@Ashaman

Im not sure its that simple. I thought the combat got old in both games. But (in especially diablo2), i really liked the management part, optimize my gear (even for my merc), visit town etc.

You kill monsters to find gear you like (and has good stats).

The combat itself was similar in both games (D2 and POE) but POE had smaller and less interesting town/hubs and an annoying barter system. That killed it for me.

While technically more varied in D3 (more active skills instead of spamming the "best" skill all over) it was way to streamlined and lacked charm and style. So never got into that game.

D2 and POE also has a HUGE plus in my book, that you actually use the main weapon (in D3 it just gives stats to your skills and the type (sword, staff etc) feels all the same).

I think i've gotten combat fairly down. It could use improvements but it's working quite well at the moment. I don't think that is the main thing that makes those games good though. What do Diablo 1, Diablo 2 , Diablo 3, PoE, Grim Dawn, Sacred, etc all have in common? They have good level generation, decent graphics, decent combat, decent ways to upgrade your character, decent story, good enemies and decent atmosphere. I think a good game needs a good combination of those to work. I could see PoE working without a story. The most fun part of the game is doing maps and i'd rather just do that all the time. I don't see why all other RPGs couldn't have a similar map system. Graphics and atmosphere are definitely a thing i should work on more. My levels aren't that great yet. I have some decent ways to upgrade my character but they could be better as well. My enemies could use lots of improving as well. Maybe i simply have to make my game better in all areas for it to finally feel decent? Maybe it's all about hard work? Well, this is why i made this topic to try and figure out. RPGs really need to be tied together with bunch of interesting systems to truly work. My game should probably do something new entirely than other games. I think getting the RPG elements right might actually be more important than combat.

I think i've gotten combat fairly down. It could use improvements but it's working quite well at the moment. I don't think that is the main thing that makes those games good though...

I think getting the RPG elements right might actually be more important than combat.

You're kidding, right? Combat is EVERYTHING in those kinds of games. It needs to be punchy, fast, and juicy. Cast a spell, stuff needs to *thunk* and *THWACK* and *PEW PEW* Blizzard spends a phenomenal amount of time polishing the core gameplay loop of "kill, loot".

A good rule of thumb is to look at where players are going to spend their time in the game, what kinds of things they'll be doing, and focus on those. The random maps? The story? Inventory management? Those are all just window dressing on the core "kill shit, get shiny stuff" loop. 90% of the player's time is spent in this loop, so that's where you should spend your development time. All the story, setting, justification for maps is just extra.

Edit: If you've never read it, I suggest you read the Diablo 2 postmortem where they talk about finding the core elements of the game.

First, we make the game playable as soon as possible in the development process. Our initial priority was to get a guy moving around on the screen and hacking monsters. This is what players would be doing most of the time, and it had to be fun. We were constantly able to hone the controls, pathfinding, and feedback mechanisms during the entire length of the game's development. Most importantly, it allowed us to determine what was fun to do, so we could provide more of it, and discover what was awkward or boring, so we could modify or remove it. For instance, it became obvious very early that players would be killing large amounts of the same monsters, and those monsters would predominantly be attacking the players. This gave us the opportunity to plan for multiple death sound effects and additional attacking animations for each monster. If we hadn't experienced the core gameplay as early as we did, combat would have ended up feeling much more repetitive.

Lets take a look then what exactly the games do for combat.

Diablo 1. if you make a warrior then all you really do is slowly walk around and use basic attack. This game is completely carried by it's item system, atmosphere and story. Moving around and attacking, maybe dodging sometimes is really basic, most games have that. This really isn't a game that has good combat.

