For the longest time, I had thought that characters were limited to 7 skills on the skillbar. However, know I've learned that a character can only train 7 seven skills per character period (Respecing aside, and I'm sure it will cost you something).
Why? Yes, I've heard the argument that no one ever used that many skills in Diablo 2, but that's a poor argument in my estimation. Is it just me or do Jay and the boys seem to be attempting to make this game idiot-proof? They seem to be discounting people's ability to rationally judge which skills they should train. Isn't that somewhat arrogant? This is like the Health & Safety people limiting people's intake of sugar or salt because it's bad for them, and apparently the average person is too stupid to limit their intake of it. So, they legislate the amounts a person is legally able to eat (or drink).
This just irks me to no end. It's fine to limit how many skills your able to place on the skillbar at any one time, but it's not fine to limit the amount of skills a character is able to train. First it was the auto-stat distribution, and now skills... Why can't I be freely able to screw up my character as I see fit?
Why is there such a movement towards the simplification of games? It seems to be that if it doesn't involve running around and killing things, its being cut, simplified, or severly limited, as if people can't be bothered to stop doing that in order to do something that actually requires a few brain cells.
I've complained and voiced my concern about that phenomenon for games where everything must be made simpler, or rather, everything must bend to more rules just because its how we want it to be, instead of giving that freedom to the player.
Nobody seemed to care.
The idea, however, is probably beyond what you're calling it. The idea is that your characters have a limit on what they acquire as to make sure each one is different. It can even be a balance thing, as well. Its likely that the abilities, from the first point you put in them, are much more powerful than before.
The idea is that the skills you do get are all useful and powerful. But you can't have them all, you can't have one character with everything, its too much, its unbalanced, its --plenty of other words like that--.
In D2, there was little to no point in having more skills unless that 1 point in them make them effective enough. Their line of thought is most likely as simple as that: we need limits to balance usefulness and freedom. The freedom to put 1 point in every skill that are now completely useless for the entire game, is that useful freedom?
In D2, there was little to no point in having more skills unless that 1 point in them make them effective enough. Their line of thought is most likely as simple as that: we need limits to balance usefulness and freedom. The freedom to put 1 point in every skill that are now completely useless for the entire game, is that useful freedom?
See though, your making my point. What rational person would really do that? Obviously, people know that specialization is far better than being a jack of all trades. Also, not everyone is interested in pvp, which I think is the main argument for this system (i.e., builds). However, it seems they assume that people would put a single point in a skill, so they make choices for the player, because they know better (or think they know better). That makes me angry.
I'm just irritated because I feel as though I'm loosing options and customization options, and I'm not getting any thing worthwhile in return.
However, I can appreciate the balancing argument. But even if not using the limiting option, there should be trade-offs. Either way a character shouldn't be that powerful. Let's say if a character has a certain type of skill or a specific skill, they shouldn't be able to equip (they can't equip it, but they can train it) others. Although I concede that might take more time to implement that simply limiting skills.
I'm just irritated because I feel as though I'm loosing options and customization capability, and that I'm not getting anything worthwhile in return.
Even D2 had these limitations, but in the form of innefficiency. If everyone can run around with every skill, then there's a lack of uniqueness. Instead, you actually have to make choices, which makes for more obvious differences.
For example, just because you're a sorceress doesn't mean you have teleport. Its useful, but what if someone find something else more useful? There's a choice to be made that creates a difference. Given the freedom to choose as many skills as you want and just put 1 point in them, who would not put 1 point in teleport?
No matter what, there is a limit. A limit because of usefulness (because spreading your points too much is futile) or a limit because the developers said so. I don't disagree that having such a limit set on us is annoying, but it might just be for the better. There's a lot of angles to this, and both D2 and D3's systems are imperfect, and both have limits. I only wish that each skills would require less points in D2 to be useful and that I could spend them in only a few, so that I could actually use more than one skill or 2 per character.
However, I can appreciate the balancing argument. But even if not using the limiting option, there should be trade-offs. Either way a character shouldn't be that powerful. Let's say if a character has a certain type of skill or a specific skill, they shouldn't be able to equip (they can't equip it, but they can train it) others. Although I concede that might take more time to implement that simply limiting skills.
