Stop innovation, and to hell with new ideas!

General Discussion
Well said man, well said !


I second that. What an enjoyable post to read. Thanks for this gem, sir (gender inferred from post, sorry if incorrect). :)

+1
Agreed with a lot of points, except the standard AH bash.

The RMAH really and truly was not remotely close the worst part of D3v. The AH made perfect sense conceptually given the significant participation in third party sales of D2 items. It also wasn't a valid excuse for the uninspired items we had in D3v. The drop rates weren't even that bad on MP10 after they added the monster power system, but most people had quit by then so they may not have experienced all the changes we had in D3v. Even after drop rates became tolerable the items themselves continued to be extremely lackluster.

Completely removing trade from the game was a huge mistake that killed off a lot of the potential player retention trade would have offered RoS. If the AH still existed today (which probably would have involved different design in terms of things like Kadala, IE: her drops would still be BoA so that she was a self-found alternative to trade or perhaps the stat item ranges would have remained larger or items could have been changed to bind to account on equip rather than just BtA to reduce excessive re-trading etc.), there would be more players interested in the trade-game than are sticking around for the awful endless paragon grind. For many players the trade side-game is the most important aspect. Just look at how popular things like WoW's economy are. Some people literally spend all of their WoW time focused on that aspect of the game. These people easily co-exist with the numerous WoW players that completely ignore that side of the game just as the D2 players who were into D2 economics easily co-existed with those that didn't participate at all.

The idea that the AH couldn't have co-existed with a much better version of D3 is just not reality. It's just rhetoric people repeat because 90% of the people who quit D3 decided the AH was a decent scapegoat for Blizzard missing the mark with D3.

Story mode (the fact that it was the only mode and we had no freedom to explore after completing the story) and garbage item design were the worst parts of D3v by far. They added adventure mode (though we only even really occasionally explore that world for bounties because randomly generated Rifts constantly remove us from the rest of the world and destroy a sense of connection to that world), but item design is still bottom of the barrel garbage level design in RoS (massive damage multipliers do not make items interesting).

The addition of infinite progression was just a sad and desperate move they made once they realized removing trade had removed one of the only end-game activities the Diablo franchise has ever had. As it turns out, people seem to prefer to be able to mostly finish a character and then have something to do with their finished character as opposed to being trapped in a never-ending grind.
06/05/2017 05:26 AMPosted by Hoodling
#1 – A Paragon system without a cap only serves to ensure that casual players will never catch up with the higher echelon (no-lifers and professional players), creating a breeding ground for botters.
And who cares? Your complaints about Paragon and botting are reminiscent of the bored girlfriend whining in the corner. Players who really like this game, and really play it, couldn't care less about other players who run bots in order to gather gear and Paragon points. C'est la vie.
06/05/2017 05:26 AMPosted by Hoodling
Here's the red line: The more bots, the more accounts are banned (when a ban-wave finally hits). The botters buy new accounts (new copies of the game sold) and get right back at it, providing the goblins with what they crave the most: Gold! The real money auction house may be gone, but it's still all about the money, honey!
Players who really like this game, and really play it, couldn't care less about the money Blizzard makes by selling banned botters new accounts. C'est la vie.
06/05/2017 05:26 AMPosted by Hoodling
#2 – Set bonuses and supporting legendary items/affixes tells you which skills to pick and how to play, eliminating any sense of choice and individuality. Enter the cookie-cutter builds! Yes, an RPG with no choice and no individuality... that's an Arcade game. Contradictory?
Point taken, but within the subtext of "cookie-cutter," builds, there is the realm of tactic and strategy, which, once you start playing GR100s with a good group, you'll understand as a component of the game that remains hidden to casual players and players below GR80. This factor adds a layer of complexity to the game which makes it interesting and exciting despite the cookie-cutter nature of some builds. Not that I agree with the idea of giant six piece sets that buff exactly one skill - I have been posting for years against them - but since that's the environment in which we play, some of us do look for the silver lining, and do not continuously drink and excrete the poison.
06/05/2017 05:26 AMPosted by Hoodling
#3 – Adventure mode was pretty much the death of any resemblance of adventuring in this game. This game mode is what brought rifts to the game, and rifts is what made this game a casual drop-in, drop-out circus. Contradictory?
Wrong! Adventure Mode is what made this game tolerable beyond leveling a character to 70. The one major flaw of Diablo III v1.0.8 and prior was the need to go through the entire Campaign storyline four times in order to reach the hardest difficulty.

