Why in the world are they nerfing thorns stuff?
- Credge
- Registered User
-
Member for 15 years, 9 months, and 19 days
Last active Sun, Oct, 16 2016 18:03:57
- 0 Followers
- 308 Total Posts
- 2 Thanks
-
Dec 14, 2015Credge posted a message on New PTR Patch datamined! - Patch 2.4 December 11thPosted in: News
-
Jan 9, 2015Credge posted a message on Why Players Quit D3, Patch Soon?, GR 45 DH on 2.1.2There's absolutely no customization in this game. That's >the< reason why everybody is quitting.Posted in: News
It is not fun to only have one set per class be viable for an end-game that never ends. Great, I can beat T6 with no effort. I can climb the endless rift levels. I guess that's cool. Except in order to do that I have to use one set of items. I need specific rings. I need specific weapons. I need specific items.
There are no interesting mechanics in this game. The very core of the game is uninteresting and boring. Weapons are stat sticks that your skills modify the damage of based on a %. Why? Why do our skills do a % of weapon damage to begin with? Why are enemies in the billions of health? Didn't they realize the mistake that large numbers brings from WoW? They rectified the mistake there, yet, they're continuing here.
Paragon levels are fairly pointless except for a few 0DPS builds. Everything in this game revolves around how much damage you can do in as short a time as possible. There are few interesting skills and most of them boil down to what element type they are instead of interesting effects and modifiers. There are very few combos to skills in this game, and most of these combos are underpowered and useless. Almost all interesting skills deal insanely low damage and are absolutely useless.
Weapons are primarily stat sticks and are functionally redundant. Every single time they release a new set of things (unique gems, for example), there are two to three that are above and beyond better than all of the others. The development team can not come up with any interesting or effective defensive builds or items that don't revolve around completely disabling the enemies. Having to literally dodge every single attack that enemies fire at you is boring and uninteresting. The very gameplay they've promoted through absurd damage scaling has turned the game in to the exact same thing that it was at launch except now, instead of needing godly yellow items, we require very specific legendaries.
There's a dramatic lack of interesting gear in this game, and any interesting gear is made useless by the very mechanics they push on us. AOE life drain pants that do damage based on your life regen but remove life regen? Awesome idea! Completely useless!
The fix to the game is three fold.
1. Produce masses of unique equipment. It doesn't matter if they are godly or not. Every legendary should feel legendary. Stats are boring. Effects are not. Every single weapon that's in the game can be given an existing twinkly effect and a unique modifier or effect. Bam. You've got a hundred new weapons. Make existing set items not suck. Why would I take the Helltooth set when I have the Jade Harvester set? Zombie Wall is amazingly fun to use, but is completely useless with the game they've made.
2. Give us flexibility in builds. Sets force you in to specific modes of play. And, that's cool. The point of sets should be to make weak skills (zombie wall, as an example) become strong. They shouldn't force you to make builds around the set, they should give you more flexibility in what you can do with the limited number of skills.
3. The paragon system sucks and does not give actual customization or character growth. Every modern ARPG has a skill point system for skills. Give us the ability to actually make our skills unique and interesting with the paragon system.
And, I can't say it enough:
STATS SUCK! -
Nov 18, 2014Credge posted a message on PTR Patch 2.1.2 dataminedIt's interesting there are not Crusader or Monk changes here, especially with the reworked Monk set happening.Posted in: News
-
Mar 1, 2010Credge posted a message on Diablo III, Featuring BoEPosted in: NewsQuote from "Zoobi" »No single item in the game would be worth a high rune if there weren't dupes. I don't think Blizzard understands that dupes are what make the diablo 2 economy fail.
This. Remove dupes, the economy is fine. Items naturally lose value as more of them exist.
There's a reason SoJ's are the currency of choice in Diablo 2 :|. -
Mar 1, 2010Credge posted a message on Diablo III, Featuring BoEI've lost it. Blizzard has no idea what they are doing. BOE is a mechanic that is used when you don't want item decay to exist but you still want items to disappear over time so you don't have huge inflation on an economy and eventually end up with an economical oligarchy.Posted in: News
Except that will happen anyway because of the random nature of the games loot. BOE makes sense when X mob has a % chance to drop an item. This way, a player, or group of players, can farm said mob until everybody gets what items they want and then they turn around and sell the leftovers for profit.
