Normally I stick to 2 classes at most and master them, which in D3 will be the Barb and Monk. This game gets me excited for each of it's features all over again every time I see them, it's a never ending cycle!
Melee....ewwwww. Ranged....mmmmmmmm We should play together because I also stick to usually 2 types of character classes and I most always sticks with ranged. The monk, if I were to be so melee inclined, wouldn't be a bad choice.
I think what the rune system alone does for the spells is going to make the re-playability of this game truly spectacular. I never made any of the other classes in D2, save the Sorc and Zon, because I didn't really care to have the two or three cookie cutter builds that most played with. Since there is going to be such variety, and variety that is ever changing as you level your character and gear it out, I think many will branch out from their favorite few.
If 2 players have the exact same setup except for 1 or 2 runes, I really wouldn't consider them 2 different builds.
Yea, but you gotta imagine that a good number of those small differences would be covered if you only take a percent of a percent of the total builds into account.
I'm sure that most players will get used to seeing some of the same builds get used, in similar runed variations, as we get a year or two into D3. As the developers have stated, there are going to be builds that will emerge as being sort of the baseline that many will revolve around. However, the unique part of that being the minor tweaking that most will do, to those basic builds, to make them fit their play style. I suspect that it will take quite a bit of time before you start to see the same exact builds repetitively.
HOW THE HECK do you NOT try all of the classes?!!?!?!? even the one I hate I will try eventually! sheesh, 0 curiosity?.
There is no doubt there will be a lot of different builds in D3, WAY more then D2, but the number they gave is a bit ludicrous !
I agree, 1 rune does not change a build, especially since you can just swap runes around, I will probably swap runes every level, and every time I log on to battlenet!, does that make me multiple different builds in 1 character? XD
Maybe if you have a very specific setup with your runes, then even someone with same skills that MIGHT be considered a different build since in a way yes, a skill can be completely different depending on what rune is in it.
Also consider traits too I guess, even though passive can make a huge difference on whether your a "Whirlwind tornado rage barbarian" or a "Whirlwind Tornado Rage Tank! buba"
HOW THE HECK do you NOT try all of the classes?!!?!?!? even the one I hate I will try eventually! sheesh, 0 curiosity?.
There is no doubt there will be a lot of different builds in D3, WAY more then D2, but the number they gave is a bit ludicrous !
I agree, 1 rune does not change a build, especially since you can just swap runes around, I will probably swap runes every level, and every time I log on to battlenet!, does that make me multiple different builds in 1 character? XD
Maybe if you have a very specific setup with your runes, then even someone with same skills that MIGHT be considered a different build since in a way yes, a skill can be completely different depending on what rune is in it.
Also consider traits too I guess, even though passive can make a huge difference on whether your a "Whirlwind tornado rage barbarian" or a "Whirlwind Tornado Rage Tank! buba"
OOH! this is very exciting!
Lol. Well the easiest explanation for why someone may stick to only two classes is are they whether or not they are any good at the others? For instance, me driving a Barb, would be like my grandmother driving her motorized scooter down the highway at rush hour; hilarious and completely stupid. I suck with melee - but put me around the edges of a battle as a ranged attacker and not only can I do some direct damage for my interests, but assist others if they are in trouble. I hate melee...
The more that I look at traits in combination of skills/runes, the more I start theorycrafting with a pad of paper and characters that most likely will never exist in game. I personally try to avoid any speculation and rudimentary builds right now, until we get close to release and know for certain what will be in place. I don't want Blizzard to dash my dreams - which they already have, since I'm not playing D3...right...now....
HOW THE HECK do you NOT try all of the classes?!!?!?!? even the one I hate I will try eventually! sheesh, 0 curiosity?.
There is no doubt there will be a lot of different builds in D3, WAY more then D2, but the number they gave is a bit ludicrous !
I agree, 1 rune does not change a build, especially since you can just swap runes around, I will probably swap runes every level, and every time I log on to battlenet!, does that make me multiple different builds in 1 character? XD
Maybe if you have a very specific setup with your runes, then even someone with same skills that MIGHT be considered a different build since in a way yes, a skill can be completely different depending on what rune is in it.