The only saving grace of that time was the ability to start the game at a particular Checkpoint that was close to the area you wanted to play. This Checkpoint system was the precursor to Adventure Mode; while the original Campaign showed you a list of Checkpoints from which to choose when you started the game, Adventure Mode simply placed the Checkpoints on a graphical interface, slightly increased their number, and gave you the ability to select them without having to start a new game.

Don't get me wrong, I believe there are things wrong with this game, but for me they come down to the specific operation of a few individual game mechanisms; for example, Elite programming, the lack of reasonable algorithms to mitigate the RNG of Kadala and Myriam, and the fact that Blizzard creates features for players to enjoy, while at the same time doing everything they can to defeat them.

So my main problem isn't with the game itself, but with the idioiocracy of the developers.

C'est la vie...
06/05/2017 06:38 AMPosted by Uchikinawa
Well, it's a similar story with Starcraft really. The original Starcraft was (and really still is) incredibly popular, so for Starcraft II the devs figured they'd stick to the original as closely as possible.

However, while at it they figured the game could use some "novel" ideas that would distinguish it from its predecessor. What ideas you ask?

- Thanks to modern age AI the economy was running too smoothly, the base basically managed itself, enabling players to concentrate on the actual game rather than frantic clicking. Apparently that was not good. The "solution"? Graft on an additional layer of tasks and chores that add nothing to the game but require players to constantly revisit their bases or else lose due to "faulty micromanagement".

- Units are designed to hardcounter each other rock-paper-scissors style, so the game is decided by who is better at scouting the opponent's build. Basically if you have the wrong kind of setup YOU CAN NOT WIN, even if you play like a god.

- The team decided that Starcraft II should be a game of harrassment, so rather than engaging the enemy head on it is encouraged to sneak around enemy bases and expansions to kill their economy in a few seconds. Many units are deliberately made to do exactly that (and not much else).

- And lastly, they decided Starcraft II should be an e-sport first and foremost so gameplay is catered to and balanced around the top 100 Korean professionals to the detriment of the fun and enjoyment of the other couple of millions who bought the game.

And that's even before considering how badly they butchered the story mode. Really Blizzard has tinkered around with the game for 7 years and 2 Expansions and still the result is far from satisfying yet and a long shot from the first game. When Starcraft Remastered is released this summer it is expected by many to completely blow Starcraft II out of the water and lead to the demise of its professional scene. That should really tell you something.

TL;DR: Yeah, Newblizz have no idea what they're doing.


When it was decided the medic was removed from the main play and can only be played in the campaign that didn't hold my attention for very long. I only played S2 for about a year and a half after release. Didn't even bother buying the other two expansion packs.
All good points.
I have a problem with the immense catering to the short drop-in drop-out playstyle of literally ALL their games these days. OW is a overly complex technical nightmare version of TF2 and designed for matches to progress ONE WAY to keep the matches to 5-8 minutes, and I fear that if they DID last longer you might see stress fractures in the design.

They're basically trying to reinvent the wheel Valve built, but square.
06/05/2017 05:26 AMPosted by Hoodling
In summary, Diablo III has broken away from it's roots and become something entirely different and wrong and bad! This is where innovation so often leads – to dead ends! If it ain't broke... don't mess with it! Screw innovation, and to hell with new ideas!

Entirely different, YES.
Wrong and bad, NO.

Without a shred of doubt, D3 is a great game. It's just not a continuation of D1/D2 game play everyone was expecting. Can't fault Blizz for trying something completely different. Afterall, D1/2 are still there for you to play.

Having said that, for anyone who wants a true successor to D2, it's Path of Exile.
As a die hard D1/2 fan and what kept my hopes up for this franchise playing D3 since launch, PoE is what D3 should have been.

