Well I have been looking around the forums and everyone is saying "no, there has to be [insert class here] so it would be more like this...". not that I'm mad or something but, how do these class rules work?
They don't. People just can't get away from DII and htey think that Blizzard is just going to do the same "Sword and shield, pure mage, ranged class" again...
I don't want a remake of D2. I love the game but it's worn out now. So much so that I wouldn't have been happy at all with a simple expansion - especially considering all the new technologies that have come along since. I would like to see something new. I want D3 NOT D2.5!
Only rules that truely are fixed are that for the sake of balance. There needs to be magic wielding classes and physical weapon wielding classes. Other than that they are free to blend the 2 and play with all in between.
Seth
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Signature removed. In violation of Commercial Advertising Rule.
They don't. People just can't get away from DII and htey think that Blizzard is just going to do the same "Sword and shield, pure mage, ranged class" again...
I disagree. I mean yeah, you're right, there's no set in stone rules for class making, but you need to follow the archetypes to some degree to give a reason for some game mechanics to exist. For instance, what would be the point for mana, or spellcasting, if there was no class that took full advantage of it? Or for a better example, why would there be bows with no class to utilize them?
That doesn't mean the classes still can't be varied and have unique skills or whatnot, but their essence needs to set into some structure, in order for there be a functional game.
Also, since the barbarian has been revealed, we can make a probable assumption that one of the three unannounced classes will be a continuing D2 character. I'm not sure if that was hit upon, but it's highly likely.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you don't have anything good to say, say it on the internet.
But it does to me, Sorc is my favorite. Blizz wants everyone to be happy, which is why they will have some new form of each type of class. Not to mention that in the gameplay video a purple short staff drops. While the female WD at the end was using a staff, they're built for sorcs.
There will be something thats built around weapon carnage (barb)
Something that is meant to use a shield (some kind of pally)
Something ranged
Something that casts spells as their attack
and something that summons. (WD)
There is no doubt in my mind that there will be a shapeshifter as well. Whether or not it will have to wait for an expansion, I don't know.
to you? Though I have to argue that we don't have any evidence otherwise as of the moment. The only ranged weapon type that dropped in the demo was a bow. However, I didn't mean that the ranged class would be bows only:P
Quote from "Kenzai" »
Firstly, the WD isnt just a summoner, itd be better if you would have said 'secondary caster' or something, as he also his misc stuff like curses and also disease etc.
probably won't play it if there's all the same skills. All the same skills could mean all the same builds, and all the good guilds will just take the old builds, and then all the new moves will just take to the hills and from there there was no point in putting in new skills. With the old builds back, the players that mastered them will be right back on top.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC] Don't be mad because I'm...
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I'd want them to get away from the old classes as far as possible, brainstorm something new, and then start looking at other games + D2 + D1...
"Ahh, fresh meat!"
- The Butcher
Poison...filled donu....darts
Seth
I disagree. I mean yeah, you're right, there's no set in stone rules for class making, but you need to follow the archetypes to some degree to give a reason for some game mechanics to exist. For instance, what would be the point for mana, or spellcasting, if there was no class that took full advantage of it? Or for a better example, why would there be bows with no class to utilize them?
That doesn't mean the classes still can't be varied and have unique skills or whatnot, but their essence needs to set into some structure, in order for there be a functional game.
Also, since the barbarian has been revealed, we can make a probable assumption that one of the three unannounced classes will be a continuing D2 character. I'm not sure if that was hit upon, but it's highly likely.
There will be something thats built around weapon carnage (barb)
Something that is meant to use a shield (some kind of pally)
Something ranged
Something that casts spells as their attack
and something that summons. (WD)
There is no doubt in my mind that there will be a shapeshifter as well. Whether or not it will have to wait for an expansion, I don't know.
The first time I play through I use a melee class, then after that I use spell casters usually.
to you? Though I have to argue that we don't have any evidence otherwise as of the moment. The only ranged weapon type that dropped in the demo was a bow. However, I didn't mean that the ranged class would be bows only:P
That I agree with, you got me there.