View Full Version : Is D3 Destroying Variant play?
Saidinhc
13-10-2008, 00:19
It seems in the few interviews I've seen and some of the news reports coming out of Blizz-Con that the new Diablo 3 is trying to change the way we've grown up playing the Diablo series. Especially with a re-spec system, the removal of attribute points and the focus on "being able to kill everything".
It seems as though with the removal of Attribute Points and a focus on weapons they are killing variant play. I liked being able to distribute my points myself to up my sorc to wear some heavy armor and run around with my enchanted axe. (simple example) By forcing the attribute points to me it takes a large chunk of the attachment that I will have with my characters. "Generic" is one of the things that I hate, and I liked the fact that even though my character might have standard equipment. I'd roll in with some spell setup that hasn't been seen before.
(disclaimer, obviously over the many years d2 has been out pretty much all viable variants have been explored)
The second issue cropped up in one of those interview video/questions and the guys at Blizzard said they were looking to use a respec type system for skill points. Besides the first couple of levels, I really had no problem re-rolling a character. I didn't mind rolling a new character and maybe not using the best point distribution and then having to re-roll the character later. It gave me an excuse to play the game over again. Sure maybe levels 1-20 were slow, but really it never took too long to get a character up and running again. Maybe its a little masochistic but I never had a problem with re-rolling.
There was also a question about immunities. And I never saw that as a problem with d2. Even with a highly specialized variant it gave me a reason to conquer an area and feel satisfied with that section. Facing a physical immune boss with my WW barb because I set my guy up with a point in Berserk. It added more to the analytical part of the game. And that technical aspect of the game is to me what was most fun about d2.
It seems to me that the guys at Blizzard are trying to create new reasons for replayability, when to me I want the MF runs, I want the Variants, I want to re roll characters. I don't need new experiences with new monsters or whatever. 'Experiences' in the game-design sense don't last, they fade so quickly but the analytical nature of the game, spreadsheets, spec numbers, attribute layouts, optimal item setups etc. stay with the game forever and to me is one of the reasons why its still played years after wards.
Anyways, maybe I'm talking out of my ***. It's been ages since I've posted here. All the new info got me excited but looking at it I fear I'm going to miss the things I liked about d2; sitting down with a blank character sheet and deciding how I want to take the guy, what items do I need for it, where's the optimal place for me to fight. etc etc.
(we're obviously a long ways from knowing everything but some early thoughts anyways)
Hello Saidinhc.
Here is a dead horse, and a stick to beat it with. Allow me to join in the fun.
1. Respec System - respec system is popular with majority of players. People don't like rerolling characters because they screw up a point or because a patch fundamentally changes something. It's here to stay by popular demand, regardless of the vocal hard-core minority. Be happy that this will probably end up being a gold sink and will have you work to earn your respec.
2. We already have an entire thread on arguing attributes, hell a second one started recently. It has over 400 posts, I suggest you read it if you haven't.
3. Immunities are here to stay. Blizzard said they wanted to encourage people into using 5-6 skills as "main", so they don't view immunities as a real problem.
Everything I have seen about the game so far, barring the base attributes assigning part, has shown me that it will have far more variance in builds than D2 ever did. If Blizzard doesn't drop the ball with attribute control in general and out-of-archetype characters (plate/maul sorcs, etc.), this game will pound D2 into dust as far as variant play goes.
Artimedes
13-10-2008, 01:50
I for one thought it was absolutely ridiculous to see sorcs running around in heavy plate armor in diablo 2. Why in the world should a magic user be able to have more str than a barbarian? Im glad the self distributing stat points are in place to eliminate that.
Like konfeta said, people dont like having to create an entirely new character because of a misplaced stat or skill point. Ive had to recreate characters because of finger slips before and it really isnt fun, especially on a high level hardcore character.
Edit: variant play will still exist, it just wont be anything like it was in d2.
stillman
13-10-2008, 07:19
Also, there's 60 skills to chose from for the wizard, and that's just up to lev 20 IIRC. Right there, Blizzard has solved the lack-of-variety problem. We'll have so many builds to play, we'll be in diapers again playing d3 in a nursing home before we get bored.