And anyone who's gonna troll what I'm doing here posting and not playing PoE, well, GGG currently has the servers down for maintenance (now trending >1.5 hrs).
06/05/2017 02:35 PMPosted by StoneOld
06/05/2017 05:26 AMPosted by Hoodling
#1 – A Paragon system without a cap only serves to ensure that casual players will never catch up with the higher echelon (no-lifers and professional players), creating a breeding ground for botters.
And who cares? Your complaints about Paragon and botting are reminiscent of the bored girlfriend whining in the corner. Players who really like this game, and really play it, couldn't care less about other players who run bots in order to gather gear and Paragon points. C'est la vie.
06/05/2017 05:26 AMPosted by Hoodling
Here's the red line: The more bots, the more accounts are banned (when a ban-wave finally hits). The botters buy new accounts (new copies of the game sold) and get right back at it, providing the goblins with what they crave the most: Gold! The real money auction house may be gone, but it's still all about the money, honey!
Players who really like this game, and really play it, couldn't care less about the money Blizzard makes by selling banned botters new accounts. C'est la vie.
06/05/2017 05:26 AMPosted by Hoodling
#2 – Set bonuses and supporting legendary items/affixes tells you which skills to pick and how to play, eliminating any sense of choice and individuality. Enter the cookie-cutter builds! Yes, an RPG with no choice and no individuality... that's an Arcade game. Contradictory?
Point taken, but within the subtext of "cookie-cutter," builds, there is the realm of tactic and strategy, which, once you start playing GR100s with a good group, you'll understand as a component of the game that remains hidden to casual players and players below GR80. This factor adds a layer of complexity to the game which makes it interesting and exciting despite the cookie-cutter nature of some builds. Not that I agree with the idea of giant six piece sets that buff exactly one skill - I have been posting for years against them - but since that's the environment in which we play, some of us do look for the silver lining, and do not continuously drink and excrete the poison.
06/05/2017 05:26 AMPosted by Hoodling
#3 – Adventure mode was pretty much the death of any resemblance of adventuring in this game. This game mode is what brought rifts to the game, and rifts is what made this game a casual drop-in, drop-out circus. Contradictory?
Wrong! Adventure Mode is what made this game tolerable beyond leveling a character to 70. The one major flaw of Diablo III v1.0.8 and prior was the need to go through the entire Campaign storyline four times in order to reach the hardest difficulty.

The only saving grace of that time was the ability to start the game at a particular Checkpoint that was close to the area you wanted to play. This Checkpoint system was the precursor to Adventure Mode; while the original Campaign showed you a list of Checkpoints from which to choose when you started the game, Adventure Mode simply placed the Checkpoints on a graphical interface, slightly increased their number, and gave you the ability to select them without having to start a new game.

Don't get me wrong, I believe there are things wrong with this game, but for me they come down to the specific operation of a few individual game mechanisms; for example, Elite programming, the lack of reasonable algorithms to mitigate the RNG of Kadala and Myriam, and the fact that Blizzard creates features for players to enjoy, while at the same time doing everything they can to defeat them.

So my main problem isn't with the game itself, but with the idioiocracy of the developers.

C'est la vie...

So much unnecessary drama Oldstone...
06/05/2017 04:42 PMPosted by PowerCosmic
06/05/2017 05:26 AMPosted by Hoodling
In summary, Diablo III has broken away from it's roots and become something entirely different and wrong and bad! This is where innovation so often leads – to dead ends! If it ain't broke... don't mess with it! Screw innovation, and to hell with new ideas!

Entirely different, YES.
Wrong and bad, NO.

Without a shred of doubt, D3 is a great game. It's just not a continuation of D1/D2 game play everyone was expecting. Can't fault Blizz for trying something completely different. Afterall, D1/2 are still there for you to play.

Having said that, for anyone who wants a true successor to D2, it's Path of Exile.
As a die hard D1/2 fan and what kept my hopes up for this franchise playing D3 since launch, PoE is what D3 should have been.

And anyone who's gonna troll what I'm doing here posting and not playing PoE, well, GGG currently has the servers down for maintenance (now trending >1.5 hrs).


https://us.battle.net/forums/en/d3/topic/20755765821#post-1

Such much for that. Your integrity and single ply toilet paper have a lot in common. They are both unreliable and worthless.

See you in Season 11... 12... 13... etc....
06/05/2017 02:35 PMPosted by StoneOld
06/05/2017 05:26 AMPosted by Hoodling
#1 – A Paragon system without a cap only serves to ensure that casual players will never catch up with the higher echelon (no-lifers and professional players), creating a breeding ground for botters.
And who cares? Your complaints about Paragon and botting are reminiscent of the bored girlfriend whining in the corner. Players who really like this game, and really play it, couldn't care less about other players who run bots in order to gather gear and Paragon points. C'est la vie.
06/05/2017 05:26 AMPosted by Hoodling
Here's the red line: The more bots, the more accounts are banned (when a ban-wave finally hits). The botters buy new accounts (new copies of the game sold) and get right back at it, providing the goblins with what they crave the most: Gold! The real money auction house may be gone, but it's still all about the money, honey!
Players who really like this game, and really play it, couldn't care less about the money Blizzard makes by selling banned botters new accounts. C'est la vie.
06/05/2017 05:26 AMPosted by Hoodling
#2 – Set bonuses and supporting legendary items/affixes tells you which skills to pick and how to play, eliminating any sense of choice and individuality. Enter the cookie-cutter builds! Yes, an RPG with no choice and no individuality... that's an Arcade game. Contradictory?
Point taken, but within the subtext of "cookie-cutter," builds, there is the realm of tactic and strategy, which, once you start playing GR100s with a good group, you'll understand as a component of the game that remains hidden to casual players and players below GR80. This factor adds a layer of complexity to the game which makes it interesting and exciting despite the cookie-cutter nature of some builds. Not that I agree with the idea of giant six piece sets that buff exactly one skill - I have been posting for years against them - but since that's the environment in which we play, some of us do look for the silver lining, and do not continuously drink and excrete the poison.
06/05/2017 05:26 AMPosted by Hoodling
#3 – Adventure mode was pretty much the death of any resemblance of adventuring in this game. This game mode is what brought rifts to the game, and rifts is what made this game a casual drop-in, drop-out circus. Contradictory?
Wrong! Adventure Mode is what made this game tolerable beyond leveling a character to 70. The one major flaw of Diablo III v1.0.8 and prior was the need to go through the entire Campaign storyline four times in order to reach the hardest difficulty.