Also consider traits too I guess, even though passive can make a huge difference on whether your a "Whirlwind tornado rage barbarian" or a "Whirlwind Tornado Rage Tank! buba"
OOH! this is very exciting!
I don't enjoy playing casters, in any RPG. They aren't my style, and if I do say so myself I'm a very good Barb player. Even in D2 where Hammerdins were a Barbs worst nightmare I'd go 9/10 against then with my PvP anti caster Barb.
The number they gave, (96,886,969,344) isn't ludicrous at all, it makes perfect sense if you do the math of number of class skills, skill level, against rune all rune types, and rune levels. They never once said ALL, MOST, or even a FRACTION of those builds will be viable, or benefit your character. It was purely an example of possible combinations. Viewing the number as anything more than that defuses your point of view entirely.
“We act as though comfort and luxury were the chief requirements of life, when all that we need to make us happy is something to be enthusiastic about.” - Albert Einstein
What should they do than? Please give your personal opinion how they should showcase the versatility, and raw amount of options Skill Runes add to a classes Skills.
They can't give the raw (Even though it's common sense most of them will be useless) number, because it's apparently, " a stunt designed to impress the impressionable".
They can't give a number representing the amount of useful variations. (By the way, again for the 3rd time they never said any percentage of that number would be viable combinations.)
So maka, please give your opinion on how they should go about showcasing, to an audience the numerical side of Skill Runes (While being comprehensive to a wide audience).
“We act as though comfort and luxury were the chief requirements of life, when all that we need to make us happy is something to be enthusiastic about.” - Albert Einstein
Draw a line a quarter of an inch in length, say " this line represents Viable builds in diablo 2,
Then draw another line next to it about 50 feet in length and say" This line represents viable builds in Diablo 3"
The thing is no one knows the viable builds of the game yet. There is still hundreds of hours of balancing to do, mostly to skills. So in all reality it could be the same as D2, or it would be 97 billion.
“We act as though comfort and luxury were the chief requirements of life, when all that we need to make us happy is something to be enthusiastic about.” - Albert Einstein
It is ludicrous because it doesn't mean anything. We all can do the math, we can all arrive at that number, but it means jack sh*t. They're trying to showcase how varied the game is, but they know and we know that it's a stunt designed to impress the impressionable.
Either way its still more potential builds than we've seen before in a Diablo game. Or really any game. Obviously the number of viable builds will be much less than that, but more potential builds, by most logic, will lead to more viable builds.
I think he might be right, more Viable builds than any other aRPG preceding it ( except maybe Dungeon siege 3? ) I dont know whats going on with that game, it might surprise us.
What they should do? What they've been doing. Just without the number.
So what you're saying is, they shouldn't promote their game by announcing raw numbers in which make thousands of people wonder what that number could mean? Interesting marketing strategy you have their, sounds effective. Stick to what we know, which as of now if next to nothing since the game has yet to go through BETA testing. Brilliant.
Either way its still more potential builds than we've seen before in a Diablo game. Or really any game.
That's quite a claim you make there. There have been quite a few games with plenty of complex customisable systems, where every small variation would count as a build. Whether or not they were enjoyable is another story.
Again, NO ONE (In this discussion at least) has EVER stated how many of these builds will be "enjoyable", especially from an official source. Only that from a raw, factual instance this number stands true in that, if a difference is taken as its literal term, there are 96+ Billion possible combos per class.
You're putting words in which were never said into the mix.
But still about that big number: it's not that big a deal, so don't get your panties in a bunch, Winged. It just pisses me off a little bit for two reasons: the fact that they even 'announced' it, like it means anything at all (it doesn't); and the fact that so many people periodically bring it up, to hype the supposed multitude of builds we'll see in D3 end-game, where experience just tells us that since they won't all be 100% balanced (impossible task), the players will naturally gravitate towards the strongest.
Any person at all experienced with Diablo will know right off the bat that 99% of those builds, come end game be forgotten, and swapped with the most powerful builds, thanks for that.
