Biggest problems in diablo 3 right now.

General Discussion
Here are the list of things that are problematic with the game right now...

FYI, I am a legit player (no botting, no maphack, nada), and my paragon level is in 1200s right now. I have placed in the ladder ranking as solo wizard, 2 player, and 3 player. I know enough players to understand how the botting works, and how this game works... and here are my 2 cents

The biggest problem is... botting.

There are a few suppliers of bot programs right now (as I know). Some are free, some are not, but they all basically do the following things for the players.

- Farm the rift for rift keystones.
- Farm the greater rift for easy gem upgrades + moderate exp to level up in the early stage of the game.
- Farm for shard + gears.
- Do the bounties

Here's the problem.

This is probably what most Non-botters do each day

Play rift run for greater rift keystone -> Do greater rift -> Realizes that certain gears need to be upgraded - Do bounties for materials -> Do lower greater rift for souls + Caldesann gems

Most of the time is spent outside the higher greater rift because

1. we need keystones.
2. we need materials to upgrade the gears so we can run higher grifts.
3. we need lvl 60~70 gems + forgotten souls for cube / caldesann... etc etc.

Botters:

Come online, start running greater rifts non-stop. You are never short of keystones because your bots found the keystones for you while you were at work or sleeping. Never short of materials. You already have most gears with the right stats. As a result, you have way more time to focus on leveling.

As a non-botter, there are only a few options available.

1. Play the game 24/7... and farm manually to try to catch up to the botters. In the process, probably lose my job (ok, I am exaggerating).
2. Forget wizard. I am going to play support, and as a result, I don't have to do the bounties or spend my time hunting for gears. I am gonna slap on whatever I have and just play the support roles to increase my paragon level.
3. Give up the competing entirely and play this game by myself... because by the mid point of the season, no one will play with noobs with paragon lower than 800...

Here are a few suggestions I have. These suggestions are based on the fact that blizzard is not seeking to ban all the botters any time soon. I accept that botters will always be there, and the diablo team has no resources to track / ban all the botters as this game is not on top of the priority list among the blizzard games.

- Remove the greater rift keystone. Sure it's a good concept, but it is creating a gap between botters and legit players. If you are not going to ban all the botters, then at least try to close the gap.

- Cap the paragon level. Do we really need 3000 paragon levels? Cap it to something like 1500... or cap it at 800, and give players who reach higher paragons some pretty wings or whatnot, but don't make it unlimited. Give legit players some chance to compete against the botters.

- Make it easier to roll the stats on gears. Instead of 1 stat, maybe make it possible to roll 2. The season only lasts 3 months... make it easier for people to obtain the end game gear without having to resort to botting.
Sorry but these are not the " biggest problems with d3 right now "

They are underlying issues to much bigger problems.
Bad title, but fairly good suggestions.
The botting issues are a byproduct of bigger problems inherent in the core game design. I'm going to use Diablo 2 as a parallel because it's the closest analogy to Diablo 3.

Bots were present in Diablo 2 but are not as disruptive to the game as in Diablo 3. If I want to over-generalize the two on a scale of 1-10 relative to one another D2 would be closer to a 2-4 and D3 on the higher end of 7-9. Is it okay that bots are present in either game? No, but Diablo 2's game design ended up somewhat minimizing the difference between the have, and have-nots (though, not entirely intentional).

Some Diablo 3 aspects that encourage botting

-Wide range of loot RNG (Getting the right rolls, ancient, etc.)
-Never ending paragon levels
-Leaderboards (to an extent)
-Tediousness (Bounty materials, Key Wardens, Greater rift keys)

When you start to add some of these design choices together you begin to see the gap between those who bot and those who don't.

Some Diablo 2 design choices that minimize the impact of botting

-Uniques, Runewords, and Set items have fixed rolls with slight variable roll ranges. Crafted, Rares, and magical items did not.
-Trading (Making smart trades could easily offset poor RNG when it comes to finding loot)
-Level cap at 99 (It takes less than a day to get into the 80's where to hit 99 many weeks or months.)
-The difference of inherent power between a player in the mid 80's and someone at 99 is minimal.

