DiabloFans

Phrayed, replying to a troll invariably makes YOU a troll as well. Shut up and let the thread get back on topic. I don't even know who you're fighting with, nor would I bother addressing this post to them, because clearly they aren't listening to sense anyways.

So, who has any opinions on the idea of limiting skill swapping to runes (cannot remove runes outside of town, ergo cannot change runed skills outside of town; but adding runes or changing unruned skills remains possible anywhere)?

Personally I see nothing wrong with allowing skill swapping whenever/wherever. What I believe will be even more important than that, and will alleviate the issue completely (or nearly), would be to simply not allow -rune- swapping outside of town. The impact of that would be that you cannot remove a skill with a rune in it, because you cannot remove the rune, therefor if you want your twitch-action skill swapping on the fly, you need to leave your skills unruned, which is the only way that unruned skills will finally be viable (something Blizzard tried to argue was the case some time ago), because it will allow you to swap in whatever extra skill you need for the right situation, even if it isn't at 100% effectiveness. This allows you to freely test your skills at low levels, when there aren't runes at no penalty or extreme time cost running in/out of town, but once the game really starts picking up, you no longer have that luxury anymore, as you will likely be using runes in most if not all of your skills.

Quote from BluefoxNL

These numbers are just examples but will illustrate how its working

solo game play = monster value 1 (value = strenght / damage/ hp of monsters)
2 player game = monster value 1.5

This will mean that you are 2 times as strong as being solo. Because alone = 1 with 2 = 2
But the monsters have "only" grown 1.5 times. So actually you gain a 0.5....

...

for me?
I just like hard games so imo joining a 4 player game (which should mean monsters strenght increase by 4) is alot more fun. I dont like 1 hit = kill games.

This is the part some people have problems with. You say you want a harder game, but also show how more players actually makes the game easier overall.

The suggestion I'm making (taken from the D3 forums, not my original idea) is that we allow players to create games at 'max players' where no matter how many people are in game, the monsters are as strong as if there were 4 players in the game. This would have no effect on loot, and may or may not affect exp, but would allow people to play the game at its absolute hardest (max strength enemies, and no allies). This is a fairly weak suggestion, as it's a very small group of people who would really want to use it and a number of people who don't want it will use it mistakenly expecting better loot, but as someone who would enjoy having it available, I feel the need to suggest it anyways.

There is actually a discussion about this on the D3 forums (where I can look, but not contribute sadly), and a point that came up a few times by several people suggested an interest in /players even if it doesn't increase loot/exp. As someone said here, Inferno will be soloable already, but what if I want to challenge myself, and really see what my limits are? I can't join a multiplayer game and run off to the stuff I want to do because everyone in the party is placed on the same quest, and you won't have access to anything beyond that, and all the special spawns before that will already be dead/despawned. So either I inconvenience three other people asking them to sit in town and suck their thumbs while I go play with the ugly monsters, or I just have to accept that the end of the game has come, and there are no more challenges for me in PvE. If I still want new items despite this, I either endure the tedium of slaying the same mobs over again trying to find items, or I realize the majority of my game is now work and either buy items or quit the game(I'll admit to a little hyperbole, but that's the idea anyways). And to answer those who ask why I would still want items when the game is already too easy, there will still be pvp (where competition will lead people to feel like it's either the best or nothing).

Another thing about grenades, even post-change, is that they really should be awesome. I don't like that grenades are a hatred generator, because in my opinion/my expectation would be that when you throw a handful of grenades at people, they should all go BOOOM!! That should be a huge effect, and the big effects go on the spenders, yes? Part of the problem I see with the grenades is that there are only three of them and they spread out in a strange line (have you ever scattered seeds/pebbles/anything and had them land in a line perpendicular to you?), pause a little, don't even end up where you thought they would (they bounce a little past your cursor), don't interact with anything inbetween you and the target(physics issue I wouldn't expect to be addressed at all), and then the fuse on them is just too long for a far too unsatisfying boom.

