Let LoN only work with rare items...

Items and Crafting
Prev 1 10 11 12 Next
02/24/2018 11:29 AMPosted by UngivenFame
Just because perfection is unlikely, doesn't mean you should settle for mediocrity.


Even though perfection is not attainable. Still I have to stick to the facts as they are right now. I cannot take some made up statements or what I would love to see and make it reality. I have to go by the way the game is right now. When someone says anything that is around 30% weaker is considered a for fun build. By those standards that means that any build that the highest clear is 3 GRs lower than the top. That automatically classifies that build as a for fun build. Due to the 17% boost per GR, that is until Blizz decides to change it which I highly doubt they will.

More so since this is the D3 forums. Now if we are talking about a different game then sure, but then that shouldn't be in the General Forums. I would need to be moved to an off topic type of forums.
@ShadowAegis

I am talking about builds that follow the predetermined structure set by the devs. Case in point, again Path of Exile, I had a build of my own a while back that I know couldn't possibly be strong enough to beat Shaper (before GGG added in The Elder). Further I knew that the build that I had, even with the best gear could possibly handle as high as maybe T14 or T15 and may have struggled on those maps. Since it wouldn't be able to handle the Shaper's Guardians it wouldn't be able to beat Shaper.

In order to be close to beating him I would've had to change ascendancy class and go more along the line of a crit based build in order to have a chance at beating him.

I was playing the weaker ascendancy to be able to handle the mana issues that was due to using a high mana skill.

My build is just one of many. There are many more that would have a problem handling Tiers 11-16 in Path of Exile let alone beating Shaper. Still they no doubt follow the same build structure as your top performing builds.

One dps skill
Using curse (s)
Using aura (s)
Using a defensive skill like Cast When Damage Taken.
Using a movement skill.

Depending on the build you might be able to use two defensive setups.

First, please stop using PoE as an example. I have never played that game and I know almost nothing about its mechanics or underlying gameplay mechanics and structures or the issues that the game has, so I can't comment on that.

Secondly, and I am speculating here, the reason why some builds in PoE are significantly weaker than others although they are following the same structure might actually be bad balance in regards to the skills and/or too much and powerful synergies. The latter issue was also the reason why there were certain extremely powerful builds in D3 vanilla, like the CM Wizard or the perma-Berserker-WW Barbarian. They used unintended, overpowered synergies which made them extremely strong, until these synergies were nerfed/removed.

02/24/2018 12:02 PMPosted by clueso
In your opinion, what and how does determine what a just-for-fun-build is and when does a build become a just-for-fun-build?


This is up to the individual for what is for fun. To me it would be one that you are using that you love playing. Whether that build can compete with the top performers or not. Because whether you believe it or not there are some that love the builds that happen to sit at the top of the food chain. Here it doesn't matter what the devs have done as far as how the game is designed it is all about the player here.

I absolutely agree that there are some players that consider it to be fun to only play the top builds and I also agree that there are people who just want to play whatever build they like, even if it is significantly weaker than the top builds, however, there are also players who (only) consider it to be fun to come up with their own build and be efficient with it and for these players it is very important that the builds that they play are not too weaker than the best builds.

Yeah, that is just what they consider to be fun...

Do you believe that the latter kinds of players exist and that it might be a good idea to not forget about them and to therefore balance the game accordingly and not to funnel everyone into the same default builds by creating items and skills that are so obviously more powerful than others?

02/24/2018 03:27 PMPosted by ShadowAegis
Regardless of how you feel about it. The devs of the game will be the ones that will determine the structure that we use to make builds.

Yes, that is okay and inevitable and I am not arguing against it. What I don't like is when the devs also determine the tools* that we players use to fill this structure, by making some of the tools significantly more powerful than others.

*"tools" in this context means skills, runes items, affixes etc

02/24/2018 03:27 PMPosted by ShadowAegis
They are the ones that inevitably determine (unintentional or intentional) what the best builds are. They also are the ones that determine which ones are close to the best. You will never be able to leave that fact that the ones designing the game inevitably are the ones that determine which are the top builds and which ones are the bottom feeders of the group.