From a marketing standpoint, and a general interest of the RAW MAXIMUM BUILDS POSSIBLE, the number is wonderful. It provokes thought, and wonder about the game, mostly to those who are unexperienced, but also in general as a freaking huge number affiliated to ONE class, only counting TWO factors, skills, and runes. Excellent marketing, as was seen by the reaction of the crowd after the number was shown on the projector.
You keep saying how it means nothing, this isn't true. It means there are 96+ billion builds per class. What it doesn't mean, and what NO ONE HAS EVER SAID (In this discussion), is that there will be 96+ billion viable builds per class. Again at this point NO ONE can estimate the amount of viable builds, seeing as there has been NO BETA TESTING. Even if testing was done, logic dictates that per class maybe 50 builds will be viable against each other come end game.
Once again, the number is only a raw format, and doesn't imply or represent anything other than the FACT that there is indeed 96,886,969,344 different builds per class. No one ever said that even 1 of them were viable.
“We act as though comfort and luxury were the chief requirements of life, when all that we need to make us happy is something to be enthusiastic about.” - Albert Einstein
What they should do? What they've been doing. Just without the number. It means nothing, therefore there's no point in presenting it like it does. Simple.
Either way its still more potential builds than we've seen before in a Diablo game. Or really any game.
That's quite a claim you make there. There have been quite a few games with plenty of complex customisable systems, where every small variation would count as a build. Whether or not they were enjoyable is another story.
But still about that big number: it's not that big a deal, so don't get your panties in a bunch, Winged. It just pisses me off a little bit for two reasons: the fact that they even 'announced' it, like it means anything at all (it doesn't); and the fact that so many people periodically bring it up, to hype the supposed multitude of builds we'll see in D3 end-game, where experience just tells us that since they won't all be 100% balanced (impossible task), the players will naturally gravitate towards the strongest.
Okay - diplomacy here. I agree with you Maka; the number is sorta funny and a bit ridiculous. When I watch the developers panels at Blizzcon last year and they state that they want numbers to sound big and meaningful to the game, they certainly have accomplished that with the builds combo number.
It's a shame that Blizzard and or others on this forum mentioning this number, bothers you. Because at its core (from what you have explained) Blizzard making an effort to maximize the customization of this game, bothers you. Of course the efforts they are going to, to make the game customizable, can be a bit far-reaching. I don't think the developers sat down and said; "lets have 97 billion things people can do in this game!" But we should enjoy that they are going to such lengths to make this game something we can play for years to come, without boredom and repetitiveness.
Maka, you keep saying the number doesn't mean anything. It does. It simply means that you have the potential to have 97 different builds in this game, because of the rune system. That number represents choice and the ability to further make choices in the game. How can that not be something they should promote and that you shouldn't enjoy. I know and you know that the number doesn't represent all the choices that we will make and keep as players. But to me - I can set aside my dismissive thoughts about the number and accept and be grateful that the developers are doing all this work to make a great game for us.
And to Winged's first point - how are they supposed to advertise the pure level of custimazation in this game, with out using that number? You responded and said "What they should do? What they've been doing. Just without the number." So a statement from Blizzard should read (according to you): "With runes being added to your abilities, you have the potential for a really big amount of builds to be made!"
Not as catching to me.
Hey yah Maka, how is it going? I just felt that your point is trying to find some fault in the whole system and maybe the number is a bit of a downer. Everyone else talks about viable builds but I feel it seems to go in some manner relating in a versus setup. Sure that 96 billion is just a ridiculous number to show, what has been said from the beginning, the RAW number.
Anyhow, I'm wondering why that number is getting to you, to me I'm more interested in how these modifications can work in conjunction with one another. The idea of having a Wizard throwing out serpent fire walls while the WD is throwing down huge guardian frogs just sounds awesome. Then I get to take my Monk and total the big monsters while those two abilities eat up the little guys.
You know what is amazing about that example, is that it is one of 14 possibilities of modded abilities with just two classes using one spell each. 2 classes using one of their spells gives you 14 options between the two. That is enough to make me just go crazy with ideas. I can't wait to see what the monk can do with the exploding heart ability.
