Stun time for bosses is already markedly reduced over regular mobs and I'm told that stun time for champs and rares is even shorter, meaning that they'll probably be less vulnerable to this technique. We haven't been given exact numbers for how much the stun times are truncated by which makes me think that it could be on a sliding scale linked to the monster's level? Presumably that would mean that in later difficulties stun times would be shaved down much further, and also that this effect would be even greater in multi-player games as the monsters are harder in those.
Mind you, this is a very clever and well-coordinated tactic that will probably be extremely effective for early game. I hope the stun mechanic works the way I've described above, because that would provide a gradually increasing curve of difficulty as the team stunlock technique slowly became less and less overpowered. If it DOESN'T work this way, and they haven't come up with some other clever fix, then I guess the game as it stands is broken by this style of play which would be a shame. Still, this is what the beta is for. They've worked out hatred regeneration rates, the cost of impale and the duration of the stun to be balanced for single player but if they hadn't realised before that this technique was possible then they will now.
Maybe if they don't want to nerf stun based on monster level they could make it so that one player stunning a monster makes that monster immune to other players' stuns for a few seconds, or something like that? Or maybe there could be a diminishing returns mechanic on stuns, so that the first stun lasts for the full duration, but the next only lasts for half and the next a quarter, etc, etc? Actually I like the sounds of that last one...
EDIT: I actually think that stuns should still be somewhat effective against even act bosses, but I agree they should be less vulnerable to them, and they DEFINITELY shouldn't be able to be stunlocked like this. Here's hoping!
Really, if blizzard scrap basic attacks and release the game earlier... do I care if my char has basic attacks? Seriously I dont! Just release the game now and people will stop nitpicking at the smallest and unimportant detail.
To put this is better perspective, is this a game breaking thing not to have auto attacks? I think not. So please try to focus resources to get the game release earlier and not pick on stuff that really has no big impact to the game.
I sure dont want the release to be pushed back to Q3:(
You're a casual player... I am starting to get pissed at the likes of you. There is no point in not taking back into the game basic attack. Everything is already implemented. You're being such a retard.
No dude, you're being unreasonable. Are you trying to troll or something? Casual players make up the majority of the fan base and idiots who think they're "pro" are a the proud, the few, the neckbearded. It's not a badge of pride that your life revolves around a video game and it doesn't make your opinion worth more than anyone else's - you're a minority! Everyone who plays the game has an equally valid opinion to share so stop trying to shout people down on the grounds that they're not a big enough basement dweller when they disagree with you.
Liking basic attacks isn't a matter of fact, it's an aesthetic opinion. Why are you arguing with people's personal preferences? "Your favourite colour is red?!? You casual art buffs are ruining art for everyone, retard! Grrrr!"
Stop being abusive and ridiculous, please. We're trying to have a discussion here.
EDIT: I actually do want them to bring back the passives that buff basic attacks, though. I just don't care enough to get all up in arms about it. The game will be fine either way, I just don't see why they took those passives out. Anyone have any theories?
Since when has a rating or age limit stopped anyone at anything. If kids can get booze and cigs they can get a video game.
Never said it stopped them from it, but a game made for 18+ should be made for 18+ not for 18-. wHo the fuck is 18 years old actually and never played diablo 2. Give me a break.... Casual player my ass. There's no casual players above 18 years old. They designed this game for kiddies imho and this is a shame and is really disappointing for hardcore players. Customization for me goes far beyond a broken runestone system. It is about macros, weapon swapping, and being able to decide wether or not i wish to have basic attack as a tool for myself.
I have friends who are casual gamers who are looking forward to Diablo 3. They are 22 years old. In fact, "hardcore", "pro", "ub3rl33t" neckbeards actually make up a tiny proportion of any game's demographic and Blizzard would be stupid to pander solely to them. D2 was MA15+. Also, the R18+ rating doesn't exist for games in Australia and the game would therefore have to have been classified as "unrated" there, making it illegal to sell.