Yes, but that doesn't mean that they shouldn't try to reduce the gap between the best and the worst builds to a reasonably amount by reasonably balancing items, skills, runes and affixes...
02/24/2018 06:18 PMPosted by clueso
First, please stop using PoE as an example. I have never played that game and I know almost nothing about its mechanics or underlying gameplay mechanics and structures or the issues that the game has, so I can't comment on that.

Secondly, and I am speculating here, the reason why some builds in PoE are significantly weaker than others although they are following the same structure might actually be bad balance in regards to the skills and/or too much and powerful synergies. The latter issue was also the reason why there were certain extremely powerful builds in D3 vanilla, like the CM Wizard or the perma-Berserker-WW Barbarian. They used unintended, overpowered synergies which made them extremely strong, until these synergies were nerfed/removed.


Look I am saying that it is not due to being overpowered. It is due to the way the game is designed and balanced. With all of the possible skill combinations in PoE along with the way you spend your passive skill points and ascendancy choices makes it very hard if not impossible to make every build that follows the formula, I gave which is correct, to work.

I have no doubt that i could come up with a multitude of ways to make the same build choosing a different ascendancy and skill point spending plan. Making changes in the gear as well. But if it is not what would be the best ascendancy and gear choice then the chances of it beating the top bosses of today both the Elder and Shaper or coming anywhere near them by being at least T15 viable then they would be considered for fun builds.

I am using my knowledge of the game to show you that this is one game that has builds that follow the given formula of the game. They follow the correct use of the tools (including spending points). But still these builds will not be able to perform at the level needed to be anywhere near what you would consider average. No they would be for fun because they don't come anywhere near to being top of the charts. You would call them for fun builds.

I have no doubt that this happens in other games as well. The ever so popular D2 no doubt had a list of builds that all followed the correct formula and given set of tools. But still that game had its builds that didn't compete with the top builds even though they followed the correct structure and use of tools. So they too would be for fun.

I am trying to get you to understand that the best way to look at the differences of a for fun build and an average build is not to base it on the top performing builds. More so since you said that the average build has to go by the correct formula for putting together a good build along with your 30% rule.

I can tell you even MMOs had the same problems as well. In City of Heroes that was shut down years ago suffered from the same problem. There were builds that were the top performers and some were the bottom feeders even though the players used the tools properly and put together some good builds. It is just that they wouldn't be able to compete against the top performing builds.

The real problem is in the mathematics as far as balance goes. How do you balance the game where all builds that use everything that game gives the players properly where they are all roughly the same power level. That is a nightmare for any dev of any game.

I absolutely agree that there are some players that consider it to be fun to only play the top builds and I also agree that there are people who just want to play whatever build they like, even if it is significantly weaker than the top builds, however, there are also players who (only) consider it to be fun to come up with their own build and be efficient with it and for these players it is very important that the builds that they play are not too weaker than the best builds.


What about players that would take a less than what you would look at as average build and work to take it to its maximum potential. Because that is what they find as fun. I have for a while now been thinking about doing just that with a DH. I am thinking about a Rapid Fire grenades build using either Nat's or UE. It just might work if I get the right pieces of gear along with figuring out the right stat priorities. Who knows I might even be able to clear a GR95 with such a build. Even though it might not be on the leader boards the fun would be actually attempting such a feat. Kind of like James T Kirk from Star Trek. I would be saying as far as the build goes; "Let's see what it can do".

Do you believe that the latter kinds of players exist and that it might be a good idea to not forget about them and to therefore balance the game accordingly and not to funnel everyone into the same default builds by creating items and skills that are so obviously more powerful than others?


Actually Patch 2.6.1 made a lot more funnels than you think. There are more builds that are fun to play and are pretty close to the top. Even though some are more than 2 GRs from the top. Since that patch dropped it has catered to those types of players as you mentioned.

So my question to you is what is considered average by you in this game? You so called average is what you deemed would better fit other games instead of this one.
What you describe sounds like a balancing problem. Their garbage passive skill tree is probably largely responsible for hamstringing the build diversity in that game. I don't know I haven't played beyond a half hour - the combat is so terrible I couldn't take it.