Mad Mantis
13-10-2008, 09:13
1. Respec System - respec system is popular with majority of players.
From what I read about the subject there are as many people for it as there are against it. The threads on it are pretty much split down the middle.
People don't like rerolling characters because they screw up a point or because a patch fundamentally changes something.
After a patch they can still give you back your skill points. No need for respecs.
Be happy that this will probably end up being a gold sink and will have you work to earn your respec.
Why should he be happy that an option he doesn't want to see in the game is in the game? Just because you assume that it will be expensive?
Why in the world should a magic user be able to have more str than a barbarian?
And why would that be? Just because you are stuck with a certain archetype in your head?
From what I read about the subject there are as many people for it as there are against it. The threads on it are pretty much split down the middle.
Very well, I won't contest statistics as I don't know them. But I generally feel that more people would prefer choice over being forced to do something. Would you disagree?
After a patch they can still give you back your skill points. No need for respecs.
Doesn't address misplaced points (although that can be solved without respecs). My question is though, why do the hardcore players care if others use respec? Nobody is forcing them to simply shuffle a character around, if they love the experience of rebuilding a character, respecs don't take away that choice. Not having respecs, on the other hand, screw over players who don't like rebuilding the same character all over again based on item changes or some sort of revelation.
I, for example, have ZERO interest in rebuilding a specific build because I find an +skills item that will remake the optimal point distribution for my character.
I, however, DO have interest in making the same class over again to try out actually different builds in different stages of gameplay.
Having respecs addresses the first point, and doesn't do anything to damage the second.
Why should he be happy that an option he doesn't want to see in the game is in the game? Just because you assume that it will be expensive?
You are right, it is an assumption. Mostly it comes from the suspicion that Blizzard will end up compromising for the following reasons:
1. Enough people complain about it.
2. Respecs are an excellent gold sink, a quest reward, or another game mechanic.
3. Blizzard probably will not make it so that you need to make only 5 characters to make the most out of the game. While placating the players who want respecs is a priority, ensuring that people won't be able to easily try out everything a class has to offer is in their interest to keep the game fresh longer is another priority. Limited respecing addresses both of these things.
Mad Mantis
13-10-2008, 18:38
Would you disagree?
No, I'm not against choice. In fact I'd like to see more of it in games. I am against respecs. That is covered in the next point.
My question is though, why do the hardcore players care if others use respec?
I can only speak for myself when it comes to the respec option. I'm against it, or rather against easily accessible respecs, because I do not want to see the game revolve around the fact that they are there. For example, lets say that there is a gigantic cold level and my Wiz is a cold based build. I'll have a hard time getting through the level since things will be pretty much immune. I can respec easily, even with a gold sink, to a fire build and breeze through the level. If respec are easily available the game designers are forced to cater to them in order to keep the game difficult. Not taking the respecs into account will mean the game will be too easy. I am thus forced to deal with the issue even if I don't want to use it.
If you make it a gold sink, it will only be something hard to reach until people amass wealth. Something easily done. Players will always be rich quick. I can live with respecs if it is something that is granted as a reward for completion of a difficulty level, or something of that magnitude.
So, Blizzard makes limited respecs that allow you to adjust the build rather then flat out remaking it.
Any number of possible solutions:
1. Cooldown on taking out points.
2. Rare Quest related.
3. Limit on how many points you can take out per
4. Add a significant cost to it (want to take out some points? How about you sacrifice your Uber Skill Rune of 1337ness? for 5 points respec).
5. Most important one. Use a combination of these and potential other solutions.
Result - People who want to adjust their builds will have a choice that will be cheaper for them to do than recreating their char (time investment wise; not being forced to play through the game with the exact same build), it is limited enough so you can't change your build on-the-fly to break the balance of the game, it can still be a wealth-sink or another useful game mechanic.
