Steven Hazani
Diabloii.Net Member
Not really. You're gonna focus on one element anyways, this just gives more combinations that do so.
New Reaper of Souls Beta and D3 PTR Patch Now Live
- Thread starter Hound
- Start date
HardRock
Diabloii.Net Member
\"Not really. You\'re gonna focus on one element anyways\"
Not necessarily, it\'s just one way to build your gear. The old trifecta stats are still pretty good, although you have to sacrifice more defense than you had to in past if you go that way. On the other hand they don\'t soft-lock you into specific skills and runes. I\'d imagine some people will prefer them because of that.
\"this just gives more combinations that do so.\"
But that\'s the whole point, this way elemental boost doesn\'t become a global boost (like the main attributes) to all skills. They are pretty pointless if the classes don\'t have skills with varied elemental types.
Not necessarily, it\'s just one way to build your gear. The old trifecta stats are still pretty good, although you have to sacrifice more defense than you had to in past if you go that way. On the other hand they don\'t soft-lock you into specific skills and runes. I\'d imagine some people will prefer them because of that.
\"this just gives more combinations that do so.\"
But that\'s the whole point, this way elemental boost doesn\'t become a global boost (like the main attributes) to all skills. They are pretty pointless if the classes don\'t have skills with varied elemental types.
Steven Hazani
Diabloii.Net Member
That's just it, they'll be a global boost regardless, the only question is if there's one or many builds that do so. If you don't want specific boosts being global boosts, but bigger, then you make enemies have elemental resistances. That way going mono element actually has drawbacks. And THEN you give all classes a variety of elements, so they can balance diversity vs power.
HardRock
Diabloii.Net Member
Don\'t you consider limited skill choice a drawback?
There\'s nothing wrong with going the elemental resistance route. From my point of view that solution simply places the drawbacks elsewhere. That way you lose effectiveness against specific enemies, but retain skill choices.
The current system is the opposite of that. You lose skill choices by going specializing on an element, but you can still run all areas of the game effectively.
Which is more preferable is largely subjective, although I happen to like the latter option more, as I think it gives more control to the players. In Rifts you could encounter resistances completely randomly, so you would never know when you\'ll get screwed over by RNGesus. With the current system however when you go elemental you always know what you\'re getting into, so it\'s an informed choice.
If the devs would want to reduce the effectiveness of builds through monster stats I would much rather see them do it by their density. Each area in the game should have different enemy population. This way AoE builds could be more effective in the Weeping Hollow for example, and single target build in Act 4. Ideally drop rates should be time normalized however. The reason I\'d prefer this solution is because I think it\'s a much more interesting challenge to improve our efficiency this way in an area. With resistance it\'s always obvious what the right choice is.
There\'s nothing wrong with going the elemental resistance route. From my point of view that solution simply places the drawbacks elsewhere. That way you lose effectiveness against specific enemies, but retain skill choices.
The current system is the opposite of that. You lose skill choices by going specializing on an element, but you can still run all areas of the game effectively.
Which is more preferable is largely subjective, although I happen to like the latter option more, as I think it gives more control to the players. In Rifts you could encounter resistances completely randomly, so you would never know when you\'ll get screwed over by RNGesus. With the current system however when you go elemental you always know what you\'re getting into, so it\'s an informed choice.
If the devs would want to reduce the effectiveness of builds through monster stats I would much rather see them do it by their density. Each area in the game should have different enemy population. This way AoE builds could be more effective in the Weeping Hollow for example, and single target build in Act 4. Ideally drop rates should be time normalized however. The reason I\'d prefer this solution is because I think it\'s a much more interesting challenge to improve our efficiency this way in an area. With resistance it\'s always obvious what the right choice is.
Flux
Administrator
Good job. Did you mention how dumb it was having leg mats drop yellow? Because they fixed that too.
Gobbies are awesome now. Very worth interrupting your battle to hunt after. I got my first leg from one, and several leg/set crafting plans also. They are a pinata of delight, again.
Gobbies are awesome now. Very worth interrupting your battle to hunt after. I got my first leg from one, and several leg/set crafting plans also. They are a pinata of delight, again.
Steven Hazani
Diabloii.Net Member
Which is why I am arguing against you.
It means you can go "Ancient Tunnels", focus on one element and have a lot of raw power, but can't farm effectively in areas where things resist that element. Or you go a more general purpose approach and can play in more areas, but not as quickly. Basically D2, without being forced into a mono element build, and without outright immunities so you COULD still stuff in off areas, it's just not at all efficient.
HardRock
Diabloii.Net Member
I\'m not in the RoS beta, but I talk to guys who are.
\"10M for crafting?\"
Only for Set items. Currently they require the 4th level of Imperial gems (can\'t remember the name) per item. It\'s not the item itself that costs that much, it\'s the gems.
\"3M for enchanting legendaries?\"
Enchanting costs have actually been significantly reduced from what I\'ve heard and Flux told me that the main bottleneck is getting enough Forgotten Souls if you want to enchant Legendaries. Since the gold price goes up with every enchant however rerolling can get really pricey after a while.
\"If so, sucks if you are not super wealthy!\"
You are looking at only one half of the equation. Costs doesn\'t mean anything if you don\'t know how much gold you can get in a given time. From what I\'ve heard it\'s not that hard to get 2-3 millions of gold in a few hours if you have access to Adventure mode. I\'d say Sets are really pricey, but you should keep in mind two things:
1) The goal is that Sets should have the most game changing bonuses.
2) Everything can still change and it\'s not hard or time consuming to adjust item prices if they are deemed too high during testing.
\"10M for crafting?\"
Only for Set items. Currently they require the 4th level of Imperial gems (can\'t remember the name) per item. It\'s not the item itself that costs that much, it\'s the gems.
\"3M for enchanting legendaries?\"
Enchanting costs have actually been significantly reduced from what I\'ve heard and Flux told me that the main bottleneck is getting enough Forgotten Souls if you want to enchant Legendaries. Since the gold price goes up with every enchant however rerolling can get really pricey after a while.
\"If so, sucks if you are not super wealthy!\"
You are looking at only one half of the equation. Costs doesn\'t mean anything if you don\'t know how much gold you can get in a given time. From what I\'ve heard it\'s not that hard to get 2-3 millions of gold in a few hours if you have access to Adventure mode. I\'d say Sets are really pricey, but you should keep in mind two things:
1) The goal is that Sets should have the most game changing bonuses.
2) Everything can still change and it\'s not hard or time consuming to adjust item prices if they are deemed too high during testing.