So, unless Blizzard is telling us that Tal-Rasha has a 15% chance to drop Tal-Rashas Whip of Ancient Wrappings with this, they've essentially started down the path of an incredibly broken in game economy, an uninteresting small-group environment where hand-me-downs function to create equality amongst members, and a slightly less interesting single-player experience where a handed down item might complete a character build.
A better solution is to just have all items be BOP and completely ignore the economy altogether. -
Feb 7, 2010Credge posted a message on Properly Proportioned PauldronsIf you're 7 feet tall you don't need massive shoulder pads. You need shoulder pads that are proportioned correctly for your size.Posted in: News
Just because somebody is a giant doesn't mean that they use things that don't fit on their body. Those pauldrons were larger than his head. -
Nov 23, 2009Credge posted a message on DiabloFans Exclusive: Jay WilsonPosted in: NewsJay Wilson: In regards to the female counterpart, she'll be released soon. As far as exact dates go, I really can't talk much about them. A little news about the Skill Tree system should actually go up on our Twitter page pretty soon. About that, we've decided to remove the tree-type architecture and we are moving into a purely skill-based system. This new system is still in the development stages and if it does not work, we still have plenty of options to fall back on. Right now, we're just trying different things and getting a feel for the few ideas in regards to the skill system that we have going on right now. It differs from the World of Warcraft/Diablo II type hierarchical styles and is more of a skill pool/path than a tree per se.
In other words, you have trees for each skill.
K. -
Oct 1, 2009Credge posted a message on Diablo II Patch 1.13- More Delays, Hopefully a Brighter FutureThis sounds like the signs of a rushed patch =\.Posted in: News
-
Sep 30, 2009Credge posted a message on What Do YOU Want To Know About Diablo 3?This seems like a pretty simple question.Posted in: News
Will I be able to make characters that do not fit that classes archetype? For example, I could make a melee sorc or necro that was viable if I wanted to do just that. Alternatively I could make a barbarian that primarily used shouts, wards, and the like to dispatch enemies. -
Aug 29, 2009Credge posted a message on Bashiok on the Witch Doctor's "Zombie Dogs"Posted in: NewsQuote from "Kenzai" »
The problems are simple:
1) Might as well make a passive as you'll keep refreshing without even noticing.
2) You don't have control over changing the effect when they get in the way and you cast something on them.
All of this can be remedied by not having the AOE damage trigger it but the mouse-over-and-click-directly-on-top-of-the-mongrel method instead.
It's not a problem at all. -
Aug 28, 2009Credge posted a message on Bashiok on the Witch Doctor's "Zombie Dogs"Posted in: NewsQuote from "SFJake" »"Lets dumb down an unique mechanic because we can't deal with it, instead of trying to improve it and fix its flaws."
Thats all I saw there.
That's all I saw as well.
There are several ways to make the mechanic unique and interesting. For example, a flaming zombie dog could lose health over time (have a dot for the duration of the buff) while doing increased damage. This would make the witch doctor have to be a bit careful with where he casts his fire spell, increasing the strategy involved.
Because the game is still about strategy, right? Wasn't that something they drilled in to us at last years Blizzcon? Remember the skeletons with the shields?
Really, all this says is that "We don't want things to get all that interesting with this class. We don't want another Necromancer on our hands." Which, ironically, they already said =\. -
Aug 20, 2009Credge posted a message on Has the Tetris Inventory and Magic Find Returned?Yay at the inventory! While the one item takes one spot formula works for MMO's, it doesn't seem right in an action-rpg, especially when it's been a staple in the other two games.Posted in: News
That would be like removing peons from Warcraft 4. -
Mar 21, 2009Credge posted a message on New Battle.net Has ArrivedPosted in: NewsQuote from "PhrozenDragon" »I'm one of them. While the intention of steam is wondeful, I hate the fact that I have to have it on to play, and that I HAVE to have it patched to the latest version. Plus it's slow as hell to start, which doesn't make any sense.
I hope Blizzard releases Battle-net 2 with the intent of making it a complimentary software for online play, and not necessary for Singleplayer action.
Well, the only thing you need with Steam is to have it on. That doesn't mean you have to have it online, though in order to play offline you need to get online once every two weeks. I don't understand the patched to the latest version complaint.
However, I agree that it shouldn't be required. -
Oct 10, 2008Credge posted a message on Character Stat AssigningPosted in: NewsQuote from "Ivaron" »Think about what you just said. Because I could spot the flaw in that the moment I read it.