I want a fast spray of grenades (like a handful of 5-7 grenades) that fan out seemingly randomly (probably in a fixed spread, but not in any easy to recognize geometric shape) and explode almost on contact with the enemies for a nice satisfying blast sending targets flying and showing off some moon physics when it gets kills. This may need to be a rune effect on the skill, but still, the grenades are subpar in almost every way in the current beta implementation. Just my opinion...

Oh, I know canceling only exists in our current very primitive beta build, but that it was even confused as an intentional feature by Bashiok suggests they are experimenting with similar ideas, and something like canceling still has the potential to exist, and given creative enough players, still be broken. I have faith that Blizzard will be able to squash such exploits should they exist in the future, but it still may happen (and people may forget that it's fixed and using old websites for suggestions, build their 'UBAR LE3T WIZ' using outdated information/ideas, leading to slightly disproportional amounts of 2hander sorcs existing).

All in all though, since your only source of loot is what you get, and what's on the AH, having a popular choice actually makes it easier for people who know better or don't care enough to min/max EVERY little thing (since the non-popular items will cost much less for only a slight reduction in overall quality). If it is a gross disparity, however, and 2handers can double the dps of wand+orb/shield, then that would be a problem that again, I'm hoping Blizzard is able to fix.

In short: Blizzard, why can't I post this somewhere you can read it?

Attack speed definitely affects the cast speed of spectral blades, so there should be an equal proportion of wizards with giant swords as tiny ones (assuming things like animation canceling don't break attack speed's importance). It is unconfirmed, however, whether or not weapon speed is going to affect other skills once the change to spells using weapon damage is implemented, but it is highly likely that it will (since clearly the code already exists to make it so if they deem it necessary). Now, whether that means wizards can gain dual benefit from +attacks per second AND +casting speed is another question entirely (and one that I am a bit curious to hear the answer to).

There are a few things I'm curious about Magic Weapon also. For instance, most of the runes for it mention melee attacks. Does this include Spectral Blade hits? If not, is Blizzard really still clinging to the idea that people might ever use the generic 'attack' skill, ever (yes, I just used 'ever' twice)? Clearly at some point in design it was expected we would use normal attacks, because several classes have passives to increase it's power, and the Demon Hunter seems to have been designed assuming that ~ 1 in 3 attacks would naturally be autoattacks,* but the footage that I've seen suggests that at low levels (where you have the least control over what options you have) your resources regenerate so quickly that there is never a reason to normal attack, and even more so for the Barb/Monk, whose normal attacks are direct downgrades to generator skills.


But back to the main topic, Magic Weapon + Wizard skills, do they work together? Before making a fool of myself, I decided to pause and check out the official D3 forum to see if this has been discussed, and an interesting point is made. Wands have a built-in +% damage to Wizard skills on them, but you cannot use Magic Weapon with a wand (only enchants melee weapons), while melee weapons do more base damage but do not have the added Wizard only bonuses (at least not as a built-in stat). There -might- be an argument that allows for Magic Weapon to exist for that reason (turning your sword into a stronger magic focus for your spells kind of thing), however if this is the case I would like to see a rune changed to suggest this kind of usage** (presently all the runes seem to be focused on normal attacking with the enchanted weapon, although the obsidian rune might be usable otherwise).

On an unrelated note, I really wish I had posting priviledges on the D3 board... I'm starting to feel like a second-class citizen knowing my posts won't see blue-posting eyes.



* that or some general use disc skills got cut without anyone noticing, since the remaining disc skills are once per encounter and/or situational skills (observation being that in the old DH resource system you either had to attack at less than full speed or mix in normal attacks to allow for hatred regen

** preferably a "this skill also grants a +attacks per second/cast speed bonus" (benefiting both meleeers and casters. hehe, meleeers....

Not sure on the legality of the juxtaposing, but that was my first thought when I saw the floating demon hunter.

