don't waste ur time trying to convince people who doesn't like D3 just because it's not D2... i'm sure there will be some kind of hack that will let them control their stats an so they can play D2 instead of D3
A lawyer studies law! He first studies law to become a lawyer and then specializes in an area. The way he studies the area is still in a law way.
You miss the point. You are applying a stereotype and saying that everyone should follow that stereotype exactly. This is the definition of cookie cutter, is it not? In REALITY, some lawyers are also bodybuilders. Any decision that reduces the ability for variation within a class is bad.
As I just said, strength based Wizards are unrealistic. Diablo 3 will still allow you to be different by using the skills man! See the graph I drew xP
No, because all the skills are passive...with the wizard, you have only a few basic attack skill options and then a bunch of buffs and modifications. At least in D2 there were dozens of attack spells to pick from. D3 lacks this versatility.
Let me show you a "graph" to explain:
--------------------------------------------------------
Level of stat customization X Level of skill customization
Diablo 2
|||||||||| X |||||||||| = 20 points (Unrealistic)
Diablo 3
||| X ||||||||||||||||| = 20 points (Realistic)
--------------------------------------------------------
Are you retarded? You just made this graph up. In Diablo 2 you could customize your character by state points, attribute points, and skill points. There were tradeoffs with each because attribute points also affected which items you could use. In D2, you had a lot of freedom with the state points being able to assign them almost anywhere in the skill tree you wanted, needing only minimal points be spent in prerequisite skills. D3 changes this completely -- in order to unlock level 5 skills, you need 5 points assigned in level 1 skills. In order to unlocked level 10 skills, you need 10 skills assigned in level 5 skills, etc. In case you're too simple minded to realize the implications of this, it means that you can no longer save up stat points to put them where you want. It means everyone is forced to put the majority of their points in the base of the skill tree and thats likely going to be in the same skills that everyone else chooses.
You think you're losing replayability but in reality, you're not!
Wow, if you say so? Look, I have simply pointed out the loss of replayability due to announced facts about the game. You have no such evidence.
You haven't read anything about Diablo 3 lately? You still think there are "no options" in Diablo 3?
Watched every movie, looked at every screenshot, read every interview, read thousands of threads. I'm sure I've missed a few tidbits but I consider myself pretty well informed. Apparently more so than you.
auto stats arent as bad as people think lol.
sure in d2 you could load ur sorc up with max str
you could load ur zon with max energy
load your hammerdin with max dex.
yes there were more options.
only a few of those actually worked.
in the long run there were only a few stat builds
1. full dex (bowazon)
2. full vita (everything else)
3. full energy (es sorc)
I want my Wizard to wear plate mail at level 20 and I should be able to do it. I know a lot of my friends probably won't play this game with me if you can't distribute attribute points. If there's one thing that they should have kept the same it should have been that. I think the rest of it is fine, or atleast tolerable.
I can't wait to play this game, and I will give it a shot no matter what they do with it. I just want it to be a good game with an awesome community like D1 and D2 were back when they came out. Some of the most fun I've had online has been in Diablo. As long as this game is awesome I won't have much to complain about. Of course we want it to stay true to the franchise, but in the end Blizzard doesn't care about EVERYTHING that we want for their game. They are making it and will only bend so much. Automatic stat distribution is lame, and I wish they would change that. Respecs are kind of lame as well, but I don't really care about those either. I want this game to be Diablo, not another rehash of every MMO feature all rolled into a hack and slash. Hopefully Blizzard will find a point in the middle to meet with us, their playerbase, and make both sides happy in the end.
You miss the point. You are applying a stereotype and saying that everyone should follow that stereotype exactly. This is the definition of cookie cutter, is it not? In REALITY, some lawyers are also bodybuilders. Any decision that reduces the ability for variation within a class is bad.
I agree. But show me the so many ways bodybuilding will aid a lawyer in court? It won't, just as strength won't help me be a better Wizard. Some Wizards can be stronger or more agile, but that varies little and doesn't affect the magic itself. This little variation is the one we are getting from the items attributes in D3. That is way more realistic and RPG-like, imo.