There is no flaw. Those who don't want custom stat allocation won't care about min-maxing a character and play for the simple pleasure of killing enemies. Those who do want custom stat allocation care about min-maxing a character and play for the simple pleasure of killing enemies without issue.
I agree entirely that the option should exist. -
Aug 7, 2008Credge posted a message on Diablo 3 Art Director ResignsPosted in: NewsQuote from "Oakwarrior" »Well, since they made us wait for 7 years, I'd say I can live through another year of delay. Because I don't really give a shit when it's released, I just want it released. Some time.
I'd rather wait an extra year for a product I'd buy than have it be released 'on time' for a product I wouldn't buy.
Those 7 years, guess what. They spent those 7 years going with different art styles. 3-4 of them.
Edit: Odd that they announced this on the 5th - my birthday. Hell yeah. Happy Birthday indeed. - To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
1
Because we have a system that works, and works well.
You missed the analogy.
You don't change things simply 'cuz'. You change things when there is a problem. And, generally, if there's a problem you first start by changing small things so you can observe how it impacts the game.
Torchlight did just this. They changed the trees to being tiers. Same system, similar mechanic, except now stockpiling points to dump in to one skill doesn't work and those lower skills, even if it's only one point spent in to them, actually matter because you use those skills to level up.
So, why don't you go out and buy a keyboard every 20 days? Because you have one that works and you don't need to buy a new keyboard every 20 days. To compare the keyboard analogy to Diablo time, I've had this keyboard since Diablo 1 and it still functions just as good as it did then.
When they say "We're removing trees" it's essentially like saying "We're removing keys from keyboards." There's no reason to do it other than to add another dot on to the back of the box.
It's an analogy there chief.
As an aside, I don't understand why people on the internet have a hard time grasping analogies. They're one of the simplest tools for putting things in to perspective.
I could have used cars and it would have been the same thing. Or televisions. Or houses. Or anything for that matter. The result is the same. Sometimes you have to upgrade what you have so it works, but you don't have to completely change it. There's a reason houses still have roofs, cars still have engines, and televisions still have A/V cable inputs.
Look, you can be excited for a brand new skill system, that's great. Until I know what the skill system is going to be like, I'm going to resent it because I know from years and years of playing games with this exact system that it works. It works so well that any ARPG I've played that hasn't had that system...
Actually no, I've never played an ARPG that hasn't had skill trees that didn't come out before Diablo 2.
0
Great, get a new one.
Will you be getting another one in 20 days? Or better, will you be getting one of those keyless keyboards? No, you'll probably just buy a plain ol' keyboard because you know it works and works well.
The only acceptable thing they can do is what Torchlight did... except there are still trees. The difference is that the only requirement to go to the next tier is level and, so you don't dump 10 points in to a skill right as you get it (a-la D2), there are level caps on each skill.
So it's balanced.
If that's what they mean by getting rid of trees then that's great. Sadly, I don't think that will be the case.
0
For the same reason you don't go out and buy a new keyboard every 20 days.
0
0
Those are still trees no matter how you slice it.
Unless they're thinking of doing the Torchlight system, which still has trees but... I guess you could say that those aren't.
0
It's a real simple solution. Dual wielding two Iron Swords should yield the same DPS as two-handing an Iron Claymore. The difference would be that with dual wielding you have more attacks that do less damage and with a two-hander you do fewer attacks but each attack does more damage.
Torchlight balances this well and, despite not being able to have as many stats, two-handers serve an obvious role and switching between the two can be very important. To summarize how the two function, dual wielding is better against hordes of lesser healthed and armored enemies while two-handers are better against fewer highly healthed and armored enemies.
That should be the balance and design all in one execution. Allow players two weapon loadouts(whoever says that it is useless never played an Amazon without an uber spec or hasn't played any game that has weapon balance) and allow the player to decide what he needs for the situation.
Want to balance skills? Sure, make some skills do damage based off of total weapon DPS and then have some other skills do damage based off of weapon damage. You'll have one set of skills for dual wielders and another set for two-handers. Alternatively you could just have the skill change function depending on what weapons you have. Dual wielding? It's based off of total weapon DPS. Using a two-hander? It's based off of weapon damage. Sword and shield? That's where the real question comes is.
0
Scripted events are scripted. To expect something like that to occur is absurd. Melee characters would pretty much be screwed by that and, indeed, the fight becomes tedious for melee characters and boring for those not impacted by melee range insta-gibs.