Ok so I've sobered up a bit since making those posts and I apologise for making assumptions. Specifically: if Lord Rayken was aware that those passives had been removed then he must have been following the skill system more closely than I have. I don't have the beta, I just fiddle about on a mate's account whenever he lets me, so given that the new skill calculator isn't our yet it was a mistake on my part to assume that they'd left this or that aspect of the game in when I hadn't actually seen the game for myself.
That said, I hope they put those passives back in before shipping. I think it was better before. The game's still very, very good 'n'all, but I think those passives contributed to build diversity. I love that some of the passives "signpost" the different build options (ie - hope the Barb passive that makes fury rejuvenate like mana, allowing generator free builds still exists?) and I'd love to see that sort of build-passive synergy preserved for release. Even if they want to scrap basic attacks I think it'd be cool to see those lost passives replaced by something along a similar line.
I am extremely disappointed by Blizzard, this is a pretty damn big change. For example, Virtuoso made basic attacks much much stronger than Magic Missile (almost twice the damage, super high AP gain and some hp gain) and you could theoretically go without a Signature spell, which is pretty huge if you ask me. Not to mention the fact that some of us like to play without their left/right mouse button bound and just go on with 1 mouse button. A really sad day for Diablo 3.
I don't agree with this guy. This is a minor change and it won't break the game. This is not a very sad day for Diablo 3, just a slightly glum minute for the few of us who were intrigued by basic attack builds.
Well then I take back everything. I guess I should have considered the possibilty that they'd changed the skill system like that. That is a disappointing decision on blizzard's part though. I hope they bring those skills back. I just feel like it wouldn't make things any worse so why remove it...?
Oh. Well if they've been removed I guess I take all that back. But I'm seriously disappointed if they were... Can someone please link me to the new info?
What in the name of Diablo are you fucking talking about?
Who uses a basic attack, and for what purpose? When you're switching out skills? And even then, when won't you have another skill to use? Before level 4 or 5?
This is clearly a thread made just to get post count up. I've seen some of the most misinformed, uneducated people post things here in the last week than I ever have for a shot at a Beta Key.
Of course it would be his ridiculous lordship who made this post. You clearly haven't been following the skill system at all wizard and demon hunter need basic attack for some of their builds as i mentioned earlier.
There is zero reason to use basic attacks when you have zero-cost, resource generating abilities. Consequently, there is no reason for them to be in the game.
Fin.
Actually both the Demon Hunter and the Wizard have passives that REQUIRE the use of basic attacks.
I've linked to them below, but the Wizard's "Virtuoso" passive doubles the damage of the wand attack (where you "shoot" them with the spell, so it's not actually a melee thing) and makes it generate 15 arcane power and regenerate 1% of you total life on a successful attack. The Demon Hunter has "Fundamentals" which doubles the damage of the basic attack with a ranged or melee weapon and also makes successful attacks generate 4 hatred.
Back when we had access to 7 key bindings but only had 6 skills to assign that made it possible to make a build where you lose a passive to buffing your basic attack to be a part of your rotation, but in the process free up another skill slot for a "spender" type ability. Also looks very useful for making a melee demon hunter, which was going to be my alt. I really really hope this is oversight on Blizzard's part because the way they've got it set up at the moment, the skill UI effectively makes it impossible to use one of the skills, and also makes impossible a couple of builds which the skills seem designed to allow.
The Hulk turns into a giant green killing machine when he gets angry. I think the worst superpower ever would be to be the anti-hulk: the power to get really really angry whenever you turn into a giant green killing machine.
Heres what I think about leveling to get runes. If im leveling to get a new run all the way to 60. Then the runes i get closer to 60 better be pretty badass and make me want to use them. This is my problem. Because if they put runes in the game the way we wanted them when they were still items then we will have to wait to 60 to get some of those runes.