Quote from "mahamoti" »
No, because all the skills are passive...with the wizard, you have only a few basic attack skill options and then a bunch of buffs and modifications. At least in D2 there were dozens of attack spells to pick from. D3 lacks this versatility.
I guess I agree. I would like to see more attacks too besides all the customization we already have.
Quote from "mahamoti" »
Are you retarded? You just made this graph up.
No, I'm not retarded. And yes, I made it up to visually explain that we are trading one thing for another. I nowhere said it was the ultimate truth specially because you can't quantify what is being charted in this case.
Quote from "mahamoti" »
In Diablo 2 you could customize your character by state points, attribute points, and skill points. There were tradeoffs with each because attribute points also affected which items you could use.
What Blizzard is aiming here is to see more uniqueness between classes and not build types inside each class. I don't like to see a Sorceress wearing a Barbarian armor or a Paladin teleporting around.
Why not just make one generic character that can have any skill, customize any attribute and wear any piece of armor? That would allow all the build possibilites you'd ever want. Is that any "RPGistic"? No. Well defined classes is what I'd like.
Remember that Diablo is medieval/gothic/horror so you have to keep that aspect. A muscular lady casting spells is not very Diabloish.
Quote from "mahamoti" »
In D2, you had a lot of freedom with the state points being able to assign them almost anywhere in the skill tree you wanted, needing only minimal points be spent in prerequisite skills. D3 changes this completely -- in order to unlock level 5 skills, you need 5 points assigned in level 1 skills. In order to unlocked level 10 skills, you need 10 skills assigned in level 5 skills, etc. In case you're too simple minded to realize the implications of this, it means that you can no longer save up stat points to put them where you want. It means everyone is forced to put the majority of their points in the base of the skill tree and thats likely going to be in the same skills that everyone else chooses.
I understand your point and I kind of agree, but there is a big difference. In Diablo 2 you had Telekinesis. What was the use of it besides working as a synergy? That was the ultimate "forced to put points".
In Diablo 3 you won't have useless skills because there are fewer of them and they all have (supposely) a good use. Besides, attack skills will have only rank 1. The majority of points you'd spend to increase ONE skill you spend on passives that help ALL your other skills. So I do understand these forced requirements in Diablo 3.
Yeah, if there were no restrictions it would be nicer but I don't think it is thaaaaat big of a deal.
Quote from "mahamoti" »
Wow, if you say so? Look, I have simply pointed out the loss of replayability due to announced facts about the game. You have no such evidence.
Well, we're both out of evidence because we don't know everything about Diablo 3 yet. But I do understand some things you're trying to say. I just think you're pushing it too much. It's not as bad as it first seems.
First of all thank you for being mature enough to respond in a thoughtful manner as opposed to simply repeating yourself like everyone else seems to be doing.
Quote from "Themeros" »
I agree. But show me the so many ways bodybuilding will aid a lawyer in court? It won't, just as strength won't help me be a better Wizard.
It is not the designers job to think about all the possible builds and decide which ones have enough practical merit to be played. It is only the designers job to create enough flexibility to allow everyone the freedom they need to make a niche in the game without being too overpowered. If the designer can predict all the possible builds easily then they really haven't succeeded in designing a versatile character. Look at Spore..they did a really good job allowing you to customize your creature because they didn't have rules like, "must have 2/4 legs...must have no more than 2 eyeballs...etc. In D3, they are trying to force feed these rules on us simply to prevent characters from being anything but cookie-cutter.
As for Wizards with strength, you are wrong in saying that they have no value. I personally refuse to play a class without heavy armor. When I played the wizard, I preferred to wear plate armor and have weaker spells. That should be my right to choose. And as for "real life," Wizards do not exist in real life. This is a fantasy game, and for that matter, strong wizards do exist in fantasy. For example, look at Richard Rahl from the popular Terry Goodkind series. Or any Fighter-Mage class from D&D, which is my personal favorite combination. Why is it so hard for you to imagine that only weak people can learn magic? Some people are naturally large and strong. Some people have multiple talents. In real life you dont have to be a 24/7 body builder to have enough strength to wear plate mail. I always play a fighter mage in RPGs where I can, so I'm pretty ticked off that this might not be possible.
