I just remembered why I rarely discuss gameplay mechanics with people on the forums.
I could add the ability to leech mana to a couple of skills here and there, and if I didn't tell you, you'd never know the difference. You would keep playing the same way you had played before. That is a gameplay mechanic.
What's the difference between grasp of the dead and zombie dogs? One you cast on large mobs to snare/damage them (gameplay) and another you summon to attack for you, which you might use to help you kite, or just deal damage (gameplay).
What's the difference between any of the rune effects of acid cloud? You choose an area with mobs, activate the skill, and that area takes dot damage.
What's the difference between haunt and locust swarm? One lasts longer, one jumps regardless of death. What are the chances you'll do anything more than "which does more damage? I'll use that one!"?
I'm not going to respond to this thread again, or to these forums. You've all blatantly taken the number of runs and multiplied it by the number of spells and showed me it as if it proves anything. How about they add 7 more types of runes, all of which just add +1 damage to each skill with no other effect? That's even more new skills!
as someone who has been with this franchise since the beginning, and someone who has been severely disappointed with what i had seen thus far. I STILL cannot really agree with you. the runes TOTALLY change what the skill is used for. And it will drastically change the playstyle of the person playing the character.
I plan a barb for my first character. I plan the fury builder attack i base my build on as frenzy which is a stacking buff for attack speed. I can modify it in such a way.
White = Killing a monster heals me for 25% of my life
Red = Each buff increases my damage by 25% ( that stacks 5 times... +125% Raw Damage )
Gold = Adds a high chance to stun ( its a spammable skill so if im stunning with every other attack thats game changing)
Blue = Adds a projectile that pieces and does weapon damage in the whole line
Black = Speed buff.
So.. i have one that give me a huge heal on death, one that does a huge damage boost, one that stuns, one that makes it ranged... and one that makes me run fast.
How are those remotely the same? The very reason i use the skill might even change. I could use it as my main attack and stack ways to + damage or if i wanted black i can use it just as a quick hit to run fast... the game is VERY vary, im very excited now that i can see the rune system
You're taking a specific complaint and taking it to the extreme. You need to stop doing that right now, and I won't respond to any of your claims or arguments because they're ignoring everything I've said. Don't generalize my viewpoints to make them more potable.
For your benefit, I will restate in specifics: the witch doctor's rune effects are largely disappointing, especially when compared to the monk. Don't tell me that barbarian ones are good, we're not discussing barbarian rune effects.
And don't tell me I'm only focusing on one spell. You chose one spell for your argument, hypocrite.
White = you spit a cloud instead of one being dropped
Red = a corpse explodes instead of a head spitting things up
Yellow = increase pool duration
Blue = acid rain instead of a single stream
Black = irradiates + creates slimes
All I see is black creating truly new effects with the slime, and even then it's still basically click an area -> that area is now poisoned/irradiated and deals damage to things standing on it. The runes don't add any new gameplay. It's just different animations, but effectively still a pool of acid in every instance.
Each rune changes the skill function, therefore has different uses for everyone. The gameplay does change. The sheer number of different viable combinations of skills you can have makes it vastly superior to the d2 system.
The viability of skills comes from the new skill-point-less system, not from runes.
Take Corpse Spiders. Depending on the rune it becomes a spell that:
-Slows the target(s).
-Deals more damage.
-Leeches and regenerates your mana.
-Summons a large spider that creates smaller ones for a set duration.
-Creates highly mobile spiders that will (presumably) get to more enemies faster.
At least 3 of those have a dramatically different use than the base spell.
Slowing the targets changes nothing about how you use the spell. Neither does dealing more damage. Leeching mana might make you want to cast it more often, but it doesn't change how you use it, either. The large spider one (mother queen whatever) doesn't change anything either - you still aim it an area and spiders erupt. It's not new gameplay just because it's a queen spider instead of a jar now.
You're still clicking to aim, then a bunch of spiders comes out and kill things. How you use it doesn't change. Sure, it gets stronger and better at specific tasks, but that won't make you use it in a different fashion. You've changed nothing from a gameplay aspect.
I asked a question, and it seems like no one answered. Or at least some people don't know what they're talking about.
How are there "ninety billion combinations" when it's actually just five different effects per skill. And it's not even new skills...
Jar of spiders will always be "click somewhere to let loose a horde of spiders." What those spiders do can change - such as leeching life or slowing - but it's the same gameplay.
I think that some people here need to calm down before posting.
From what I can tell, the runes you can slot in the skill planner are max level runes, i.e., the highest quality. Does that mean that all runes of those colors will always have the listed effects, with the only changing being the numbers?
I feel like there aren't enough skills in D3. The runes make the skills more interesting, but it is most definitely NOT 5x new skills per rune effect. All of the spider jar effects are just different looking spiders, but using them is the same: you choose a location, throw a jar, and out come spiders. Does it really make things more interesting if the spiders are fire imbued or leech life?
To above poster and most people asking if you have min specs which most of you do, You will run it at bare minimum and slightly lag or extremely lag when having huge fights and sorry but forget 4 player coop games cause it just aint going to work.
As long as I can run it at a decent resolution at 20 - 30 FPS, I'm fine with lowest settings across the board and never being able to play multiplayer.
Please try to tell the forums what kind of system you're using. I'm particularly interested in low-end computers and how they handle the game. I'm talking 3 ~ 5 years old, not 6 months.