Instead of being able to get runes prior to 60 and still get the rune effects that we wanted. This is kind of forcing people to get to 60 or they might not get to experience the rune effects they want. I think they overly accepted the peoples wants to have something rewarded every time they leveled to fuel them to 60 and pushed it on the runesystem as a way to fix any problems with the runes that they had. Because as far as I know, equipping and changing out runes was probably one of the biggest problems when they were still items.
People cried that they wanted some kind of reward for leveling, so blizzard gave them the runes. I don't think that was a good idea. 60 will be a long strenuous task that a lot of people won't reach. It wont be D2 99 but it will still take a while.
I see no justification for a lot of the changes they have made, except to appease to a casual audience who will likely quit the game at normal and that will only take a few days, two weeks tops. I don't think blizzard wants to focus on their core audience who made them who they are today. And they are following the business bandwagon of focusing on the casual player.
i agree, making it too easy to be pro.
I think you've got the wrong end of the stick on this one. Blizzard is in fact making it really really hard to be "pro" (if you want to use that term, which I think sounds jerky and elitist"). Think about it - with the old system even some 12 year old twerp could get a really good character just by grinding and getting good runes. This new system gives us a way more level playing field, meaning that your power in the game is linked much more strongly to your skill which is a way better indicator of how "pro" you are . Of course, it's an rpg so there'll still be some improvement from grinding as you find better gear and gems, but the key is to have >just enough< grinding. I think this new system is closer to optimal. It makes sense to me that the power of your skills should be set by your level and your skill as a player, but that the power of your gear should be linked to how long you've been grinding for. Making the effectiveness of your skills linked to how long you've been grinding for leaves way less room for actual skillful play to make a difference.
I think the system as it is should stay, with skill variations unlocking by level, but that all the rune skills should receive a slight nerf to make room for the addition I'm about to propose...
I think they should add a runestone-style item that could be gathered from drops, with 7 (or however many) ranks. Just the one variety in 7 ranks, and it buffs the skill it's socketed into by an amount determined by it's rank. That solves the problem of having too many types of runes AND the issue with the tooltips, whilst keeping the random drop chance that some people seemed to love so much. It makes build customisation possible without any grinding at all but leaves the grinding aspect in for optimisation, and doesn't have the weakness of having to "exercise" a skill in order to make it stronger. Removing the rune from a skill could damage it, lowering it's effectiveness by downgrading it to a lower rank. Removing a rank 1 rune destroys it.
Fail logic. Whats the point of any of the loot in the game then? Why farm and collect level 14 gems when the level 13's are almost as good?
No you're using fail logic. This argument is known as the slippery slope fallacy - he's arguing that a particular incremental increase in power was negligible, and you're applying this to the whole game and trying to make it look like his argument implies that since most increases in character power are incremental, they're all negligible. Suggesting that one incremental increase added little to the game is not the same as suggesting that all incremental increases should be removed. Also...
Just because you like to play a certain way doesn't mean the rest of us do. I'd rather be able to play the way I want with the skills and skill runes I want than have to go out into the world and grind for a single rune for hours and hours on end only to find every other rune in existence several times before finding mine. That, sir, does not sound like a good time to me.
Wouldn't this apply to items as well? Why not just let people choose items from a list so everyone can play they way they want instead of grinding for hours and hours to find their equipment? Just saying - maybe his point isn't entirely invalid.
I'm not sure that's a valid argument. No one is suggesting that one extreme or the other is the best option here - clearly having everything given to you at the start of the game is just as silly as having nothing at all given to you and having to grind for everything. Mortai thinks that getting given runes on level up is closer to the happy medium than having to grind for them, and he shouldn't have to defend one extreme in order to justify his argument.
Wilson will become Ghostcrawler for Diablo III. This guy is an idiot and so are his ideas way to ruin a great franchise.
Can't believe I loved Blizzard back in the days, they turned into a complete shitty company run by carebears and shareholders.
Talk about making a game with no customization save for gear lol
Here's a fun technique to try next time you feel like expressing yourself like this.