Respecs, fundamentally are not a bad thing. If you introduce them right, they will break nothing, and add plenty.
I can apply the exact same argument to almost any major gameplay decision Blizzard made (as with base attribute assigning). The change itself doesn't inherently break the game or specific freedoms if you compensate for it with intelligent design.
I am not saying that Blizzard is perfect and will pull this off, but I am saying that it is possible and reasonable to pull this kind of stuff off. Which is why I dislike it when people start immediately crying "Wolf" (Blizzard is breaking the game!) before we see the whole picture.
The only benefit I see towards this outrage is that we warn Blizzard of the pitfall if they weren't aware of it already. Unfortunately, because most people are just content to rant and post 3-4 liners of "X change sucks, Diablo is ruined, I am not buying" Blizzard might just as well tune out all of feedback on this change and ignore the good stuff (such as the post by IcyYou) before even getting to read it in the sea of crying.
If the primary reason respecs are implemented are in order to address "misplaced" (accidentally) skill points and/or to allow someone to try 1-2 different builds with a character than the answer is quite simple.
Allow 1 respec per completion of each difficulty level.
This solves both problems as I see it. If you only get 3 respecs total than it will prevent someone from respecing just to get past a difficult level for their build, because that would mean using up 1 of their 3 respecs.
-----------
ON TOPIC
-----------
1. Does Diablo 3 offer the player a multitude of options with different combinations when it comes to creating a character, allowing for a crapload of builds? If it does than there is room for variant play.
2. Does Diablo 3 have a tiny set number of builds that you can count on one hand?
If it does than it is destroying variant play.
Examine the information we have thus far. According to that information, option 1 or option 2?
Starving_Poet
13-10-2008, 19:31
I'll see your "I don't want to see melee sorcs" and I'll raise you a " I don't want to see a repeat of the 1.10+ Hammerdin scenario."
I want to see a wizard with a sledgehammer going crazy in a time bubble.
Apocalypse
13-10-2008, 20:05
Very well, I won't contest statistics as I don't know them. But I generally feel that more people would prefer choice over being forced to do something. Would you disagree?
i am amazed to see this considering you are going against everyone who wants to apply thier own stats. the entire point for those people (me included) is we want choice to do whatever we want with our char. i find it funny that i am so in favor of that but so against this(against until i see how they do the respec, it could work, it could suck)
Wrong, Apocalypse.
I stated many times that I disliked the change, and would prefer the freedom to assign bases stats. I only pointed out a possible justification for it, and the benefits of what removing base stat allocation brings.
*ok I am becoming a tad to aggressive here. Sorry; edited.
From what I read about the subject there are as many people for it as there are against it. The threads on it are pretty much split down the middle.
Thing is that a player that is satisfied feel no real need to Qq on forums as much as a disatisfied player does, thus you believe that that its equal.
After a patch they can still give you back your skill points. No need for respecs.
Valid point.
And why would that be? Just because you are stuck with a certain archetype in your head?
Personally i loved how you were able to be a melee sorc in Diablo 2.
Also, i am kind of neutral to this, if Blizzard can pull it off, im sure that auto-stat assigning could be great, but i do not want to feel like im stuck at the normal stand back and shoot firebolts kind of sorceress/wizard.
Rob.
Mad Mantis
13-10-2008, 21:42
The only benefit I see towards this outrage is that we warn Blizzard of the pitfall if they weren't aware of it already. Unfortunately, because most people are just content to rant and post 3-4 liners of "X change sucks, Diablo is ruined, I am not buying" Blizzard might just as well tune out all of feedback on this change and ignore the good stuff (such as the post by IcyYou) before even getting to read it in the sea of crying.
That is the benefit that I like. I'm sure anybody half way competent in community managing knows how to screen for the intelligent points and get a general feel for the level of disturbance in a community. You can easily ignore the hate threads, just as easily as you can ignore the "I love it"-one liners. I much prefer that people speak their mind early and often. There are some great ideas out there. Some of the ranting may even bring to light areas the dev team didn't think about. This community isn't working on the project and thus has a vastly different perspective. I guess the difference between us is that I'm not bothered by people going out of their way to be negative. Rather I see it as a useful tool, if you can stand the bull****.