The reality is that it's no different than element or physical resistance in D2, except slightly different. That is to say, range hate against a player instead of resistance against a mob.
I don't even think the mechanic is a good one to be honest. Obviously it has to have a trigger, otherwise it will become a random annoyance and the fight will always be a gamble for melee characters (read: not related to skill but luck). Because it has a trigger, all you have to do is learn to avoid the trigger. How that's any different than any other fight in any other ARPG is beyond me.
For those that are furiously typing up a storm in response to me, please examine the following and tell me how this will change up how you approach a boss fight.
Diablo 2: Bosses have certain animation and A.I. queues which result in specific skills being used. You learn them in order to avoid them in order to beat them.
Diablo 3: Bosses have certain animation and A.I. queues which result in specific skills being used. You learn them in order to avoid them in order to beat them.
Now, I'm not saying I'm not happy for this, after all, they touted that we'd be using 'tactics' in D3... but so far what they've shown us is that 'tactics' is what we've been doing all along in all ARPG's. Which is why I'm not impressed.
With the mechanic, not the animation. The animation was cool.
0
I never had to repeat content in D2 with any of my characters (except for when I faced the barbs on hell difficulty with my sorc... always one that had cold resistance). I did, however, repeat content willingly.
The way it was worded made it sound like the problem was repeating content intentionally. My experience with Diablo is that I never had to repeat content unless I wanted to. Actually, that was the experience of everyone I knew. None of us needed to do Baal or Meph runs, we simply chose to do so because they were the best outlet for loot.
So, if there is a limit of any kind (either total number, time in between, or only being able to do it once) on what I can and can not do in D3 then the game will be fairly useless to me. I've already played the game when it was called Hellgate: London.
0
How is running Baal 10,000 times going to impact anyone other than me? Why would they put something in to the game that would not let me replay content?
Hellgate: London did that, and it was one of the worst things on the planet.
Edit: Let me clarify.
In Hellgate: London, there was content that, if I beat it with one character, that character could not repeat it. That is really the only 'solution' to the 'problem'.
0
0
Will I be able to make characters that do not fit that classes archetype? For example, I could make a melee sorc or necro that was viable if I wanted to do just that. Alternatively I could make a barbarian that primarily used shouts, wards, and the like to dispatch enemies.
0
What I do have an interest in are tedious level designs. Diablo 2's only problem is Act 3. It was terrible. The random layout nature coupled with the fact that generally only one path worked (and, generally, that one path was incredibly unintuitive, hidden, or just in a bad spot) just made the act terrible.
The only remedy was Teleport. Or Barbarian jump. That worked.
Here's the thing. I don't care how long the cooldown for teleport is as long as nothing in the world is like Act 3. I don't want a jungle unless it's wide open OR it has multiple branching paths that lead to the same area. I don't want mazes unless the maze is more of an aesthetic than a puzzle (Titan Quests Minoan Labyrinth as an example).
All I want is a game that lacks those things. Without them you can do away with teleport. With them then I better get an instant cast teleport with no cooldown time that takes so little mana that my natural mana regen will be more than enough to take me across the terribleness that is that area. That's all.
By the way, any argument against teleport that uses D2 as an example is fundamentally flawed. This is a different game. To expect the same mechanics to occur in a sequel to a game that is almost 10 years old is stretching it a good deal.
Edit: Of course there will be exploits that people will find and abuse. That happens to all games. Period. Putting artificial limits on things because someone might exploit something is poor. The game should be about fun, not about putting limits on what others can do.
0
If there is a maze-like act in Diablo 3 and I don't have a way for my character to easily maneuver through it, I will quit playing it.
0
Choice is important. Developers have really been missing this lately, even Blizzard. It's important that I have choices. Period. The more I have, the better. Give people the choice, as Odin said, to turn it on or off.
The only point of stats was for armor and weapons in D2. You needed X amount of Str and/or Dex to use an item. As it stands now, you might as well just put level limits on items and completely forgo stats altogether.
The problem with Bashiok's analogy is that it's the consumer that dictates the options with cars by using their wallet. Here, Blizzard is deciding for the consumer.
Choice. RPG's are about it. The more options I have, the better. That's always the case. Always.
0
All of this can be remedied by not having the AOE damage trigger it but the mouse-over-and-click-directly-on-top-of-the-mongrel method instead.
It's not a problem at all.