The Witch Doctor can do everything the Necromancer could do, and more. Unlike the Necromancer, the Witch Doctor has access to more direct-damage spells, most of which are elemental in nature (fireball, poison, disease, etc.).
I would rather have the Witch Doctor than a Necromancer. The Witch Doctor is new and exciting for me, while the Necromancer is an over-done class in RPG's and would bring nothing new to the table. I don't understand why they didn't do this with ALL of the classes. Instead of a Barbarian, have a Dervish or Dragoon; instead of a Demon Hunter (which we all know is just an archer with traps), have a Sniper who relies only on long ranged attacks. The point is they need to stop relying on well-known and overused archetypes for classes.
Despite typically choosing traditional mages in most of the games I play, I know for a fact that I'll be playing the Monk and the Witch Doctor far more than the other three, assuming I even bother with the Sorcerer or Barbarian.
0
Even on the lowest settings with reduced resolution?
0
I already bought it today, and I think I'm getting a new laptop next month, but I'd like to be able to play it on Sunday.
0
I could add the ability to leech mana to a couple of skills here and there, and if I didn't tell you, you'd never know the difference. You would keep playing the same way you had played before. That is a gameplay mechanic.
What's the difference between grasp of the dead and zombie dogs? One you cast on large mobs to snare/damage them (gameplay) and another you summon to attack for you, which you might use to help you kite, or just deal damage (gameplay).
What's the difference between any of the rune effects of acid cloud? You choose an area with mobs, activate the skill, and that area takes dot damage.
What's the difference between haunt and locust swarm? One lasts longer, one jumps regardless of death. What are the chances you'll do anything more than "which does more damage? I'll use that one!"?
I'm not going to respond to this thread again, or to these forums. You've all blatantly taken the number of runs and multiplied it by the number of spells and showed me it as if it proves anything. How about they add 7 more types of runes, all of which just add +1 damage to each skill with no other effect? That's even more new skills!
0
You're taking a specific complaint and taking it to the extreme. You need to stop doing that right now, and I won't respond to any of your claims or arguments because they're ignoring everything I've said. Don't generalize my viewpoints to make them more potable.
For your benefit, I will restate in specifics: the witch doctor's rune effects are largely disappointing, especially when compared to the monk. Don't tell me that barbarian ones are good, we're not discussing barbarian rune effects.
And don't tell me I'm only focusing on one spell. You chose one spell for your argument, hypocrite.
0
0
White = you spit a cloud instead of one being dropped
Red = a corpse explodes instead of a head spitting things up
Yellow = increase pool duration
Blue = acid rain instead of a single stream
Black = irradiates + creates slimes
All I see is black creating truly new effects with the slime, and even then it's still basically click an area -> that area is now poisoned/irradiated and deals damage to things standing on it. The runes don't add any new gameplay. It's just different animations, but effectively still a pool of acid in every instance.
The viability of skills comes from the new skill-point-less system, not from runes.
Slowing the targets changes nothing about how you use the spell. Neither does dealing more damage. Leeching mana might make you want to cast it more often, but it doesn't change how you use it, either. The large spider one (mother queen whatever) doesn't change anything either - you still aim it an area and spiders erupt. It's not new gameplay just because it's a queen spider instead of a jar now.
You're still clicking to aim, then a bunch of spiders comes out and kill things. How you use it doesn't change. Sure, it gets stronger and better at specific tasks, but that won't make you use it in a different fashion. You've changed nothing from a gameplay aspect.
0
How are there "ninety billion combinations" when it's actually just five different effects per skill. And it's not even new skills...
Jar of spiders will always be "click somewhere to let loose a horde of spiders." What those spiders do can change - such as leeching life or slowing - but it's the same gameplay.
I think that some people here need to calm down before posting.
0
I feel like there aren't enough skills in D3. The runes make the skills more interesting, but it is most definitely NOT 5x new skills per rune effect. All of the spider jar effects are just different looking spiders, but using them is the same: you choose a location, throw a jar, and out come spiders. Does it really make things more interesting if the spiders are fire imbued or leech life?
0
As long as I can run it at a decent resolution at 20 - 30 FPS, I'm fine with lowest settings across the board and never being able to play multiplayer.
0
Will I be able to run D3 at all?
Intel Mobile Core 2 Duo T5750 @ 2.00GHz
4.00 GB Dual-Channel DDR2 @ 331MHz
128MB GeForce 8400M GS
0
My specs:
Intel Mobile Core 2 Duo T5750 @ 2.00GHz
4.00 GB Dual-Channel DDR2 @ 331MHz
128MB GeForce 8400M GS
0
Thanks!
0
0
I would rather have the Witch Doctor than a Necromancer. The Witch Doctor is new and exciting for me, while the Necromancer is an over-done class in RPG's and would bring nothing new to the table. I don't understand why they didn't do this with ALL of the classes. Instead of a Barbarian, have a Dervish or Dragoon; instead of a Demon Hunter (which we all know is just an archer with traps), have a Sniper who relies only on long ranged attacks. The point is they need to stop relying on well-known and overused archetypes for classes.
Despite typically choosing traditional mages in most of the games I play, I know for a fact that I'll be playing the Monk and the Witch Doctor far more than the other three, assuming I even bother with the Sorcerer or Barbarian.