Thing is that a player that is satisfied feel no real need to Qq on forums as much as a disatisfied player does, thus you believe that that its equal.
You can't prove a negative. There is no way to know how many people don't post because they are happy. Just as you can't tell how many people don't post because someone else already said the negative thing they wanted to say. The only thing we can work with is what is in front of us.
You have infinitely more patience and self-restraint than I ever could hold.
You can't prove a negative. There is no way to know how many people don't post because they are happy. Just as you can't tell how many people don't post because someone else already said the negative thing they wanted to say. The only thing we can work with is what is in front of us.
Some valid points but i still think im right. :)
Apocalypse
13-10-2008, 21:58
Wrong, Apocalypse.
I stated many times that I disliked the change, and would prefer the freedom to assign bases stats. I only pointed out a possible justification for it, and the benefits of what removing base stat allocation brings.
*ok I am becoming a tad to aggressive here. Sorry; edited.
i stand corrected then and it makes more sense to me now
BrotherRatcliff
13-10-2008, 23:15
I think the strategy they are going with so far will have many more, but much subtler variants. Sure there are more skills, but many are passives and because they want you to use more skills at one time it kind of reduces the effect. Back in d2 players almost all had one primary skill and a few support skills (passives, buffs, minions etc). It looks like in d3 players will have several primary skills, and many support skills (mostly passives/masteries). While its unlikely you will find another player using exactly the same set of 5-7 primary skills there probably will be a ton of overlap between each players build.
In one way that can be viewed as removing variant play but it could also be viewed as adding variant play. I just hope that there is still a place for the super-specialized build in the system. It's almost like "shooting the moon", while a well rounded build may be the best I think the possibility should still be there for creating a vastly powerful very focused build if you do it right. I want to see builds like the ES sorc, which sucked if you did them half way, return to the game.
And why would that be? Just because you are stuck with a certain archetype in your head?
I just want to address this, because I haven't come to an opinion on the other stuff from this thread. I can see the point in not wanting to have a Magic user capable of wielding weapons or armor that the barbarian can build. The key idea is whether or not you are viewing it in purely a game context, or an RPG context.
From a pure game context, the option to pump up your strength stats and put platemail and a massive battle hammer on your sorceress is pretty cool, nothing against it. However; if we are to look at it in the context of the RPG game with the lore from the world involved, then it just doesn't make sense. We know from the wizard lore that it takes lots and lots of study to achieve mastery in Magical arts. If you want to be a master in Magic, you have to put in the time for it.
The same goes for someone like the barbarian. If you want to be really good with all the physical weapons, you put in the time and achieve your mastery. Maybe you can dabble with magic on the side, but that's all it's going to be is a side pursuit, and you will never achieve the same mastery that a dedicated wizard will.
Not to say you might not get a wizard who is naturally big and strong and can pick up and use the battle hammer. Will he be as good with it though as the barb who was practically born with one is his hands? I don't think so, and that's the main point.
The whole idea is that the Barbarian will be better than the Wizard with the big and melee weapon.
The Wizard has just learned to compensate for his/her lack of martial prowess with magic augmentations and supporting spells.
These classes, despite being melee, will have very different gameplay experiences, and some people really love to try them.
You might not know, but the idea of spellswords/gishes/whatever-you-call-them are considered to be very cool and are very popular among the RPG playing crowd. Throw in the concept that this iteration of Wizard is very heavily borrowing from DnD, where the spellsword concept is incredibly widespread, of course people will want to make a melee Wizard.
The whole idea is that the Barbarian will be better than the Wizard with the big and melee weapon.
The Wizard has just learned to compensate for his/her lack of martial prowess with magic augmentations and supporting spells.
These classes, despite being melee, will have very different gameplay experiences, and some people really love to try them.
