A RPG element

[Primus]

It makes the game harder and less fun, because you're taking things away from the player. Simple as that.

Change for the sake of change is a bad idea.

Another thing is that while this makes the game more 'tactical' and 'strategic',not everyone has that intellect or seriousness to achieve the same.Simplicity is important for this game,so can't afford to make complex changes which can spin the heads of many as far as gameplay is concerned,regardless the said many are newbs or veterans.

[GrauGeist]

It makes the game harder and less fun, because you're taking things away from the player. Simple as that.

Change for the sake of change is a bad idea.

[BAgate]

I guarantee that implementing a mass net nerf is not going to make this a "great" game.

Lets explore that for a second. A 'mass net nerf', by definition, weakens all players by the same amount. The only practical effect such a thing would have on this game is to make the trial number people can complete go down across the board. How does that effect anything? Your position relative to other players wouldn't change. So why would anyone care if this was done?

On the other hand, making some of the proposed changes would create a diversity of builds, allow for a diversity of playing styles and increase replayability for those who don't simply obsess about how high on a leaderboard they can get.

So if a change has significant advantages, and the disadvantages are universal, what exactly is the problem? Are you saying the game would be better if the devs simply cut all bad guys hp in half so people could reach higher trials? Because that is the logical conclusion of your statement. So what exactly is your objection to a universal nerf if it was the result of changes that made the game more interesting and more varied?

[GrauGeist]

I guarantee that implementing a mass net nerf is not going to make this a "great" game.

[Purple Potato]

No, I'm actually stuck down around trial 80. I'm not a fan of pure button mashing and cookie cutter builds, so I don't really play much anymore. I keep waiting for the devs to take a great platform and turn it into a great game, which is why I support Arionthe and his ideas for creating diversity.

It is a great game already. That doesn't mean it doesn't have flaws though.

[BAgate]

No, I'm actually stuck down around trial 80. I'm not a fan of pure button mashing and cookie cutter builds, so I don't really play much anymore. I keep waiting for the devs to take a great platform and turn it into a great game, which is why I support Arionthe and his ideas for creating diversity.

[GrauGeist]

Dude, are you Carpe in disguise? So nobody can ever take your #1 spot?

[BAgate]

See the initial post. The nerf isn't the point, it is the side effect of introducing build diversity. I'm simply saying that a global nerf is not a reason NOT to make a change which would improve the game. A global nerf for the sake of a global nerf is pointless, but as a side effect it shouldn't be a huge consideration. Certainly not something which should require a 'major compensatory buff' to address.

[Rytrik]

Why? I recall when the trials got revamped the devs said they thought 100 would be the max and yet people are hitting 120+. Why is a global nerf a bad thing? If everybody is effected the same and the only result is people struggle to finish trial 100 instead of 120, why is that a problem?

What's the gain from that global nerf? If you take away people's 115-120, and push them back down to struggling to finish TL 100... what is gained by that? How is that beneficial for the players, and for the game as a whole?

[BAgate]

Obvious con is obvious - this is a significant net nerf to all players and needs a major compensatory buff to be viable.

Why? I recall when the trials got revamped the devs said they thought 100 would be the max and yet people are hitting 120+. Why is a global nerf a bad thing? If everybody is effected the same and the only result is people struggle to finish trial 100 instead of 120, why is that a problem?

[Rytrik]

2. More realistic, more relatable to every day life. As much a ARPG can be relatable.

I don't need my ARPGs to be relatable to every day life. I'm killing demons and dragons and liches in Eternium........ that's hardly something I do day to day. Why should health and damage be relatable to every day life?

Obvious con is obvious - this is a significant net nerf to all players and needs a major compensatory buff to be viable.

Thank you!

[GrauGeist]

Obvious con is obvious - this is a significant net nerf to all players and needs a major compensatory buff to be viable.

[Arionthe]

And this change hurts new players. There have been times when I've survived a fight by the skin of my teeth, with no consumables (or all of them down) at low life. With the changes being proposed, I might not have lived, or the fight might have taken WAY longer. So you're punishing the character for taking damage. In the low levels (and even going up) it's often extremely challenging to avoid all damage / not take any damage.

New player enters the game... starts playing... they hit a mob for max damage. Their hp lowers... it's taking longer and longer and longer to kill the mob. They die. Pissed off new player.. game stickability is gone.

Not necessarily. Recall many things work differently when it's low level. For example skill CD is vastly reduced at low levels. So there is nothing to say that this Power/AR/CR reduction vs. Health feature be turned off for anyone not yet lvl70. A very surmountable issue.

Plus why do you expect to play exactly the same way if the proposed changes are actually incorporated. First you will have more trade offs to consider when building your character and gearing up. Second strategic retreat will actually become part of your overall play. We the players are adaptable. After every balancing patch, don't you change your gear/skill loadout some to reflect the changes in the game? This will be the same thing. Just another change. What we need to consider is if the benefits of the said change will outweigh the drawbacks.

Pros:
1. More trade offs in build design means multiple paths to achieve a similar aim (See BAGate's post)
2. More realistic, more relatable to every day life. As much a ARPG can be relatable.
3. Promotes build diversity
4. Promotes strategic positioning and re-positioning during a fight

Cons:
1. Need to think more about how to build a toon
2. Need to think more strategically while playing
3. just need to think more

Plus there is more tied to the whole DPS/Taking Damage meta. As I wrote in a previous post in another topic, I find the current game meta to be wildly imbalanced in favor of DPS already. This will tilt the meta a bit. Also there is a lot more to class distinctiveness when we go down this path.

Current game meta makes no distinction amongst classes on how damage is taken. It's all blood and body parts flying. This makes no sense. While that's expected for a brutish warrior, why should a highly trained magic user take an arrow the exact same way a barbarian would? Using his bare skin and flimsy robe.

For Mage: HP should be that last line of defense when all else fails. The all else is where the mage shines. I'm talking about mana shield in D2. A generic damage shield that absorbs all incoming damage until it collapses. Make this the primary defense mechanism of the mage, not hp.

Warrior: current system is fine. He ain't going for the prettiest face or smoothest body trophy. Oh btw 50% innate Damage Reduction because half of his pain nerves have long fried from years of getting banged on the head.

Bounty Hunter: dodging and evading damage should be the calling card. Smoke Screen does some of that. But what about a backflip move like the archer minion. That should be the innate skill. While backflipping, BH enjoys 90% damage reduction, leaves a doppelganger in the original position that draws enemy fire for a few brief moments.

There are so many possibilities. Don't close to those just because it makes you step outside of your comfort zone.

[Rytrik]

The only way it works is if you get XP bump proportional to damage drop. Even then, the farming slows, so it's not good.

And this change hurts new players. There have been times when I've survived a fight by the skin of my teeth, with no consumables (or all of them down) at low life. With the changes being proposed, I might not have lived, or the fight might have taken WAY longer. So you're punishing the character for taking damage. In the low levels (and even going up) it's often extremely challenging to avoid all damage / not take any damage.

New player enters the game... starts playing... they hit a mob for max damage. Their hp lowers... it's taking longer and longer and longer to kill the mob. They die. Pissed off new player.. game stickability is gone.

[GrauGeist]

The only way it works is if you get XP bump proportional to damage drop. Even then, the farming slows, so it's not good.