1. When you're feeling angry and want to tell someone why, draft a post like the one you did above and then ask yourself, "Which parts are facts that even someone who doesn't share my opinion would agree with? Which parts are my opinion?"
2. In front of the sentences that state your opinion instead of facts, try signposting this by adding words like, "I think that..." or "It just seems like..."
3. That's it! Enjoy your lively debate, secure in the knowledge that whilst you can be completely and utterly wrong about factual statements, no one can tell you that your non-factual opinions and preferences are incorrect even if they're completely stupid and baseless. Warning: may still result in people linking you to videos of Susan Boyle singing "Cry Me a River", especially if your opinions are incredibly stupid and baseless. For example: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CB3coG_FjvE&feature=youtu.be&t=3m56s
0
Mind you, this is a very clever and well-coordinated tactic that will probably be extremely effective for early game. I hope the stun mechanic works the way I've described above, because that would provide a gradually increasing curve of difficulty as the team stunlock technique slowly became less and less overpowered. If it DOESN'T work this way, and they haven't come up with some other clever fix, then I guess the game as it stands is broken by this style of play which would be a shame. Still, this is what the beta is for. They've worked out hatred regeneration rates, the cost of impale and the duration of the stun to be balanced for single player but if they hadn't realised before that this technique was possible then they will now.
Maybe if they don't want to nerf stun based on monster level they could make it so that one player stunning a monster makes that monster immune to other players' stuns for a few seconds, or something like that? Or maybe there could be a diminishing returns mechanic on stuns, so that the first stun lasts for the full duration, but the next only lasts for half and the next a quarter, etc, etc? Actually I like the sounds of that last one...
EDIT: I actually think that stuns should still be somewhat effective against even act bosses, but I agree they should be less vulnerable to them, and they DEFINITELY shouldn't be able to be stunlocked like this. Here's hoping!
0
0
No dude, you're being unreasonable. Are you trying to troll or something? Casual players make up the majority of the fan base and idiots who think they're "pro" are a the proud, the few, the neckbearded. It's not a badge of pride that your life revolves around a video game and it doesn't make your opinion worth more than anyone else's - you're a minority! Everyone who plays the game has an equally valid opinion to share so stop trying to shout people down on the grounds that they're not a big enough basement dweller when they disagree with you.
Liking basic attacks isn't a matter of fact, it's an aesthetic opinion. Why are you arguing with people's personal preferences? "Your favourite colour is red?!? You casual art buffs are ruining art for everyone, retard! Grrrr!"
Stop being abusive and ridiculous, please. We're trying to have a discussion here.
EDIT: I actually do want them to bring back the passives that buff basic attacks, though. I just don't care enough to get all up in arms about it. The game will be fine either way, I just don't see why they took those passives out. Anyone have any theories?
0
I have friends who are casual gamers who are looking forward to Diablo 3. They are 22 years old. In fact, "hardcore", "pro", "ub3rl33t" neckbeards actually make up a tiny proportion of any game's demographic and Blizzard would be stupid to pander solely to them. D2 was MA15+. Also, the R18+ rating doesn't exist for games in Australia and the game would therefore have to have been classified as "unrated" there, making it illegal to sell.
0
That said, I hope they put those passives back in before shipping. I think it was better before. The game's still very, very good 'n'all, but I think those passives contributed to build diversity. I love that some of the passives "signpost" the different build options (ie - hope the Barb passive that makes fury rejuvenate like mana, allowing generator free builds still exists?) and I'd love to see that sort of build-passive synergy preserved for release. Even if they want to scrap basic attacks I think it'd be cool to see those lost passives replaced by something along a similar line.
BUT...
I don't agree with this guy. This is a minor change and it won't break the game. This is not a very sad day for Diablo 3, just a slightly glum minute for the few of us who were intrigued by basic attack builds.
0
0
0
0
Actually both the Demon Hunter and the Wizard have passives that REQUIRE the use of basic attacks.
