Take your example of three items that together grant CI - that's three item slots which together give you CI. You now can never find an item that will be an upgrade for any of those slots, because replacing any of those items would mean you loose CI, and you've established that CI is worth more than any one item can provide - thus, no potential replacement item will give you as much as you've lost. That's three item slots you will never upgrade, and given the limited number of slots on the character, that's a decent part of the game gone, because finding upgrades is the game to a large extent.
CI is not appropriate for every build so the problem mentioned here ceases to be a problem when players are allowed to have multiple characters
Set items are a trash concept and don't belong in this game nor do they really belong in any game. Making items dependent on each other to be worthwhile to use does nothing but hurt a players ability to upgrade their gear outside of it. People need to stop focusing on words to describe gear and worry more about the power of gear in general.
And I would suggest that others need to stop looking at "gear" in a vacuum, because the game is already full of dependencies; managing them is just part of the game.
Can't switch out a piece of gear because it's your only 5-link/6-link, or because it's got the slot colours you need, or just because it's holding your resistances up to a certain level. "Can't respec your life nodes because you'll die" is even the same kind of thing: you have a "slot" (passive point) that you could use for a variety of things, but in reality you essentially need to spend a certain amount of your slots on that kind of defence.
I don't see why "set items" means "OP stats". To me it means items which do extra things when used together. Mark disputed an example of items granting CI, and that's fine, but that's not set items as a whole, they don't need to grant keystone abilities or other such unique boosts to be sets. A couple of items that together grant another +15% fire resistance is a set.
Set items are a trash concept and don't belong in this game nor do they really belong in any game. Making items dependent on each other to be worthwhile to use does nothing but hurt a players ability to upgrade their gear outside of it. People need to stop focusing on words to describe gear and worry more about the power of gear in general.
And I would suggest that others need to stop looking at "gear" in a vacuum, because the game is already full of dependencies; managing them is just part of the game.
Can't switch out a piece of gear because it's your only 5-link/6-link, or because it's got the slot colours you need, or just because it's holding your resistances up to a certain level. "Can't respec your life nodes because you'll die" is even the same kind of thing: you have a "slot" (passive point) that you could use for a variety of things, but in reality you essentially need to spend a certain amount of your slots on that kind of defence.
I don't see why "set items" means "OP stats". To me it means items which do extra things when used together. Mark disputed an example of items granting CI, and that's fine, but that's not set items as a whole, they don't need to grant keystone abilities or other such unique boosts to be sets. A couple of items that together grant another +15% fire resistance is a set.
That's hardly an excuse to use because if that were in fact the case then the item in question wouldn't be an upgrade now would it.
Every argument I've seen in favor of set items have been all about "Oh we want extra effects on gear." Well whats to stop a unique item from having that considering the amount of uniques that have such a thing that normally couldn't exist on said item. What makes it necessary to create an entirely new type of item rarity? Gear should never be dependent on each other for viability.
That's hardly an excuse to use because if that were in fact the case then the item in question wouldn't be an upgrade now would it.
Uh...that would clearly depend on what it was competing with. I'm not actually making an item suggestion here, or a particular comparison with any existing items. Just saying that set bonuses doesn't only mean "grants some ridiculously strong/unique ability you'll never want to lose". If a particular unique item was the only way to get a certain ability, people won't upgrade that slot either. This isn't really a fundamental problem with set items, it's just a regular old bit of game balancing.
Every argument I've seen in favor of set items have been all about "Oh we want extra effects on gear." Well whats to stop a unique item from having that considering the amount of uniques that have such a thing that normally couldn't exist on said item. What makes it necessary to create an entirely new type of item rarity? Gear should never be dependent on each other for viability.
That last sentence isn't an argument, it's just a bare declaration; no idea what you think it's adding there.
Anyway no, you clearly don't need a specific new category of items in order to implement sets, that's absolutely right. A set bonus is something you can't get on "normal" items, and "has things you can't get on normal items" is the basic idea behind uniques in this game, so having some uniques be sets fits just fine. I've no problem with that, and I suspect others don't either: the suggestion is to add set items, I'm sure the colour of text in their name isn't too important to people.
