Still waiting for an answer
|
Anyone who have played D2 knows that sets can be done without killing diversity. So why not sets?
This thread has been automatically archived. Replies are disabled.
| |
|
They already kind of are creating sets. Ever see a Kaom's ring, boots, chest, ... The only thing they don't have is a set bonus... which might help one use the whole set together at higher levels, seeing that some pieces might be low level pieces...
So, I'm all for this, if the set bonuses help bring the lower level pieces up towards current level. But to be clear, the set bonuses should help make up for the lower level item inclusions, and not create anything too OP... as in general, perfect rares are generally intented to be capable of being stronger than uniques. Last edited by DragonsProphecy on Sep 30, 2014, 9:17:36 AM
|
|
|
It is complicated to make sets where the players wouldn't find it irrelevant to only use part of them, without making those sets overpowered.
That's what they believe kills diversity. It's not the number of viable builds that is the issue, it's the number of viable equipment choices that is. Helm, Gloves, Boots, Amulet, Ring, Ring, Belt, Chest Armour, First Hand, Second Hand. That's 10 slots. For a set that takes 5 items, it's half of your equipment choice that is taken away. I think that they could be comfortable with maybe up to 3-item sets (they already have single items that are equivalent to two-item sets), but anything above that would probably be too much, and if they started making sets, they'd be expected to do some at higher sizes too. Rather than things named "sets", I believe there could be a few uniques that reference other uniques by name, as long as it's done in an interesting manner. |
|
|
@MrTremere : I think he puts it well why sets bonuses can't be allowed to be OP
But, I think Kaom's is a great example. The ring has limited life and resists, as compared to rares that would be slot alternatives. Meanwhile, the boots have life but no runspeed or resists... ... So, what if there was a set bonus, and what if it just helped fill in the horribly missing holes... (Why would you wear boots and a chest with so much life and a ring with so little? I'm adding more life to continue the theme. And Fire also appears to be a theme as well.) - 2 items : +25% Fire Resist - 3 items : +15% Fire Damage - 4 items : +70 Life This set is NOT OP. Many people would still use the pieces and not the set. No build diversity hurt! (And if I'm wrong, just nerf those values till appropriate.) This is still VERY little resists for this set. No run speed. No Crit or Attack Speed (which could be on a ring)... Sets could be good, if the sum of their parts come from mixed levels, and the set bonus then only helps bring the lower level items up to par for use at higher levels. As an alternative, To simplify sets, one could give each item a single set affix, and then activate it if any other items of the same set are equipped. This means that at 2 set items you get 2 extra affixes, and at 3 set items 3 extra affixes (1 per item.) In this way, two items are actually encouraged far more so than 3. Last edited by DragonsProphecy on Sep 30, 2014, 10:24:33 AM
|
|
" That's the problem, they're "kind of" but not real ones. I miss the sensation of getting the 1st piece and wanting to collect all the others, like back in D2. And that sensation proved to be an strong mechanism, as it's the base for Pokémon ("Catch them all")... I know, a different kind of game, but as I've previously said, it also took part in D2, PoE's closest cousin. And it worked nice. Kaom items share a part of its name, however, apart from the bonus, as MrTremere has pointed, they lack another main reason that made you feel like it's a set: referencing the other parts by name. A different color would also be appreciated. Agree about the part that they should never be BiS (Best in Socket). Last edited by Salzwer on Oct 2, 2014, 11:33:38 AM
| |
" The roots of this post is the comparison with D2 sets. D2 sets were no way overpowered, D2 sets were no way Best in Socket. Last edited by Salzwer on Oct 2, 2014, 11:32:08 AM
| |
" Sets do kill diversity. If you don't have that specific item equipped, you lose effectiveness found on the other items. This removes the chance of choosing a different item. It's like being stuck with Cloak of Defiance when normally you could choose between CoD or Lightning Coil. | |
" OK, you're right. Then how can you explain that D2 sets were used by a minority and only for the purpose of feeling well-dressed? | |
|
Sets weren't something players used because other items surpassed set items even with the set bonuses. There was then no point in using them as soon as you started having to remove one or two parts of the set for those much better items. Also, being able to have better without going through the whole Pokemon process kinda kills the hype.
Rares give the most choice. Uniques remove affix choice. Sets remove slot choice in addition to affix choice. Making relevant uniques that do not reduce diversity is very hard (multiple uniques have become staples that reduce diversity). Making relevant sets that do not reduce diversity is a lost cause. Irrelevant set items are rather easy to produce, though, but they are not as fun to collect. |
|
" Sets were the best thing to use up until rune words came out. Once rune words came out, full rune word geared characters mopped the floor compared to set builds. If you played Diablo 2 and knew sets were used by a minority, why'd you ask? |
