Binding is (Maybe) Not Forever, and Other Truths of the Reaper of Souls Beta


A Blue hopped into one of those “total despair over very incomplete knowledge” threads that the Diablo 3 community seems to produce like sh*t through a dysenterial goose. So how about some Truths of the Reaper of Souls Beta:

What will be BoA in Reaper of Souls?

According to a ticket question gold is only BoA on the RoS beta and will be tradable on Ros.
Vaeflare: I just wanted to jump into this thread to clarify that the information contained within the ticket linked in this thread was factually incorrect. In the current Friends and Family Beta build of Reaper of Souls, a number of items including gold, Legendaries, and some gems and crafting materials are BoA. We’re still in the process of testing out how this impacts the game as a whole, so that these changes are not final, and may be subject to change as the game evolves.

As the Beta progresses and Reaper of Souls draws closer to release, we will have more information for you concerning how things are shaping up in terms of what items are and are not planned to be BoA, but in the meantime, know that it’s still a work in progress, and we certainly appreciate your continued feedback on the subject. :)

Gold trading disabled.

Gold trading disabled.

The Reaper of Souls beta allows limited legendary trading (two hours from the time you find it to people in the game with you) now, as an incentive to play with friends, but as the OP said, virtually everything else is binding, including gold. Which is annoying as you can’t even give a friend some gold; say they’re new to the game and you’ve been playing since May 2012 and have hundreds of millions and nothing to spend it on anymore (which means I was right, but more importantly, Azzure was wrong!!1!) and want to drop unto them some wealth for their self improvement via enchanting. You will not!

And since you can’t trade, drop, or give away gold, what can you exchange for a legendary? Only one you found in the same game. Even the legendary materials (which are in very short supply and required for all lvl 70+ legendary crafting) are BoA. As are legendary recipes, whether you already know them or not. It’s basically impossible to trade anything other than rares now, and they’re hardly worth trading (aside from jewelry) since it’s quite easy to gamble and then enchant a rare to nearly top quality (given the current quite limited pool of desired affixes on almost all armor slots).

Will this state of affairs remain past launch? I’d be very surprised, unless Waterfiend somehow secretly became the lead developer of RoS. It seems like a beta testing thing to me, like the (formerly, judging by my drops the last few days) very high legendary drop rate, the now much reduced Horadric Goodie Bag reward rate, etc. Blizzard might not be rolling out whole new features in the RoS beta, but they’re definitely playing with drop rates and other subtle things that have such a large impact on the game and economy long term. And they will continue to do so, as we’re still very early into the beta; not even to the point that they’d usually have *any* outside testers.

Bonus tidbit in that screenshot above. Currently in RoS when you bring a lvl 60 over from D3, it’s good strategy to use an Enchant to reroll the damage on your weapon. As you can see on my Demon Hunter, it vastly increased the DPS of her old D3 Calamity. This won’t get you a RoS end game item, but it will give you something that will speed you on your way to 70, when you should have little trouble finding a 3000+ DPS weapon.

Comments

You're not logged in but can still post comments. Register or login to remember your details.
  1. I really miss runes and charms. I enjoyed the sense that I was not just looking for unique’s/legendaries.

    Rares should have purpose (they should be BIS for some things/builds), other items should mean something. Far too heavy on the legendaries and how the game revolves around only them.

    I hope crafting really gets a big boost, otherwise we are all just looking for the same handfull of legendaries with rares the new blue trash on the ground.

    • Charms/PvP were all in the alpha version of D3V.

      Initially, only 1 feature was supposed to be removed but as we all know, Jay Wilson likes to ‘double it’ and he definitely delivered.

      • Can’t say I liked the concept in D2. The idea behind sockets was to allow for a bit affix costumization of otherwise randomly generated gear. Therefore, at least the socketable items’ properties should have been static by default, in my opinion. With gems and runes already providing so many affix properties, random affixes on socketable items only seemed to water down the system.