You might not know, but the idea of spellswords/gishes/whatever-you-call-them are considered to be very cool and are very popular among the RPG playing crowd. Throw in the concept that this iteration of Wizard is very heavily borrowing from DnD, where the spellsword concept is incredibly widespread, of course people will want to make a melee Wizard.
Sure, I understand that. I was just playing devil's advocate for the wizard Archetype. I do still think that if you have a melee wizard, especially one that is using spells or magic items it will not be the same as the items a barbarian uses. That's one of the reasons I liked a D2 daggermancer, as it was melee with a dagger which made sense to me, not a 2 handed claymore. You ever lifted one of those? I am 6' 1'', and I can barely swing one, would take me years to be able to use one properly.
I wasn't saying a wizard can't melee, just that it would not be in the same manner that a barbarian melee's. I can see where I might not have passed that across very well though. My point is platemail and a massive weapon that a barbarian has to work at to be able to wield is not what I would picture a melee Wizard using. Leather armor and a hand and a half sword maybe.
Edit: which is actually pretty much what you just said konfeta, I just wasn't going in very deep.
Well, that's the thing. Some people might dig the "Armorered Fireball Spewing Sword Monstermawing Machine," others might prefer the more leather and agile variant.
People who like the armored part might (or already are) scoffing at the leather variant.
Mad Mantis
14-10-2008, 00:24
Sure, I understand that. I was just playing devil's advocate for the wizard Archetype.
I understand the archetype and the lore surrounding the character. It is this that has formed the skills that the Wizard (for example) can use. We see it in the skill tree and in the preferred items and stat allocation. I'm not suggesting doing away with that.
What I am questioning is the notion that all players need to adhere to that archetype when playing. If a Wiz player wants to pump strength to wield the maul then why prevent that? Will they ever be as proficient with it as a Barb? No. They can never rival the prowess of the Barb with the weapon because they don't have the skills of the Barb. Instead they focus on Wiz specific skills that complement the play style.
So why restrict the option of Wizard players to wear heavy armor? It doesn't detract from the archetype. The class is built around that. All you are doing is artificially enforcing the archetype for every player.
Ya I said that was a cool idea in my first post.
Edit: @Mantis.
Good points there, I actually remembered some idea's I had come up with earlier for Melee in a Magic user that involved conjuration.
I guess in the end the problem is that we are forced to accept the archetype that Blizzard gives us, and whatever space they allow us to come up with our own ideas. They are never going to get the class to be what everyone pictures it should/could be, although it does sound as if they are forcing us more into their idea of what a "Wizard" should be.
My argument to that would be: why not? It is their world, they created it, they even go so far as to give us background on each class. If blizzard wants us to play a wizard how they created it, I can respect them for that. They still need to give us options of course, but if they say that their wizard fights evil with spells, and that's how they want the game to feel when you play a wizard, then ok.
Not saying it will be better, or maybe it will be for me but not for you. I am fine with a wizard working spells, and not needing a big sword. If someone else wants their wizard to have heavy armor and a sword more power too them. I just think we are bound to some extent by what Blizzard has created.
That being said, I realize I often argue the opposite side even if I don't agree with it, drives my wife nuts sometimes. So I am not trying to say how anything should be, or that one idea is better then another, just putting my thoughts about it up because I like to look at all sides.
-Majaii
Apocalypse
14-10-2008, 14:19
That being said, I realize I often argue the opposite side even if I don't agree with it, drives my wife nuts sometimes.
-Majaii
HA! , me and my wife have arguements about this sometimes too, mainly when i try to argue my brothers point of view.
anyway i am seeing some positives for what they are doing i just think that as of now the negatives out weigh them
Kiroptus
14-10-2008, 14:59
The thing is... stats never really defined what kind of character you could be... Skills were the ones that did this.
It was possible to make a melee sorceress but not because you pumped all points in str and dex. It was because of enchant. If it wasnt for that It wouldnt be viable at all (It barely is).
I dont care about stats at all. Its just boring numbers to me, bring me new cool effects from the skills and variant ones with this new rune system that can change the way skills work. I believe those will be the ones that will bring the variants into play.