It would be great if the game could stay the way it is now but also curb botting but I'm not holding my breath. Perhaps the hack team already has a solution and they're waiting for the right time to cast that net to catch the most players.

03/15/2016 06:31 PMPosted by dooboosoda
These suggestions are based on the fact that blizzard is not seeking to ban all the botters any time soon. I accept that botters will always be there, and the diablo team has no resources to track / ban all the botters as this game is not on top of the priority list among the blizzard games.


They want to get rid of the botters as much as the community does but the sophisticated programs are not injected into the game and the minute to minute gameplay data is not logged so proving botting is difficult. This is no excuse but the underlying issue may be deep within D3 code that at this point isn't a viable option to change. We don't really know... What would help is if there were more transparency from the development/hack team regarding this problem as to keep players informed that steps are being taken.
The biggest issue with "limiting paragon" is if even ONE person legitimately reaches a higher paragon (they have...) than what your limit is, you are being ridiculous.

Also, botting in diablo 2 was WAY more rampant than it is in diablo 3... lol

Also, diablo 2 has leader boards.

Also, diablo 2 has tediousness.

Also, diablo 2 doesn't have nearly the amount of variation you think it does...
Also, diablo 3 has leader boards.

Also, diablo 3 has tediousness.

Also, diablo 3 doesn't have nearly the amount of variation you think it does...


Fixed that for you. Plus D2 has mods which provide more variation than you can handle.

What does D3 have to counter that? A couple of measly new levels once every 6 months? New cosmetics that end up getting taken out anyway (so they don't even count)? A handful of new items?

No wait wait...........the SET DUNGEONS that Blizzard claims everyone loves? Yeah, they got us there.

No wonder people are kicking up a storm for those wings, the game is so stale that even the prospect of new wings seems like an expansion to them.
03/15/2016 06:31 PMPosted by dooboosoda
FYI, I am a legit player (no botting, no maphack, nada),

That is like having a folder on your PC that says "Definitely Not p*rn".

But on-topic:
there are other issues that this game has (some are making botting even worse) like these

- Blizzard is failing to adjust numbers, instead we get constant powercreep and after patches and patches there is still no balance

- no PvP, even if it already was in the game as you can see here
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lZrGE3VLiSk

- the implementation of 6 piece sets: as a result, there is not much build variety because everyone gets funneled into the same default builds

- legendaries with totally boring special affixes (eg. +xxx% damage to skill X) - also legendaries primarily got designed to be extensions of 6 piece sets.

- bounties, normal rifts & story mode are not competitive with Greater Rifts, so GR are the only kind of endgame

- completely broken paragon system which really needs a redesign
03/15/2016 07:44 PMPosted by Linuxpenguin
The biggest issue with "limiting paragon" is if even ONE person legitimately reaches a higher paragon (they have...) than what your limit is, you are being ridiculous.

Also, botting in diablo 2 was WAY more rampant than it is in diablo 3... lol

Also, diablo 2 has leader boards.

Also, diablo 2 has tediousness.

Also, diablo 2 doesn't have nearly the amount of variation you think it does...


Yes, D2 had more obvious botting, but due to the game design the impact on the players is minimized a good amount.

Also, yes, D2 has many more viable build variations than Diablo 3, if you want I can name them all.
03/15/2016 08:28 PMPosted by clueso
- the implementation of 6 piece sets: as a result, there is not much build variety because everyone gets funneled into the same default builds


Stop blaming sets. There was even less build variety at D3 release than there is now, and sets weren't a thing then.
03/16/2016 01:31 AMPosted by emtwo
03/15/2016 08:28 PMPosted by clueso
- the implementation of 6 piece sets: as a result, there is not much build variety because everyone gets funneled into the same default builds


Stop blaming sets. There was even less build variety at D3 release than there is now, and sets weren't a thing then.

You know why the was so little diversity in vanilla?
There were two builds that totally shined out (perma-Berserker-WW-Barb & Critical Mass Wizard) because they had insane synergy compared to all others builds - that synergy was not intended by the devs but afaik those builds were just fixed shortly before RoS arrived.