        I imagine jewels were quite easy to implement and – overall – didn’t actually have a huge impact on the game, so they felt like a nice little bonus.

        D3 suffered immensely by its screwed up randomization mechanics, so if jewels were to return, I’d prefer the term to be used for a very limited selection of hard-to-find legendary quality gems. Maybe something along the lines of:

        The Chaos Emerald
        + some Dexterity (static)
        + some Extra Gold (static)
        + some Critical Hit Damage (static)
        + random Demon Hunter / Monk skill mod

        • “I imagine jewels were quite easy to implement and – overall – didn’t actually have a huge impact on the game, so they felt like a nice little bonus.”

          i dont know what you are talking about. diablo 2 or 3 ?

        • what i wanted to add is if you think jewels had little impact on diablo2 you are horribly wrong.

          • You’re probably referring to the jewels’ economic aspect and you’re right in that they were far from worthless.

            The above comment concerns the underlying game design, though, and in that regard, jewels certainly did not represent a too deeply sophisticated system. The concept itself, “customizing gear with random properties through socketable items with random properties” was in a really weak spot compared to how gems and runes were devised (again, this isn’t about their value or relative power).

    • Yup, legs should not have higher max stats than rares. Yellow items should have chance to roll higher than orange ones.

    • When you want rares to have value then it diminishes the legendaries. Look what happened in d2 at the very beginning. Rares destroyed legendaries in quality and it has forced them to change and update. Rares should dish out flat damage but lack stats and the affixes that legendaries have. My main concern is the BOA of gold. Me and my friends like to bet 10k on feats all the time as a little added incentive for things. I feel as though Blizzard has gone from intense AH and trading for items to ZERO forms of it. Too far the other way now!

  2. Crafting will be the same as it was in D3. They need to introduce rare-only affixes. Only that way the players will want rares over the legendaries in some inventory slots. But as it seems everything is the same, so I don’t think they will introduce a whole new package of affixes for the rares just before the release date. That would be dumb. The only thing that would definitely improve the itemization: getting rid of the main stat as x% damage multiplier. And just make strength = armor. Dexterity = evasion. Intelligence = resistances. That way the player could build a barbarian that concentrates only on the evasion, or a mage that can go close to the enemies, just because he has much strength. That way the attributes would encourage the build diversity, not diminish it.

    • Rares having exclusive stats is the wrong way again.

      Legendaries should have unique affixes which have the potential to define your build.
      Rares should have the potential to equal or even beat legendaries stats wise (dmg, +stats, life/mana drain, crushing blow, etc.), even if only the top 0.01% of rares manage that, but their higher drop frequecy balances this out.

      and BOTH ways should be equally fun to play, legendary-heavy or rare-heavy. This is why the absurdely crazy modifiers on legendaries are AGAIN the wrong way. Slight crazy is good, too crazy is bad.

      But what am I wasting my energy, it’s way too late to fix anything in this game.

      • Well, I think we had that “rares can be slightly better than legendaries” at the launch of Diablo III, and it didn’t look well. Most of our characters were running with yellow items and it felt dumb that legendaries are even less powerful than the items that are more common (hell, even blue items were better than legendaries). That’s why I think rares should have some rare-only affixes too, just for more diversity. Diablo 2 did a great job with white items. They should make something like this in Diablo 3 as well, but put something good and fun on rares (or even magic items) and leave white items just as an ingredient for crafting. Of course I’m just throwing some thoughts/ideas, but I think the devs need to get rid of those damage multipliers. And the best way to do that was with loot 2.0, but they failed to do so, so I think everything is set in stone with that. Diablo 3 just can’t achieve a deep itemization with the current system.

        • [quote]Most of our characters were running with yellow items and it felt dumb that legendaries are even less powerful than the items that are more common (hell, even blue items were better than legendaries). That’s why I think rares should have some rare-only affixes too, just for more diversity.[/quote].