Diablo 3 is suffering from a philosophical problem, that is ineffectual skills in the absence of set items specifically tailored to shoot one or two particular skills into the mesosphere.
02/25/2018 06:07 AMPosted by UngivenFame
What you describe sounds like a balancing problem. Their garbage passive skill tree is probably largely responsible for hamstringing the build diversity in that game. I don't know I haven't played beyond a half hour - the combat is so terrible I couldn't take it.

Diablo 3 is suffering from a philosophical problem, that is ineffectual skills in the absence of set items specifically tailored to shoot one or two particular skills into the mesosphere.


Not only did I talk about Path of Exile I even talked about the shut down City of Heroes. What I am saying is real simple, in all rpgs you will have builds that will follow the formula and use all of the tools but still not be able to come anywhere near competing with the top performing builds. It happens in all rpgs, not just this game. That is regardless of the reasons. I even mentioned that I have no doubt that D2 is the same in that area as well.

I am trying to say that what is considered as average has to be based on something different than the top performing builds. Along with changing how he looks at what is average. In PoE any build, IIRC, that can handle low to mid tier maps is a decent build. Because with mid tier maps you could eventually get to level cap if you wanted to.
02/25/2018 09:19 AMPosted by ShadowAegis


Not only did I talk about Path of Exile I even talked about the shut down City of Heroes. What I am saying is real simple, in all rpgs you will have builds that will follow the formula and use all of the tools but still not be able to come anywhere near competing with the top performing builds. It happens in all rpgs, not just this game. That is regardless of the reasons. I even mentioned that I have no doubt that D2 is the same in that area as well.

[/quote]What you are saying might be simple but its not consistent. You are comparing diablo 3 set issues with balancing issues from other games. Diablo 3 may have balancing issues as well, but the issues with are so blurred by sets which makes skills function at a level lightyears ahead of the base power. Sets are an issue besides balancing. Balancing is elusive sure but I feel your argument fails to acknowledge that current set philosophy brings is own issues outside of balancing.
02/24/2018 11:11 PMPosted by ShadowAegis
Look I am saying that it is not due to being overpowered. It is due to the way the game is designed and balanced. With all of the possible skill combinations in PoE along with the way you spend your passive skill points and ascendancy choices makes it very hard if not impossible to make every build that follows the formula, I gave which is correct, to work.

I have no doubt that i could come up with a multitude of ways to make the same build choosing a different ascendancy and skill point spending plan. Making changes in the gear as well. But if it is not what would be the best ascendancy and gear choice then the chances of it beating the top bosses of today both the Elder and Shaper or coming anywhere near them by being at least T15 viable then they would be considered for fun builds.

I am using my knowledge of the game to show you that this is one game that has builds that follow the given formula of the game. They follow the correct use of the tools (including spending points). But still these builds will not be able to perform at the level needed to be anywhere near what you would consider average. No they would be for fun because they don't come anywhere near to being top of the charts. You would call them for fun builds.

Again, if one build in PoE can do the endgame (Elder/Sharper) and another one that follows the same structure but with other skills can not do it, then this has to do with bad balance.

It doesn't mean that my concept here is invalid, it just means that the balance is not good.

02/24/2018 11:11 PMPosted by ShadowAegis
I am trying to get you to understand that the best way to look at the differences of a for fun build and an average build is not to base it on the top performing builds.

But for many people it is. If the power difference between a top build and an average build is too big, they feel frustrated and they do not consider the average build fun anymore. That is just game-psychology...

02/24/2018 11:11 PMPosted by ShadowAegis
I can tell you even MMOs had the same problems as well. In City of Heroes that was shut down years ago suffered from the same problem. There were builds that were the top performers and some were the bottom feeders even though the players used the tools properly and put together some good builds. It is just that they wouldn't be able to compete against the top performing builds.

Again, this is a balance issue, which is a seperate aspect of the issue we are talking about right now.

02/24/2018 11:11 PMPosted by ShadowAegis
The real problem is in the mathematics as far as balance goes. How do you balance the game where all builds that use everything that game gives the players properly where they are all roughly the same power level. That is a nightmare for any dev of any game.

You do not balance all possible builds against each other, you balance all base skills, base runes and base affixes against each other.