Diablo 2. If you make a barbarian then you start off using your basic attack, then get attacks like bash, frenzy (which is cool because it adds attack and movement speed) and whirlwind (which is really cool because it's one of the most iconic skills in gaming, even i add something like that to my games whenever i can). Until you get frenzy or whirlwind though, you are stuck with the same system that you have in Diablo 1. You just walk around, dodge and attack. This game seems to be mostly carried by it's RPG elements as well. At least this game has decent enemy variety with unique stats for enemies as well which change fights sometimes quite a lot. The problem with this game is you really end up using only a few skills, for example a barbarian only has shouts and an attack skill. Barbarian doesn't really need to deal with immunities either while other classes have to. A class like sorceress would do a lot better if you choose 2 elements, for example one to deal with fire immune enemies and one to deal with cold immune enemies. Sorceress is probably one of the most interesting classes in the game, they can get attack skills of 2 elements (3 if you cound thunder storm), energy shield (damage taken goes to mana), teleport (instant movement), chilling armor (defense and freezing enemies), warmth (regenerate mana), static field (reduce health of bosses fast), thunder storm (periodically make lightning fall on enemies). This game has okay combat but i feel it's possible to do a lot better.

This also brings up a few things the game does badly. Skill like teleport shouldn't exist. If all other classes have to walk, so should sorceress. This really makes sorceress a lot faster than other classes. Immunities shouldn't exist. There are way better solotions to make combat interesting. Sorceress gets almost all the tools you want which are good defense (damage taken goes to mana, chilling armor and energy shield), good movement (teleport), able to have skills of different elements against enemies weak to certain elements, mana regeneration (warmth), static field and good AoE (frozen orb has basically full screen AoE). Barbarian has very few upsides, they have good defense because of passives but it's kinda made irrelevant because of their bad AoE. Maybe Barbarians are good in party play but i'm the kind of player who plays single player only, so it doesn't really matter to me. The other thing i don't like about most RPGs is that they seem to be balanced around party play. Skills should probably work differently, if you're in a single player game than a party game.

Diablo 3. This game actually tries to offer you bunch of skills to use and has decent enemy variety. This game might actually be the best example for combat but the problem with this is that the game is spammy. You really just use your skills whenever they're available. Spam cooldown skills whenever they're available and buff whenever you can. When you're not doing that you use your main attack skill.

Path of Exile. This game makes you focus around one attack skill but offers utility skills, like curses, golems and warcries. I actually like this system most because it is least spammy. The game lets you get cool skills early on and let you build a somewhat interesting skillset. This game could do more with it's skills though. This game could easily have some of the cooldown skills they have in Diablo 3 but not too many, so it wouldn't become spammy.

For combat you do have to consider things like movement speed, attack speed, levels, controls, pathfinding, animations, sounds, graphics, enemy attacks and atmosphere as well. All enemies should really have a huge variety of attacks and animations. Dark Souls and Bloodborne do it quite well. Every boss kinda feels like a game on it's own. Those games have a great combat system. It required you to time your moves very well. You needed to attack and dodge at the right time. Enemies have weaknesses and you have to find them and use them properly. Maybe RPGs need to move towards that style more? Should enemies have attacks that you have to roll to avoid? Should Diablo like games have Dark Souls style bosses? One good thing about Diablo is that it is relaxing to play. Would the game still be fun, if it was a lot more difficult? Maybe there should be different type of maps, a map type that you can farm without much concentration and a map type that requires a lot of concentration to farm? Maybe more difficult maps offer better rewards? Diablo like games could introduce blocking as well. Maybe even combos that can be seen in games like Street Fighter? How complex of a combat system does a game like Diablo really need? The options are endless, i think it's important to find a good balance between fun and difficulty. Maybe the further you reach in the game the more difficult the game becomes? Maybe it starts out as simple as Diablo 1 then becomes as difficult as Diablo 2 then becomes as difficult as Diablo 3 then becomes as difficult as PoE then becomes as difficult as Dark Souls and then becomes as difficult as Street Fighter basically. For a game that has about the same difficulty all the time i think i'd prefer Diablo 3's skill system combined with PoE's character building system.