          Sorry, but that’s complete rubbish. Sadly, this is also the exact way Blizzard thinks: there’s a problem (people equip only rares), so let’s not solve the problem, but rather cover it by some random stupid band-aid (rares spawning unique rolls, as you suggest).

          Rare-only affixes would just make them another kind of legendaries. Rares are by definition items which combine several affixes from the affix pool, allowing more at once than magic items. Legendaries feature unique affixes or affixes on item types which are normally not allowed (lacuni).

          Rares could be best-in-slot items in D2 as their rolls could beat legendaries, even if that was only rarely the case, but still.

          Anyway, it doesn’t make sense to talk about itemization in D3 anymore, as the problems lie much deeper and will never get resolved.

  3. it is single player. online-only single player.

  4. Sigh, if they cave in on this, I’m not sure I can take more of their ‘lets “ruin” our games 6 months from release’ all over again.

  5. isn’t it a bit optimistic to call victory so early in the beta about gold keeping it’s value? Maybe you were just fooling around? idk

    Crafting and gem upgrade costs are no doubt tuned down for testing purposes and bounty rewards has already gone through a nerf.

  6. Who would even want to TRADE in an ITEM-BASED game, where all your efforts revolve around ITEMS?

    Heh, ridiculous!

  7. QUOTE

    You're probably referring to the jewels' economic aspect and you're right in that they were far from worthless.
    
    The above comment concerns the underlying game design, though, and in that regard, jewels certainly did not represent a too deeply sophisticated system. The concept itself, "customizing gear with random properties through socketable items with random properties" was in a really weak spot compared to how gems and runes were devised (again, this isn't about their value or relative power).

    It allowed however to “boost items”. – find 2 mediocre items, make 1 quite good item type of boosting. So in that sense it lessened the curve a lot.

    Similar to how rerolling of a mainstats works.

  8. Did someone abduct the D3 dev team and replace them with EA devs? How could anyone think this is not going to ruin the Diablo series?

    • I am so with Azzure on this.

      For years they promoted the trading to sell Diablo 3. Remember the speech of Rob Pardo back in Aug 2011… “Diablo is as much a game of grinding as it is of trading ….”

      I have NO clue what these new D3 guys are thinking really.

      How in the world will they market a product without the CORE fundamental design they hyped for 2.5 years in a row?

      And the sad fact is: the AH’s COULD have functioned perfectly if anything bought on that AH would have become BoA and so would be OUT of the economy for good. Regardless of the quality of loot.

      NUTS. really.

    • You give the D3 team too much credit

  9. QUOTE=jonw;8583141]If only there was a forum where you could post the items you had for trade, and others could do the same, and you could use gold as a medium of exchange.[/QUOTE]

    As long as there’s something substantial to be done with it, gold would be worth trading. Even in D2 it had a certain value (Pul per 3.5M IIRC), although the gold trading market was rather limited. I’m not sure about the standard currency of a future forum market, but I guess it would be something which is used up in some manner, e.g. by rerolling items, puttiing them in
    Of course, binding items to the account after 2 hours is a part of the beta test as well. I hope the statement is a kind of preparation of retracting the BoA idea. I don’t care about who has to retract a statement, if it’s perceived as a losss of face, admission of incompetence or what others think about it, that’s all BS. As long as RoS is to my liking, I’m fine with whatever they are doing during the beta test. .. and bind fine with it doesn’t involve making items BoA in that manner. I could probably live with a few compromises, however.

    If only there was a forum where you could post the items you had for trade, and others could do the same, and you could use gold as a medium of exchange.

    As long as there’s something substantial to be done with it, gold would be worth trading. Even in D2 it had a certain value (Pul per 3.5M IIRC), although the gold trading market was rather limited. I’m not sure about the standard currency of a future forum market, but I guess it would be something which is used up in some manner, e.g. by rerolling items, puttiing them into sockets permanently etc.

Comments are closed.