I've linked to them below, but the Wizard's "Virtuoso" passive doubles the damage of the wand attack (where you "shoot" them with the spell, so it's not actually a melee thing) and makes it generate 15 arcane power and regenerate 1% of you total life on a successful attack. The Demon Hunter has "Fundamentals" which doubles the damage of the basic attack with a ranged or melee weapon and also makes successful attacks generate 4 hatred.
Back when we had access to 7 key bindings but only had 6 skills to assign that made it possible to make a build where you lose a passive to buffing your basic attack to be a part of your rotation, but in the process free up another skill slot for a "spender" type ability. Also looks very useful for making a melee demon hunter, which was going to be my alt. I really really hope this is oversight on Blizzard's part because the way they've got it set up at the moment, the skill UI effectively makes it impossible to use one of the skills, and also makes impossible a couple of builds which the skills seem designed to allow.
http://www.diablo3sk...ndamentals.html
http://www.diablo3sk...9/virtuoso.html
0
0
0
I think you've got the wrong end of the stick on this one. Blizzard is in fact making it really really hard to be "pro" (if you want to use that term, which I think sounds jerky and elitist"). Think about it - with the old system even some 12 year old twerp could get a really good character just by grinding and getting good runes. This new system gives us a way more level playing field, meaning that your power in the game is linked much more strongly to your skill which is a way better indicator of how "pro" you are . Of course, it's an rpg so there'll still be some improvement from grinding as you find better gear and gems, but the key is to have >just enough< grinding. I think this new system is closer to optimal. It makes sense to me that the power of your skills should be set by your level and your skill as a player, but that the power of your gear should be linked to how long you've been grinding for. Making the effectiveness of your skills linked to how long you've been grinding for leaves way less room for actual skillful play to make a difference.
0
I think they should add a runestone-style item that could be gathered from drops, with 7 (or however many) ranks. Just the one variety in 7 ranks, and it buffs the skill it's socketed into by an amount determined by it's rank. That solves the problem of having too many types of runes AND the issue with the tooltips, whilst keeping the random drop chance that some people seemed to love so much. It makes build customisation possible without any grinding at all but leaves the grinding aspect in for optimisation, and doesn't have the weakness of having to "exercise" a skill in order to make it stronger. Removing the rune from a skill could damage it, lowering it's effectiveness by downgrading it to a lower rank. Removing a rank 1 rune destroys it.
0
No you're using fail logic. This argument is known as the slippery slope fallacy - he's arguing that a particular incremental increase in power was negligible, and you're applying this to the whole game and trying to make it look like his argument implies that since most increases in character power are incremental, they're all negligible. Suggesting that one incremental increase added little to the game is not the same as suggesting that all incremental increases should be removed. Also...
I'm not sure that's a valid argument. No one is suggesting that one extreme or the other is the best option here - clearly having everything given to you at the start of the game is just as silly as having nothing at all given to you and having to grind for everything. Mortai thinks that getting given runes on level up is closer to the happy medium than having to grind for them, and he shouldn't have to defend one extreme in order to justify his argument.
0
Here's a fun technique to try next time you feel like expressing yourself like this.
1. When you're feeling angry and want to tell someone why, draft a post like the one you did above and then ask yourself, "Which parts are facts that even someone who doesn't share my opinion would agree with? Which parts are my opinion?"
2. In front of the sentences that state your opinion instead of facts, try signposting this by adding words like, "I think that..." or "It just seems like..."
3. That's it! Enjoy your lively debate, secure in the knowledge that whilst you can be completely and utterly wrong about factual statements, no one can tell you that your non-factual opinions and preferences are incorrect even if they're completely stupid and baseless.
Warning: may still result in people linking you to videos of Susan Boyle singing "Cry Me a River", especially if your opinions are incredibly stupid and baseless. For example:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CB3coG_FjvE&feature=youtu.be&t=3m56s