Why not just make one generic character that can have any skill, customize any attribute and wear any piece of armor? That would allow all the build possibilites you'd ever want. Is that any "RPGistic"? No. Well defined classes is what I'd like.
I agree that I don't like generic classes. This is one of the things I did not like about the Diablo clone called Fate. Class distinctions add replay value and allow the designers to add more powerful abilities with the natural drawback of not being able to pick and choose from all the abilities in the game. It's like in D&D, if you want to be a specialist mage, you have to look through all the spells and figure out which sub-set of spells fits you best. Same way with any game.
Remember that Diablo is medieval/gothic/horror so you have to keep that aspect. A muscular lady casting spells is not very Diabloish.
Actually, it is very Diablo-ish to allow that level of freedom. It's not like she is going to appear on the screen as a hulking brute anyway. You should not sacrifice game play value for some made up ideals about "what is and what is not" fantasy. You will only alienate those players who disagree and want to specialize it a different way, and you dont gain anything by it.
I understand your point and I kind of agree, but there is a big difference. In Diablo 2 you had Telekinesis. What was the use of it besides working as a synergy? That was the ultimate "forced to put points".
You never had to put more than 1 point into a skill, and only had to do that if you wanted to use the skills below it. A good game forces you to balance the pros and the cons when making decisions, and having to choose if it was worth it to go down a skill tree was one of those good decisions. I spent many hours planning exactly where I would distribute my skill points and calculating the expected damage up until level 90 etc with each build I came up with before playing the game. If I cant benefit by planning in advance like this, its not really going to be fun for me.
Anyway Telekinesis wasn't useless. It was so good in multiplayer that it got nerfed. They couldnt remove it entirely. And yeah, you dont need to put a lot of points into it...but so what? It was still an interesting skill to have in the mix.
In Diablo 3 you won't have useless skills because there are fewer of them and they all have (supposely) a good use. Besides, attack skills will have only rank 1. The majority of points you'd spend to increase ONE skill you spend on passives that help ALL your other skills. So I do understand these forced requirements in Diablo 3.
Attack skills are highly visual and rewarding. Passive buffs that increase percentages are not rewarding. It's not cool to start with a few basic attacks at level 1 and use them throughout up to level 99. Seriously if thats fun for you, then....I just cant even fathom it.
The Wizard attack skills are ok for level 1 skills, but thats it. They do look like level 1 skills and I dont want to be stuck with them the whole game.
Yeah, if there were no restrictions it would be nicer but I don't think it is thaaaaat big of a deal.
I don't know about you, but it was not the actual killing of monsters that I found fun.
It was designing my own build and then trying to perfect it.
So when you take away the ability to have freedom in designing your character, then yes that is a huge deal. A deal-breaker, in fact.
You have no such evidence that it will reduce the replayability for me. Or do you? Why would your idea of replayability reflect on me? Or any other player? Heres the hipocritical thing about your statement: You claim someone else is wrong in saying the replayability won't suffer because there isn't any proof, but theres no proof that it will reduce it either then, is there?
How much evidence would it take to convince you that shooting yourself in the face reduces your lifespan? It shouldn't take any evidence considering that a bullet in the brain kills you, and by definition life is the period before death.
Likewise, by definition, replayability is a measure of the number of times a game can be replayed while still getting something new out of it. By definition, respeccing allows you to experience more skill combinations without starting a new character. By definition, it reduces the amount of new things you could try on your second character if you already tried them on your first. By definition, respeccing reduces replay value.
Likewise, by definition, replayability is a measure of the number of times a game can be replayed while still getting something new out of it. By definition, respeccing allows you to experience more skill combinations without starting a new character. By definition, it reduces the amount of new things you could try on your second character if you already tried them on your first. By definition, respeccing reduces replay value.
Pretty much.
Oh I can just respec instead of remembering not to do that the next time I go that character. Kinda seems a bit weak to me.