The implementation of sets did never and will never create more build diversity, it will just massively narrowing it down and here is why:

There are ~100 billion possible skill/rune combinations per class.
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/104608-BlizzCon-2010-Billions-of-Class-Builds-Await-in-Diablo-III
The game was intended to let players experiment with various builds so that at the end, they play with the skill they personally enjoy the most (which assumes that skills would be properly balanced).

Now, look what sets did: if we assume that just 10% of these 100 billion builds are somewhat viable (because the number also includes builds that use four different generators, which most likely are not viable), then there still would be 10 billion possible viable builds per class.
Compare this number to the amount of builds that are currently viable thanks to sets: that would be around 10 per class.

Now you might understand why I can and will not shut up about sets: they are cancer for this game because it kills player driven exploration and in fact, they kill build diversity.
03/16/2016 09:14 AMPosted by clueso
<span class="truncated">...</span>

Stop blaming sets. There was even less build variety at D3 release than there is now, and sets weren't a thing then.

You know why the was so little diversity in vanilla?
There were two builds that totally shined out (perma-Berserker-WW-Barb & Critical Mass Wizard) because they had insane synergy compared to all others builds - that synergy was not intended by the devs but afaik those builds were just fixed shortly before RoS arrived.

The implementation of sets did never and will never create more build diversity, it will just massively narrowing it down and here is why:

There are ~100 billion possible skill/rune combinations per class.
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/104608-BlizzCon-2010-Billions-of-Class-Builds-Await-in-Diablo-III
The game was intended to let players experiment with various builds so that at the end, they play with the skill they personally enjoy the most (which assumes that skills would be properly balanced).

Now, look what sets did: if we assume that just 10% of these 100 billion builds are somewhat viable (because the number also includes builds that use four different generators, which most likely are not viable), then there still would be 10 billion possible viable builds per class.
Compare this number to the amount of builds that are currently viable thanks to sets: that would be around 10 per class.

Now you might understand why I can and will not shut up about sets: they are cancer for this game because it kills player driven exploration and in fact, they kill build diversity.


Taking away sets will not magically create build diversity. Before sets, there was only 1 or maybe 2 viable builds per class. Currently, we have closer to 2 or 3 per class, which is actually an improvement. Sets are far easier to balance, which makes it far easier to create diversity. The game currently has more build diversity than it ever has before in its history.

If you want to say that sets are boring as a concept, then that's an opinion that I won't argue with, even if I don't completely agree. But to say they kill diversity shows a huge lack of understanding of Diablo 3 and the genre.
03/16/2016 11:45 AMPosted by emtwo
Taking away sets will not magically create build diversity

Apparently you haven't read or understood what I just wrote.
Read it again: I'm explaining there why the removal of sets (plus proper balance of skills) would actually lead to a skyrocketing of build diversity.
But I'll explain it to you again below.

03/16/2016 11:45 AMPosted by emtwo
Currently, we have closer to 2 or 3 per class

3 builds per class currently versus 10 billion viable builds per class without sets.

03/16/2016 11:45 AMPosted by emtwo
But to say they kill diversity shows a huge lack of understanding of Diablo 3 and the genre.

Sets kill diversity because they are extremely OP and if you wanna use a build (with the skills you really enjoy) that does not get supported by a set, it is useless compared to a skill setup that does get supported by a set.

And how many skill setups get supported by sets? right, you said it before: 3 builds per class out of 100 billion.
Do you know what that means? It means that out of all the possible builds, sets only support 0.000000003% of them.

Now you tell me: if all skills and legendaries would be properly balanced and there wouldn't be any sets, what do you think would happen?
I will tell you: since there wouldn't be any sets, that otherwise would compel you to use them because they are so extremely OP, people would actually use the skills they personally enjoy instead of just using the skills that the set dictates them to use.

That was as clear as I could elaborate it.
If you still haven't understood it now, I don't know any way else to make it more understandable for you.

.
Sets are bad, no doubt. The original idea behind the 6pc sets were to actually limit gearing diversity so it's easier for devs to balance them. What....?
Powercreep is out of hand; seeing 3bil damage from a 3k dps weapon, i cant even...
The problem is too !@#$deep to be fixed by now.
Only way is to do a complete overhaul on skills on items which isnt happening.
Now this ptr they 'balance' by changing some damage modifiers into multiplicities, what?
At this rate we should hit the trillion damage mark by next ptr.
3 builds per class currently versus 10 billion viable builds per class without sets.


