- Argency
- Registered User
-
Member for 12 years, 1 month, and 24 days
Last active Sat, Mar, 17 2012 03:40:40
- 0 Followers
- 53 Total Posts
- 2 Thanks
-
Feb 8, 2012Argency posted a message on Public Chat Is In, Diablo 3 Map, Investor Call, Poll Recap, DiabolesquesPosted in: News
-
Feb 4, 2012Argency posted a message on 100,000 Diablo III Beta InvitesPosted in: News
On the plus side, that is a fucking first class forum name you've chosen. - To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
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