Finding the 'Sweet Spot' for Build Viability

[HxcHermit]

Hello Pure Diablo Community,

As I delve deeper into the world of Diablo, experimenting with various builds and strategies, a recurring thought has been: While NMD 100 is a pinnacle many of us aim for, is there an earlier benchmark that can help us gauge if we're on the right track with a particular build?

The reason behind this inquiry is to find that "sweet spot" or general consensus in the community. By identifying this benchmark, it could help many of us determine if unconventional or off-meta builds are worth pursuing further. It's about understanding at what point we can confidently say, "This build has potential," even if it doesn't fit the traditional meta.

I'm reaching out across various communities because I genuinely want to gather as many insights as possible. Every player and every community has its unique perspective, and I believe that by pooling our collective wisdom, we can all benefit and enhance our gameplay.

So, I'm curious - what are your thoughts? If you resonate with the idea of an earlier benchmark, what dungeon tier do you think would serve as a good indicator? I'm eager to hear your experiences, strategies, and insights on this topic.

Thank you for taking the time to read and share your thoughts. I genuinely appreciate every perspective and look forward to engaging discussions.

Warm regards

 

[Dr. Cheesesteak]

Hello Pure Diablo Community,

As I delve deeper into the world of Diablo, experimenting with various builds and strategies, a recurring thought has been: While NMD 100 is a pinnacle many of us aim for, is there an earlier benchmark that can help us gauge if we're on the right track with a particular build?

The reason behind this inquiry is to find that "sweet spot" or general consensus in the community. By identifying this benchmark, it could help many of us determine if unconventional or off-meta builds are worth pursuing further. It's about understanding at what point we can confidently say, "This build has potential," even if it doesn't fit the traditional meta.

I'm reaching out across various communities because I genuinely want to gather as many insights as possible. Every player and every community has its unique perspective, and I believe that by pooling our collective wisdom, we can all benefit and enhance our gameplay.

So, I'm curious - what are your thoughts? If you resonate with the idea of an earlier benchmark, what dungeon tier do you think would serve as a good indicator? I'm eager to hear your experiences, strategies, and insights on this topic.

Thank you for taking the time to read and share your thoughts. I genuinely appreciate every perspective and look forward to engaging discussions.

Warm regards

If we're discussing solely a benchmark to see if your build is NMD100 ready, I'd say you won't know til NMD80+? Granted, I thought this before the 1.1.1 patch, not sure if anything has relevantly changed w/ the monster density and new scaling.

But if we're talking multiple benchmarks then feeling the need to heavily tweak or completely respec, I always think in groups of 20. NMD20, 40, 60, etc. Granted, your level matters as well, but doing NMD40 at lvl 70 probably isn't the best gauge for if the build will worth at NMD100 at lvl100, sadly.
But, maybe it is. I'm not 100 yet, so I'm only speaking from observation, speculation, and secondhand knowledge from the various threads, videos, and guides I've read.

Depending on the game or genre, I don't fully buy into benchmarks. At least not hard, objective benchmarks. I think games like ARPGs that allow for tweaks here and there and can have an item or two greatly alter the same build sort of allow more flexibility to measuring how well your build is doing. I simply go by this mentality - if I'm not killing stuff fast enough and surviving long enough, I need to change something.

 

[HxcHermit]

Absolutely, but I believe our focus isn't just about reaching NMD100. It's more about the journey of off-meta build progression. There's a certain charm in not just replicating popular builds, much like the unique joy of discovering a great original song amidst a sea of mainstream tracks.

While NMD100 is a significant milestone, even with a top-tier build, skill is paramount to thrive there. Regarding the patch I've been on this grind since day one, and post-patch, the monster density feels more balanced, especially in larger parties

I'm with you on the idea of benchmarks, especially in intervals of 20. It offers a structured yet flexible way to evaluate and refine our builds as we progress.

I came across a post detailing the NM tier-to-Monster level correlation, which could be a handy reference for many. NM to Monster level Chart

Delving deeper into the level dynamics, I've observed that the real challenges in dungeons start to ramp up from the mid to high 40s and a build truly begins to manifest its potential around levels 70-75.

By then, with around 100 paragon points and a few glyphs and legendary nodes, the gameplay feels more robust. Maybe around this area would be a good indicator if your build is on the right track if you can complete NM dungeons that are 20 - 30 levels higher then yourself at level 70ish?

I couldn't agree more about the nature of benchmarks in ARPGs. Rigid benchmarks can sometimes feel limiting in such a dynamic genre. While they provide a direction, the true essence lies in adaptability and personal playstyle.

My aim is to establish some soft guidelines, a framework of sorts, for players wanting a fresh, unconventional approach to the game.

 

[Rush]

I welcome the idea of a non-conventional approach. The fact that players feel corralled down a specific build path is a problem. I for one never check meta builds and always try to mess about with what feels right for me at the time.

The problem comes at some point you realise the build you have is just not cutting it anymore and you have to experiment a lot. This is fine early game but at that point there's no way to really tell if what you are doing will be effective later on.

We should be able to play the way we want to play and not be pushed down a certain path but I feat that would be asking too much and it is what it is.

Conventional = Bad / Unconventional = Good. That's what I feel at least.