I absolutely agree that there are some players that consider it to be fun to only play the top builds and I also agree that there are people who just want to play whatever build they like, even if it is significantly weaker than the top builds, however, there are also players who (only) consider it to be fun to come up with their own build and be efficient with it and for these players it is very important that the builds that they play are not too weaker than the best builds.


What about players that would take a less than what you would look at as average build and work to take it to its maximum potential. Because that is what they find as fun.

Yeah, what about them?

You can do that in any game, no matter how big the differences between the best and average builds are. This simply doesn't matter to the kind of player you describe. You can do that right now in D3 and the power gap is gigantic.

However, the powergap matters a lot to the kind of players that I described above: the players who only consider it to be fun to come up with builds on their own and use the skills they personally prefer the most as long as their (average) builds are not significantly weaker than the top builds. And these kind of players currently have no home in D3.

Do you believe that the latter kinds of players exist and that it might be a good idea to not forget about them and to therefore balance the game accordingly and not to funnel everyone into the same default builds by creating items and skills that are so obviously more powerful than others?


Actually Patch 2.6.1 made a lot more funnels than you think. There are more builds that are fun to play and are pretty close to the top. Even though some are more than 2 GRs from the top. Since that patch dropped it has catered to those types of players as you mentioned.

No, not at all!

Yes, 2.6.1 brought more builds close to the top, however, all of these builds are still builds that require sets and sets only buff a predetermined skill set up and therefore players can not come up with builds on their own, so it does not cater to the types of player that I mentioned, because they wanna come up with builds on their own and use the skills that they prefer the most.

The fact still remains that in this game items determine the build instead of just enhancing them and as long this remains the case, D3 will not be catering to these players.

02/24/2018 11:11 PMPosted by ShadowAegis
So my question to you is what is considered average by you in this game? You so called average is what you deemed would better fit other games instead of this one.

I don't know, I have given up on this game a long time ago, ever since it became clear that the devs are designing the builds for the players (they are deciding with which tools you are filling out the structure) and not the players themself.

However I think what would improve this situation at least to a certain degree is the suggestion that I posted in the original post, which would bring a lot more builds closer to the top and not just builds that are predetermined by the devs.
You can't claim that build diversity would increase AND there would be no balancing issues. Those things are mutually exclusive. The whole thing that makes a viable build is the fact that it is balanced and competitive with other builds in the first place. Build diversity exists when several builds are viable within a reasonable range of each other, and that requires balancing.
02/25/2018 05:13 PMPosted by Savage
Build diversity exists when several builds are viable within a reasonable range of each other

Not sure if your message was directed at me or someone else, but that is exactly my point...
@UngivenFlame

I am gonna have to make this even easier for you. Your definition of average shouldn't be based on how close it is to the top performing builds. It shouldn't be based on if it follows the structure along with properly using the tools the game gives it. Because doing that would make it very difficult or next to impossible to achieve that kind of balance where the only for fun builds to you in your game would be the ones like clueso said ones that don't follow the build structure of the game. Where all other builds are average or at the top of the charts.

The definition of average that I would accept is one that is either mentioned by the developers or the majority of the players.

Let's take this game for example. Then lets set the paragon level to a low level compared to many others in non season, say 1600. Now with 1600 paragon the majority might say that an average build (yes set build) should be able to clear GR95, even though some might have to fish some to complete that GR. But still it would be doable for an average build. That is what I would accept as average.

Much like I have said before about Path of Exile in what they consider as an average build. One that can at least clear low to mid tier maps.
Again, if one build in PoE can do the endgame (Elder/Sharper) and another one that follows the same structure but with other skills can not do it, then this has to do with bad balance.

It doesn't mean that my concept here is invalid, it just means that the balance is not good.


What is average is not something that should be dictated by the top performing builds, all based around them along with how they are put together. Instead average builds should be defined by the majorithy of the players. What they consider an average build. Or the developers if no such definition of average exists.

But for many people it is. If the power difference between a top build and an average build is too big, they feel frustrated and they do not consider the average build fun anymore. That is just game-psychology...


Not sure if you can prove that for many it is that way. Where they define average the same way that you do. I do believe that for many their definition of what is average could be vastly different than yours. So you might have to rethink your position.