If I feel I made a mistake in WOW with my Warrior by going Arms instead of Fury, I do not really have to learn a lesson so to speak. Instead of next time going purely Fury, or more points into Fury, I can just respec on my current one, thus pretty much avoiding the need to try again with the same class. But not completely, though. I can always make another warrior again if I want.
I'm not a fan of respecing. It's not exactly a good moral compass, "oh I messed up, you gotta give me a (Hundred) do over". I prefer to make a mistake, learn from it and hopefully not repeat it.
But different people have different views, and different games work in different ways, putting a few skills in the wrong place in LOD made little difference, putting a talent point in the wrong place in WOW made a huge difference.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
-Humankind cannot gain anything without first giving something in return. To obtain, something of equal value must be lost. That is alchemy's First Law of Equivalent Exchange. In those days, we really believed that to be the world's one, and only, truth.
Then explain to me why I had to restart a lvl61 character on WoW, even though there was respecs. My playtime was around 400-430 hours on that character since I liked to PvP. Despite investing 400-430 hours on that character and the availability to respec, I made a new one. Why would that be?
1) WoW and D3 are completely different genres, really. D3 is an action RPG, WoW is a MMORPG. There is a difference: in an action RPG you level much faster, you dont have to spend years and years of exploring to get the perfect character and restarting is not such a big deal. It makes a lot more sense to have respeccing in a MMORPG because you pay by the month and you are expected to play for years, thus if you have to start over you are essentially losing a monetary investment and a LOT of time.
2) I didn't say respeccing eliminates replayability completely. I said it reduces it, and you cannot deny that fact, because it is literally part of the definition of the words involved.
WTF is this thread.. mahamoti stop whining you have been owned 20 times in this thread already and still you keep going.
We do understand that you won't be playing D3 so why waste your energy and time to argue about it?
We are also glad that you are not in battle.net whining about this and that. While we others have fun playind D3 you can maybe spend your time in real life.
Only thing i slightly agree with you might be respecing.
But for it to reduce the replayability I don't agree.
If I look at my D2 characters and think about what respecing had done there.. pretty much nothing.
Now I played more classic so i tell about those.
In 1.09 in softcore I had. Lance barb, sword barb, polebarb, scythe barb, mace barb, mf lance barb. 1 sorc, 1 necro, 1 pala, 1 amazon.
Now those barbarians had different weapon mastery because I kept finding some nice weapons. Well I wouldn't respec my Lance barb to use sword. I rather make another barb that uses different weapon since I have the gear for it. Even in D3 I'm gonna make different type of barbarians to play trough the game with different setups.
Then there was also Hardcore where I spent a lot of time and made 1 account of chars. Again lance barb, sword barb and scythe barb, sorc, necro. So thats a lot of characters to make even if there was respec.
Now hit ladder resets and such (if we have those) and again you get to build new characters for the new ladder.
I really think that the gear that we find makes us build new characters. Just like in D2. First I had only the one character that I kept playing and playing, then I realize that "hey I have items for this class and that class" so I made new characters.
Now in D3 I think we are gonna have more specialized stats in the items. We may have stats that benefit Wizard storm skills, we may have items that benefit some other tree. So having those different set of items might make you build another character for that gear.
Literal meaning of replayability has no effective application to the practice of playing the damn game and enjoying practical 'replayability'.
People will replay the game regardless of respecs...
IF you have a respec option... (D3)
The game will be replayed to try different early on builds- because when you're lvl 50 and respeccing- you're not going to go back to the initial areas with you're new build...You're going to start your class again and build it differently to see how old encounters would have been..(IF YOU WANT TO). You'll still have two characters that you can spec in respective directions- they're both STILL useful. More choice- replaying the game is NOT forced.
IF you didn't have the respec option you were FORCED to replay the game... (D2)
It doesn't make a better game- just a more tedious one. You have to experience your character all over again and leave your old one alone- because you can't continue due to a skill tree screw up. One wasted character -one huge waste of time. Replayability at the cost of your previous playtime being a wasted effort...