Thats as much a limitation as any others, just a different one. You would kill skill combos "just because" instead of just cutting the total amount of skills you can actually have.
Even D2 had these limitations, but in the form of innefficiency. If everyone can run around with every skill, then there's a lack of uniqueness. Instead, you actually have to make choices, which makes for more obvious differences.
For example, just because you're a sorceress doesn't mean you have teleport. Its useful, but what if someone find something else more useful? There's a choice to be made that creates a difference. Given the freedom to choose as many skills as you want and just put 1 point in them, who would not put 1 point in teleport?
No matter what, there is a limit. A limit because of usefulness (because spreading your points too much is futile) or a limit because the developers said so. I don't disagree that having such a limit set on us is annoying, but it might just be for the better. There's a lot of angles to this, and both D2 and D3's systems are imperfect, and both have limits. I only wish that each skills would require less points in D2 to be useful and that I could spend them in only a few, so that I could actually use more than one skill or 2 per character.
Remember that Blizzard has to make sure that the pants-on-head-retarded beginners can get through at least the normal difficulty with enough head-banging (which wasn't given in DII).
Why? This is how they can make sure the game is actually difficult for everyone who grasps the concept of pants.
Problem with Diablo II was that you had to balance the game both for the casual newbie and the hardcore min/maxer. At the end of the day the game was far too easy for the min/maxer and a bit hard for all the friendly neighborhood retards.
You both make good points, and I can't really defend arguments against them. I guess this was more of a rant/venting thread, apologies for that. It's just an annoyance when I see the game industry forcing things on it's customers. Good or bad, it's still an annoyance. I guess we'll have to see how it works out.
Hahaha is that an actual expression or did you just make that up?
Well and retards are one thing, kids are another (even though they aren't supposed to play the game, you know many of them will)
I don't see what the big deal is with the 7 skill though, it will work out fine. It's just a whole new skill system, people should stop thinking in D2 terms.
I would actually argue that Blizzard is making the game MORE complicated in that each rune will drastically change the skill, right? I cant remember if there are 6 or 7 runes but that means their are either 36 or 49 different variations of skills for each class, which seems like a good number to me.
I would actually argue that Blizzard is making the game MORE complicated in that each rune will drastically change the skill, right? I cant remember if there are 6 or 7 runes but that means their are either 36 or 49 different variations of skills for each class, which seems like a good number to me.
Another good point... Forgot about the runes. I'm beginning to feel like an ass.
no need to worry, nobody can know/remember everything anyway
on topic, though, even as the 7 skill limitation seems like... limitation and i was really against it at first (had an all-round necro, 3 elemental sorc etc so you can understand why) the more i found out about it, the more sense it made. Now let me explain why i think they did so:
in Diablo 2 the ones that invested on the basic skills early on (talking mostly before synergies) were seriously screwed cause the lower tiered skills were useless later on. That wont really be the case here since the effectiveness scales with the skills invested in it and the runestones used on each ability. That said, there can be extremely more variety with the skills and they can also be strengthened through the traits to increase their usefulness.
The 7 skill system makes it so you still have a lot of skills, but you focus on only those 7 at a time. Theres still a bunch of skills to choose from. Its their way of making it so you can't dig yourself into a hole like in D2 (I know that happened to me), and it might not be absolutely perfect but it does its job.
Why? Yes, I've heard the argument that no one ever used that many skills in Diablo 2, but that's a poor argument in my estimation. Is it just me or do Jay and the boys seem to be attempting to make this game idiot-proof? They seem to be discounting people's ability to rationally judge which skills they should train. Isn't that somewhat arrogant? This is like the Health & Safety people limiting people's intake of sugar or salt because it's bad for them, and apparently the average person is too stupid to limit their intake of it. So, they legislate the amounts a person is legally able to eat (or drink).
This just irks me to no end. It's fine to limit how many skills your able to place on the skillbar at any one time, but it's not fine to limit the amount of skills a character is able to train. First it was the auto-stat distribution, and now skills... Why can't I be freely able to screw up my character as I see fit?
