Blue on Beta Patch 10 Stats and Build Diversity


With the recent changes in Diablo 3 Beta Patch 10 we saw the re-adoption of the previous version of stats. The change created a rift between fans – those that felt this was finally a step in the correct direction, and those that believed that this was another step towards “dumbing it down.”

Nakatoir has responded on the EU forums to doom-sayers, attempting to waylay the angst.

This decision to change the core attributes and stats doesn’t limit build diversity because the same stats exist on items as before. If you wanted DiabloWikiprecision, now you want +crit, if you wanted defense, now you should aim to get DiabloWikiarmor. It is the same concept for all stats, if you wanted DiabloWikiattack, just go for your core class DiabloWikistat.

What this change is intended to do is increase the item pool by making more items that are clearly not for your character, and subsequently making it easier for you to be able to determine if you should be using an item or not 🙂 If you are a DiabloWikiWizard and get an item with DiabloWikiStrength on it, you know immediately that this item is not really for you. It used to be that you would be sitting there analysing an item with +attack for a good 10 seconds or more only to figure out that it’s a bad item for you, but now it should only take a few moments to decide this.

We assure you though; this change will not affect the amount of build diversity in the game 🙂

Some have stated that this makes choices easy since you will always want to take your primary stat that gives two bonuses, taking DiabloWikiVitality as your secondary. According to Nakatoir, that’s exactly what they want – not necessarily that the choice is easy, but that you know when something is not good for you. Whether you will only want to focus on two stats for viability remains to be seen.

We have yet to experience the end game and have not become privy to soft or hard caps for stats like critical chance, and it leaves room for the value of other stats that extend beyond your primary stat and vitality.

How do you feel about the new stat system? Love it? Hate it? Don’t care?

Comments

You're not logged in. Register or login to post a comment.
  1. Bit stupid that primary stat gives you 2 bonuses, now every other item mod will be inferior to that.

    Pretty stupid itemization if all you need to look at is how much primary stat the item has.

  2. In Diablo 2, Barbs never wore Ormus’ Robes and Sorcerers had little to no interest in wearing Leviathan. This is just an extension of that concept to more pieces of gear. I think people will enjoy that distinction.

  3. Tying damage reduction to an offensive stat is complete idiocy. They need to split offense and defensive stats. Also, since there is physical resist and the various magical resistances, they can drop the “resist everything all the time” stat, whether they call it Defense or Armor or whatever (personally, I’d call physical resist armor). Sure, you could have resist all (for magic) but it should be hard to get, and the benefit a little lower than a single resist type (like in D2). Still might have to rework that Monk passive.
     
    Speaking of Barbs and Monks, if they are still too fragile in Inferno (b/c they don’t gain damage reduction from their primary stat anymore), then readjust the armor/dodge formula so that barbs and monks get slightly more benefit per point than the other classes. And of course, have passives/active buffs which can tweak the formula further for a more defensive build.

    • I don’t see a problem with it.  As long as vitality remains important, there will be a need for more than one stat and mixing the offensive and defensive stats with each primary attribute allows them to tune class survivability (mostly) independently.  If barbs are having trouble compared to other classes, they can buff the effects of strength knowing well that the impact of the stat will not significantly affect anyone but the barb.  This is similarly true with the other stats.

    • I’m sorry but i think that a ‘strong’ person would also be able take harder hits as well as dish them out.
       
      As for splitting offense and defense… (shrug) i don’t really care. They are split for the most part. Just not on ‘core attributes’, which is there to define the classes. I don’t have an issue with this.

      How ever it may limit them when deciding on expansion characters.

    • I like the fact that the classes have different “flavor” forms of defense, in the sense they’ll pick some up automatically when going for their primary offensive stat – eg a monk will end up with more dodge and a barbarian with more armor.  Those classes which will likely need more defense anyway, while the demon hunter has fewer directly defensive abilities to work with.  There are still plenty of secondary forms of offense and defense for characters to aim for.
       
      “Flattening” the disparity in stats a bit is a good thing, rather than letting a character go for literally 100% offense or 100% defense, a slightly smaller range is much easier to balance around.  If these were fixed bonuses built into the class, they wouldn’t scale as with the new items in inferno at max level, and if they were simply secondary stats that scale better, some would still ignore them entirely.

  4. love it, especially for the noobs would be like “Nah this item good for me it has +attack” but not its “Oh it has int i want that.” and “Its no good for me, it has +strength.”
    this change is WAY approved and much neededin my book. Strengthens the co-op experience. 8)
    honestly it was more dumbed down before fighting over same Stat for every class for damage (most players want damage in diablo, at least i know i do!) +attack was a very stupid idea from the start.

  5. I don’t really care, although I agree with the sentiment that it reduces game depth.  Stats should have effects on your character beyond their combat utility.  That way, depending on what you need from your character, the choice could either be very simple or very difficult.  That’s how it is in traditional tabletop RPGs– some of which have been around for decades.  Longer than Diablo 3 could ever hope to be relevant.  At the rate Blizzard is scooping depth from their games in the name of convenience, I’d say their games will become obscure at an ever-quickening pace.