Realistically every spell gets 8 possible variations, one of those being unaltered. I think that doesn't sound like much, so saying 96 billion makes us think just a little bit more. After that our imaginations just run wild with possibilities.
Again, NO ONE (In this discussion at least) has EVER stated how many of these builds will be "enjoyable", especially from an official source. Only that from a raw, factual instance this number stands true in that, if a difference is taken as its literal term, there are 96+ Billion possible combos per class.
The 2 key words there being, difference, and, literal.
If you have a so-called 'build', and then have another one that is identical, except it has a Rank 3 rune instead of a rank 4 rune on some skill, then that's not a different build. In fact, I would say it's the exact same build.
I'm sorry but in literal terms that made zero sense, and is factually wrong.
As quoted from Dictionary.com
Quote from name="Dictionary.com" timestamp="" post="" »
Different - Not identical; separate or distinct.
Any difference between any skills or runes (Staying on topic, not including other possible differences.) differentiates that build from a similar one even with one difference in rank.
If you have two characters in the Arena, each with equal skill level, and each with the same build in regards to; gear, traits, charms, gems, and so on, except one person's main skill has a rune of one higher level in it. Who is more likely to win?
As clearly said many times, taken literally, there are 96,886,969,344 builds per class. Some differ more than others, but a difference is a difference and when compared side by side two builds of the same compositions except for a singe rank of a single skill, the difference will play out to that persons advantage. So not only is it a factual difference, I'd consider it a note worthy one.
Sorry about all the quotes. But I got this just from this page alone! So, as you can see, this number is being viewed as the number of builds possible in the game, when it clearly is not.
I'll reiterate
Quote from name="Dictionary.com" timestamp="" post="" »
“We act as though comfort and luxury were the chief requirements of life, when all that we need to make us happy is something to be enthusiastic about.” - Albert Einstein
lets just agree there will be A LOT of viable builds.
just divide the number they gave us by 20 ,that should be about right XD
96,886,969,344/20 wow there are a lot of 6's 9's and 3's 0.0 that's en evil number
= 4844348467.2 round down
There will be 4,844,348,467
This cuts out any builds resembling other builds,
divide that by 100
4,844,348,467/100 = 48,443,484
that cut out any nub builds
There will be 48,443,484 viable builds XD happy ? I am.
P.s. argument about one guy having higher skill rune is kind of lame, a ""build"" would be a strategy, if they have THE SAME RUNE, but different rank that's the same 'build', its not like that guy PLANNED on having a lesser rune
but we get your point.
Winged, he clearly means in terms of functionality. They would be essentially indistinguishable, even though they technically aren't identical.
I must disagree that the number isn't relevant or shouldn't be advertised by Blizzard. We don't know how many builds will be useful in the final game. Neither does Blizz. That being said, the number of total builds is still the best measure of how many builds we'll end up with in the final game, so its still worth knowing to get an idea of how much customization we're in for. Its not hard to believe that a game with 30 skills per class and 5 different runes per skill will end up with a lot of different viable builds. And that number isn't even factoring in traits, charms, or armor.
I'm not saying that number can't be easily misleading, and I see where maka is coming from, but in the end announcing that number, or at least making a similar announcement, is an easy and effective way for Blizzard to advertise the amount of customization in their game, and there are few other statistics that would give us a similar idea as to how many builds there will be.
Winged, he clearly means in terms of functionality. They would be essentially indistinguishable, even though they technically aren't identical.
I understand, though how maka is going about this makes it seem like it was wrong for Bliz to incorporate that raw number in the way they did, or at all. I disagree with this.. Obviously lol
I must disagree that the number isn't relevant or shouldn't be advertised by Blizzard. We don't know how many builds will be useful in the final game. Neither does Blizz. That being said, the number of total builds is still the best measure of how many builds we'll end up with in the final game, so its still worth knowing to get an idea of how much customization we're in for. Its not hard to believe that a game with 30 skills per class and 5 different runes per skill will end up with a lot of different viable builds. And that number isn't even factoring in traits, charms, or armor.