You do not balance all possible builds against each other, you balance all base skills, base runes and base affixes against each other.


But again to do it right you would have to homogenize all of them in order to pull off true balance. Because when you are changing baseline numbers based on balancing of skills and all you are balancing one build against another. Because there is so much more than just baseline numbers going on under the hood. There are other synergies you have to concern yourself with. Synergies with combination of skills and gear. One change in one spot could throw balance in another spot out of whack.

However, the powergap matters a lot to the kind of players that I described above: the players who only consider it to be fun to come up with builds on their own and use the skills they personally prefer the most as long as their (average) builds are not significantly weaker than the top builds. And these kind of players currently have no home in D3.


But the whole point is that the player in question is the one that defines what he/she thinks should be an average build. When the developers or the players wouldn't agree with them. If the devs don't agree then it is how the game is designed. If it is the players then they are wanting their bottom feeder (according to you) to be considered average. Which in a game like this one might be very hard if not impossible to achieve.

Besides there are many skills that could very well be supported by some of the generic sets that could actually perform better than what other players say that they do. Then there are those that are out there that truly are just for the fun of it. They can be there when you don't care about being on the tip top of the leader boards. When you don't care how close to placing on them you are. You are just playing to slaughter monsters and have fun destroying stuff.

Now if their fun is playing builds that are near the top performers then they should well know that they are limiting themselves in games like this one. They ought to know that they have to use the strongest tools to get the job done.
Yes, 2.6.1 brought more builds close to the top, however, all of these builds are still builds that require sets and sets only buff a predetermined skill set up and therefore players can not come up with builds on their own, so it does not cater to the types of player that I mentioned, because they wanna come up with builds on their own and use the skills that they prefer the most.

The fact still remains that in this game items determine the build instead of just enhancing them and as long this remains the case, D3 will not be catering to these players.


With this season I intend on learning a lot more about Lashing Tail Kick and how far that I can possible take that build into the GRs. Lashing Tail Kick is not nearly strong as the Wave of Light build with the gift set. Lashing Tail Kick happens to be my favorite monk spender in the game.

Some time down the road I intend on trying to find out how powerful Rapid Fire Grenades build with either UE or Nats (maybe both). I could do the same with other skills for other classes and class sets. Along with trying out just for the fun of it LoN builds for the wizard and the barb.

02/25/2018 10:59 AMPosted by clueso
I don't know, I have given up on this game a long time ago, ever since it became clear that the devs are designing the builds for the players (they are deciding with which tools you are filling out the structure) and not the players themself.

However I think what would improve this situation at least to a certain degree is the suggestion that I posted in the original post, which would bring a lot more builds closer to the top and not just builds that are predetermined by the devs.


I do think that Savage was directing his comment to you. Because your idea has its own set of balance issues that wouldn't even be more of a nightmare to balance around.
02/25/2018 06:32 PMPosted by ShadowAegis
What is average is not something that should be dictated by the top performing builds, all based around them along with how they are put together. Instead average builds should be defined by the majorithy of the players. What they consider an average build.

But the majority of players defines it that way. I did a survey about 1 1/2 years ago on reddit and here on the forums to find out how big the power difference between the best preforming builds and suboptimal builds can be until a player would say "okay, this suboptimal build might be more fun to play gameplay wise, but the top build makes so much more damage that I just feel compelled to play it and don't touch the suboptimal build again, although it might be more fun.", and the vast majority of players said that this point was reached at around 30%.

02/25/2018 06:32 PMPosted by ShadowAegis
But for many people it is. If the power difference between a top build and an average build is too big, they feel frustrated and they do not consider the average build fun anymore. That is just game-psychology...


Not sure if you can prove that for many it is that way. Where they define average the same way that you do. I do believe that for many their definition of what is average could be vastly different than yours.

It isn't based on my own experience and the surveys that I did.

02/25/2018 06:32 PMPosted by ShadowAegis
You do not balance all possible builds against each other, you balance all base skills, base runes and base affixes against each other.


But again to do it right you would have to homogenize all of them in order to pull off true balance. Because when you are changing baseline numbers based on balancing of skills and all you are balancing one build against another.

Not perfect balance (or true balance as you call it), but reasonable balance.

