Balancing 1.10 for 1 player

[Tommi]

It occured to me that solo play should be balanced by playing with /players 1, not /players 2-8. I see reports where a character can survive easily in higher player counts (even 8). It discourages party play. If a single well-equipped character can kill monsters with ease in large games, why anyone would need to party (except for exp gain reasons)? If it really is the case, only conclusion can then be that monsters are too easy and need to be rebalanced, until well-equipped characters decide to use /players 1.

Indeed, only well-equipped, well-built, and well-played characters should be able to complete hell difficulty in solo with /players 1. Well-equipped, well-built, and well-played parties could do it together in higher player count games. Characters not meeting requirements of hell difficulty would have to end the game in normal or nightmare... That's what increasing difficulty is about, right? Only the best characters make it to the end, not everyone.

Cheers,

Tommi

[whereagles]

I disagree. If the only chars that manage to end hell A5 players 1, are the well-built, well-equiped and well-played ones, then 99% of the ppl would never finish the game. Only the die-hards would play it after 2 months, instead of the zillions that play it daily.

Also, getting decent equipment for phys damage chars is, as of now, extremely difficult. You need to play D2 over and over until you start getting half-decent weapons.

[Nicodemus Phaulkon]

Indeed, only well-equipped, well-built, and well-played characters should be able to complete hell difficulty in solo with /players 1. Well-equipped, well-built, and well-played parties could do it together in higher player count games. Characters not meeting requirements of hell difficulty would have to end the game in normal or nightmare... That's what increasing difficulty is about, right? Only the best characters make it to the end, not everyone.

Pre-friggin'-cisely. You've a talent for brevity, Tommi.

*tips helm*

[WarBlade]

If a single well-equipped character can kill monsters with ease in large games, why anyone would need to party (except for exp gain reasons)? If it really is the case, only conclusion can then be that monsters are too easy and need to be rebalanced, until well-equipped characters decide to use /players 1.

The only conclusion? How about where one character takes full adavantage of a multiplicative skill to skill reinforcing AoE setup and breezes through in a high player count game, then compares to a single-strike meleer with fewer support skill options struggling on a lower player count. That strikes me as a flaw in the character design and not in the monsters.

[Guest]

In my opinion a a group should be able to survive in hell with lesser gear than a soloer.

I think to solo, ideally you should have to have awsome gear.
While to work as a group you simply should require good gear.

To a degree the think 1.10 does this(although I am sure people will find builds which will serve as exceptions).

[Nicodemus Phaulkon]

In my opinion a a group should be able to survive in hell with lesser gear than a soloer.

Isn't this saying the same thing as what Tommi offered? Tommi is saying that a well equipped, planned and played single should be able to defeat a p1 Hell. A well equipped, planned and played Party should be able to defeat hell according to their numbers (5 players could defeat the game, which is equivalent to a p5 setting).

If you have a solo player that can defeat P8 Hell, I'm almost certain that his items would be far superior to most, certainly so compared to the 8 players that had to band together to get to the endgame.

[kandrathe]

Theoretically the only fair way to scale difficulty would be to balance it, as you say, for 1 player. Then insure that the difficulty scales for additional players. More HP, yes, but also more offense. To be equal, the number of HP killed/player should be equal between /players 1 and /players 8, but also the amount of offense offered by the monsters/player should be equal. Now the tricky part is in estimating the additional difficulty to add due to the advantage of 8 coordinated well built players, versus some stoggy computer driven AI. Ok, so how would you do it? The no brain way would be to generate 8 times more monsters, but that would at some point just lag the server. Better to add some monsters to a set maximum # / level and then scale up the damage delivered by all monsters -- add more champions, boss packs, and packs of boss packs.

If you did this, then you could remove the hireling versus boss adjustments and just count every NPC (and maybe summons) as a partial player due to their less than human kit and skills(maybe 1/10 summons and 1/3 for mercs).

I'm a big believer in writing fuzzy algorithms that interpolate midpoints, rather than extrapolate past a normal. That it, in generating the monster for a level, the server should first note who is in the game and determine an amount of HP and offensive power for that level, then determine the right # of monsters to build (#=X uniques + Y champions + X*(4-8) minions + Y*(4-8) minions + fill in the rest randomly), and then interpolate to the right HP and offensive power / monster. You could even get fancy and determine an offensive value for special abilities. You could base experience on that HP*offensive power level, and determines treasure class adjustments to better reward those who take on the toughest monsters packs.