The logic goes something like this: set items must have good bonuses to be useful -> if set items have good bonuses everyone will use them -> if everyone is using the same set items, the game is boring.
I believe you're actually missing a significant part of the logic, although perhaps a part that isn't best expressed in the particular post you liniked.
This game, at it's heart, is about items, and finding better ones. People play to find better gear to upgrade their character. Set Items work against that goal.
Take your example of three items that together grant CI - that's three item slots which together give you CI. You now can never find an item that will be an upgrade for any of those slots, because replacing any of those items would mean you loose CI, and you've established that CI is worth more than any one item can provide - thus, no potential replacement item will give you as much as you've lost. That's three item slots you will never upgrade, and given the limited number of slots on the character, that's a decent part of the game gone, because finding upgrades is the game to a large extent.
This is why it's important that uniques aren't better than the very best possible rares - so they can be upgraded from, and it's why when we do have uniques that are best in slot for certain builds, such as Facebreakers for an unarmed build - which are necessary for other reasons, those are individual unique items, not sets - to mimimise the number of potential upgrades you loose.
If we wanted a unique with CI*, and judged, as you have, that CI was far more powerful than a single item could provide, I'd argue the solution is not to make 3 items that together give CI, thus locking you into not upgrading those items, but to put it on a unique and add a drawback that balances it, so that the item as a whole still isn't better than the best possible rares - that way you can get the effect on an item, but it can still be upgraded unless the property it gives is so important to the build that you can't go without it, in which case you've only lost one slot to potential future upgrades, which is better than three.
I'm sure Chris could explain this better and more convincingly than myself - he's passionate about the item system and getting it right. But that's my understanding o one of the major reasons we don't want set items.
*For the record, this won't ever happen, CI is fundamentally broken on an item because the ability to turn on/off the "1 maximum life" thing at will by removing and replacing the item breaks the game. But it works fine for the sake of example.
See, this is the exact issue with why PoE sucks compared to D2, and always will suck, and why D3 sucks compared to D2 as well.
Do ANY of those three titles say ANYTHING about loot casinos? NO!
What instead do they imply?
Well, the first one implies something closer to the exact opposite of a loot casino, because back in the day that the ARPG was born, the norm (due to the crappy internet connections) were single player games, and single player games had absolutely no reason to subject you to a Skinner Box loot casino. So, not only could you beat the game self-found, you could clear the game self-found with absolutely zero grinding whatsoever. Diablo 2 was like this as well. Sure, it'd be *harder* for you to clear it all without grinding one bit, but it'd be possible--with any character. Frankly, I think multiplayer was tacked on, especially with how easy it was to move single player characters to bnet. And it was GREAT.
Second title: dark universe, items not a huge part of the game. Go through these enclosed spaces, kill monsters.
Third title: KILL LOTS OF MONSTERS!
The reason PoE, IMO, sucks compared to D2 isn't just that it's poorly made and feels like a beta in comparison, but because of the philosophy of GGG, in which they've taken the bonus of the item-finding aspect of D2 LoD and had it turn into a giant tumor that metastasized and replaced engrossing and engaging content with "keep running generic maps until you find uber items".
At the end of the day, if someone even makes it to level 75 once, they've probably played PoE for longer than they've played some of the most memorable games such as Chrono Trigger, Seiken Densetsu 3, and so on. Yet, what games will people recall with fondness more? The Skinner Box loot casino, or the ones that were actually well made?
Also, regarding sets:
What the hell is GGG smoking?
Sets in D2 were never BIS. Even the most top-tier, elite sets in D2 LoD were simply economic alternatives to the top-tier uniques and ungodly stupid powerful runewords. I.e. if you wanted to make the best damn meteorb sorc you could, you'd probably take a rare 20 FCR +2 skills ammy, escutha's temper, an upped vipermagi or chains of honor, arachnid's mesh, and probably a Shako instead of Tal's set.
For a barbarian, nothing that was a unique compared to something like an ethereal breath of the dying or last wish weapon.
For Zons, M'Avina's set was horrible compared to windforce or the Faith runeword, or if you wanted to make a frost zon, the ice runeword.
And so on and so forth.
But guess what? They were affordable and allowed you to have fun clearing hell at a brisk pace.
