Same as usual,
Come on a thread and reading a handfull of comments
doing nothing but comparing D3 to how D2 was. What's the point?
I played D2, yeah. The Pally did have auras. But when I stop and
really think about it, why the hell would he? Why should a knight
have auras? It doesn't make any more sense than saying a monk
has auras. They are both just as likely candidates for mistical
powers of the mind/Holy.
I just don't get how people come on and say "F*ck that, auras are only for pallys".
If it where the other way around and D2 had a monk, they would be saying the same thing about the Paladin.
________________
Bottom line is, Blizzard thinks auras "might" be a cool thing for D3. They trying to make it fit on the Monk.
I would bet my right nut that they know about the silly issues from the D2 era, in other words, they don't really need folks to come on saying how a Bowazon with Zeal+Might was OP. And I'm sure as shit that they are implementing something cool with Runes, keeping the aura factor balanced at the same time.
----PS: Totally agree with Luckmann on his last post, for once.----
It's a no breainer that unless soloing, everyone would go for a rune that made your aura apply to the team if it wasn't so by default.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]Diablo 3, Hottest shit to happen to 21st Century Entertainment since Georges "Rush" St-Pierre.______________ --------~~Mattheo's Quote of the day~~---------
----------Brought to you by Diablofans.com Forums -------- Originally Posted by mattheo_majik
I LOVE being a SEX TON!!!
everyone would go for a rune that made your aura apply to the team if it wasn't so by default.
Yeah, aura(bonus) apply only to the caster it's already exist it's called passive skill, we don't need to see that with an aura, LOL. The reason why they have aura is only for cooperative playing.
Same as usual,
Come on a thread and reading a handfull of comments
doing nothing but comparing D3 to how D2 was. What's the point?
What's the point? It's a sequel, the predecessors are the only point of comparison that are available. People want a certain amount of consistency and familiarity from one game to the next. They want an improved version, but a version that retains the positive qualities from the old games that they loved so much.
Quote from "mattheo_majik" »
I just don't get how people come on and say "F*ck that, auras are only for pallys".
It may be silly to say "auras are only for pallys". But, I think that the people you are referring to are trying to make a slightly different point. That being, if the designers want to try so hard to include characteristics akin to that of the paladin, then why didn't they just retain the paladin as a character class?
Quote from "mattheo_majik" »
If it where the other way around and D2 had a monk, they would be saying the same thing about the Paladin.
This is probably true.
Quote from "mattheo_majik" »
I would bet my right nut that they know about the silly issues from the D2 era, in other words, they don't really need folks to come on saying how a Bowazon with Zeal+Might was OP. And I'm sure as shit that they are implementing something cool with Runes, keeping the aura factor balanced at the same time.
By posting here we are not attempting to tell the game designers anything, we are merely discussing the topic amongst ourselves.
Quote from "mattheo_majik" »
It's a no breainer that unless soloing, everyone would go for a rune that made your aura apply to the team if it wasn't so by default.
If sharing diminishes the effect of the aura to the aura'd character, then it's not necessarily a "no brainer". Sharing may be the appropriate thing to do from a strategic standpoint during group play, but it would require an unselfish act by the aura provider.
I played D2, yeah. The Pally did have auras. But when I stop and
really think about it, why the hell would he? Why should a knight
have auras? It doesn't make any more sense than saying a monk
has auras. They are both just as likely candidates for mistical
powers of the mind/Holy.
There was a debate on whether the Monk would be wearing heavy armor or not? Seems like a pretty idiotic debate to me. This is Blizzard, they don't really throw crazy loops in there, they do pretty predictable things because their audience is so large. I guess people don't really get that. Oh well, common sense isn't so common I guess.
i don't understand why monks can't use heavy plated. i mean, it will look lame if i put an armor on a barb, and it looks fully plated, and i put the same on a monk, and then it just gets "thin"
just make the plated armor look like it has more mobility on a monk. i think it's enough, and it will look cool for me. like, the won't be anything on the joints... i dunno.
so. the other thing. i will be happy if the monk have auras. i can't see why it would go wrong. they could balance it with many different things.
What's the point? It's a sequel, the predecessors are the only point of comparison that are available. People want a certain amount of consistency and familiarity from one game to the next. They want an improved version, but a version that retains the positive qualities from the old games that they loved so much.