Now you might be saying, "Hey, but there can be people in different parties in different acts, or in different parts of the map." I would say, party up -- I would have it so that difficulty would not change for monsters already spawned so that if a Act 1 player is in the midst of the battle for their life with a boss, and 7 lvl 80+ players join it doesn't instantly turn a challenge into a blood bath.

[Guest]

"Indeed, only well-equipped, well-built, and well-played characters should be able to complete hell difficulty in solo with /players 1. Well-equipped, well-built, and well-played parties could do it together in higher player count games." - Tommi

He is saying it should be just as hard for 8 people to beat hell as it is for 1 person. Im not sure where you got that idea in your last paragraph - but you sure didnt get it from Tommi.



BTW: I think Tommi's opinion is reasonable, but my opinion is just different.

[Nicodemus Phaulkon]

He is saying it should be just as hard for 8 people to beat hell as it is for 1 person.

Yes and No. He is saying that one player should be able to beat Hell difficulty, but should not be able to beat p2, p3, p8 or anything other than p1. In order to defeat p2, p3, etc... you should have to build a party of appropriate strength. A single player should not be able to become the equivalent of 8 people.

He is also saying that lackluster gaming skill shouldn't guarantee a ticket to Hell difficulty. If your equipment is inferior, if your skills are inferior and if your strategy is inferior... you have no business being at that level of the game; partied or not.

The entire point of Tommi's post was that the game should be impossible for a single player to defeat the game on the highest difficulty setting (p8) alone; only a party of characters should be able to accomplish that. All in all, it would reflect that having a players setting on Open is a mistaken idea, especially given the current attitude of those that feel unless their character can handle the highest difficulty ALONE, it is not a viable character build.

However, I do see the difference between your opinion and his, now: It wasn't as apparent to me before. It is your belief that with more and more players in the game, equipment, skill and strategy levels can fall lower because of the cooperative nature of having more players to cover weaknesses. Thus, in an 8 player game, 8 mediocre to "good" characters could accomplish the defeat of Hell... whereas with a single player, it should be only achieveable with superb skill, equipment and strategy.

The difficulty shouldn't ramp equally with increasing participation. Do I have you correctly? Thus, it should be far easier to accomplish "Patriarch" riding along on the coat-tails of a party, than to take on the task alone. Your party, being at least as accomplished as yourself can effectively "cover the gap" for you?

I agree with you, then; that certainly would promote far more multiplayer participation. Not necessarily better, but definitely more.

[Occhidiangela]

The difficulty at single player in Hell Difficulty should require a well planned, well played character who gets reasonably decent gear. The game does require a certain equippage, and the single player from start to finish who does not give a shot at equipping his character reasonably well, Murphy notwithstanding, ought to have to go to strenuous lengths to win, or even fail. This is not to say "uber gear required" but given the cube recipes and rune word options, something decent can be made, found, bought etc.

Scaling up cannot simply be numerical. Playing 5 players does two things.

1. It allows each set of skills to overlap complimentarily, and it gives the monsters a completely different tactical frontage to deal with. More skill combinations give the monsters a far harder time at giving the sorceress, for example, the sheer fight or flight problem, so that once she is behind her row of tanks, she can devote every moment to pure damage output. The Druid and Barbarian synergy, for example, puts quadruple hit point totals in everyone's globes. The compounding of player effects is but one facet to how much easier the game is, as is the less 'swarming' of mobs.

2. We then get to tactics. Even moderately effective parties can set up 2. particular mismatches that ensure the monster/player matchups are optimized in a way that you simply cant in SP, save possibly with the Amazon or Necro. Amazon, who can build Bow?javelin, and has two summonables, Necro due to his summonables, curses, and variety of ways that turn the monsters against one another, or simply contain them.

3. Merely running up the HP's, DR and AR of monsters in higher player count games is not enough. Higher play count games need to, IMO< trigger better AI choices, or more complex mob pairs. That then at least will test the ability of players to apply their synergy to its best effect. I'd even recommend that drops be better in the 3-5 player range games, with XP being optimized in 8 player games, so that parties also have to choose: is today an item day, or an XP day?

