Bashiok enlightened us as much as he .. umm, befuddled us. From what can be extracted in his latest forum post, Diablo 3 will offer many means to create different class builds, powerful ones. So powerful that new items and features might be put in place when Diablo 3 hits stores to balance and nerf anything smarty players come up with to overpower their builds. So powerful, it scares Blizzard. I liked this post to be honest. It sounds like your character will be so powerful your Physix video card is gonna get blown out of your mobo’s PCI-E slot!!! Groovy, right on!
Blizzard Quote: |
||
Bashiok:You raise a valid point but I’ll propose some of my own thoughts on why I think limiting random attributes can be a bad idea. First of all you’d probably end up limiting the item pool by ensuring that only optimal items are dropped. It may not sound amazingly cool but we do want some amount of non-optimal items dropping and circulating. This helps build out a drop-pool so that you can drop a lot of items. Which is one of the things that makes Diablo awesome, seeing items thrown out all over the place. Sure you might pass over some of them, but there’s that “oooh! aaah!” feeling when you see a ton of loot flung out of a monster or chest. It wouldn’t be the same game without it. In addition, even when the game launches we’re probably not going to have an idea of everything that can be accomplished with what we’re providing. We want a lot of variety in how characters can be built, and in that variety there’s going to be a lot of unknowns. I doubt that until it’s actually on the shelves and in everyone’s hands for a while we won’t know all of what can be done. It’s a scary thought for us, but also really exciting, and by building items completely how we “think” they should be, we’d be removing a lot of that ability for you to try out crazy things and maybe find the new hotness build for a class. All that said I don’t think it’s out of the question, I think you could intelligently limit some factors but for the reasons I gave (and probably some I haven’ t thought of) I don’t think it’s something we’re inclined to explore at this point.—source |
||