I'm not saying that number can't be easily misleading, and I see where maka is coming from, but in the end announcing that number, or at least making a similar announcement, is an easy and effective way for Blizzard to advertise the amount of customization in their game, and there are few other statistics that would give us a similar idea as to how many builds there will be.
Pretty much sums up what I was getting across in the past few posts.
I come across strong in my opinions only when I believe there is correct reasoning and logic behind them.. This is one of them.
The number is factual in how they are implying it.
“We act as though comfort and luxury were the chief requirements of life, when all that we need to make us happy is something to be enthusiastic about.” - Albert Einstein
slightly Off topic, but one of the very very first things I ever heard about this game was that you will have combined skills to a hot key
I haven't really seen much on this anywhere, and it sounds far fetched, but in a way interesting
ie you can set more then 1 skill to 1 hot key,
so when i press 1 or F1 it would for example cast an ice bolt, and then an electrocute, or what have you.
don't remember where I heard that
I've been following the game since the moment it was announced and I can't say I've heard that lol. I don't think that will be a game function, I'm sure there would be ways (Likely complex ways) to do it, but not natively from a feature standard on your computer or the game.
It wouldn't make sense, say F1 was as you said, ice bolt and static charge. So what if you need to only use static charge? You have to cast ice bolt first? Wouldn't make sense.
“We act as though comfort and luxury were the chief requirements of life, when all that we need to make us happy is something to be enthusiastic about.” - Albert Einstein
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Melee....ewwwww. Ranged....mmmmmmmm We should play together because I also stick to usually 2 types of character classes and I most always sticks with ranged. The monk, if I were to be so melee inclined, wouldn't be a bad choice.
I think what the rune system alone does for the spells is going to make the re-playability of this game truly spectacular. I never made any of the other classes in D2, save the Sorc and Zon, because I didn't really care to have the two or three cookie cutter builds that most played with. Since there is going to be such variety, and variety that is ever changing as you level your character and gear it out, I think many will branch out from their favorite few.
I'm sure that most players will get used to seeing some of the same builds get used, in similar runed variations, as we get a year or two into D3. As the developers have stated, there are going to be builds that will emerge as being sort of the baseline that many will revolve around. However, the unique part of that being the minor tweaking that most will do, to those basic builds, to make them fit their play style. I suspect that it will take quite a bit of time before you start to see the same exact builds repetitively.
Monkalicious: http://us.battle.net/d3/en/profile/OptimusPrime-12194/hero/79139477
HOW THE HECK do you NOT try all of the classes?!!?!?!? even the one I hate I will try eventually! sheesh, 0 curiosity?.
There is no doubt there will be a lot of different builds in D3, WAY more then D2, but the number they gave is a bit ludicrous !
I agree, 1 rune does not change a build, especially since you can just swap runes around, I will probably swap runes every level, and every time I log on to battlenet!, does that make me multiple different builds in 1 character? XD
Maybe if you have a very specific setup with your runes, then even someone with same skills that MIGHT be considered a different build since in a way yes, a skill can be completely different depending on what rune is in it.
Also consider traits too I guess, even though passive can make a huge difference on whether your a "Whirlwind tornado rage barbarian" or a "Whirlwind Tornado Rage Tank! buba"
OOH! this is very exciting!
Lol. Well the easiest explanation for why someone may stick to only two classes is are they whether or not they are any good at the others? For instance, me driving a Barb, would be like my grandmother driving her motorized scooter down the highway at rush hour; hilarious and completely stupid. I suck with melee - but put me around the edges of a battle as a ranged attacker and not only can I do some direct damage for my interests, but assist others if they are in trouble. I hate melee...
The more that I look at traits in combination of skills/runes, the more I start theorycrafting with a pad of paper and characters that most likely will never exist in game. I personally try to avoid any speculation and rudimentary builds right now, until we get close to release and know for certain what will be in place. I don't want Blizzard to dash my dreams - which they already have, since I'm not playing D3...right...now....