There are a lot of ways to avoid a straight line simplicity that falls before player synergy, better player monster ratio, and skill complement (such as Conviction and Chain Lighting, for example.)

We can dream, I suppose.

[phooker51]

D2 gameplay, at its most simplistic level, is "kill the monster, make shiney item drop, and hear the occasional ding for leveling up." Sure, there is the satisfaction of different builds or a slew of other stuff, but for the large majority of players, the game really does come down to that. Kill monsters, make pretty items drop, repeat. The added element of multiplayer means people get that same gameplay with other people online, and to compete or cooperate if they wish. That may be incredibly reductive, but it is the truth for many people after 3 years of the game.

Simply put, if you take away the ability of people to kill monsters and get their shiney objects, even in 8 player hell (an ability they are accustomed to having after 3 years), they are going to be unhappy. Just because people choose to play online doesn't mean it should be 8 times harder than single player, or requiring a party of 8 to get anywhere in the game.

Well-equipped, well-built, and well-played parties could do it together in higher player count games. Characters not meeting requirements of hell difficulty would have to end the game in normal or nightmare... That's what increasing difficulty is about, right? Only the best characters make it to the end, not everyone.

To me, increasing difficulty is about FUN. After 3 years, the gameplay is getting tired and there is nothing new left. But, the core of the game for me is still the intrigue of funky new items and techniques. To that end, I think the patch should have balanced out the core imbalances in the game (the ability for certain classes to kill MOBS of enemies in the time it takes others to kill 2-3 etc) while enhancing other parts of the game. This includes an overall difficultly increase, that much I agree with, but forced partying for 1/3 of the game, thats another thing. Sure, partying is fun, and should be encouraged, but I've never liked the idea of FORCING people to play a certain way. And please, don't say that "if you want to solo you've got single player normal and nightmare!." Even if that is true, it's not a realistic expectation for the game.

[Guest]

"Far easier" might be stating the case bit more strongly than I would say it. But yes that is my point.

[Animation]

He is also saying that lackluster gaming skill shouldn't guarantee a ticket to Hell difficulty.&nbsp; If your equipment is inferior, if your skills are inferior and if your strategy is inferior... you have no business being at that level of the game; partied or not.

Hi.

I could agree with that, as long as it is the case that for every skill in the game, there is some hell-capable build that will work with the skill in question being pumped to level 20.

I mean, I can accept that it isn't realistic to expect Firebolt to work in hell at SLVL 20 as a main attack. But I SHOULD be able to find it workable as a synergy to some other "better" skill that can work in Hell.

In other words, I want strategy and top notch gear and game play to be an issue too, it shouldnt be mindless, BUT I am sick and tired of there being certain perfect builds that can cut it and some that cant.

Holy Fire? There ought to be enough things that either pump it to allow Holy Fire to be viable in Hell with 20 points in it, OR there should be something else that with 20 points in Holy Fire, that other skill is augmented. I'm not saying there should be no strategy.

The problem is, I don't see this happening. It is a shame. I have the feeling that Hell play *may* be more formulaic than ever for the most successful builds. I certainly don't want to play a skill up through hell only to find that it was a throwaway skill I should never have pumped. There should be *some* way to redeem every skill.

Lewis

[IcepickVT]

"Holy Fire? There ought to be enough things that either pump it to allow Holy Fire to be viable in Hell with 20 points in it, OR there should be something else that with 20 points in Holy Fire, that other skill is augmented. I'm not saying there should be no strategy.

The problem is, I don't see this happening. It is a shame. I have the feeling that Hell play *may* be more formulaic than ever for the most successful builds. I certainly don't want to play a skill up through hell only to find that it was a throwaway skill I should never have pumped. There should be *some* way to redeem every skill."

Holy Fire adds 5% elemental damage per level to Vengeance. Isn't this what your are asking for. The 20 points you put into apply to a very useful skill. I don't understand your argument.