Apocalypse
14-10-2008, 15:51
stats did not define a char but thats cause they were pretty much broken.
Freedom for players to choose whether or not to roleplay traditional archetypes > freedom for dedicated role players in pub MP to not be exposed to players not RPing archetypes.
Brother Laz
14-10-2008, 19:43
Let me know when putting 400 points into strength allowed your necromancer to be useful with a maul. Oh right, it didn't matter one iota, your damage was useless without a Might merc which then proceeded to overpower any sort of str damage you could obtain.
If Blizzard changes the equation, then perhaps the optimal solution will be all points into str. Or all points into dex. It doesn't matter, there is always an optimal choice. This is not freedom of choice. This is the freedom to spend your stat points 'correctly' or weaken your character.
.......
If you want a wizard with a sledgehammer, get +str items. Blizzard is not preventing you from making a melee wizard and in fact provides the spells to enable it, you'll just have to do your part and focus your items on +str. If you think this is insane, this is how shamans (caster warriors) and bow sorcerers worked in D1 with the stat caps.
Stat points serve no useful purpose and are merely boring math that needs to be done before you can play a build. (Usually the solution is the same, too) Why not get rid of them entirely and just make a single 'strength' stat that increases with level for the purpose of item reqs, ditch dexterity and make life and mana increase with level?
Apocalypse
14-10-2008, 20:27
Let me know when putting 400 points into strength allowed your necromancer to be useful with a maul. Oh right, it didn't matter one iota, your damage was useless without a Might merc which then proceeded to overpower any sort of str damage you could obtain.
If Blizzard changes the equation, then perhaps the optimal solution will be all points into str. Or all points into dex. It doesn't matter, there is always an optimal choice. This is not freedom of choice. This is the freedom to spend your stat points 'correctly' or weaken your character.
it sounds to me like you think everyone is a min/max type player? some people actually will want to roleplay this game(assuming they really did beef up the story).
MagisterMan
14-10-2008, 20:48
The system with full immunities was just annoying when playing D2. They should have made it so that all monster can be killed with for examble cold, but some are much more resistant (not fully immune).
Ehrm, did anyone check out the Wizard skills? I mean, you can invest 61 points to beef up your melee wizard. The melee Wizard is more viable than the D2 melee Sorc would ever be. Melee sorc had enchant. So do Wizard, yet Wizard has 4 other passives to beef up melee. And then comes the support skills...
Next question however is what weapons will be available for the wizard? I guess the top weapons will be disabled due to insufficient str/dex. Yet the passives is made to make up for that. From an RPG perspective though, that's not forgivable, but it certainly is reasonable.
Oh crap here we go again: "oh noes, the game isn't dark enuff!" "It's not D2 enuff!" "They're changing it!!"
YES FINALLY: CHANGE!! WE CAN BELIEVE IN! GOBAMA!!!
Starving_Poet
14-10-2008, 22:03
I keep losing that rolley-eye smiley.
:rolleyes:
Nevermind, found it.
Context wise, would it ever make sense that a crusty old necromancer could somehow garner the strength to carry a Thundermaul? -well, ok maybe if he was Yoda...
Kiroptus
14-10-2008, 23:10
I wouldnt even get to the context merit. Making sense is something Diablo doesnt do at all, its a fantasy game.
Its just that... it has no point whatsoever. "Cool, my necro can carry a ThunderMaul!" "SO what?".
Instead of stats we now have skills to support oddballs builds, thats MUCH better in my book.
Instead of stats we now have skills to support oddballs builds, thats MUCH better in my book.
No, no we don't. Melee sorc has just gone from being 'oddball' to a cookie-cutter. Just glancing at the skill tree you can immediately see exactly how everyone is going to build their melee sorc, and there's really little room for 'sensible' variation. Blizz are holding your hand every step of the way; here's your skills, they synergise each other (in the non D2-specific sense, obviously), you've got a few points left over. Situation is exactly the same as D2, so far, the builds have just changed a little. Indeed it may be more restricted to requiring more pre-req investment to reach higher tier skills - i.e. less choice. A 2 handed maul-bearing def-based sorc... now that has the potential to be an oddball build but the removal of stats means you'll have to sign away half your gear choices (there goes a quarter of your character's customisation) just to be capable of equipping said maul/high def armour.
