Rune swapping... (restrictions)

#0 - Oct. 23, 2008, 12:11 a.m.

(2nd attempt at creating this thread... stupid forums ate my first attempt. :( )

I understand that the current system allows Runes to be swapped freely, but what if Runes were locked in place when installed. Not permanently though, with each installed Rune having a locked / unlocked flag, and two ways to swap out runes:

1. Install a new Rune, destroying the bound (still locked) Rune which is being replaced.
2. Have an NPC offer a service for unlocking Runes (for gold and a repeatable mini-quest). The gold cost could scale with the number and quality of locked Runes currently installed (i.e. the number of Runes to be unlocked), and the mini-quest could be repeated as often as you want. Once unlocked / unbound, each Rune could be safely removed / replaced at any time in the future. Any Runes installed (or swapped in) after the unlocking service was performed would be locked / bound upon installation (the unlocking process could be repeated though...).

This would make the installation of Runes less casual, but not irreversible. There may be gameplay balance issues though... Blizz may be expecting that players will want to frequently swap out Runes. :/

For Lore considerations, say that installed Runes become bound to a character's abilities and that is how their enhancements are activated. The services of a skilled enchanter is required to unbind Runes if they are to be preserved when removed. The unbinding process involves an incantation which requires certain rare ingredients... (mini-quest!).

The enchanter creating an Anya like portal to the realm / dungeon (where the ingredients can be found) would create a gameplay vehicle for an easily repeatable mini-quest. A new version of the quest area would be created whenever you wanted to do the quest (nice isolation with no pathing required). Ideally the mobs in the quest area would scale with the initiating player's character level to keep this a fun experience (if necessary, for Lore, say that more powerful ingredients are needed because of the increased strength of the character-Rune bond).

Temporary or respawn-only (non-teleport) checkpoints could be added for convenience, if the area is large enough and the quest is to be repeatable during a single game session (otherwise the checkpoint(s) could be permanent). I suggest enabling multiple "unlocks" per game session because you may want to do some swapping for a difficult boss kill, and then reverse things for normal adventuring afterwards... Forcing a player to move to a new game in these circumstances breaks up gameplay and wouldn't be very "fun" IMO.

Anyways, that's the idea. The strange thing is... I can already see it implemented in a game I've never played. :P

Thoughts?

Bashiok

#21 - June 1, 2009, 9:08 p.m.

The intent isn't for runes to be hot-swappable or interchangeable at any time. The ability to change the rune is the point of any comments made about switching them around, not that we want to allow easy and free interchangeable runes. What we do intend is for people to be able to try different runes without fear of losing the rune, or permanently changing the way a skill works.

Early design thoughts on rune swapping are that there would be some sort of cost to remove them so a new one could be put in its place. Early in the character's life it would be inexpensive enough so it isn't prohibitive, as we want to encourage experimentation, but later on the cost would become more substantial.

In addition, the high end runes are intended to be very rare. So while you're looking for them we want you to be able to use the runes you have without fear of losing them or using them incorrectly. Being able to experiment with different runes along the way to creating your perfect character is more fun, and potentially enlightening to the different ways your character can be used.

Bashiok

#30 - June 1, 2009, 11:39 p.m.

Q u o t e:
Can you give us a hint whether the "some sort of cost to remove them" will be entirely currency based (gold), or if it will involve some type of game-play cost (free NPC service, a repeatable side-quest...)?

Nope, that's why I didn't specify. :)

Honestly, it hasn't been decided. It could be any number of ways, including those you described.

Bashiok

#47 - June 3, 2009, 7:49 p.m.

The currency thing keeps coming up so let me try to address that as best I can.

High runes in Diablo II became a currency for a few reasons. One (and most importantly) because they were necessary to create some of the most powerful/sought after items in the game post-1.10, two because they were duplicated allowing enough of them to be common enough to become a currency, and three the actual currency (gold) was essentially worthless. Before high runes the currency was Stones of Jordan, again, duping is the main issue here for how they were allowed to become a common currency.

If they were only being picked up legitimately there simply wouldn't be enough of them circulating to become a common currency.

Now, just because word "rune" is used for the runes in Diablo III it does not mean:
A. They will be the most sought after items in the game (although they could be)
B. Duping will be an issue allowing rare items to become common
C. There won't be a better and more appropriate currency

BUT, despite all this, we still want item trades to be useful. There is nothing wrong with people trading items for other items. It only becomes an issue when the barrier of entry into general trading becomes prohibitive due to secondary currency markets based on illegitimate items. And it won't happen as long as there is a intentional and low-barrier currency (gold), and the game is designed and maintained as to not allow creation of illegitimate items.