The Myth of Build Variety

[Raazer]

For me biggest problem is knowing halfway though NM, that the build I want to and enjoy playing, won't be able to make it in hell/inferno. There's maybe 2 different barb builds that can take on hell, and most of them are heavy on defensive skills.

In D2, I solo'ed hell on /players 8 with frenzy barb, sword&shield barb and 2H ww barb. Here, the only thing I see viable for Hell is sword and shield, with WotB, Ignore pain, Earthquake and defensive passives.

Yes, you're right, defensive builds rule the day in Inferno -- because everyone has the minimal gear necessary to do it. Builds will become more varied for Inferno as people get better gear. And in D3 Hell you can solo with all sorts of builds, just like in D2 Hell.

[zurik]

Yes, you're right, defensive builds rule the day in Inferno -- because everyone has the minimal gear necessary to do it. Builds will become more varied for Inferno as people get better gear. And in D3 Hell you ican solo with all sorts of builds, just like in D2 Hell.

i could not agree more. all this complaining about balance... and variety. the game is 2 weeks old. only 1% of players are in inferno. and no one knows how availibility of good high end gear, will change game play in the future. so I'll relax kick back and enjoy the game for what it is.

[galzohar]

Inferno simply requires a lot of survivability and healing while not requiring all that much damage (you can kill stuff there before enrages even with 8k dps, but surviving it without crazy defenses is impossible). All they really need is to adjust it to require more DPS and less survivability, and of course make less "specific anti-melee" stuff like molten boss packs that run away from you and suicide monsters that simply blow up and kill you as soon as you go into melee range. Actually, the deadliest affixes are much worse for melee classes than ranged classes, though I do have to give Blizzard credit for also making affixes that hurt ranged - They simply aren't enough, but they exist.

[sOFrOsTy]

What 5 passives are you.talking about? You said.you.had 5 passives

[Elyxthaxzus]

I agree with Razer. Builds are limited ATM because were all poor. Like back in D2...a WW barb was not really viable unless you have some decent gear available (a.k.a a hefty balance of life/mana leech, high damage slow hitting weapon, etc). the model and mechanics are very different, but it's a similar phenomenon.

In Most games I've played, ranged always have an initial advantage due to maneuverability > standing your ground vs. damage. But as gear progresses, our ability to do damage and take damage improves, whereas a ranged classes range does not improve. Eventually, much of the expensive gear will be cheap (as more people make inferno and start farming), and the skill variations will increase as were not so dependant on our sheer survivability to stay alive.

[Felix]

The op mentions using 5 skills in DII, and just abit more in DIII, and gives DIII a slight edge.

What he doesn't mention is that just bout all his skills in DII were "must haves", and you didn't see a barb who didn't use at least 4 out of those 5 skills.

[galzohar]

Builds shouldn't be made viable as we begin to find overpowered gear to carry them. They should be viable with equal levels of gear. That's what balance is all about. Currently, a lot of skills are simply not balanced, which is what kills build variety. It's obvious Blizzard tried, but didn't try hard enough. Hopefully will get fixed with patches sooner rather than later. After all, when everyone have more than enough gear to carry any build through inferno, there won't be much of a way to truly test the (im)balance.

[Puckineh]

everyone keeps referring to it as a build, but in reality there is no more building skills its just whatever you happen to use at the moment. my level 60 barb is the same as everyone else aside from gear. The myth about build variety is there is no "build"

[edistotiger]

I was definitely a skeptic before the release, but i honestly don't mind the D3 skill system at all. I'm not saying it's better, but i think it's fine and has plenty of room to improve with future balancing of skills.

Answer these questions. How many builds for each class could actually excel in D2 without good gear? How many popular builds were there for each class? How many could succeed without the item saturation in the market from botters? And don't count PvP builds, because we haven't even seen D3 PvP yet to compare.

The biggest issue right now for D3 is that every class has maybe 2 skills that are practically mandatory in Inferno unless you just outgear the area. It's really tough to play a Barb beyond Act 1 without Revenge and War Cry + Impunity. Beyond that, I've seen a lot of different combinations being used effectively. Way more than you would imagine.

With some skill balance patching, I really think there's a lot of potential for this system, and, as i said before, this is coming from someone who was a really big skeptic before i started playing.

[galzohar]

everyone keeps referring to it as a build, but in reality there is no more building skills its just whatever you happen to use at the moment. my level 60 barb is the same as everyone else aside from gear. The myth about build variety is there is no "build"

Except apparently most people actually seem to stick with their builds and only change occasionally. Some of it has to do with how much the builds depend on gear and vice-versa, so you can't just buy a gear with a lot of HP and resists and low damage and then try a glass cannon build. Besides, if you think your build is the best, then you're not going to change it much, now are you? These 2 reasons are why builds aren't a myth, and once balance is fixed, build variety won't be a myth either.

The system is great IMO. It's just lacking balance.