Mad Mantis
15-10-2008, 09:55
No, no we don't. Melee sorc has just gone from being 'oddball' to a cookie-cutter.
True. There is an awful lot of support for the Melee Wiz, but that doesn't mean there can't be other oddball builds for the Wiz. Just that this one isn't anymore.
Just glancing at the skill tree you can immediately see exactly how everyone is going to build their melee sorc, and there's really little room for 'sensible' variation. Blizz are holding your hand every step of the way; here's your skills, they synergise each other (in the non D2-specific sense, obviously), you've got a few points left over.
That is something I do worry about, but can't yet say anything on. The problem is that we don't know how many of these synergies you really need. If you need to max all synergies you are being forced into a rather linear path. Also we don't know how vital it is that you spread out your skills. The game could place much more demands on a varied (three tree) skill distribution than D2. Stil, it is something to be concerned about.
I believe there needs to be a line, a balance of rules, so that we dont have what is currently occurring in our financial market (from deregulation!) Which in a way reminds me exactly of what occurs daily during a Diablo 2 session. In a sense on all levels; from poor level execution/balance, to the teleportation exploits on the system, the trove of unbalanced "cookie cutter" classes, all the way down to rushing, duping, cheating, scamming, etc.
Getting rid of the attribute system may serve to equalize the playing field, which is completely insane in D2, what with charms, annis, and runewords! I dont care if you're a sorc and you want to wear heavy gear, it makes no sense that a weak sorc be able to use heavy battlements, unless of course she is Yoda (*mind over matter) in that case intelligence would have been the instrumental attribute. There needs to be balance! like in chess, a pawn is a pawn, knight, knight, rook.. a rook.. this balance has come undone in post LOD-D2!
I really do hope these changes are for good reason, that they have learned from the mistakes/flaws in Diablo 2. And that maybe, these changes will work to balance and improve upon, what is currently, in my mind failing.
On a side note, maybe it's just the latest series of patches or LOD, come to think of it, the game seemed much more enjoyable about 8 years ago... bleh.. I've been waiting too long for D3...
Ehrm, did anyone check out the Wizard skills? I mean, you can invest 61 points to beef up your melee wizard. The melee Wizard is more viable than the D2 melee Sorc would ever be. Melee sorc had enchant. So do Wizard, yet Wizard has 4 other passives to beef up melee. And then comes the support skills...
Next question however is what weapons will be available for the wizard? I guess the top weapons will be disabled due to insufficient str/dex. Yet the passives is made to make up for that. From an RPG perspective though, that's not forgivable, but it certainly is reasonable.
To alleviate your concern about using top weapons/armour as a wizard read this quote
Bashiok: First let me state that the interview article has an error in that “You still get attributes, and they will still be required for equipment use” is incorrect. I’ve already let the Diii.net guys know. There are no attribute requirements for items, that would essentially limit items to specific classes which we don’t intend to do outside of actual class specific items, like the Wizard’s off-hand orb for instance.
Taken from the news article on this site.
I like the looks of the different play styles I see available in the skills for the Wizard compared to the skills of the D2 Sorceress. Seems to me like there will be a good variety in ways to play this class and with no attribute requirements on equipement I'm curious if it will just be level requirements or what.
Maybe this will alleviate the arguments long enough for them to reveal enough about the game mechanics that will let us actually judge how much variant play been diminished or improved.
Artimedes
16-10-2008, 01:43
And why would that be? Just because you are stuck with a certain archetype in your head?