We will never, ever, ever have "10 billion viable builds."

Remove sets, and you'll be lucky if you have as many viable builds as we have now.

You make it sound as if it's super easy to just balance every item perfectly. That will never happen. Without sets, there will be 1 or possibly 2 builds that are superior to everything else, and you will consider the other 9.99 billion to be "non-viable."
03/16/2016 07:12 PMPosted by emtwo
You make it sound as if it's super easy to just balance every item perfectly.

And you make it sound like it is impossible or just not worth the effort... both is incorrect.
It also doesn't need to be *perfect*, just reasonable.

03/16/2016 07:12 PMPosted by emtwo
Without sets, there will be 1 or possibly 2 builds that are superior to everything else, and you will consider the other 9.99 billion to be "non-viable."

plz explain why this shall be the case... what brings you to this assumption?

Furthermore, it is not problematic that there might be a few builds that are better than the others, it only becomes problematic when these builds are significantly better then the rest.
If the best build is just 10% stronger than all others, people would actually play other builds because the difference wouldn't be too significant.
03/16/2016 08:16 PMPosted by clueso
plz explain why this shall be the case... what brings you to this assumption?


Because that's always been the case in Diablo 3 and every other video game.
03/16/2016 09:14 AMPosted by clueso
03/16/2016 01:31 AMPosted by emtwo
...

Stop blaming sets. There was even less build variety at D3 release than there is now, and sets weren't a thing then.

You know why the was so little diversity in vanilla?
There were two builds that totally shined out (perma-Berserker-WW-Barb & Critical Mass Wizard) because they had insane synergy compared to all others builds - that synergy was not intended by the devs but afaik those builds were just fixed shortly before RoS arrived.

The implementation of sets did never and will never create more build diversity, it will just massively narrowing it down and here is why:

There are ~100 billion possible skill/rune combinations per class.
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/104608-BlizzCon-2010-Billions-of-Class-Builds-Await-in-Diablo-III
The game was intended to let players experiment with various builds so that at the end, they play with the skill they personally enjoy the most (which assumes that skills would be properly balanced).

Now, look what sets did: if we assume that just 10% of these 100 billion builds are somewhat viable (because the number also includes builds that use four different generators, which most likely are not viable), then there still would be 10 billion possible viable builds per class.
Compare this number to the amount of builds that are currently viable thanks to sets: that would be around 10 per class.

Now you might understand why I can and will not shut up about sets: they are cancer for this game because it kills player driven exploration and in fact, they kill build diversity.


I agree and love build diversity. LoN helped out somewhat for people that still want to be able to beat T10 and maybe roll into a GR60. However Sets are a symptom and not the problem. I played Diablo 2 for 10+ years. People played the cookie cutter/highest DPS builds in the end.

I had 6 accounts with 8 characters on each account. I had several non cookie cutter builds but I played them less than half the time then ultra powerful cookie cutter builds that I had.

- Hammerdin
- Zeal/Smiter Paladin
- Wind Druid
- Necromancer (50+ pets)
- Sorceress Frozen Orb/Firewall

To name a few. I bet more than 60% of the players played those builds most of their game time in D2 LOD. Blizzard is simply catering to what a majority of people want and Youtube.com and the streamers are showing players.

Possible thought to create at least one forced build diversity? How about a Uber of sorts like Diablo Clone that could Walk in your game that required a variety of skills be used against him to lower resistance or something of that nature. So that the cookie cutter builds that have a spender and a primary would not be able to death with. Not high DPS but more APM to beat. I admit this is a half baked idea from a very tired person at work. :)
I really do wish they remake HD so people can make the same complaints on the forums about a game they are currently praising.
Remove BoA and bring trade channels. That'll fix some frustration. :P

AH was a hose job to begin with. Inferno was buggy. We've come a long way.
Biggest problem for me is not having enough time to play.

Join the Conversation

Return to Forum