It is like you are saying that because it is difficult to reasonable balance things, so we shouldn't even try in the first place.

Here is what I suggest you do: create a new character, level him from 1-70 without powerlevel, without legendaries (even without the ones that don't have special affixes) and without paragon points. Choose whatever skills and items and affixes you like and changes them from time to time.

You will see that the balance is actually somewhat okay. There are some skills and runes that are noticeably stronger than others (the Dust Devils rune for Whirlwind for example - which primarily was done in order to bring them more in line with 6piece sets), but you will notice that a simple nerf would actually do the trick (which they will not do, because it would mess up the 6piece set meta balance).

Do tha and then tell he how hard it is to balance things.
Yes, I am sure it requires testing and work, but it is not impossible.

02/25/2018 06:32 PMPosted by ShadowAegis
There are other synergies you have to concern yourself with. Synergies with combination of skills and gear. One change in one spot could throw balance in another spot out of whack.

Synergies are okay as long as it doesn't get too powerful. When you have such a case, redesign, nerf or remove something...
But the majority of players defines it that way. I did a survey about 1 1/2 years ago on reddit and here on the forums to find out how big the power difference between the best preforming builds and suboptimal builds can be until a player would say "okay, this suboptimal build might be more fun to play gameplay wise, but the top build makes so much more damage that I just feel compelled to play it and don't touch the suboptimal build again, although it might be more fun.", and the vast majority of players said that this point was reached at around 30%.


You were asking the wrong question in both forums. You should've said what is the definition of an average build in this game in both forums. Doing that you would get the players definitions.

The reason why it is the wrong question is because the 30% rule for this game would mean that anything that cannot clear 2 GRs under the top builds woule mean those builds are just for fun. Even though they can place on the leader boards. Even place within the top 50 ranks on the leader boards. But still according to the 30% rule they are for fun builds.

They would be the builds that Rhkyyer talked about on the tier lists that would be 3 GRs lower than the top performing builds. Even though he would say they are a good strong build according to the 30% rule they are just for fun.

The same thing happens in other games like this one games like, PoE, Grimm Dawn, Wolcen (still in development), Diablo 2, etc.... You have to go by the definition of average build as it is defined by the majority of the players.

It isn't based on my own experience and the surveys that I did.


Like I said you are basing on the power gap between the top performers and the suboptimal builds. This is where you have messed up. You should've, like I said above asked for the definition of average build in this game on both forums. Then look at the replies without replying back unless absolutely necessary for clarification. Then you would know what the average builds in this game are. Because you would know the definition of average according to the majority of the players. Something that is not based entirely on the gap in power.
But the majority of players defines it that way. I did a survey about 1 1/2 years ago on reddit and here on the forums to find out how big the power difference between the best preforming builds and suboptimal builds can be until a player would say "okay, this suboptimal build might be more fun to play gameplay wise, but the top build makes so much more damage that I just feel compelled to play it and don't touch the suboptimal build again, although it might be more fun.", and the vast majority of players said that this point was reached at around 30%.


You were asking the wrong question in both forums. You should've said what is the definition of an average build in this game in both forums. Doing that you would get the players definitions.

The reason why it is the wrong question is because the 30% rule for this game would mean that anything that cannot clear 2 GRs under the top builds woule mean those builds are just for fun. Even though they can place on the leader boards. Even place within the top 50 ranks on the leader boards. But still according to the 30% rule they are for fun builds.

They would be the builds that Rhkyyer talked about on the tier lists that would be 3 GRs lower than the top performing builds. Even though he would say they are a good strong build according to the 30% rule they are just for fun.

The same thing happens in other games like this one games like, PoE, Grimm Dawn, Wolcen (still in development), Diablo 2, etc.... You have to go by the definition of average build as it is defined by the majority of the players.

It isn't based on my own experience and the surveys that I did.


Like I said you are basing on the power gap between the top performers and the suboptimal builds. This is where you have messed up. You should've, like I said above asked for the definition of average build in this game on both forums. Then look at the replies without replying back unless absolutely necessary for clarification. Then you would know what the average builds in this game are. Because you would know the definition of average according to the majority of the players. Something that is not based entirely on the gap in power.

