I've Put Some Thought Into the Upcoming Balance Change

I've been putting some thought into this issue, and one way to handle the -situation - without denting the low tier players - is to impose some manner of damage cap.

GGG picks a damage per second threshold, and hard-caps all damage at that number. People with low-tier builds are untouched. People dealing Shaper-Per-Second DPS can be throttled to GGG's liking.

It would also promote more build diversity among the top rungs - because at some point in your gearing, you will hit the DPS cap, and instead of pushing it higher, (as is done now), you'll work on utility or defense with those equipment slots.

Benefits:

- Low tier players can enjoy their niche or inefficient builds without fear of being able to clear even less content.

- More build diversity at all levels, leading to a more fully explored product. Acendencies and classes thought to be useless or too low DPS to be commonly played may regain some of their value, as the meta shifts from raw DPS to utility and survivability.

- More active skill gem diversity as players won't be focusing every gem-slot on amplifying their primary 6-link.

- More equipment diversity, as lower damage - but mechanically interesting - items become able to hit the damage cap. You've just opened much of your extensive equipment database to the end-game - that's free content addition right there.

- More support gem diversity, as maximizing damage will be unnecessary after a point, and people begin considering virtue gems like Rage, Ice Bite or Bleed Support instead of each slot occupied by the best "More" gem.

- More flask diversity, as players will begin to select flasks for their unique properties rather than what sort of damage boost the flask provides.

- It should placate the steamers/advertisers who want more challenge and difficulty, plus give them a large array of new options they never considered before.

______________________________________

If GGG is unhappy with the cap - players are deleting mobs to fast, or the game has become a slow dreg, they can raise or lower it as they wish.

With this solution, only those at the bleeding edge of gameplay will be feeling the changes. And it also opens a wide field of options in terms of equipment, specs and skill gems.

Thoughts? Feedback?

Well, first of all, there is no way of implementing that. Damage fluctuates from second to second, enemies are different, and most importantly, skills are different. Would it be fair for a large AoE spell to have the same cap as a single-target melee skill?

Also, getting better gear and becoming more powerful is the whole point of the game. So even if you could implement it, a player who reaches the cap would just be demotivated. Unless the cap is really high, but then what's the point?

Maybe just leave the campaign alone and make the maps incrementally more difficult, so T1 will be only slightly harder than now, but T16 being way harder. That will limit the real nerfs to later maps so more casual players won't be affected too much.

Points:

1: I think you could find a way to implement a damage cap. You could even sort if by monster type.

2: Yes, getting better gear and becoming more powerful is the point of the game - and it still would be even after a damage cap. Instead of growing vertically, you'd branch horizontally, focusing on survivability and utility.

3: Yes, changes to the campaign puzzle me too. I don't know what the issue with that is. Not aware of people complaining about the Campaign being too easy or what not. /shrug

I don't think you understand the fundamental basics of the ARPG genre if you're making this suggestion. I'll break it to you now, it's never going to happen.

I've been playing AARPG's since Diablo. I've taken a character to max level in every major RPG in between there and here. My Diablo II account is 20 years old, and I still play it regularly. I've even maxed characters in games like Din's Curse that comparitivly few folks have even heard of.

You can make a lot of claims about me, but you can't say I don't understand the nature of an AARPG.

"

Sabranic_SilverDeth wrote:

I've been playing AARPG's since Diablo. I've taken a character to max level in every major RPG in between there and here. My Diablo II account is 20 years old, and I still play it regularly. I've even maxed characters in games like Din's Curse that comparitivly few folks have even heard of.

You can make a lot of claims about me, but you can't say I don't understand the nature of an AARPG.

Nice, I've been driving a car for the better part of two decades. Don't know the first thing about how to maintain it, if you catch my drift.

That sounds like laziness on your part. Catch my drift? ;)

Just a sampling as to my understanding of the "nature" of an AARPG:








So yes, I've logged an enormous amount of time in pretty much every major - and many not so major AARPG's. (For some reason my new install of Titan's Quest is not reading my characters, and that's bugging me. I blame GoG). I understand their nature quite perfectly.

You'll have to actually deal with my points rather than attempting to simply dismiss me because of a "lack of experience."

Oh.

And I can even change the oil in my jeep all by myself.

"

Sabranic_SilverDeth wrote:

That sounds like laziness on your part. Catch my drift? ;)

You speak of lazy to me when your approach to balance in a game is to limit players in what they can do.

Changing the oil... that's not what I meant and I'm not going to insult your intelligence by suggesting you didn't know that.

Just stop. You don't want to hear criticism, you're just here to create an echo chamber and you're certainly not going to get that from me. I think this is bordering on the worst idea I've seen in 10 years on these boards and I've seen some pretty bad ones. I'm out. Let me know when you can take yourself seriously and we'll talk.

Odd double post instead of edit.