Replayability from this perspective (not the literal meaning) is independant of having respecs and is instead dependant on the player's desires. It also happens to the be the replayability applicable to the situation...not literal replayability which is just tedious repetition.
Then explain to me why I had to restart a lvl61 character on WoW, even though there was respecs. My playtime was around 400-430 hours on that character since I liked to PvP. Despite investing 400-430 hours on that character and the availability to respec, I made a new one. Why would that be?
Perhaps you should instead explain to us why you would restart the same type of character. That makes no sense unless
a) you wanted that character type on two different servers or didnt want to pay the transfer fee
you realized a certain race has better racials for that class (why no race change blizzard??? i made a mistake when i didnt know what i was doing)
c) you wanted a different name without paying
d) you wanted to have a jewelcrafter and you were comfortable with this class and thought it would be the easiest to level up
WTF is this thread.. mahamoti stop whining you have been owned 20 times in this thread already and still you keep going.
Small point: When someone says something you agree with in opposition to something you disagree with, in a manner more eloquent than your own, you will always consider it 'ownage'. Notice this on both sides of these divides on very subjective matters. Really, such an argument of taste can't be objectively won.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
‘I'M NOT LEAVING UNTIL WE ALL HAVE AIDS!’—The importance of calling them ‘mercenaries.’
Small point: When someone says something you agree with in opposition to something you disagree with, in a manner more eloquent than your own, you will always consider it 'ownage'. Notice this on both sides of these divides on very subjective matters. Really, such an argument of taste can't be objectively won.
Yes! Wait....eh? That's more confusing than a double negative electron
Anyway, I agree with you, though I also think that it would be extremely easy to improve many of the current weak points I perceive, so I'm more than willing to watch and wait for such developments.
I don't expect them to happen, but there is enough chance for me to hang around.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
‘I'M NOT LEAVING UNTIL WE ALL HAVE AIDS!’—The importance of calling them ‘mercenaries.’
WoWablo????? I never played WoW and if DIablo 3 has been dumbed down to WoW standards I will not buy Diablo3. I mean Do overs????? What are you going after the 3 year old market ????? A Flawed character is what I loved about Diablo 1-2 , you had to live with your choices and most times the adversity of that flaw made the experiance all the better. Cookie cutter builds with do overs makes this Joke.
I am sure the WoW-Bots are gonna whine and flame me, But hey..... you got your game, Don't bring your childish rules over into mine. If blizzards wants thier player based to divide from wow and some play WoWablo thats thier biz.........But I for one will seek a game that makes me live with my choices and allows me to stand next to someone of the same class and know I am Uniquie, rather than just another sheep in the herd.
Replayability is solely based on how fun the game is. I didn't create new characters cause I messed up the stats or skills, I created them to experience my characters evolution (its called roleplaying for a reason). Creating a new character cause you screwed up the old one on accident isn't fun, and doesn't add replayability for most players. It usually detracts players by discouraging them to continue after a monumental waste of time. I mean, really, the fist time you fucked up and had to restart, were you like "yipee I fucked up, oh well, better start over:thumbsup:"?
If you have lost interest in D3, why are you here?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Fuck you, I'm a dragon.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
You miss the point. You are applying a stereotype and saying that everyone should follow that stereotype exactly. This is the definition of cookie cutter, is it not? In REALITY, some lawyers are also bodybuilders. Any decision that reduces the ability for variation within a class is bad.
No, because all the skills are passive...with the wizard, you have only a few basic attack skill options and then a bunch of buffs and modifications. At least in D2 there were dozens of attack spells to pick from. D3 lacks this versatility.
Are you retarded? You just made this graph up. In Diablo 2 you could customize your character by state points, attribute points, and skill points. There were tradeoffs with each because attribute points also affected which items you could use. In D2, you had a lot of freedom with the state points being able to assign them almost anywhere in the skill tree you wanted, needing only minimal points be spent in prerequisite skills. D3 changes this completely -- in order to unlock level 5 skills, you need 5 points assigned in level 1 skills. In order to unlocked level 10 skills, you need 10 skills assigned in level 5 skills, etc. In case you're too simple minded to realize the implications of this, it means that you can no longer save up stat points to put them where you want. It means everyone is forced to put the majority of their points in the base of the skill tree and thats likely going to be in the same skills that everyone else chooses.
