45

    Just for looks?

    Just for looks?

    A fan made an interesting argument against Weapon Damage in the B.net forums, creating a incredibly Battle.net-esque thread (everyone calling everyone else stupid) and got shut down by a Blue. Despite that, I thought the OP’s original concept was worth debate, so let’s take a look.

    Weapon Damage Ruins Diablo 3?

    The core problem(s) of D3

    Weapon damage and RNG.

    Weapon damage -> gameplay revolves around items -> item dependency -> contradicts the very nature and lore of Nephalem’s power (which comes from within/birthright).
    RNG -> gameplay revolves around luck -> players with better luck get to the top, players with terrible luck stay at the bottom.

    Weapon damage + RNG = Diablo 3.

    This game was poorly made from the beginning and because of weapon damage, we may never see it improve into a more enjoyable way. It’s futile to post any more suggestions on this forum, since the core mechanics of this game would never be fixed/changed.

    It’s the gameplay (and may be social interaction too) that matters, not graphic or big numbers. That’s why so many ‘old’ games still have their places today.
    And there are fanboys who keep on reporting us for speaking the truth! :)))) Anu to that!

    GG, Blizzard.
    Grimiku: Locking this thread since it’s gotten pretty off-topic.

    Not to be all B.net myself, but my first reaction to the OP’s post was to think, “That’s the dumbest complaint ever.” My second thought was, “Wow, someone’s had a really hard time gambling an ancient weapon.” But that was invidious of me, since the issue of weapon damage is worth evaluating.

    First off, anyone who thinks this is a new issue in Diablo 3 must be new to the series, since weapon damage was always the most important gear stat in Diablo 1 and Diablo 2, with one exception. Mages didn’t need it. Wizards in D1 and Sorcs/Necros in D2 didn’t care about their weapon damage (with some exceptions, such as D1 Sorc vs. Immunes) and what made their damage was their spell levels, casting speed, damage buffs, -resistance debuffs on monsters, etc.

    That system had pros and cons. It was kind of cool that the classes has very different gear goals, but mostly not having weapon damage matter made things easier for mages, since it made their item game easier, and also let mages use weapons purely for +Magic Find or +skill bonuses in ways that other classes couldn’t. This unfair imbalance was one of the main reasons the D3 devs cited for changing spell damage in Diablo 3 to stem from weapon damage.

    Mages in D2 aside, a lot of players agree with the OP that weapon damage is *too* important. This argument has been around since D3v when everyone knew a weapon without a socket was useless (the devs obviously agreed, hence DiabloWikienchanting and DiabloWikiGifts added in RoS). In more recent days we’ve seen the same complaints that Ancient weapons are required to succeed, which players say is unfair to builds that require an unusual weapon, where the odds of finding it ancient are way too low.

    What’s the alternative, though? Imagine a Diablo 3 where weapons don’t have damage, or all weapons have damage in roughly the same narrow range, or some spells/skills don’t factor weapon damage into their effect. Would that make the game better? It would make gearing somewhat easier, since players could pick weapons purely for the legendary affix. But wouldn’t that also take a lot out of the item game? And wouldn’t it just increase the importance/value of getting the maximum possible Crit, Crit Damage, CDR, Mainstat, etc, on all of your other gear?

    What do you guys think should about weapon damage? Unchanged from the current system? Flattened so it’s less important? Removed entirely? How would you replace that aspect of the item game, if you made such a change?

    You may also like

    More in Blue Posts