Why is there such a movement towards the simplification of games? It seems to be that if it doesn't involve running around and killing things, its being cut, simplified, or severly limited, as if people can't be bothered to stop doing that in order to do something that actually requires a few brain cells.
Nobody seemed to care.
The idea, however, is probably beyond what you're calling it. The idea is that your characters have a limit on what they acquire as to make sure each one is different. It can even be a balance thing, as well. Its likely that the abilities, from the first point you put in them, are much more powerful than before.
The idea is that the skills you do get are all useful and powerful. But you can't have them all, you can't have one character with everything, its too much, its unbalanced, its --plenty of other words like that--.
In D2, there was little to no point in having more skills unless that 1 point in them make them effective enough. Their line of thought is most likely as simple as that: we need limits to balance usefulness and freedom. The freedom to put 1 point in every skill that are now completely useless for the entire game, is that useful freedom?
See though, your making my point. What rational person would really do that? Obviously, people know that specialization is far better than being a jack of all trades. Also, not everyone is interested in pvp, which I think is the main argument for this system (i.e., builds). However, it seems they assume that people would put a single point in a skill, so they make choices for the player, because they know better (or think they know better). That makes me angry.
I'm just irritated because I feel as though I'm loosing options and customization options, and I'm not getting any thing worthwhile in return.
However, I can appreciate the balancing argument. But even if not using the limiting option, there should be trade-offs. Either way a character shouldn't be that powerful. Let's say if a character has a certain type of skill or a specific skill, they shouldn't be able to equip (they can't equip it, but they can train it) others. Although I concede that might take more time to implement that simply limiting skills.
I'm just irritated because I feel as though I'm loosing options and customization capability, and that I'm not getting anything worthwhile in return.
I don't think I follow you here. How does limiting options ensure diversity and differentiality?
For example, just because you're a sorceress doesn't mean you have teleport. Its useful, but what if someone find something else more useful? There's a choice to be made that creates a difference. Given the freedom to choose as many skills as you want and just put 1 point in them, who would not put 1 point in teleport?
No matter what, there is a limit. A limit because of usefulness (because spreading your points too much is futile) or a limit because the developers said so. I don't disagree that having such a limit set on us is annoying, but it might just be for the better. There's a lot of angles to this, and both D2 and D3's systems are imperfect, and both have limits. I only wish that each skills would require less points in D2 to be useful and that I could spend them in only a few, so that I could actually use more than one skill or 2 per character.
Thats as much a limitation as any others, just a different one. You would kill skill combos "just because" instead of just cutting the total amount of skills you can actually have.
You both make good points, and I can't really defend arguments against them. I guess this was more of a rant/venting thread, apologies for that. It's just an annoyance when I see the game industry forcing things on it's customers. Good or bad, it's still an annoyance. I guess we'll have to see how it works out.
/shrug
Well and retards are one thing, kids are another (even though they aren't supposed to play the game, you know many of them will)
I don't see what the big deal is with the 7 skill though, it will work out fine. It's just a whole new skill system, people should stop thinking in D2 terms.
I would actually argue that Blizzard is making the game MORE complicated in that each rune will drastically change the skill, right? I cant remember if there are 6 or 7 runes but that means their are either 36 or 49 different variations of skills for each class, which seems like a good number to me.
Another good point... Forgot about the runes. I'm beginning to feel like an ass.
on topic, though, even as the 7 skill limitation seems like... limitation and i was really against it at first (had an all-round necro, 3 elemental sorc etc so you can understand why) the more i found out about it, the more sense it made. Now let me explain why i think they did so:
in Diablo 2 the ones that invested on the basic skills early on (talking mostly before synergies) were seriously screwed cause the lower tiered skills were useless later on. That wont really be the case here since the effectiveness scales with the skills invested in it and the runestones used on each ability. That said, there can be extremely more variety with the skills and they can also be strengthened through the traits to increase their usefulness.
Find any Diablo news? Contact me or anyone else on the news team.
DiabloFans: Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, Live Chat