A RPG element

[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!

[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]

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]

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.

[GrauGeist]

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

[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.

[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.

[GrauGeist]

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

[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]

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.

[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.

[BAgate]

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.

I'm trying to understand this, because I really don't. Making the game 'harder' in a consistent and universal way would only mean you couldn't reach as high a trial level. You would struggle the same on, say, trial 100 as you would have on trial 120. How is this less fun? Wouldn't playing trial 100 be just as fun as trial 120 used to be? Or does the number really make that much of a difference? Please address my question from before. If the devs did a simple cut of all players damage by 50%, gameplay would not change one iota, players simply wouldn't be able to reach as high a trial level. Would you consider this 'less fun'? If so why?

And it wouldn't be 'change for the sake of change', it would be change in an effort to expand the game. Right now, all classes play essentially the same. All builds are essentially the same (look at the top of the leaderboards). DPS is king. All of which means that there is one experience from playing this game. Most here enjoy that style, which is why they are here. But a) will you still enjoy that style in 6 months? and b) does everyone enjoy that style? Adding some real diversity would both help bring in new players and also help keep old players around.

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.

We are not talking about making this rocket science. In fact, I would argue there is more rocket science involved right now (have you seen the threads about maximizing champion points or crafting perfect jewelry?). We are simply advocating some form of change which permits build diversity and different play styles. Something that would let a tank compete with a glass cannon, or make playing a BH feel different from playing a Mage. Something that will keep a player coming back because thee is more new things to try, not just because they love the grind.

[Purple Potato]

I'm trying to understand this, because I really don't. Making the game 'harder' in a consistent and universal way would only mean you couldn't reach as high a trial level. You would struggle the same on, say, trial 100 as you would have on trial 120. How is this less fun? Wouldn't playing trial 100 be just as fun as trial 120 used to be? Or does the number really make that much of a difference? Please address my question from before. If the devs did a simple cut of all players damage by 50%, gameplay would not change one iota, players simply wouldn't be able to reach as high a trial level. Would you consider this 'less fun'? If so why?


We are not talking about making this rocket science. In fact, I would argue there is more rocket science involved right now (have you seen the threads about maximizing champion points or crafting perfect jewelry?). We are simply advocating some form of change which permits build diversity and different play styles. Something that would let a tank compete with a glass cannon, or make playing a BH feel different from playing a Mage. Something that will keep a player coming back because thee is more new things to try, not just because they love the grind.

I dont want to separate this into 2 parts of a quote but for the first paragraph, cutting damage in half would decrease the easiness of getting started in the game. Reaching trial 80 would take forever and would make it extremely hard to farm gear at trial 100.

BH is VERY different from mage and is more similar to Warrior. BH goes from p2p just like warrior and although warrior must tank everything and get up close, BH does the same only dodging and shooting. Mage needs to gather up a lot of mobs to have blizzard and singularity do their job in clearing the mob phase within 3-5 minutes while taking an extremely long time to kill the boss compared to BH. BH takes way longer on the mob phase and needs like 2-4 minutes to kill the boss (I dont know exact times as I haven't used BH enough or unlocked all it's slots for abilities, passives and minions)

[GrauGeist]

If I could do 120, and now I can only do 100 or whatever, then everything is slower. Except I used to do 120. Why should my good DPS character be nerfed because other people couldn't be bothered to make a good DPS character? The fact that I made a good character should be rewarded. The fact that they didn't should be penalized.

If you want to do parity properly, you add new options. Not nerf existing charcters.

[BAgate]

GrauGeist, I give up, we obviously think very differently. Its not that people can't be bothered to make a DPS build, but that they don't like that build or are bored with it. But my point was that whether you are at 120 or 100 doesn't matter, it is where you are relative to everyone else, so if everyone is at 100, why would only being at 100 be a bad thing? Led used to be at 2000 or whatever.

Purple Potato, I was just using that as an example, not a suggestion. But your argument boils down to a) its a little tougher for the 3 days at the very beginning and b) gear farming gets harder. I would argue that the first is easily addressed if needed by toning down normal mode in story, but that sacrificing a little in the first week to make the next year better is a good thing. And the second is just lazy. Not only is gear farming fa less important than it used to be (thanks celestials), but why should farming gear at trial 100 be easy?

As to style, I'm far from an expert, but I don't see that as being a big difference. They all want the same stats, put champion points in the same place, use the same jewelry, and spam abilities/attacks. If the only difference is how often you have to move an inch, or how many mobs you gather, I think that is rather trivial.