Delete zdps from bad game

General Discussion
Diablo Community: WE SHOULD BE ABLE TO PLAY THE WAY WE WANT!!!!
Me: I like playing zpds/support roles more than dps .
Diablo Community: REMOVE ZDPS. THAT WAY OF PLAYING IS STUPID!!!!

TYL, some of us actually like playing support. IMHO, the ZDPS barb is the single most important member of the group. He controls the pacing and make all of the descisions on skipping and moving. Troglodyte DPS, just tunnel vision and press buttons so they can see big numbers.
I dunno, sometimes being the support is more fun than the deeps.

On the other hand, 3zdps for 1 dps is still the highest pushing meta, isn't it?

That's kinda dumb, I will admit.
09/21/2017 09:34 AMPosted by Reverend
I dunno, sometimes being the support is more fun than the deeps.

On the other hand, 3zdps for 1 dps is still the highest pushing meta, isn't it?

That's kinda dumb, I will admit.


Isn't it 2zdps barb/monk and lon-wd for trash clear with lancer necro for rg-killer?
09/21/2017 09:34 AMPosted by Reverend
I dunno, sometimes being the support is more fun than the deeps.

On the other hand, 3zdps for 1 dps is still the highest pushing meta, isn't it?

That's kinda dumb, I will admit.


I agree, that is a bit much. I can see 1 ZDPS in a party would be fine, should be no different than 4 DPS depending on the bonuses from the ZDPS. Two different ZDPS style (1 that buffs party members, one that hinders mobs) along with 2 DPS should be able to do just fine, roughly on par with 4 DPS, depending on the builds of course. 3-4 ZDPS... Yeah no that should not work.

ZDPS bonuses of the same type should not stack on opponents or allies. So having 2 damage buffing ZDPS should not work properly as they're supplying similar buffs. So for example having one ZDPS supplying damage buffs to the allies and another ZDPS supplying CC should work, but having 2 ZDPS that both attempt to supply bonus damage it should only apply the largest of the buffs between them, kinda like how the auras on Paladins in D2 functioned.

There are things that could possibly be done that could decrease the potency of ZDPS without outright destroying the builds.
Agreed. Removing zdps builds would mean one could easily find 4 person GR groups without having to have the 'perfect' compositions. More people would participate in 4-man GRs and people would actually play public games without having to spam communities to find the exact meta builds and classes.
09/21/2017 08:49 AMPosted by EigenVector
Diablo Community: WE SHOULD BE ABLE TO PLAY THE WAY WE WANT!!!!
Me: I like playing zpds/support roles more than dps .
Diablo Community: REMOVE ZDPS. THAT WAY OF PLAYING IS STUPID!!!!

TYL, some of us actually like playing support. IMHO, the ZDPS barb is the single most important member of the group. He controls the pacing and make all of the descisions on skipping and moving. Troglodyte DPS, just tunnel vision and press buttons so they can see big numbers.


I believe the issue is the 'mandatory zdps' part. If zdps was an option that contributed as much as a random DPS class, I don't think people would have an issue with it being a thing.
09/21/2017 10:19 AMPosted by skipdog
Agreed. Removing zdps builds would mean one could easily find 4 person GR groups without having to have the 'perfect' compositions. More people would participate in 4-man GRs and people would actually play public games without having to spam communities to find the exact meta builds and classes.


You do realize if ZDPS was removed, players would still try to find the 'perfect' compositions? You would still have players spamming in chats looking for the exact new meta groups that would develop in the void ZDPS removal would leave behind. Removing ZDPS won't do much more than shut down builds that some people enjoy playing. Why should removing builds stop at just ZDPS at this point? Other meta builds will move up and take their place and these same problems of 'forced meta groups' will still exist.

Nerfing some ZDPS builds I can agree with. But removing them will solve nothing besides make some players upset the style they enjoy is gone.
There is nothing mandatory in the game, less keep that I mind. It's just that in pushing to the limit then a optimal group setup will inevitably emerge, and I see no issue with zdps being part of that setup. Nothing stop ppl from running 4 blood lance necro to push GR as long as they can survive. Having different roles to play add to the diversity, which is a positive thing. You can't have all quarterback in a team, at least that won't be a good team.

What can be done is to implement some diminishing return on buff or debuff to reduce the importance of support. But I think the game already has that, e.g. Cc immunity, mark of death don't stack, etc.
09/21/2017 09:34 AMPosted by Reverend
n the other hand, 3zdps for 1 dps is still the highest pushing meta, isn't it?


No. As others have said, highest pushing meta is a healing monk, a grouping barb, a trash clearing LON WD, and a RGK lance (or inarius) Necro. I think this is amazing, since every person has a specifc job with very different requirements and very different playstyle, allowing for a "play your way" environment.