I voted for more randomization, but just wanted to clarify. While I like what they have so far, watching the beta footage, the catacombs really don't feel that different from one game to the other, despite how hugely different that there layout is. What I would like to see is, in addition to the random placement of rooms/map tiles, I would like there to be more randomization within each room. To further explain what I mean, lets first describe randomization as it currently exists (with specific regard to the map layout).

First, it's important to note that there are plenty of non-randomized elements, and a great example of this is the outdoor areas. The basic outline for the outdoor zones is always fixed, as well as certain locations (mostly in town, but there are a few other doors/trees/chasms that never move). Given that base outline, the rest is then filled in with very small map tiles randomly selected to fill in the gaps (my reason for believing the tiles are small is because of the micro-variation we see with trees and the road, although those may have been pre-randomized and exist in fixed relative positions with a small number of combinations). And then when it comes to the underground areas/dungeons, most of the map tiles are fixed and reused, and just scrambled around like the cheap number sliding puzzles you can win at arcades for 10 tickets. This is the part that I disagree with. While it would be a considerable amount of work, likely extending the release several months (and therefor not something I suggest for launch), I would much rather see the map tiles for dungeons simply be barren outlines (similar to how the outdoor areas are made), that are then filled in with smaller random pieces. Just a thought.

I'm a little confused. I clicked on the picture that clearly is the 'bard' character, but he had only wizard abilities. =P

Also, after selecting a skill slot/rune slot/whatever, the box appears to the side for me to pick the skill/etc. On this box there is an 'x' presumable to close the box, however it isn't really clickable and does nothing.

My one complaint is in the blackness of the blue orb. If the red is supposed to be all dark and hatey, the blue should be swirling with lighter, more peaceful white(although still be mostly blue, again something it is not), not be even darker than the red.

Quote from rensuken

Quote from Cloakedassassin

Quote from Gloyard

Wasnt it like that one char can specialize with only one of the three artisans? Because then you would need at least three chars to have all three artisans to use. I think that would make sense. And I also think that Blizzard will make up a way to make the artisan-gaming specific and not TOO easy for players.

Personally I hope that they wont make shared artisans. But there must be some restrictions to not let people cheat with that shared stash thing.

You may be right sir, but it's my understanding that in the current build you can not only get all three artisans on a single character but also specialize with all of them, and beyond that specialize with each one in EVERY single specialization. All on one character, which combined with no BoE/BoP + Shared Stash completely eliminates any gain you could get from leveling multiples of the same artisans on different characters.

So.. if we essentially have one useful set of artisans for all of our characters anyway... why do we need all the useless individual ones?

Quote from rensuken

I would imaged that items crafted by artisans will simply have level/stat requirement in portion to the complexity of the item crafted as stated above, so in essence nothing does prevent a communal artisan. however, the intended purpose is that your specific character did some quest to gain access to the artisan and that specific character invested to improve that artisan. thus i do not think they should be communal because you can easily subvert it with your higher level characters. Although it will be an inconvenience, that is the way it should be because it is the exact same way that higher level character help power lower level character: by virtue of just finding better gear/runes/gems and transferring to them because they actually be useful for that character and even giving money to them to buy better gear.

The addition of the Shared Stash has already made this type of "twinking" a reality, and it truth people were doing it way before that in D2, it was just more difficult.
However while this allows you to get the best gear for the level your alt/friend is at, the Clvl requirements prevent you from short cutting item progression.

i don't think you are getting my central argument: artisans are character specific because that specific character did all the work to achieve that artisan and just because you can have high level character feed/powerup lower level characters, that does not justify a communal artisan. when one of your higher level characters finds rune/gem/gear they found it and it doesn't automatically popup into your lower level characters if you want to, you have to physical transfer it to them. in respect to the artisans, it is that specific character that leveled that artisan up and for all intents and purposes of your lower level character he/she is not aware of that higher level artisan's existence. thus they shouldn't have direct access to it, in the same way your friends cant see or use your artisans because its YOUR artisan and not their artisan.

in no way shape or form do am i saying that you won't be able to give stuff you make on one character's artisans and give it to another character anyway (as i intend to do that), i'm arguing that it doesn't make sense that a specific character has direct access to a higher level artisan that they did not earn yet.