[Brista]

It seems to me so far that the Patch has done a reasonable job of making the game difficult but possible for single player no twink while also making it interesting enough for very well equipped high level parties playing in teams

Granted you can play over-powered characters but I haven't yet seen anyone claim they can play while watching telly which you could certainly do with some builds in 1.09

The character I started last Friday at level 1 is now level 68 in Hell. Untwinked, single player except for a little tcp/ip in Normal. Hasn't died yet, hasn't come close, I'm cautiously optimistic I'll get him through the rest of the game without dying

My main concern is that melee characters might have too hard a time of it. My only death so far was a Barb against the Infector, although to be honest I misplayed my character. (Tanked instead of taunted).

I have to say I'm really really enjoying it, there's a very fresh feel

Lastly no matter how over-powered certain set-ups become the Ladder reset could be a great leveller. I suspect that for people wanting balance and challenge the Ladder games will be the venue of choice and for people wanting cheaply tradeable uberness the non-Ladder games will continue to supply

[Animation]

Holy Fire adds 5% elemental damage per level to Vengeance. Isn't this what your are asking for. The 20 points you put into apply to a very useful skill. I don't understand your argument.

Holy Fire doesnt add anything to vengeance, does it? Or is this a display bug? My paladin's tab says that Resist Fire adds. I sure do wish that Holy Fire added to Vengeance, that'd be nice to have a scaling offensive normal-capable skill like holy fire that added to a desirable hell-capable skill like Vengeance.

Weird.

Still, you get the idea. I wonder if one can make a max-blood-golem Necromancer workable with awesome play skills and items in hell? That would require either the Blood Golem OR something that pumps it OR something it pumps to be capable of being deadly in hell also. Etc. (And yes I know iron maiden doesnt work with the healing factor). Can a max Frost Nova factor in to a successful hell Sorceress (with uber player skill and rockin gear etc)?

Oh well, time for me to shut up and get back to testing.

BTW, How far can one play in nightmare anyway, as far as experience returns are concerned? Level 70? 75? What?

Lewis

[Roland]

You're right on one thing: they need more efficient, intelligent AI. However, ANYONE who thinks Damage, AR, DR, etc. (excluding HP) should be scaled per player is an idiot. Pure and simple.

Higher AR per player means you'll ultimately reach a point where your defense is useless. This would totally discourage party playing, except for the hardcore elite players that beat the game naked (you know who I'm talking about ;)). Higher damage means EVERY shot is a one-hit-kill, thus slowing the pace of the game to a crawl and, once again, killing party play. And boosting DR per player? Well that just screws physical players (ESPECIALLY melee players) all the more, while giving anyone with magical offense, particularly ranged offense, even more free reign than ever. You widen the gap, and kill party play entirely, so that ALL you'll see is Sorceresses, Druids, and the occasional Necromancer. Nothing else. Monster HP is the ONLY stat you can safely increase per player without killing the game entirely, and it is also the only (albeit crude) defense against, as you pointed out Occhi, the overlapping skills of multiple players. Higher HPs means they can tank with the Barbs a bit longer, thus lasting longer against the Sorcy's onslaught, in the (often vain) hope of breaking through and doing some serious damage (ala killing a player).

What SHOULD be done is, in addition to HP scaling, monster QUANTITY scaling. Each new player adds a small amount of monsters to the spawning pool. Of course, this would crush low-end computers (amazing, isn't it? :P), and since monsters (and levels) are generated at the game's creation, there's no way to actually do this without re-coding the whole game. But the point is sound. Increasing monster numbers means that a GROUP can be overwhelmed just as easily as a single person, AND it effectively restricts solo players-8 playing. Now, if a Sorcy, for example, had enough punch to kill a single monster (in players 1), her AoE spells can take out whole mobs just as effectively. And that, my friend, is where scaling HP comes in.