Wow, if you say so? Look, I have simply pointed out the loss of replayability due to announced facts about the game. You have no such evidence.
Watched every movie, looked at every screenshot, read every interview, read thousands of threads. I'm sure I've missed a few tidbits but I consider myself pretty well informed. Apparently more so than you.
sure in d2 you could load ur sorc up with max str
you could load ur zon with max energy
load your hammerdin with max dex.
yes there were more options.
only a few of those actually worked.
in the long run there were only a few stat builds
1. full dex (bowazon)
2. full vita (everything else)
3. full energy (es sorc)
I can't wait to play this game, and I will give it a shot no matter what they do with it. I just want it to be a good game with an awesome community like D1 and D2 were back when they came out. Some of the most fun I've had online has been in Diablo. As long as this game is awesome I won't have much to complain about. Of course we want it to stay true to the franchise, but in the end Blizzard doesn't care about EVERYTHING that we want for their game. They are making it and will only bend so much. Automatic stat distribution is lame, and I wish they would change that. Respecs are kind of lame as well, but I don't really care about those either. I want this game to be Diablo, not another rehash of every MMO feature all rolled into a hack and slash. Hopefully Blizzard will find a point in the middle to meet with us, their playerbase, and make both sides happy in the end.
I guess I agree. I would like to see more attacks too besides all the customization we already have.
No, I'm not retarded. And yes, I made it up to visually explain that we are trading one thing for another. I nowhere said it was the ultimate truth specially because you can't quantify what is being charted in this case.
What Blizzard is aiming here is to see more uniqueness between classes and not build types inside each class. I don't like to see a Sorceress wearing a Barbarian armor or a Paladin teleporting around.
Why not just make one generic character that can have any skill, customize any attribute and wear any piece of armor? That would allow all the build possibilites you'd ever want. Is that any "RPGistic"? No. Well defined classes is what I'd like.
Remember that Diablo is medieval/gothic/horror so you have to keep that aspect. A muscular lady casting spells is not very Diabloish.
I understand your point and I kind of agree, but there is a big difference. In Diablo 2 you had Telekinesis. What was the use of it besides working as a synergy? That was the ultimate "forced to put points".
In Diablo 3 you won't have useless skills because there are fewer of them and they all have (supposely) a good use. Besides, attack skills will have only rank 1. The majority of points you'd spend to increase ONE skill you spend on passives that help ALL your other skills. So I do understand these forced requirements in Diablo 3.
Yeah, if there were no restrictions it would be nicer but I don't think it is thaaaaat big of a deal.
Well, we're both out of evidence because we don't know everything about Diablo 3 yet. But I do understand some things you're trying to say. I just think you're pushing it too much. It's not as bad as it first seems.
It is not the designers job to think about all the possible builds and decide which ones have enough practical merit to be played. It is only the designers job to create enough flexibility to allow everyone the freedom they need to make a niche in the game without being too overpowered. If the designer can predict all the possible builds easily then they really haven't succeeded in designing a versatile character. Look at Spore..they did a really good job allowing you to customize your creature because they didn't have rules like, "must have 2/4 legs...must have no more than 2 eyeballs...etc. In D3, they are trying to force feed these rules on us simply to prevent characters from being anything but cookie-cutter.
As for Wizards with strength, you are wrong in saying that they have no value. I personally refuse to play a class without heavy armor. When I played the wizard, I preferred to wear plate armor and have weaker spells. That should be my right to choose. And as for "real life," Wizards do not exist in real life. This is a fantasy game, and for that matter, strong wizards do exist in fantasy. For example, look at Richard Rahl from the popular Terry Goodkind series. Or any Fighter-Mage class from D&D, which is my personal favorite combination. Why is it so hard for you to imagine that only weak people can learn magic? Some people are naturally large and strong. Some people have multiple talents. In real life you dont have to be a 24/7 body builder to have enough strength to wear plate mail. I always play a fighter mage in RPGs where I can, so I'm pretty ticked off that this might not be possible.