That depends on how you view your separate characters. If you see them as existing in different worlds, then you would be right, they don't know the higher level versions of the artisans. But what if you considered your alts as just being other members of the caravan. Only one adventurer needed to leave the caravan at a time, so they weren't doing anything while your high level beat stuff up, but they're still part of the caravan and know all the same people your older characters do, even if they aren't proven enough to battle the greater evils of the later acts.

Basically, I'm suggesting that our account is our caravan, which would make sense if the shared stash is available to all the characters on a single account because all those characters are part of the same caravan, and if that is the reasoning, then why wouldn't all the artisans who have chosen to join the caravan not also be available to all the characters in that caravan(account)?

That said, I can understand some motivations for not making them shared. First, if there is indeed an exclusive specialization at some point then having multiple artisans for multiple specializations would be needed, end of story. Second is it makes for a nearly infinite money sink if every time you make a new character, you open the doors to another potential zillion gold of debt to level them up again. And don't say that because it isn't needed it won't happen. There will come a time when people have more gold than they know what to do with, and they will start leveling their alts' artisans just out of convenience so they don't have to jump back and forth each time they want to make another set of banded armor. Mostly, though, it seems to be a sort of stubborn desire to keep the progression of the artisans deeply connected to the progression of the specific character leveling them up.

Personally, I'm ok with either way, but making them shared would certainly be a large convenience and a huge comfort to those who choose to make hardcore characters (knowing that at least their caravan will be safe if they die).

Quote from snared04drummer

Gonna call shennanigans on that shiz.

You think a 12 year old doesn't know the difference between right and wrong? Have you ever met a 12 year old? Kids learn to lie, cheat, and steal as soon as they can walk and talk, sometimes before. I have been around kids, and worked with and taught kids for the past decade.

They might not be able to smoke, drink, drive or buy lotto tickets legally, but that's not what defines an adult. I've seen plenty of 12 year old's display better reasoning skills than college age kids as well.

Is there something seriously wrong with a 12 year old that shoots someone to death? Yes. Is one of those things "he didn't know it was wrong" or "he didn't know what he was doing?" Bullshit. Complete and utter bullshit.

The question wasn't whether he could recognize right or wrong, it was whether he understood how long forever is. At that age, most kids get in trouble for things that effectively go away with a sum of cash to pay for damages. They can't imagine something wrong that lasts forever; someone somewhere will pay the fine for them (and possibly punish them accordingly) and eventually everything goes back to normal, right? Yes, they can reason and they understand right and wrong and the basic principle of 'forever' but they don't really recognize how long that is. The longest time they have ever experienced is just over 10 years, and most of that they can't even remember, so forever is completely inconceivable to them. This, in my opinion, is the reason you can't try kids as an adult. However, what distinctions you make based on this don't have to be as extreme as we normally treat minors when trying them, since I get the impression we reduce a lot of sentences since minors are at an age where they can learn (and therefor rehabilitate) much quicker than an adult, and it would be a greater cost to society to not allow them to have a chance to be productive during their prime years (even if the chance is not the best).

So in summary, we should evaluate why each distinction exists between minor and adult trials and then try them as an adult (or more specifically, remove any restrictions legally mandatory when trying a minor) but with the consideration and mercy due to them based on the distinctions still present between themselves and a mature adult. This lifting of restrictions, however, should be used very sparingly, and only in the most extreme of cases, such as in the case of murder or when a child is unable to mature properly (such as when forced to endure a persistent or exceptionally severe trauma or hardships).

I will rune for the coolest looking spell effects. I argue this should be added to the list of poll options.