reverse.

Must admit, I never thought of it as an idea..but I really like what iamergo just suggested up there. Make sets specifically aimed at a particular build or two, ideally ones that aren't currently part of the top tier builds, balanced in such a way that it gets them up to par (but not beyond that). That way, sets have an actual purpose and reason for existence, they'd be worth using (for those builds), they'd make those builds worth using (increasing variety overall) but they wouldn't replace all other items across the board because they wouldn't flat out win in all other builds.

Yea - making the completed set get some really unique effect or ability would really motivate players i think.

Like the 3rd version of Diablo??
Hmmmm

D3 you mean? Oh please no...

Sets becoming the clear winner for most things and dictating the winning build on top of that is going way too far in the other direction.

So, I like the notion of sets, and I think D2 misses the mark with them. Most of the time, as indicated above, the bonuses are not that great, certainly not compared to runewords or even single uniques. To avoid a "But Johnny Cash's version of Hurt is regarded, even by NiN, to be superior than the original so not all covers are garbage" comeback, there are exceptions. Like

Laying of Hands, and

Tal's set are pretty ok.

I think the sets themselves are self governing because it takes effort to find and assemble them. I mean, most of IK is trash and found before one finishes NM, but getting the armor is another story. It takes some inventory space obligations to get a full set most of the time, even for the 3 piecers.

One of the other problems I have seen with sets is the atrocious stat requirements that make a full set unusable until it is out of its prime zone. Like Milabrega's armor that is level 18 but needs 100 strength. Or

Death's Touch, level 6 sword with 71 strength required. Really? REALLY?? 2.4 gives us the option to upgrade set items, but are the runes really going to be worth the bonuses? Maybe. Probably not for most sets.

I think Blizzard is taking a nice step in 2.4 by tweaking the set bonuses. It gives options, but doesn't create the "Pre 2.4" classes for gear. I also concur that we don't want sets to rule the gear goals, we have another, lesser game for that. But they should get some boosts and tweaks to make them an option to consider. I like the idea of making the class sets the designated MF sets for each class with bonus MF for completed sets. Also just making them add a few points to all skills immediately makes them more attractive for a lot of classes. Maybe it would be good to make the sets the go-to options for NM and early Hell, with the runewords and uniques staying and the gear goals everyone chases.

Wrapping up my small children's book, I say we see how things stack up with the upgrade option, and if it is determined that taking Sander's Folly up to Elite still makes it garbage, maybe a few more tweaks to the bonuses. Oh no, Leaker said tweaking stats. Heresy!

I like the making underused builds viable route. Mavinas for mage bowazon, aldur's for shapeshifter or summon, ik for something weird, like

Leap Attack,

Natalya's for martial arts, or even some funky shadow build. Why the heck not? You could give season specific bonuses to set items as well to see how the community likes them and just discontinue at the end of the season if they don't work.