The only saving grace of that time was the ability to start the game at a particular Checkpoint that was close to the area you wanted to play. This Checkpoint system was the precursor to Adventure Mode; while the original Campaign showed you a list of Checkpoints from which to choose when you started the game, Adventure Mode simply placed the Checkpoints on a graphical interface, slightly increased their number, and gave you the ability to select them without having to start a new game.

Don't get me wrong, I believe there are things wrong with this game, but for me they come down to the specific operation of a few individual game mechanisms; for example, Elite programming, the lack of reasonable algorithms to mitigate the RNG of Kadala and Myriam, and the fact that Blizzard creates features for players to enjoy, while at the same time doing everything they can to defeat them.

So my main problem isn't with the game itself, but with the idioiocracy of the developers.

C'est la vie...


***YAWN***

You must be a real bore in person.
06/05/2017 05:26 AMPosted by Hoodling
The only reason Blizzard comes out more favorably than a big stinker like Electronic Arts is that Blizzard has a slightly better business model – they actually finish developing their games before they release them.

I'd say that the biggest difference is that Blizzard has not killed any of their games.
Blizzard games have had horrible launches just like any other company.
06/05/2017 02:02 PMPosted by Borg
Agreed with a lot of points, except the standard AH bash.

I get your point of view on this, but to me it's just another feature pushing D3 towards becoming mini-WoW. This game has no need for an auction house, or a mail system. I miss being able to trade items to with friends, though. When I find awesome items I don't need (while playing alone), I can't help but think it would be nice if I could save it and give it to a friend later on.

@ StoneOld (silly forum won't quote properly)
Your complaints about Paragon and botting are reminiscent of the bored girlfriend whining in the corner. Players who really like this game, and really play it, couldn't care less about other players who run bots in order to gather gear and Paragon points.

Oh, I can whine with the best of them, Sir. I guess I should have explained my point better. This is more about the Paragon system's effect on public games and the community. If there was a cap on Paragon, even casual players would eventually reach end level, which in turn would make public games better for everyone. Lacking a proper group finder system, public games foster a hostile, elitist in-game community that is to the detriment of the entire game and everyone who plays it... the "elite" included.

Players who really like this game, and really play it, couldn't care less about the money Blizzard makes by selling banned botters new accounts.

Well, I say they should. The longer between each ban wave, the more time the bots get to ruin the game for honest players. The only reason I can think of why the ban waves are so far apart is that Blizzard makes more money of them that way. If botters were banned every week, they probably wouldn't buy new copies of the game. This problem is connected to the Paragon issue. The bots level like crazy, surpassing real players who's been at it for years, adding to the "elite" minority that makes public games a drag for casual players, forcing them into solo play in what Blizzard wants to be an online, co-op game! It's all connected.
Refreshing to read such a well written post that gets straight to the heart of what went wrong with D3.

And totally agree with the SC2 follow up as well.

Kind of telling that both D1-D2 LoD and StarCraft/Broodwar are designed better than their successors, because as the OP said it's all about the gold with this corporation. Original Blizzard made quality games to establish their brand and attract a loyal clientele, ActiBlizz is about revenue generated per product first and everything else comes later.

I am so looking forward to the Remastered SC1 this summer, more than the Necromancer being added to D3. It's strange so many things in D3 need fixing and yet they decided to give us a new class to play instead of addressing them.