I agree that I don't like generic classes. This is one of the things I did not like about the Diablo clone called Fate. Class distinctions add replay value and allow the designers to add more powerful abilities with the natural drawback of not being able to pick and choose from all the abilities in the game. It's like in D&D, if you want to be a specialist mage, you have to look through all the spells and figure out which sub-set of spells fits you best. Same way with any game.
Actually, it is very Diablo-ish to allow that level of freedom. It's not like she is going to appear on the screen as a hulking brute anyway. You should not sacrifice game play value for some made up ideals about "what is and what is not" fantasy. You will only alienate those players who disagree and want to specialize it a different way, and you dont gain anything by it.
You never had to put more than 1 point into a skill, and only had to do that if you wanted to use the skills below it. A good game forces you to balance the pros and the cons when making decisions, and having to choose if it was worth it to go down a skill tree was one of those good decisions. I spent many hours planning exactly where I would distribute my skill points and calculating the expected damage up until level 90 etc with each build I came up with before playing the game. If I cant benefit by planning in advance like this, its not really going to be fun for me.
Anyway Telekinesis wasn't useless. It was so good in multiplayer that it got nerfed. They couldnt remove it entirely. And yeah, you dont need to put a lot of points into it...but so what? It was still an interesting skill to have in the mix.
Attack skills are highly visual and rewarding. Passive buffs that increase percentages are not rewarding. It's not cool to start with a few basic attacks at level 1 and use them throughout up to level 99. Seriously if thats fun for you, then....I just cant even fathom it.
The Wizard attack skills are ok for level 1 skills, but thats it. They do look like level 1 skills and I dont want to be stuck with them the whole game.
I don't know about you, but it was not the actual killing of monsters that I found fun.
It was designing my own build and then trying to perfect it.
So when you take away the ability to have freedom in designing your character, then yes that is a huge deal. A deal-breaker, in fact.
Don't be absurd. Combat is going to be slightly more compex than D2, if that. Anything more and it won't even be diablo.
"Because "half-assed" is not a "style"." - DragoonWraith, champion of character customization and legimitate art direction in D3
How much evidence would it take to convince you that shooting yourself in the face reduces your lifespan? It shouldn't take any evidence considering that a bullet in the brain kills you, and by definition life is the period before death.
Likewise, by definition, replayability is a measure of the number of times a game can be replayed while still getting something new out of it. By definition, respeccing allows you to experience more skill combinations without starting a new character. By definition, it reduces the amount of new things you could try on your second character if you already tried them on your first. By definition, respeccing reduces replay value.
Pretty much.
Oh I can just respec instead of remembering not to do that the next time I go that character. Kinda seems a bit weak to me.
If I feel I made a mistake in WOW with my Warrior by going Arms instead of Fury, I do not really have to learn a lesson so to speak. Instead of next time going purely Fury, or more points into Fury, I can just respec on my current one, thus pretty much avoiding the need to try again with the same class. But not completely, though. I can always make another warrior again if I want.
I'm not a fan of respecing. It's not exactly a good moral compass, "oh I messed up, you gotta give me a (Hundred) do over". I prefer to make a mistake, learn from it and hopefully not repeat it.
But different people have different views, and different games work in different ways, putting a few skills in the wrong place in LOD made little difference, putting a talent point in the wrong place in WOW made a huge difference.
1) WoW and D3 are completely different genres, really. D3 is an action RPG, WoW is a MMORPG. There is a difference: in an action RPG you level much faster, you dont have to spend years and years of exploring to get the perfect character and restarting is not such a big deal. It makes a lot more sense to have respeccing in a MMORPG because you pay by the month and you are expected to play for years, thus if you have to start over you are essentially losing a monetary investment and a LOT of time.
2) I didn't say respeccing eliminates replayability completely. I said it reduces it, and you cannot deny that fact, because it is literally part of the definition of the words involved.