But in PoE, if you want to clear the highest-end content (that sets in D2 allowed you to do), you'd have to invest hundreds of hours doing the same exact mind-numbingly repetitive crap.
As Chris said in his interview with Athene, blizzard's philosophy on D3 is bringing ARPGs to the masses, while he wanted to create this marvelously in-depth game.
Well, at the end of the day, its biggest detractor is its utterly horrible item system that feels like it preceded Diablo 2.
Here's a couple of ideas to incorporate sets and still keep the rare-centric game.
1) Make sets an affix. Add a few prefix/suffixes with "set names". For each item you are wearing with that same affix it gives you the set bonus. It replaces another possible affix, and the bonuses can be balanced around that. You could have sets where the first piece or two (or 5) do nothing, but the later pieces are more powerful effects you wouldn't normally see in an Affix.
Example (Just a bunch of made up stuff/easy numbers to explain how it would work):
New Suffix - of SetItem
Bonuses
1 Piece - No Bonus
2 Pieces - +5% Melee Damage
3 Pieces - Blood Magic Effect
You get a rare with one of the rolled Suffixes "of SetItem". It's labeled as part of that set now. You equip it and it gives you no inherent bonus.
Later you find another rare item with the "of SetItem" suffix and equip it. It gives you +5% Melee Damage.
You find a magic item with "of SetItem" piece and equipping it gives you the Blood Magic effect.
Downsides: Perhaps not different enough from just having different affixes instead, but might allow for some more interesting/powerful effects by balancing the need for multiple affix slots across your armor to be used up.
2) Have base armour/weapon types that have inherent set bonuses. I can see 2 ways of balancing that out. First, lower the base stats on the item compared to other items of that level. The second is a bit more complicated: reduce the number of allowed affixes on that item.
Examples:
Current Level 63 Armour Gloves (for comparison) - 201 Armour, 100 Str required
SetItem Level 63 Gloves - 20 Armour, 110 Str required, Set Bonuses per piece equipped
Set2Item Level 63 Gloves - 201 Armour, 100 Str required, Set Bonuses per piece equipped, Can only have a max of 4 affixes as a Rare item instead of 6
Downsides: Players typically wouldn't want to wear these unless they were going for the set bonus, although you may see players mix/matching to get 2/3/4 piece bonuses.
These are just some quick ideas off the top of my head, and I'm no expert in balancing this game by any means. Just some thoughts on potential ways to add in set items outside of the standard ways.
The logic goes something like this: set items must have good bonuses to be useful -> if set items have good bonuses everyone will use them -> if everyone is using the same set items, the game is boring.
Spoiler
I believe you're actually missing a significant part of the logic, although perhaps a part that isn't best expressed in the particular post you liniked.
This game, at it's heart, is about items, and finding better ones. People play to find better gear to upgrade their character. Set Items work against that goal.
Take your example of three items that together grant CI - that's three item slots which together give you CI. You now can never find an item that will be an upgrade for any of those slots, because replacing any of those items would mean you loose CI, and you've established that CI is worth more than any one item can provide - thus, no potential replacement item will give you as much as you've lost. That's three item slots you will never upgrade, and given the limited number of slots on the character, that's a decent part of the game gone, because finding upgrades is the game to a large extent.
This is why it's important that uniques aren't better than the very best possible rares - so they can be upgraded from, and it's why when we do have uniques that are best in slot for certain builds, such as Facebreakers for an unarmed build - which are necessary for other reasons, those are individual unique items, not sets - to mimimise the number of potential upgrades you loose.
If we wanted a unique with CI*, and judged, as you have, that CI was far more powerful than a single item could provide, I'd argue the solution is not to make 3 items that together give CI, thus locking you into not upgrading those items, but to put it on a unique and add a drawback that balances it, so that the item as a whole still isn't better than the best possible rares - that way you can get the effect on an item, but it can still be upgraded unless the property it gives is so important to the build that you can't go without it, in which case you've only lost one slot to potential future upgrades, which is better than three.
I'm sure Chris could explain this better and more convincingly than myself - he's passionate about the item system and getting it right. But that's my understanding o one of the major reasons we don't want set items.