Rhykker said he was excited that anything new was being given to us in D3 because he felt after Mosquiera left the game was dead in the water. But I ask you what good is a new class when what we needed more than anything was new content/challenges/maps, more diversity to give the players options on how they want to play, and most of all finally fix the lag that is due to the absolute terrible game design in the first place. Remove AD, address DOT affixes, streamline the bottlenecks that create lag in GR's, that would be more helpful than another bugged class that might take years to sort out like the other 6 we already have in the game.
This is purely my opinion. I think Blizzard is loosing it as of late. They are really just living on the Blizzard name atm. The magical games they put out 10 years or before ago have stopped. Everything they have done lately are OK games, but nothing special. They need to step it up or that Blizzard tag isnt going to carry them anymore.
I say this a a massive Blizzard fanboy for over 10 years who blindly bought everything they put out, buts its slowly coming to the point where i would hesitate doing that anymore.
06/06/2017 04:31 AMPosted by Esm
This is purely my opinion. I think Blizzard is loosing it as of late. They are really just living on the Blizzard name atm. The magical games they put out 10 years or before ago have stopped. Everything they have done lately are OK games, but nothing special. They need to step it up or that Blizzard tag isnt going to carry them anymore.
I say this a a massive Blizzard fanboy for over 10 years who blindly bought everything they put out, buts its slowly coming to the point where i would hesitate doing that anymore.


For hardcore fans of deep challenging game, sure, they are not doing that anymore.

But the company is a billion dollar company, pulling in hundreds of millions of dollars through e-sports.

World of Warcraft is at an all time high since BC's record of 15m subs (latest projection is 12.3m currently in Legion).

Overwatch is not my cup of tea, but it has a tremendous following. Same to HotS and Hearth.

We all know the power that is Starcraft and e-sports as well.

To put it as it is, saying they do not have it anymore is the most nonsense thing I have ever heard. However, if you would simply say, "Unfortunately they do not make deep and difficult games anymore" I could accept that comment.
06/06/2017 04:42 AMPosted by Demonmonger
To put it as it is, saying they do not have it anymore is the most nonsense thing I have ever heard.

Well, in terms of business, they definitely know what they're doing, but it's basically turning everything into kid's games just so they can sell more copies and make more money. I wish they would stay true to the core of the Diablo franchise instead of selling out like this, but - of course - I understand why they do. And it's not just Blizzard, this is the gaming industry across the board.
D3 does a few little things better than D2 (like how healing potions work) but I never felt that D2 limited my options to build my character the way I want, like D3 does these days.


Too many nerfs.The other issue lies in how the game was originally designed as far as active/passive skill design are concerned. As an aspiring writer you should know that research is paramount when writing an article. There have been far more nerfs that force us into these playstyles. This is the Development team catering to the lowest common denominator, curbing power creep to an extent. Which in a game like this is idiotic. The funny thing the people that make these sort of complaints don't see how they help shape the 'meta.' The devs know they have to give Leader Board players an option to play with, and they do. These builds are what end up being complained about but they are in the minority of options b/c devs wish to cater to people who don't know the game and don't see that the majority of build options do in fact cater to casuals. These people don't like that LB players have 1 or 2 options out of what could be 20-30 solid builds per class.

06/05/2017 05:26 AMPosted by Hoodling
#1 – A Paragon system without a cap only serves to ensure that casual players will never catch up with the higher echelon (no-lifers and professional players), creating a breeding ground for botters.


Any aspect of a game like this creates a breeding ground for botters. They were a thing when RMAH was in, they were a thing after RMAH (personal loot/key/mat farming) and continue to be a thing especially with Primals introduced.

Also as an aspiring writer you should know that contradicting yourself doesn't make for a strong platform in terms of an argument. If you'd said that the paragon system was boring/shallow, you'd be right. Saying that it's bad because it keeps people out of competition who wouldn't and aren't competing anyway is a flawed argument. Same with botting, it was here in this franchise and game long before paragon 2.0.

You write well, but in all honesty it just sounds like you don't like D3 relative to what D1/D2 were. I can't argue/refute what you're writing about Blizzard and their decision making and how we're getting the product we are as a result of listening and catering to the absolute lowest common denominator.
06/06/2017 05:00 AMPosted by jay
If you'd said that the paragon system was boring/shallow, you'd be right. Saying that it's bad because it keeps people out of competition who wouldn't and aren't competing anyway is a flawed argument.

The Paragon system is boring and shallow, but that's the very least of the problem, as I have detailed before. This isn't about the competitive angle at all, it's about how the Paragon system divides the player base, which - in turn - causes other problems. I'm not quite sure where you're going with the "nerfs" angel, though...

06/06/2017 05:00 AMPosted by jay
As an aspiring writer you should know that research is paramount when writing an article.

Well, this isn't The New York Times, so cut me some slack. I didn't write an article here, I just put my usual flair and passion into making a statement. I'm glad people like it, of course. :)

Join the Conversation

Return to Forum