We do understand that you won't be playing D3 so why waste your energy and time to argue about it?
We are also glad that you are not in battle.net whining about this and that. While we others have fun playind D3 you can maybe spend your time in real life.
Only thing i slightly agree with you might be respecing.
But for it to reduce the replayability I don't agree.
If I look at my D2 characters and think about what respecing had done there.. pretty much nothing.
Now I played more classic so i tell about those.
In 1.09 in softcore I had. Lance barb, sword barb, polebarb, scythe barb, mace barb, mf lance barb. 1 sorc, 1 necro, 1 pala, 1 amazon.
Now those barbarians had different weapon mastery because I kept finding some nice weapons. Well I wouldn't respec my Lance barb to use sword. I rather make another barb that uses different weapon since I have the gear for it. Even in D3 I'm gonna make different type of barbarians to play trough the game with different setups.
Then there was also Hardcore where I spent a lot of time and made 1 account of chars. Again lance barb, sword barb and scythe barb, sorc, necro. So thats a lot of characters to make even if there was respec.
Now hit ladder resets and such (if we have those) and again you get to build new characters for the new ladder.
I really think that the gear that we find makes us build new characters. Just like in D2. First I had only the one character that I kept playing and playing, then I realize that "hey I have items for this class and that class" so I made new characters.
Now in D3 I think we are gonna have more specialized stats in the items. We may have stats that benefit Wizard storm skills, we may have items that benefit some other tree. So having those different set of items might make you build another character for that gear.
Well thats at least what I think.
RIP: Demon Hunter: lvl 50 | Barb: lvl 60 (plvl 5) | Monk: lvl12 & lvl70 (plvl 200)
People will replay the game regardless of respecs...
IF you have a respec option... (D3)
The game will be replayed to try different early on builds- because when you're lvl 50 and respeccing- you're not going to go back to the initial areas with you're new build...You're going to start your class again and build it differently to see how old encounters would have been..(IF YOU WANT TO). You'll still have two characters that you can spec in respective directions- they're both STILL useful. More choice- replaying the game is NOT forced.
IF you didn't have the respec option you were FORCED to replay the game... (D2)
It doesn't make a better game- just a more tedious one. You have to experience your character all over again and leave your old one alone- because you can't continue due to a skill tree screw up. One wasted character -one huge waste of time. Replayability at the cost of your previous playtime being a wasted effort...
Replayability from this perspective (not the literal meaning) is independant of having respecs and is instead dependant on the player's desires. It also happens to the be the replayability applicable to the situation...not literal replayability which is just tedious repetition.
Perhaps you should instead explain to us why you would restart the same type of character. That makes no sense unless
a) you wanted that character type on two different servers or didnt want to pay the transfer fee
you realized a certain race has better racials for that class (why no race change blizzard??? i made a mistake when i didnt know what i was doing)
c) you wanted a different name without paying
d) you wanted to have a jewelcrafter and you were comfortable with this class and thought it would be the easiest to level up
‘I'M NOT LEAVING UNTIL WE ALL HAVE AIDS!’—The importance of calling them ‘mercenaries.’
Yes! Wait....eh? That's more confusing than a double negative electron
‘I'M NOT LEAVING UNTIL WE ALL HAVE AIDS!’—The importance of calling them ‘mercenaries.’
Oh, you mean like this?
Anyway, I agree with you, though I also think that it would be extremely easy to improve many of the current weak points I perceive, so I'm more than willing to watch and wait for such developments.
I don't expect them to happen, but there is enough chance for me to hang around.
‘I'M NOT LEAVING UNTIL WE ALL HAVE AIDS!’—The importance of calling them ‘mercenaries.’
I am sure the WoW-Bots are gonna whine and flame me, But hey..... you got your game, Don't bring your childish rules over into mine. If blizzards wants thier player based to divide from wow and some play WoWablo thats thier biz.........But I for one will seek a game that makes me live with my choices and allows me to stand next to someone of the same class and know I am Uniquie, rather than just another sheep in the herd.
If you have lost interest in D3, why are you here?
Fuck you, I'm a dragon.