I respectfully disagree to the first part. (The back part is totally right)
I believe that such thinking results in bad sequels.
I don't think they need to compare at all. Instead, simply take the
good points of the last game and improve on them. Like you said.
No matter if it is similar or "feels" the same as the previous game. So by saying Auras, people automatically assume there will be a repeat of D2. But what they are not thinking, is maybe they just used a familiar term to actually create something totally new, but possibily "based" on the old concept.
You can call it comparing games, I call it evolution. I think the later is more productive. :rolleyes:
Quote from "cherd" »
It may be silly to say "auras are only for pallys". But, I think that the people you are referring to are trying to make a slightly different point. That being, if the designers want to try so hard to include characteristics akin to that of the paladin, then why didn't they just retain the paladin as a character class?
In response to the second part, I don't think the designers are "trying so hard to remake Paladin Like Skills". They just wanted to make party friendly skills available to a character and maybe decided they should also be called Auras for the lack of better terms. :confused:
Which brings me back to the "you are comparing" , they are "evolving" idea.
That's like saying since they are "trying so hard to make sorceress like skills why don't they just call the Wizard, a Sorceress...."
You see where I'm going? Don't compare and say, well it feels similar so it should be the same.
Thus answering the last part, why dont they just retain the paladin?, cause it's a new game and they mostly agree on making new chars... It's not cause they have a few familiar concepts that they should give everything a Diablo2 Tag Name on it.
Quote from "cherd" »
By posting here we are not attempting to tell the game designers anything, we are merely discussing the topic amongst ourselves.
Although I agree fully, I do also realize that most hardcore players are even more aware of the existing problems and also need'nt be reminded constantly. Drawing conslusions and saying "OMG, people will abuse auras again" without even knowing what auras will look like in D3 is pretty pointless. But I do agree that for discussion sake some can state the obvious and pass it for an opinion.:P
Quote from "cherd" »
If sharing diminishes the effect of the aura to the aura'd character, then it's not necessarily a "no brainer". Sharing may be the appropriate thing to do from a strategic standpoint during group play, but it would require an unselfish act by the aura provider.
This very "soft solution" was already put up, and already answered to..
If by sharing auras they decided to reduce power, then it would become a no brainer to NOT share it and instead boost the individual character (Monk), since Blizzard are making all of them EPIC anyways. Not like they will cry about not having a small boost from the "hypothetical" Monk Auras.
Consequently making sharing Auras totally redundant. That's all hypothetical though.
Wow, that was a pretty solid hijack from Auras to Armors.
Anyway, I'd really like to see the monk in proper armor. Equipping my monk with a seemingly heavy armor, represented in-game as some kind of loincloth, would be a huge disappointment to me. I think the key would be to make monk armor look heavy, but still "mobile". I think both the Amazon and Assassin armors in Diablo II pulled this off reasonably well.
I'd prefer to see something similar for the monk.
To my understanding, that's pretty much what Blizz meant. Equiping heavy armor that will respectfully be visually implemented as ornate clothing/armor to lighter characters. Not shiny plate mail. Which would be rediculous. I don't think however that we should worry much about it since it's been what Blizz has been doing althrough the Diablo Franchise.
(D1 - Rogue, and Mage could wear Full Plate that didn't look like FPM)
(D2 - Barb, Assassin, Sorceress)
They all had believable armors IMO.:thumbsup:
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]Diablo 3, Hottest shit to happen to 21st Century Entertainment since Georges "Rush" St-Pierre.______________ --------~~Mattheo's Quote of the day~~---------
----------Brought to you by Diablofans.com Forums -------- Originally Posted by mattheo_majik
I LOVE being a SEX TON!!!
I'm a huge fan of aura's. Who does not want someone with stat boosting runnin with them on some cow runs or something. PLUS there extremly useful in the early levels. Without that prayer aura I don't think I wouldve been able to tear through act one with such ease :). As for the armor..I don't really give a shit. Just don't make him look stupid. I probably wont be using a hand to hand combat class anyways. The assassin was only fun because she had traps. Damn I hope they have a range class..
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Come on a thread and reading a handfull of comments
doing nothing but comparing D3 to how D2 was. What's the point?
I played D2, yeah. The Pally did have auras. But when I stop and
really think about it, why the hell would he? Why should a knight
have auras? It doesn't make any more sense than saying a monk
has auras. They are both just as likely candidates for mistical
powers of the mind/Holy.