Monkalicious: http://us.battle.net/d3/en/profile/OptimusPrime-12194/hero/79139477
I don't enjoy playing casters, in any RPG. They aren't my style, and if I do say so myself I'm a very good Barb player. Even in D2 where Hammerdins were a Barbs worst nightmare I'd go 9/10 against then with my PvP anti caster Barb.
The number they gave, (96,886,969,344) isn't ludicrous at all, it makes perfect sense if you do the math of number of class skills, skill level, against rune all rune types, and rune levels. They never once said ALL, MOST, or even a FRACTION of those builds will be viable, or benefit your character. It was purely an example of possible combinations. Viewing the number as anything more than that defuses your point of view entirely.
They can't give the raw (Even though it's common sense most of them will be useless) number, because it's apparently, " a stunt designed to impress the impressionable".
They can't give a number representing the amount of useful variations. (By the way, again for the 3rd time they never said any percentage of that number would be viable combinations.)
So maka, please give your opinion on how they should go about showcasing, to an audience the numerical side of Skill Runes (While being comprehensive to a wide audience).
Then draw another line next to it about 50 feet in length and say" This line represents viable builds in Diablo 3"
even though thats not a number, its a comparison.
Find any Diablo news? Contact me or anyone else on the news team.
DiabloFans: Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, Live Chat
So what you're saying is, they shouldn't promote their game by announcing raw numbers in which make thousands of people wonder what that number could mean? Interesting marketing strategy you have their, sounds effective. Stick to what we know, which as of now if next to nothing since the game has yet to go through BETA testing. Brilliant.
Again, NO ONE (In this discussion at least) has EVER stated how many of these builds will be "enjoyable", especially from an official source. Only that from a raw, factual instance this number stands true in that, if a difference is taken as its literal term, there are 96+ Billion possible combos per class.
You're putting words in which were never said into the mix.
Any person at all experienced with Diablo will know right off the bat that 99% of those builds, come end game be forgotten, and swapped with the most powerful builds, thanks for that.
From a marketing standpoint, and a general interest of the RAW MAXIMUM BUILDS POSSIBLE, the number is wonderful. It provokes thought, and wonder about the game, mostly to those who are unexperienced, but also in general as a freaking huge number affiliated to ONE class, only counting TWO factors, skills, and runes. Excellent marketing, as was seen by the reaction of the crowd after the number was shown on the projector.
You keep saying how it means nothing, this isn't true. It means there are 96+ billion builds per class. What it doesn't mean, and what NO ONE HAS EVER SAID (In this discussion), is that there will be 96+ billion viable builds per class. Again at this point NO ONE can estimate the amount of viable builds, seeing as there has been NO BETA TESTING. Even if testing was done, logic dictates that per class maybe 50 builds will be viable against each other come end game.
Once again, the number is only a raw format, and doesn't imply or represent anything other than the FACT that there is indeed 96,886,969,344 different builds per class. No one ever said that even 1 of them were viable.
Goodnight.
Okay - diplomacy here. I agree with you Maka; the number is sorta funny and a bit ridiculous. When I watch the developers panels at Blizzcon last year and they state that they want numbers to sound big and meaningful to the game, they certainly have accomplished that with the builds combo number.
It's a shame that Blizzard and or others on this forum mentioning this number, bothers you. Because at its core (from what you have explained) Blizzard making an effort to maximize the customization of this game, bothers you. Of course the efforts they are going to, to make the game customizable, can be a bit far-reaching. I don't think the developers sat down and said; "lets have 97 billion things people can do in this game!" But we should enjoy that they are going to such lengths to make this game something we can play for years to come, without boredom and repetitiveness.
Maka, you keep saying the number doesn't mean anything. It does. It simply means that you have the potential to have 97 different builds in this game, because of the rune system. That number represents choice and the ability to further make choices in the game. How can that not be something they should promote and that you shouldn't enjoy. I know and you know that the number doesn't represent all the choices that we will make and keep as players. But to me - I can set aside my dismissive thoughts about the number and accept and be grateful that the developers are doing all this work to make a great game for us.
And to Winged's first point - how are they supposed to advertise the pure level of custimazation in this game, with out using that number? You responded and said "What they should do? What they've been doing. Just without the number." So a statement from Blizzard should read (according to you): "With runes being added to your abilities, you have the potential for a really big amount of builds to be made!"