Here is what I suggest you do: create a new character, level him from 1-70 without powerlevel, without legendaries (even without the ones that don't have special affixes) and without paragon points. Choose whatever skills and items and affixes you like and changes them from time to time.


You still have to make changes to the baseline of the skills and runes based on the baselines of the skills and runes of other skills. So in that vain you are balancing one build against another. You cannot have a balanced baseline without balancing one build against another.

02/26/2018 01:22 PMPosted by clueso
Synergies are okay as long as it doesn't get too powerful. When you have such a case, redesign, nerf or remove something...


When you make a change in one spot to bring an OP synergy down it is likely to cause a change somewhere else that could wind up nerfing more than needed.
02/25/2018 06:05 PMPosted by ShadowAegis
@UngivenFlame

I am gonna have to make this even easier for you.
You really don't need to do that...

There is only one disconnect here. You don't want to acknowledge the difference between accidental bad balance and deliberately trivializing the majority of what would otherwise be perfectly fine builds by implementing set and leg design like has been done in D3.

If you can't acknowledge a difference between those two things then we are not going to come any closer to agreeing - or even agreeing to disagree.
02/26/2018 07:29 PMPosted by UngivenFame
02/25/2018 06:05 PMPosted by ShadowAegis
@UngivenFlame

I am gonna have to make this even easier for you.
You really don't need to do that...

There is only one disconnect here. You don't want to acknowledge the difference between accidental bad balance and deliberately trivializing the majority of what would otherwise be perfectly fine builds by implementing set and leg design like has been done in D3.

If you can't acknowledge a difference between those two things then we are not going to come any closer to agreeing - or even agreeing to disagree.


I already know the difference between set builds and ones with just legendaries only.

But still that doesn't mean that it is okay to define what you think should be an average build in this game or any other game. That is what the whole point of the reply was about. Not about the gap in power from one build to another or the builds that sit at the top of the leader boards and the bottom feeders that don't even come close. No instead it was all about what the majority of players in any game define as average builds.

You cannot get more build diversity without being able to define average. You cannot achieve better balance without being able to define average. It is even worse if you don't know what the baseline of performance that the devs are using to define average. If we knew that then we would be able to come up with better suggestions that might make more builds viable without using sets.
02/26/2018 07:07 PMPosted by ShadowAegis
You were asking the wrong question in both forums. You should've said what is the definition of an average build in this game in both forums. Doing that you would get the players definitions.

Then what would be your definition of average?

My definition of average would be when the best (endgame) builds can one single torment level higher than average (endgame) builds, maybe two torment level, if they push it and want a real insane challenge.

Would your definition of "average" be that the top builds can go three to four torment levels higher (which is around 10-20 GR levels) than average builds?

02/26/2018 07:07 PMPosted by ShadowAegis
The reason why it is the wrong question is because the 30% rule for this game would mean that anything that cannot clear 2 GRs under the top builds woule mean those builds are just for fun.

Remember that in this context I am not talking about the current setup, where builds can clear GR's between 90 and 115, I am talking about a situation where these giant multipliers did never exist and the highest GR clears would be around GR15+ (maybe a bit more, I do not know).

Now, you see, I am not saying that in the current state of the game the builds should all be around GR115 +/-1 GR level, no, I am saying that the difference in a version of the game where these multipliers never existed should be around GR15 +/- 1 GR level.

Besides that, the numbers can be changed and adjusted, so an increase in +1 GR can be +10% increase in health instead of a +17% increase in health etc, so that might artificially increase the gap a bit for the purpose of better better distinct differences.

02/26/2018 07:07 PMPosted by ShadowAegis
You have to go by the definition of average build as it is defined by the majority of the players.

Another word for "average" could be "viable", if that is satisfying you.

Everything that is only about 30% weaker than the top builds is considered viable by the majority of players while everything that is below that is non-viable and therefore a "for fun build" as you call it.

If the word viable is what you prefer, then we can use that from now on.

02/26/2018 07:07 PMPosted by ShadowAegis
It isn't based on my own experience and the surveys that I did.