Just saw this today. Im saying it because of what we've seen from pretty much every type of primary magic user before diablo. Why not give the barbarian meteor or fireball while were allowing the sorc to have 200+ str? You either get big damage magic skills or high brute strength, but not both. That is one of the reasons barbarians in diablo 2 would be completely useless if they didnt have warcrys, sorcs can have ridiculously high armor allowing them to ignore tons of physical damage and pallys with super high armor have the strongest casting spell in the game when that shouldnt be the case. I dont have a problem in diablo 3 with spells/skills adding to damage, or skills like mana shield, but being able to pump strength and wear the heaviest armor and biggest weapons possible just breaks the flow of the game.
I didn't read much of this because I've seen the wholly subjective non-arguments for and against respecing a thousand times over. Are you folk using "gold sink" in reference to in-game currency? Why not make people pay actual money to respec? Not just five or ten bucks, either, but something that'd dissuade "respec-as-mechanic" exploitation.
I'd be fine with that. I'd be fine with monetization all over the place as long as the core game didn't feel shortened, gimped or "dumbed-down" by the possibilities of the for-a-charge content. An example would be in-game storage centers or "chest malls" where one could buy extra non-toon-aligned storage. It'd be like in-game locker rental, basically. As long as it didn't feel like normal players are gimped as they are in Hellgate: London — you know, make sure the extra storage is wholly supplementary.
Brother Laz
19-10-2008, 03:10
Sure, so I have the choice between using normal attack until level 25 because the skills I want to use are at level 25 and investing into lower level attack skills would lower my effectiveness later on, or paying money to respec.
Fantastic. Blizzard now has every incentive to make rerolling as painful as possible. That's as bad as an item mall.
Laz, I don't know why you keep assuming that the lower level attack skills will lessen your effectiveness later on. Looking at the skill trees of the Wizard, for example, it looks like the lower level skills will typically be the most damaging and versatile single target attacks. Regardless if they are or not, you're making an assumption based on very little evidence.
Brother Laz
19-10-2008, 11:31
And you keep assuming that I think low level skills will suck. No, they probably won't. But what if just want to make a character with Frozen Orb and therefore I don't care about low level skills? (Bad example because FO is godly. But what if I want to make a character with Armageddon and Hurricane only?)
In D2 you had to put points into ice bolt and so on to get FO. Everyone bewailed their 'wasted' points, but it forced you to get something to shoot at low levels. Now I have the choice between getting ice bolt and a passive that adds X% effectiveness to my future FO.
Naturally, if I want my FO to be the best it can be, I invest into the passive. In fact, all along the way I invest into every passive that will benefit my FO and skip the active skills that won't improve my FO. This is the most optimal skill distribution at level 100...
...but it means I can't cast anything until I get FO so I have to go through 29 levels with normal attack. Aside from being immensely boring, it is very unrealistic - 'hi, I'm a mage. And I'm a PC. I think the best preparation to learn to cast FO is by not casting anything else and instead studying theory on how to cast FO more effectively even though I've never cast a cold spell in my life and don't know how. Cancel or allow?'.
This could easily be fixed by making each active skill on a given tier require the active skill(s) of the previous tier as prereqs. It would make characters slightly weaker in the long run but doesn't give people enough rope to obsess so much over wasted points that they'll torture themselves from Act 1 to Act 4 until they get their endgame skills.
......
Respecs could fix this, but one would hope they're not that common and easy. And if they're not, then putting a point into ice bolt would still weaken me later on until I reach the point where I can respec.
stillman
19-10-2008, 14:15
But Laz, you choosing to have a build that only uses FO (for example) sounds like a pretty specific desire. It's downright picky even. There are consequences for trying to fine tune your build so much. The end benefit is you will be using a very high tier spell. There SHOULD be some sort of downfall for that.
So you should either have to waste points in something you don't want or you should be forced to whack everything for 30 levels. You don't like the latter option, but that's just part of the sacrifice you must make to build a high tier-only chr.
You say you natuarally want the optimal skill distribution at lev 100, and I say fine, but don't expect it to be easy.
I agree about the realism part, but you know Blizzard.
vBulletin® v3.8.4, Copyright ©2000-2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.