The 3 ZDPS meta is for very fast (sub 6 min) GR clearing for paragon farming. This is an issue with end game GR pushing and paragon. It is the paragon system that needs to be fixed, not the roles.

09/21/2017 10:19 AMPosted by skipdog
Removing zdps builds would mean one could easily find 4 person GR groups without having to have the 'perfect' compositions.


If the goal is variability, then there should be more zdps options not less. The same way blizzard is buffing dps sets to be more competitive in solo (and somewhat in 4 man) they need to push zdps sets to be more competitive. There use to be a healing crusader that could compete with Soothing Mist Monk, but they nerfed it. They also nerfed every pull in the game making Barb with harpoon mandatory. For DH, they nerfed marked for death and wolf companion.

The game will NEVER (I mean never ever ever) be: Play whatever random spec you want and people will carry you in the group. The DPS roll has the highest gear requirements, since your clearing possibility scales linearly with DPS, as opposed to being a threshold function for support. Stop trying to take away options form others because you dont know how to gear.
09/21/2017 09:55 AMPosted by Zeddicuus
ZDPS bonuses of the same type should not stack on opponents or allies. So having 2 damage buffing ZDPS should not work properly as they're supplying similar buffs. So for example having one ZDPS supplying damage buffs to the allies and another ZDPS supplying CC should work, but having 2 ZDPS that both attempt to supply bonus damage it should only apply the largest of the buffs between them, kinda like how the auras on Paladins in D2 functioned.


First of all, it doesnt make much sense considering the number of modifiers of different kind (ie. why monks applying bonus from Strongarms should be in any way affected by barbs Falter ?)

Second of all, a huge number of stacking multipliers was already removed or moved to be only applied to the damage of the person applying them (which completely gutted support WD).

Most important damage bonus of them all is the one that is completely inaffected by stacking - its barb and monk doing mob stacking to leverage WDs area damage.

If you can pull an entire screen of monsters close, the WD will do a couple times more damage compared to when he/she attacks small groups. If you pull multiple elites into the mix, you kill them a couple times faster than you would do if they were isolated (elite killer Nec is kind of the exception, but I believe its still more efficient to pull blues into the group than not).

If you could work with the numbers (or this game had some kind of damage meters like WoW addons), you would most likely see the barb is actually responsible for more than 50% of the damage team does. Its an indirect buff, but its still that big of a buff
09/22/2017 12:49 AMPosted by Skyfall
If you could work with the numbers (or this game had some kind of damage meters like WoW addons), you would most likely see the barb is actually responsible for more than 50% of the damage team does. Its an indirect buff, but its still that big of a buff


I think you underestimate how much dmg the monk brings via strongarms, toxic gem, bleed procs for the WD and sometimes flesh is weak palm setup too.
Still it's just about buffing the 2 DPS'ers, not actual dps raw dps provided by either zdps.
09/21/2017 06:26 AMPosted by parsonli
Yeah, delete goal keeper and defenders from soccer. Have only striker.

Usually happens when they happen to be on steroids and are replaced by athletes that aren't.

Support builds as a concept don't need to go, but they're long overdue for a heavy nerf.
09/21/2017 07:54 AMPosted by Zeddicuus
09/21/2017 04:35 AMPosted by Thorodan
Zdps is what's known as a "Stand-Still" Meta. Where the top GR groups literally stand still on top of the mobs CCing them. It's totally the opposite of how Diablo 2 was where you ran away from mobs so they don't kill you, in D3 you run into mobs and cast CC for the DPS.

SO lame. Delete zdps, delete it on the keyboard.


Diablo 2 had support builds. Curse Necros and defensive/offensive aura Paladins come to mind. They didn't do much damage but they made up for it in other ways the benefited the group as though I was running a standard DPS character. I had a Defense tree Paladin that did not run away from mobs but held them back so the ranged DPS had no issues killing them.

ZDPS should not be removed from the game, but it shouldn't be as dominant as it is. Currently the benefits of having 1-2 ZDPS outweigh having 4 DPS when they should be about equal. Players should be just as eager to see a ZDPS as they should be with seeing another DPS join the game.

ZDPS is a optional, valid style of play.


Even your mercs in d2 had support roles.

Barb mercs had shout, Act 2 mercs had a freezing aura.
Playing a zdps is a valid option, yes. But it's beyond stupid that 2-3 zdps is the strongest option.

I would like to see if Blizzard makes zdps less attractive to players. Make XP, loot and number of gem upgrades based on the damage the player dealt during the rift. There could be some base XP/loot and 2-3 gem upgrades for everyone, and bonus XP/loot/gem upgrades for players which actually fought monsters in the GR.

And of course weaken all the group buffs. If a wolf from a DH howls to give the DH 15% extra damage, why should a totally different class also gain 15%? Let it be only 10-50% of the original value - problem solved. The same for other buffs - more damage as well as damage reduction. Make Healing Orbs "player only", including extra Orbs from Barb or Necro, and so on.