Like I said you are basing on the power gap between the top performers and the suboptimal builds. This is where you have messed up. You should've, like I said above asked for the definition of average build in this game on both forums. Then look at the replies without replying back unless absolutely necessary for clarification. Then you would know what the average builds in this game are. Because you would know the definition of average according to the majority of the players. Something that is not based entirely on the gap in power.

First of all, I messed up: I did not wanted to say "It isn't based on my own experience and the surveys that I did.", no, it had a typo in it and I wanted to say "It IS based on my own experience and the surveys that I did."

02/26/2018 07:07 PMPosted by ShadowAegis
Here is what I suggest you do: create a new character, level him from 1-70 without powerlevel, without legendaries (even without the ones that don't have special affixes) and without paragon points. Choose whatever skills and items and affixes you like and changes them from time to time.


You still have to make changes to the baseline of the skills and runes based on the baselines of the skills and runes of other skills. So in that vain you are balancing one build against another. You cannot have a balanced baseline without balancing one build against another.

That is why I suggested to you to play one or more chars from level 1 to 70 without powerlevel, legendaries and paragon points, because you will see that everything in the early game (with some exceptions) is fairly balanced, but according to you, that would be impossible or "in vain". So I don't understand where your problem is...
Then what would be your definition of average?

My definition of average would be when the best (endgame) builds can one single torment level higher than average (endgame) builds, maybe two torment level, if they push it and want a real insane challenge.

Would your definition of "average" be that the top builds can go three to four torment levels higher (which is around 10-20 GR levels) than average builds?


Too many variables for me to define average for a game like this one.

Remember that in this context I am not talking about the current setup, where builds can clear GR's between 90 and 115, I am talking about a situation where these giant multipliers did never exist and the highest GR clears would be around GR15+ (maybe a bit more, I do not know).


You never said whether in those threads you asked that question along with stating this is to be answered based on the fact that the crazy multipliers never existed. You only stated that here not in your threads that you mentioned earlier. Besides other players told you based on the question you mentioned earlier. How far from optimal in percentage would you still play a suboptimal build. When you think of optimal you are saying best builds, ones at the top of the charts. So you are thinking of the tops of the leader boards in this game.

Another word for "average" could be "viable", if that is satisfying you.

Everything that is only about 30% weaker than the top builds is considered viable by the majority of players while everything that is below that is non-viable and therefore a "for fun build" as you call it.

If the word viable is what you prefer, then we can use that from now on.


Viable is like average it has the potential to have many meanings. What context are you putting viable in? Is it based on being near the tops of the leader boards? Is it viable because it can clear GR110+? Is it viable because it is a tanky build that can at least help you place on the leader boards even if it is in the low 100s? Is it a for fun build that is a blast to play as well as being able to place on the leader boards? Is it the fastest build in the game for your chosen class? All of this and more could fit viable.

02/26/2018 09:45 PMPosted by clueso
That is why I suggested to you to play one or more chars from level 1 to 70 without powerlevel, legendaries and paragon points, because you will see that everything in the early game (with some exceptions) is fairly balanced, but according to you, that would be impossible or "in vain". So I don't understand where your problem is...


Sorry I used the wrong word I should've said in the same vein. Which means in the same kind or similar. That is what I am talking about. When Blizz did the balance passes for this game working on changing the baseline skills. Regardless of whether they were thinking about balancing one build against another that is what the were doing. You cannot get away with it. Because of the fact there has to be a baseline average for all baseline abilities. They no doubt have to use some of the skills to set the baseline that the rest has to be balanced around. Otherwise the are pulling balancing changes out of their behinds without anything to base it on, which would be dumb.
@ShadowAegis

Now you are splitting hairs...

I honestly do not understand why you are arguing with me at all...
All you do is to argue against my ideas, but you never advocate for something, so it is difficult for me to understand what you are driving at.
It is really difficult for me to make sense of that.

I tried to explain to you that most players only consider builds viable that are not more then 30% weaker then the best builds (doesn't matter the context, if it is for tanks, speed or builds that are just used for power-output or group support), and I don't understand why you are making such a big deal out of that...

All I want is reasonable balance, but for some reason - that I do not understand - you are arguing against that and we are going in circles...

I don't even know what your point is.

Join the Conversation

Return to Forum