But there has always been one problem: Blizzard effectively balances Multiplayer with a Singleplayer mindset. Monsters are balanced to die in one or two hits IN MULTIPLAYER, when they should be dying in 3 - 4 hits in SINGLEPLAYER. In Diablo, monsters did NOT scale in HPs with more players. They did, however, require multiple hits from even the strongest attacks in order to take down. And, due to the way the game performed (via tiles, game pace, lack of AoE, etc.), you could not effectively combine your attacks 100% of the time. In other words, you and your party were probably only killing the same monster(s) 50% of the time. The rest was one on one (or on multiple). If Blizzard were to simply balance the game in single player with a SINGE PLAYER mindset, or in multiplayer with a MULTIPLAYER mindset, they would be SO much better off, in terms of gameplay and balance. It would not be the salvation of this broken game, but it would be a huge step in the right direction. Of course, the masses, which Blizzard oh so delicately caters to, would all cry havoc, but who cares? ;) Let 'em take another couple seconds to kill that oncoming monster. A few extra hits, while siginificant, won't be noticed before long, and it will add that much more value to all their "hard-earned" candy - I mean items. :P In all seriousness, though, the game is NOT balanced for SP OR MP. The reason is because the game is attempted to be balanced for MP, only applying an SP mindset. When you start off with SP monsters taking 3 - 4 hits from even the most damaging attacks, it will take even more shots to kill them off when you start adding in players. But, this is of course reversed slightly when you factor in those extra players, as they can attack the same enemies as you at the same time - something that was difficult to do in Diablo (due to one factor: Friendly Fire, a non-existant element in Diablo II). It won't completely reverse it, obviously, but it would keep growing parties (and their offense) in check, AND virtually eliminate solo players-8 playing! If you want to solo in a high player-count game, you're gonna be working MUCH slower than if you had joined a party to stick with. It's the near-perfect solution that will never be recognized, short of in mods. ;)

I just had to speak up on those issues. You have the right idea Tommi. Just don't EVER expect it to get implemented by Blizzard. ;)

[eppie]

Indeed, only well-equipped, well-built, and well-played characters should be able to complete hell difficulty in solo with /players 1. Well-equipped, well-built, and well-played parties could do it together in higher player count games. Characters not meeting requirements of hell difficulty would have to end the game in normal or nightmare... That's what increasing difficulty is about, right? Only the best characters make it to the end, not everyone.

Hello, isn't the beauty of the game that there are so many options how to play. If you think players 1 is too easy for you, you go one to players 2,3,4, etc. The way you (tommi) say it is that you should just be lucky to find all the good stuff so you can finish the game. Well we all know the zod rune posts....not a lot of people will find these super-items. What about all the special builds? (sorcs with swords, barbs with fists, ironmans) They are unable to finish the game like this.
If you really want a challenge you have to make it yourself....what about this one. You post a standars character with a given stat en skill build-up, and with standard gear (that everybody can find). Then play with this character for let's say 1 week, and see who leveled up most or reached the most quests. If diablo was so straightforward that there was only one way to play, not so many people would play it.

But this is just my humble opinion.

[IcepickVT]

"Holy Fire doesnt add anything to vengeance, does it? Or is this a display bug? My paladin's tab says that Resist Fire adds."

My bad, I was looking at my Holy Shock Paladin and looked at the defensive tree synergies.
It would make sense for it too add to Vengeance, but I think they wanted to limit it to the even lesser used skills.

[Occhidiangela]

Balance in single player is a funny thing. In a humorous vein, I think the new patch might call for a new game name, which I propose here:

"Izual, Lord of Distraction!"

What is part of the reward basis for Diablo II? For that matter, what is part of the payoff for ladder running, once you have beaten that game in Hell?

"You want that new level, you want that new skill point, you have to go and pound away at monsters time after time, and if you spend enough time, you will get a reward: the little red crosses will pop up!"

Izual is the personification of that interaction: you sit there with the mouse button depressed, and if you are patient enough, you get a red button reward in the form of two skill points.

Last night, as I wandered through Act IV in SP players 6, I came upon Izual. After about 5 minutes of pounding away at him, I went to town, set Players to 2, and returned to the Plains of Despair. I then spent the next 9 or 10 minutes with my trusty poleaxe, and my rogue, beating on him. Poor Izual, he gets no respect, but he illustrates some of the patch game mechanics beautifully all by himself.

He died, did his angel thing, and I got my reward. :)

I then tried it at again players 8. I could not make the life bar move very far before I got rather tired of the whole ordeal.

I suppose that is OK, given that I was a lone player and I lacked the synergy of other players helping me reduce his life bar. Something tells me that what is going on is a case of
"Social Engineering" so decried by the old Whirly Bararian crowds on bnet pre Lord of Destruction: the aim is to get people to play together.