Group play would still be much stronger than solo play, but the gap would close a bit.
09/22/2017 04:41 AMPosted by Hebalon
Playing a zdps is a valid option, yes. But it's beyond stupid that 2-3 zdps is the strongest option.


Why? Why is it stupid that the optimal basketball team is where one or two players do most of the scoring? Why is it that a football team has one quarterback?

The fact that gaming communities as a whole see non-dps roles as somehow "inferior", is so strange. I dont choose to support because I cant dps. I choose to support because I find dps-roles one-dimensional snooze fests where u just selfishly concentrate on a few timers. Chances are, I am MUCH better than you at dps, but I like to support. Deal with it.
09/23/2017 04:33 PMPosted by EigenVector
09/22/2017 04:41 AMPosted by Hebalon
Playing a zdps is a valid option, yes. But it's beyond stupid that 2-3 zdps is the strongest option.


Why? Why is it stupid that the optimal basketball team is where one or two players do most of the scoring? Why is it that a football team has one quarterback?

The fact that gaming communities as a whole see non-dps roles as somehow "inferior", is so strange. I dont choose to support because I cant dps. I choose to support because I find dps-roles one-dimensional snooze fests where u just selfishly concentrate on a few timers. Chances are, I am MUCH better than you at dps, but I like to support. Deal with it.


The problem is that most of the people are rather one-dimensional.
09/22/2017 04:41 AMPosted by Hebalon
Playing a zdps is a valid option, yes. But it's beyond stupid that 2-3 zdps is the strongest option.

I would like to see if Blizzard makes zdps less attractive to players. Make XP, loot and number of gem upgrades based on the damage the player dealt during the rift. There could be some base XP/loot and 2-3 gem upgrades for everyone, and bonus XP/loot/gem upgrades for players which actually fought monsters in the GR.


I agree with decreasing the power of ZDPS, but they should be just as an attractive a choice in playstyle as DPS, they should not be seen as the gimped or inferior builds, but as alternative builds. I do not agree with XP/loot/gem upgrades being tied to damage dealt, as that would make ZDPS get almost nothing which is not fair. Or by 'fought monsters' did you mean monsters your spells affected? That would work out real well for CC Wizards that can hit a hell of a lot on the screen to affect them with CC procs but deal no damage. not sure how that will affect other ZDPS builds as I mostly play Wizard.

09/22/2017 04:41 AMPosted by Hebalon
And of course weaken all the group buffs. If a wolf from a DH howls to give the DH 15% extra damage, why should a totally different class also gain 15%? Let it be only 10-50% of the original value - problem solved. The same for other buffs - more damage as well as damage reduction. Make Healing Orbs "player only", including extra Orbs from Barb or Necro, and so on.


This sounds alright to me for many of the skills for a variety of classes. This would help downsize the potency of ZDPS but not ruin it altogether.
As long as D3 is just a GR arcade there's no point removing the zdps, at least you can have some group play coordination.

But let's hope one day Diablo goes back being a real ARPG.
Probably same for barbs, and maybe it will be different after next patch, but right now as a monk unless I bring a zdps to a group I feel like a liability.

My generator monk is uber squishy and what's the point anyway when necro and wiz's melt enemies so much more efficiently.

z roles bring coordination into the equation - it will never be as intricate as wow but at least it's not a total zergfest ( or is that what you want )
09/21/2017 08:09 AMPosted by Skyfall
ZDPS should not be removed from the game, but it shouldn't be as dominant as it is. Currently the benefits of having 1-2 ZDPS outweigh having 4 DPS when they should be about equal. Players should be just as eager to see a DPS as they should be with seeing another DPS join the game.


The problem is that the enabling support chars will always be worth more than raw dps simply because how factors like density creation affect gameplay.


Yes, the ability to "stack" monsters is another retard-move of the devs. It's because that's how WOW did it and so they decided to do the same in D3.

Monsters in D2 did not "stack", they occupied their own "space". This is also a reason why combat was much more meaningful in D2 and "well-paced".

Don't get me wrong, D3 combat feels "fluid" and thats awesome, but when you stack 200 monsters on top of each other, the whole combat becomes meaningless.

I hope D4 will have D3 fluidity with D2 "combat-pace" and will also prevent monsters from being "stackable". I also hope that elements will actually matter in D4, not only for our caster-skills but for monsters alike. I hope combat will get another dynamic layer by killing certain monsters fast while others take longer simply because they have resistances to cold or fire etc. D3 is way too simplified, and it takes away from the game tremendously. Anyways.... D3 has so many issues at the core of the game that D4 needs to build fresh from the ground up if they want to create a real Diablo game ever again.

Join the Conversation

Return to Forum