Not as catching to me.
Paroxysm2010 - the line suggestion was hilarious!
Monkalicious: http://us.battle.net/d3/en/profile/OptimusPrime-12194/hero/79139477
Anyhow, I'm wondering why that number is getting to you, to me I'm more interested in how these modifications can work in conjunction with one another. The idea of having a Wizard throwing out serpent fire walls while the WD is throwing down huge guardian frogs just sounds awesome. Then I get to take my Monk and total the big monsters while those two abilities eat up the little guys.
You know what is amazing about that example, is that it is one of 14 possibilities of modded abilities with just two classes using one spell each. 2 classes using one of their spells gives you 14 options between the two. That is enough to make me just go crazy with ideas. I can't wait to see what the monk can do with the exploding heart ability.
Realistically every spell gets 8 possible variations, one of those being unaltered. I think that doesn't sound like much, so saying 96 billion makes us think just a little bit more. After that our imaginations just run wild with possibilities.
The 2 key words there being, difference, and, literal.
As you claim,
I'm sorry but in literal terms that made zero sense, and is factually wrong.
As quoted from Dictionary.com
Any difference between any skills or runes (Staying on topic, not including other possible differences.) differentiates that build from a similar one even with one difference in rank.
If you have two characters in the Arena, each with equal skill level, and each with the same build in regards to; gear, traits, charms, gems, and so on, except one person's main skill has a rune of one higher level in it. Who is more likely to win?
As clearly said many times, taken literally, there are 96,886,969,344 builds per class. Some differ more than others, but a difference is a difference and when compared side by side two builds of the same compositions except for a singe rank of a single skill, the difference will play out to that persons advantage. So not only is it a factual difference, I'd consider it a note worthy one.
I'll reiterate
lets just agree there will be A LOT of viable builds.
just divide the number they gave us by 20 ,that should be about right XD
96,886,969,344/20 wow there are a lot of 6's 9's and 3's 0.0 that's en evil number
= 4844348467.2 round down
There will be 4,844,348,467
This cuts out any builds resembling other builds,
divide that by 100
4,844,348,467/100 = 48,443,484
that cut out any nub builds
There will be 48,443,484 viable builds XD happy ? I am.
P.s. argument about one guy having higher skill rune is kind of lame, a ""build"" would be a strategy, if they have THE SAME RUNE, but different rank that's the same 'build', its not like that guy PLANNED on having a lesser rune
but we get your point.
I must disagree that the number isn't relevant or shouldn't be advertised by Blizzard. We don't know how many builds will be useful in the final game. Neither does Blizz. That being said, the number of total builds is still the best measure of how many builds we'll end up with in the final game, so its still worth knowing to get an idea of how much customization we're in for. Its not hard to believe that a game with 30 skills per class and 5 different runes per skill will end up with a lot of different viable builds. And that number isn't even factoring in traits, charms, or armor.
I'm not saying that number can't be easily misleading, and I see where maka is coming from, but in the end announcing that number, or at least making a similar announcement, is an easy and effective way for Blizzard to advertise the amount of customization in their game, and there are few other statistics that would give us a similar idea as to how many builds there will be.
Find any Diablo news? Contact me or anyone else on the news team.
DiabloFans: Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, Live Chat
I understand, though how maka is going about this makes it seem like it was wrong for Bliz to incorporate that raw number in the way they did, or at all. I disagree with this.. Obviously lol
Pretty much sums up what I was getting across in the past few posts.
I come across strong in my opinions only when I believe there is correct reasoning and logic behind them.. This is one of them.
The number is factual in how they are implying it.
I haven't really seen much on this anywhere, and it sounds far fetched, but in a way interesting
ie you can set more then 1 skill to 1 hot key,
so when i press 1 or F1 it would for example cast an ice bolt, and then an electrocute, or what have you.
don't remember where I heard that
It wouldn't make sense, say F1 was as you said, ice bolt and static charge. So what if you need to only use static charge? You have to cast ice bolt first? Wouldn't make sense.