  6. With level 60 items having 6 random atributes there will defo be need to focus on more then just 2 main stats, thats my opinion.

  7. Overall I like the change. There is one thing that fear though: I wouldn’t like, if your only possibility is to stack your main-attribue and vitality. I hope they somehow come up with a solution to this problem.
    A solution could be like this: Let’s say you are a Barbarian, and obviously you wanna stack str + vit. In order to make, lets say int more attractive, how about changing each point of int to give +2 health gained from orbs rather than just +1 if you were a Wizard/Witch Doc? (And ofc so forth with the other classes/non-main-attributes!)
    This modification would still invite players to choose the obvious combination: Main-attribute + vit, but it would also add funky opportunities for other builds at the cost of damage-output!

  8. Sounds fine.  It seems like people are imagining item and build choices will be based only on these attributes. Items will have OTHER bonuses on them that will influence your choices. (Jay mentioned crit, resist, and skill modifiers in his big changes post, but they’ve been pretty quiet about it.)

    Besides, if everyone hates it they can always change it AGAIN later, like, in an expansion.

  9. I’m fine with the new system, although I think the armor change is kind of stupid. Armor should be physical only, end of story. I also think they really need to change the secondary effect of intelligence. Not only does it not really make sense, it also is pretty lame compared to the other two class specific stats. If anything, they should make barbs get physical damage reduction and wizards/wds have magic damage reduction.

  10. I’m not complaining one way or the other about the change, but I do have a suggestion. 
     
    Instead of having +damage tied to an attribute (that also gives other benefits), why not just create 5 new affixes (+attack for each class)?  Not only would this make it even clearer as to which items were made for your character, but it would also increase the item pool even further (instead of dividing 3 attributes between the 5 classes).  An added benefit would be that it would remove a “primary” attribute for the classes & “equalize” the importance/usefulness of all attributes (which is why I assume Blizzard tried using alternate attributes in the first place).  Also since Blizzard has seemed to embrace making everything “accessible”, it would make attributes even clearer as to what they affect/improve (with all of them now being defensive in nature).
     
    It’s my opinion that this design change would justify the (long ago) change to the auto-assigning of attributes (which made ALL customization done with affixes on items anyway).

    Edit: I don’t have any experience with the alternate attributes (attack, etc.) since I’m not lucky enough to be in the beta test, so I didn’t think of the following “fix” right away. Blizzard could also have kept that alternate attribute system & just change the +attack affixes to +attack(barb only), +attack(monk only), etc. That would increase the item pool like they wanted, without having to go back to the original attribute system.

  11. “If you are a Wizard and get an item with Strength on it, you know immediately that this item is not really for you. It used to be that you would be sitting there analysing an item with +attack for a good 10 seconds or more only to figure out that it’s a bad item for you, but now it should only take a few moments to decide this.”

    This argument is entirely flawed.
    Unless the only relevant factor to decide whether an item is good or not is +attack or str/dex/int, it shouldn’t have any effect on how fast one can figure out wether or not an item is good.

    • He’s not talking about whether an item is good or not but whether it’s targeted to your character. There’s a big difference between the two which you’re ignoring in order to claim he’s wrong. There will still be some consideration to be made when you have two INT heavy items as a Wizard, but when you have an INT item and a STR one, you’ll be able to quickly figure out which would do you more good, as opposed to the past where all items with +ATK on it were good for all characters. So you could end up with 10 pieces in your bag that may or may not be good for you, at least this change helps to narrow it down a bit.

  12. \What this change is intended to do is increase the item pool by making more items that are clearly not for your character, and subsequently making it easier for you to be able to determine if you should be using an item or not\   In other words, more items for you to sell on their RMAH.

  13. 10 seconds> only a few moments. Logic? Yes! 😉

  14. It’s blizzard. They know what they’re doing and I always agree 110% with every decision they make 😆

  15. love it, but when i think about it, it doesnt really matter. The stats arent skillable and since i always want me items 2 look great, some are already falling out of the pool 😀

    and dont forget, diablo is all about getting the best items , so you wont be playing a lot on lowlevel ( at least me). so beta really says nothin and the attributes also

  16. While the current iteration is an improvement, I still don’t think there is enough incentive to NOT ignore 2 of the 4 stats.  Granted, with auto-stats we have no control over points auto-placed for leveling up, but points gained for level-up are “a rain-drop in an ocean” compared to +stat affixes on the gear/items we can equip.  And honestly, how is being able to ignore 2 stats in D3 an improvement over D2?  Wasn’t being able to ignore stats in D2 one of Jay Wilson’s pet peeves that needed to be fixed?

  17. Excause me, how can you not affect build diversity when you are extending item pool?

Comments are closed.