DiabloFans

I'm leveling 10 characters and my highest one is a male WD (lvl 56, if memory serves) who just killed Leoric in Hell.
I cannot comprehend why this gamestyle is considered "stupid".
I don't rush things, I experiment a lot, I enjoy the game and have fun.
Should I say people who rushed towards the end playing just one single class out of five are playing in a stupid way?
No, they are just playing the game the way they like it.

Paragon levels take too much time? I played D2 for years and I hope to play D3 for a long time too.
Also PLs have been added mainly because a lot of people rushed to the end and then started complaining because there was nothing else to do.

They may not be the best solution but they should last till PvP is out.
Be patient and enjoy the game.

This reminds me of the previous class nerfs where people flocked to play said class and kept changing classes each time to play the OP one.

No item was near what this item was set as.

I am so glad you "don't nerf my ring bro" guys don't design games because you basically would kill each game in the process.

Quote from Boss_Hogg

PTR notes state:

• Treasure Goblins will now play a sound whenever they become aware of a player

So my question is, what exactally is the sound?

In my book, it's either, "Oh Shit ! Run !", or "Fuck ! Not again !"

Elaborate...

"My precious"

Quote from aides16

Quote from julian_zhu

Quote from Ruppgu

When will blizzard learn that static numbers on procs is a bad idea? A 20k proc is pathetic when your normal hits are doing 300-600k. To be balanced and worthwhile, it needs to have a starting value and then scale based on your main stat/+dmg. That also stops it from being overpowered at low levels. I'm not sure how no one at Blizzard can figure this out.... it's disappointing really.

Cannot agree more!

I agree also! Find the middle. Like Moldren said in his youtube video the sweet spot. 40% nerf, or even 50 would have been okay. 99.5% is Crazy!

How is 50% the middle? its supposed to be a small dps increase, 50% of the old proc dmg would still be to OP.

Don't care for Moldren, thats the same guy that said that Blizzard nerfed WW barbs so they would have to spend money on RMAH to get better gear, therefor making Blizzard money.

I don't see a reason for outrage over this, there should be no item in the game that is that powerful, the end.

Yes, something as simple as adding two new iLvLs of gear (which would be completely irrelevant given the new affix roll system) would "fix" a problem that doesn't exist.

And by "fix," you certainly mean "completely nullify," because after enough people acquire their account bound equipment, the necessity of using the AH would decrease in a significant manner.

The AH isn't breaking the game - people whining about the AH because they don't know how to use it are breaking the game.

If I never had to go to AH again, this game would improve 100-fold. When it was originally described, AH was supposed to just be a way to facilitate trading in a known-safe environment. Instead, somehow AH has become the raison d'etre of the whole game. Instead of being happy we can find more drops as we farm, we have people wringing their hands over what effect that will have on AH . . . how broken is that?

I fought AH when the game first came out -- worked my way all the way through the end of Act I Inferno without 1 AH buy til I hit a brick wall at the beginning of Act II. I quickly realized the game required AH and went with it -- have even been very successful with it but it still just feels like something I live with, not something I'm happy about. Quite honestly, if AH economics take it in the pants due to this change, I could give a rats ass. The more the game moves toward us farming our own gear in a self-sufficient manner, the better as far as I'm concerned.

Yeah. They doubled it. From 0.0000003% chance to 0.0000006%. YESSS! ...

Quote from Zero(pS)

Make sure to post this on the official forums... who knows, maybe for an expansion...

It's a really neat idea, but one that would definitely need a ton of testing... finding that sweetspot where you want to have enough stats to actually impact the gameplay (actually helping the skill instead of reducing its cost by say 1%); but not having it affect so much the skill that it completely breaks the planned combat mechanics..

Balancing could also be a nightmare, linking gear stats directly to specific skill/runes/builds, and then having to nerf them would cause major complaints (imagine the Wiz/Barb drama times 1000).

I absolutely like it, but I also understand from a game-design standpoint that even the best ideas need testing before being implemented.

Cool, thanks for the response!
I wanted to post it here first where there are less threads about complaining and more that are constructive. At least to gather more feedback and ideas.

I agree that it would be a QA nightmare, but once again, just wanted to promote the concept of linking items and builds. It was a huge part od D2 that I believe is widely missed. My idea doesn't add complexity to items, it just makes their affixes more important.

Update! Added image of possible Passive Skill Screen.

Hello! Welcome to a constructive post about how to make items more fun!

The point of this thread:

• To generate ideas on ways to make the affixes of items feel more unique and important toward build diversity. If Blizzard could use any portion of any idea from this thread I would feel successful.
• This post focuses only on the main attributes (Strength, Dexterity, and Intelligence) and how Active and Passive Skills could make these affixes feel more important, while promoting build diversity and personality.
• Rather than coming up with new affix types (making items more complex than they already are), we can explore using the current, less-desired, affixes in a logical way that promotes this goal.

The secondary attributes of each class have almost no use currently. They provide minor defensive bonuses but there is absolutely no reason to specifically look for or stack one.