Sometimes adding things can ruin a game as well, for example Borderlands has great combat and RPG elements but it's ruined by some of the things it has. To even play the game you have to deal with repetitive quests, unskippable cutscenes and childish story. The game even has quests that force you to do nothing special for a few minutes. This adds up to hours of wasted time, if you play for a decent amount of time. This is a good example of a game loop being done very wrong. Borderlands would be a much more enjoyable game, if it for example simply used the map system that can be seen in PoE. Diablo 1 is a good example of a game loop done right, it doesn't have much meaningless content. Diablo 2 has some meaningless content, for example annoying areas, like act 3 and maggot lair and some quests. Diablo 3 doesn't have much meaningless content but it's a simple game. PoE has some meaningless content. I don't think the acts are even required in PoE, so you could just play maps which offer a lot more variety in it's current state but it's probably necessary for most players to get a decent experience out of the game. Dark Souls doesn't really have any meaningless content but it doesn't have any replayability. That's a game that doesn't really have any random generation at all. That's a game that could definitely use something like a map system.

History has shown that RPGs work well enough without the best combat out there but combat definitely helps. I think the most important thing after all is how all the systems come together. Which is your favorite combat system and why?

The core game mechanism is still the core, what you do most of the time and what the player will experience first.

If you play a lot of these game like D1, D2, D3, PoE or for a long period, then you will need motivation to continue playing. Therefor long living games have often some kind of meta-game, parts of the game which do not directly influence the gameplay immediatly, but which is important for some ppl in the long run.

As example are certain character levels, or gear sets. If you play diablo from start to end on normal difficulty, then you have experienced most likely all which is part of the core of the game. If you play it on harder difficulty to gain a new gear set, then the gameplay, levels, story do not change, it is just the motivation (challenge & collecting stuff) the player want to overcome.

But if you want to design a game, you should not start with the meta game at all. The meta game is only important if a player thinks that your game is fun enough to play it through and eventually want to invest more time because the core gameplay is so much fun. At this time you need to add some meta-game to add long time motivations.

Yes, you are right. Diablo 2 would be a lot more fun if it had up to level 60 or even up to level 90 skills as well and end game dungeons. There could even be raids and what not as can be seen in WoW. It is also important to try and make the game playable for yourself as soon as possible. Whenever i work on a prototype i want it to be playable for myself ASAP, so i want most of the systems to be there from start. The cool thing about Diablo 2 progression is that it gets more difficult as well. Hell is a lot more difficult than normal. You need to spend a lot more time getting good items and progressing. There needs to be enough meta game from the start i think that a player has something to do when they want to play for a long time. Maybe there's a day i feel like my game is good enough and i want to try and reach a high level. Often you have to test your game and it's important that most of the pieces are in place.

Here is the workflow for my RPG projects:

1. A simple level to play on.

2. Player character you can move.

3. Enemy character you can fight against.

4. A decent attack for both player and enemy.

5. Basic item system..

6. Basic special attacks for enemies and player.

7. Maps or at least better levels.

8. Some form of progression, for example option to access higher area levels. This inculdes adding more powerful enemies, attacks, items and maps.

9. Maybe a boss map.

10. Sounds.

11. Try and make all systems better starting from the system that feels weakest.

This is kinda how far i've gotten with my RPGs. This is where my interest falls off and i go back to trying to make a better core with everything i've learned in a new project because most of the time my ideas are a lot diferent. At least i can reuse code and models. Sometimes code and models need improvement as well Maybe my workflow could be improved?

I would sugguest to modify your workflow, taking from my own experiences:

1. Player character you can move. (check)

2. Enemy character you can fight against. (ckeck)

3. A simple level to play on. => a debug level/testground/arena, where you can spawn enemies at will and fine tune your combat sytem

4. A decent attack for both player and enemy. (ckeck)

5. Sounds. => add sound much earlier, it adds soo much to the player experiences ! Your game will feel more complete immediatly.

6. Basic special attacks for enemies and player. (this is the bread and butter of a diablo clone, cool attack options).

7. Basic item system..

8. Maps or at least better levels.

9. Some form of progression, for example option to access higher area levels. This inculdes adding more powerful enemies, attacks, items and maps.