*For the record, this won't ever happen, CI is fundamentally broken on an item because the ability to turn on/off the "1 maximum life" thing at will by removing and replacing the item breaks the game. But it works fine for the sake of example.
Spoiler
See, this is the exact issue with why PoE sucks compared to D2, and always will suck, and why D3 sucks compared to D2 as well.
Do ANY of those three titles say ANYTHING about loot casinos? NO!
What instead do they imply?
Well, the first one implies something closer to the exact opposite of a loot casino, because back in the day that the ARPG was born, the norm (due to the crappy internet connections) were single player games, and single player games had absolutely no reason to subject you to a Skinner Box loot casino. So, not only could you beat the game self-found, you could clear the game self-found with absolutely zero grinding whatsoever. Diablo 2 was like this as well. Sure, it'd be *harder* for you to clear it all without grinding one bit, but it'd be possible--with any character. Frankly, I think multiplayer was tacked on, especially with how easy it was to move single player characters to bnet. And it was GREAT.
Second title: dark universe, items not a huge part of the game. Go through these enclosed spaces, kill monsters.
Third title: KILL LOTS OF MONSTERS!
The reason PoE, IMO, sucks compared to D2 isn't just that it's poorly made and feels like a beta in comparison, but because of the philosophy of GGG, in which they've taken the bonus of the item-finding aspect of D2 LoD and had it turn into a giant tumor that metastasized and replaced engrossing and engaging content with "keep running generic maps until you find uber items".
At the end of the day, if someone even makes it to level 75 once, they've probably played PoE for longer than they've played some of the most memorable games such as Chrono Trigger, Seiken Densetsu 3, and so on. Yet, what games will people recall with fondness more? The Skinner Box loot casino, or the ones that were actually well made?
Also, regarding sets:
What the hell is GGG smoking?
Sets in D2 were never BIS. Even the most top-tier, elite sets in D2 LoD were simply economic alternatives to the top-tier uniques and ungodly stupid powerful runewords. I.e. if you wanted to make the best damn meteorb sorc you could, you'd probably take a rare 20 FCR +2 skills ammy, escutha's temper, an upped vipermagi or chains of honor, arachnid's mesh, and probably a Shako instead of Tal's set.
For a barbarian, nothing that was a unique compared to something like an ethereal breath of the dying or last wish weapon.
For Zons, M'Avina's set was horrible compared to windforce or the Faith runeword, or if you wanted to make a frost zon, the ice runeword.
And so on and so forth.
But guess what? They were affordable and allowed you to have fun clearing hell at a brisk pace.
But in PoE, if you want to clear the highest-end content (that sets in D2 allowed you to do), you'd have to invest hundreds of hours doing the same exact mind-numbingly repetitive crap.
As Chris said in his interview with Athene, blizzard's philosophy on D3 is bringing ARPGs to the masses, while he wanted to create this marvelously in-depth game.
Well, at the end of the day, its biggest detractor is its utterly horrible item system that feels like it preceded Diablo 2.
I couldn't help but laugh and I didn't bother wasting my time reading your post in full (since most of it was whining) but I felt the need to chime in to say this. Clearly this game is not ideal for you. Like I've said to countless other people who have found such issues and felt the need to bash PoE incessantly, some games are different from what you want. It doesn't mean insulting them in every other sentence, claiming that they failed at making a good game when in fact this game is extremely well done.
Its trolls like you that ruin these forums and potentially the game because instead of just accepting that you don't like this game, you need to cry and cry that they didn't deliver and meet your expectations. Go play garbage games like Diablo 3 if thats your idea of a quality game, dont tell someone they need to make their game more like this because of whatever BS reasons you need to come up with to justify said crying.
I am unfortunately no closer to understanding why sets are a bad idea. The game already encourages item interdependence, in the form of resistance thresholds (among other things). I fail to see how sets would be any different. This policy seems close-minded to me, something I didn't expect from GGG.
Want to Fix the Economy, Bad Loot, Trade and Legacy PvP? pathofexile.com/forum/view-thread/548056
Open Letter to Qarl on Crafting Value pathofexile.com/forum/view-thread/805434
Biggest Problem with Mapping: Inconsistent Risk to Reward pathofexile.com/forum/view-thread/612507