Secondary Attributes:

• Barbarian – Dexterity/Intelligence
• Monk – Strength/Intelligence
• DemonHunter – Strength/Intelligence
• WitchDoctor – Strength/Dexterity
• Wizard – Strength/Dexterity

Idea #1 - Give "Active" Skills two bonus effects, each based on one of the two secondary attributes of each class.

Here are examples of how it could work (one for each class):
Keep in mind! I thought of these very quickly, I would imagine the developers of Blizzard could come up with much more creative ideas.

• Barbarian – Cleave

Dexterity: Improves the area of effect by 1% per 50 Dexterity.
Intelligence: Gives Cleave a chance to stun, 1% per 50 Intelligence.

• Monk – Crippling Wave

Strength: Increases the damage of Crippling Wave by 1% per 50 Strength.
Intelligence: Increases the movement speed and attack speed debuf by 1% per 50 Intelligence.

• DemonHunter - Strafe

Strength: Reduces damage taken while using Strafe by 1% per 50 Strength.
Intelligence: Reduces the channeling cost by 1% per 50 Intelligence.

• WitchDoctor - Gargantuan

Strength: Increase Gargantuan's damage and armor by 1% per 50 Strength.
Dexterity: Give Gargantuan a chance to stun on hit of 1% per 50 Dexterity.

• Wizard – Magic Weapon

Strength: Magic Weapon grants a chance to knock-back of 1% per 50 Strength.
Dexterity: Magic Weapon also increases attack speed by 1% per 50 Dexterity.

Idea #2 - Two "Passive" Skill Trees per class, one for each Secondary attribute:

• Remove the current three passive skill slots. Create two small passive skill trees for each class (one for each secondary attribute). Each skill tree is influenced by it's attribute in two ways:

​1. Stacking a secondary attribute increases the effectiveness of passive skills in it's skill tree.

• Up to a cap per skill, where lower tier skills cap earlier. (to promote using both tree's low tier skills, even if you have much more of one attribute)
• Maybe no cap for higher tier skills. (to promote continued stacking of a secondary attribute)

2. Accessing each tier of each tree requires having enough of it's attribute:

• Tier 1 – 0 points of attribute. (skill effectiveness caps at 100)
• Tier 2 – 100 points of attribute. (caps at 200)
• Tier 3 – 200 points of attribute. (caps at 400)
• Tier 4 – 400 points of attribute. (no cap)
• Tier 5 – 800 points of attribute. (no cap)

Example:
-A Barbarian has 178 Dexterity and 900 Intelligence.
-He has access to Tiers 1 and 2 on the Dexterity Tree.
-He has access to all Tiers on the Intelligence Tree.
-Tier 1 and 2 in the Dexterity Tree will still be worth using even though he has way more Intelligence than Dexterity (because of effectiveness caps).

Example Image: (Just a layout, skills are in random places)
(Graphics used are Blizzard's, not my own.)

The Outcomes:

• Your primary should still reign supreme, while the secondaries provide flavor and playstyle.
• Ideally, (for a Barbarian) there will be some builds that stack Dexterity, some that stack Intelligence, and then some that use mixed amounts depending on what passive skills they want access to among the trees.
• The better your gear, the more skills you have access to. It's another leveling system in the form of loot, post 60.
• Attribute affixes on items will be much more exciting. More gear will find use/be saved/get traded.
• Items gain personality and dictate builds.
• There will be more choices than just damage and defense to think about when looking for gear.
• Collecting multiple sets of gear will be useful for different builds.
• Gems become much more interesting and useful in armor.
• Sockets in armor will grow in value.
• All "current" decently-geared 60s would start off with access to at least tiers 1-4 in each tree (based on their stats). There would be many viable builds with those options and no reason to complain about all the gear they bought. They could gradually change to which playstyle they prefer.

Other Thoughts:

• The design of the skill trees could be in many ways. What I envision is 4-6 tiers. Using many of the current passive skills but separated among the two trees for matching style. Obviously adjusting their potency to the tier in the tree that they sit.
• (ie.) If you obtained 1 skill point every 5 levels from level 10 on, you would have 11 points at level 60. If the skill trees were 6 tiers, you could only obtain one tier 6 passive skill, even if you had enough attributes to access all 6 tiers on both trees. (could also be 9 points for 5 tiers, 7 points for 4 tiers, etc.)
• With the most powerful passives being at the top of the trees, most players would probably go extreme in one tree rather than dividing equally. Mid-tier passives should be designed to work nicely with each other too, to promote more diversity.

Suggestions from feedback:

• How about in addition to your ideas, make the current skill affixes more interesting. Rather than just having "reduced cost of (skill) by X" and "increased crit chance of (skill) by %", add fun effects like "gives (skill) a % chance to stun/slow/knockback/lifesteal/etc". I can see builds being tied to specific skill-affixtype combinations.

If not that, than at least increase the number of skills that can have the current skill-affix type, and apply them more often.
• (open to your suggestion)

Edits

• Added "effectiveness cap" idea to the skill trees to promote diversity when choosing lower tier skills.

Thanks for reading! Please leave feedback if you think the attribute affixes need more love!