10. Maybe a boss map.

11. Try and make all systems better starting from the system that feels weakest.

A level dedicated to debugging and testing seems like a good idea.

Sounds early on would definitely help but i'm not good at sounds yet, so i'd rather do them later since i'm still learning about them. If i had some decent sounds from previous projects or more experience at making them then it shouldn't be difficult to develop them early on and game development should be a much better experience. Maybe it would even open up new things i can do with my games? Suggestions on how to improve at this area could help a lot. I'd rather not record anything and just use things i can find on the internet, since nowadays it should be possible to find most things you want. I don't really even want to use my voice because that feels unnatural. There's only so much a single voice can do for a game. I think it sounds best, if sounds are edited from many different sounds. I don't even have a good pool of sounds i can use to make sounds with. I've mostly just focused on modeling and programming. Are there any sites that have a nice collection of sounds? I'd like to keep everything i use CC0. Maybe there's some software that can make random noise i can use? I don't think i'll ever be able to do voice acting without some software that allows to generate voice acting. Is there a good way to make a zombie sound without using my voice? What are good sounds or instruments that can be used for a huge variety of things?

What i know about sounds currently:

Editing with Audacity.

My own software to make music with. Maybe i should make some kind of software to make sounds with as well?

Some sites to get CC0 sounds from.

Diablo 2 has really nice sounds and music. That's definitely something that adds to the game a lot. That helps make the game a lot more immersive and impactful.

Immersion might be something my game needs as well. Diablo 2 also has story, quests, a very nice graphical item system, nice levels, good enemy variety, towns and good graphics. Even character classes help create immersion. My game doesn't really have any of that yet. Maybe i need to focus more on some of these things?

For audio check out this site for some affordable SFX libs. With Audacity, as you already mentioned, you get a free and good sound manipulation software. Either use sounds directly or combine them and you will get some pretty decent sound effect quickly into your game.

As solo-hobby game dev, embrace the pareto principle (reaching 80% of the goal by investing just 20% of effort).

Path of Exile is a really encouraging game. It's one of the few of recent note that has REALLY played with the mechanics of its genre - from economy to skills to progression system everything is designed differently. POE is a Diablo clone, but it didn't copypaste all its core mechanics from Diablo. You can't say this about "Generic Military Shooter 12345". Really keep this is mind. I think if you want to succeed, take what works and iterate on it like POE did. You seem to be doing that, but don't go wild, dig deep not wide.

The currency system has its drawbacks, but what you gain out of it is a system which is:

A) harder for farmers/botters to exploit (gold farmers are so effective because they merely have to kill and collect gold, whereas in POE a bot has to make smarter looting decisions)

B) harder for assholes to exploit (eg, if the value of chaos rises or falls too much because of market abuse, other currency items like fusings or regals can compete to become the standard currency of trade)

C) other crap I won't bother to list, but suffice to say, it does complicate the economy enough that it's much harder for a "gold farmer" to well, farm gold.

So while it does have its drawbacks, like, making the way you trade and interact with the market much more complex - people might not necessarily dislike that.

Gold has a huge drawback, a huge one, in the form of inflation. POE's currency system fights inflation very well - its main currency, chaos, is consumed by some players in large amounts on high end items that can roll well. This is a great idea. Gold itself does not fight inflation well at all, because eventually the NPCs that can directly convert gold into something useful are trivialized by the rate at which players generate gold from the market. Other drawbacks as well, but this is the main one.

I would say though, that currency is probably not something that should be a major factor of design during the early phases of prototyping your game out. What Path of Exile doesn't do extremely well is having a good "feel" for its combat - many of the skills you can make, even after really building a good character, feel kind of stilted. "Not smooth" I guess. If you want to make an ARPG, you're going to compete directly with POE/Diablo and others, so you should try to compete where you know from an early stage you can do better - namely, the mechanics/networking of how your skills function. Smooth, responsive, and innately fun. Everything after that is just icing. Nobody will want to progress if your game on its outset is bland.