I just don't get how people come on and say "F*ck that, auras are only for pallys".
If it where the other way around and D2 had a monk, they would be saying the same thing about the Paladin.
________________
Bottom line is, Blizzard thinks auras "might" be a cool thing for D3. They trying to make it fit on the Monk.
I would bet my right nut that they know about the silly issues from the D2 era, in other words, they don't really need folks to come on saying how a Bowazon with Zeal+Might was OP. And I'm sure as shit that they are implementing something cool with Runes, keeping the aura factor balanced at the same time.
----PS: Totally agree with Luckmann on his last post, for once.----
It's a no breainer that unless soloing, everyone would go for a rune that made your aura apply to the team if it wasn't so by default.
--------~~Mattheo's Quote of the day~~---------
----------Brought to you by Diablofans.com Forums --------
Originally Posted by mattheo_majik
I LOVE being a SEX TON!!!
Yeah, aura(bonus) apply only to the caster it's already exist it's called passive skill, we don't need to see that with an aura, LOL. The reason why they have aura is only for cooperative playing.
It may be silly to say "auras are only for pallys". But, I think that the people you are referring to are trying to make a slightly different point. That being, if the designers want to try so hard to include characteristics akin to that of the paladin, then why didn't they just retain the paladin as a character class?
This is probably true.
By posting here we are not attempting to tell the game designers anything, we are merely discussing the topic amongst ourselves.
If sharing diminishes the effect of the aura to the aura'd character, then it's not necessarily a "no brainer". Sharing may be the appropriate thing to do from a strategic standpoint during group play, but it would require an unselfish act by the aura provider.
I think that's a really good point. Rep for that
just make the plated armor look like it has more mobility on a monk. i think it's enough, and it will look cool for me. like, the won't be anything on the joints... i dunno.
so. the other thing. i will be happy if the monk have auras. i can't see why it would go wrong. they could balance it with many different things.
I believe that such thinking results in bad sequels.
I don't think they need to compare at all. Instead, simply take the
good points of the last game and improve on them. Like you said.
No matter if it is similar or "feels" the same as the previous game. So by saying Auras, people automatically assume there will be a repeat of D2. But what they are not thinking, is maybe they just used a familiar term to actually create something totally new, but possibily "based" on the old concept.
You can call it comparing games, I call it evolution. I think the later is more productive. :rolleyes:
In response to the second part, I don't think the designers are "trying so hard to remake Paladin Like Skills". They just wanted to make party friendly skills available to a character and maybe decided they should also be called Auras for the lack of better terms. :confused:
Which brings me back to the "you are comparing" , they are "evolving" idea.
That's like saying since they are "trying so hard to make sorceress like skills why don't they just call the Wizard, a Sorceress...."
You see where I'm going? Don't compare and say, well it feels similar so it should be the same.
Thus answering the last part, why dont they just retain the paladin?, cause it's a new game and they mostly agree on making new chars... It's not cause they have a few familiar concepts that they should give everything a Diablo2 Tag Name on it.
Although I agree fully, I do also realize that most hardcore players are even more aware of the existing problems and also need'nt be reminded constantly. Drawing conslusions and saying "OMG, people will abuse auras again" without even knowing what auras will look like in D3 is pretty pointless. But I do agree that for discussion sake some can state the obvious and pass it for an opinion.:P
This very "soft solution" was already put up, and already answered to..
If by sharing auras they decided to reduce power, then it would become a no brainer to NOT share it and instead boost the individual character (Monk), since Blizzard are making all of them EPIC anyways. Not like they will cry about not having a small boost from the "hypothetical" Monk Auras.
Consequently making sharing Auras totally redundant. That's all hypothetical though.
To my understanding, that's pretty much what Blizz meant. Equiping heavy armor that will respectfully be visually implemented as ornate clothing/armor to lighter characters. Not shiny plate mail. Which would be rediculous. I don't think however that we should worry much about it since it's been what Blizz has been doing althrough the Diablo Franchise.
(D1 - Rogue, and Mage could wear Full Plate that didn't look like FPM)
(D2 - Barb, Assassin, Sorceress)
They all had believable armors IMO.:thumbsup:
--------~~Mattheo's Quote of the day~~---------
----------Brought to you by Diablofans.com Forums --------
Originally Posted by mattheo_majik
I LOVE being a SEX TON!!!