I don't think "ladder" will exist any more. Instead, I think they will use battle.net to host leader boards for a multitude of different stats.
Ah, makes sense! Thankyou!
On a side note, I was just given a warning for calling someone a retard on these forums. So I am prolly going to be banned for calling the admin who gave me the warning a retard for warning me over something so trivial. I have no desire to be part of a community that gets butt hurt over something so small. So peace out!
WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG.. more like RIGHT RIGHT RIGHT RIGHT. If the 'actual' stat points were stronger than the alternative 'dedicated modifier' then the gem system wouldn't even be usefull. Tell me how many people put +crit in there gem slots than +agi ? ... I gave up playing that game ... when I had to use a DPS calculator to figure out which gear i wanted before I spent DKP.
Have you forgotten that the WoW stat system gives you less modifiers per stat as you increase in level ? This will most likely be ported right over into D3 to keep characters 'balanced' because they can't make stats meaningful, since gear is the defining factor in your character not their level.. hence less modifiers per level (go get more gear so you can keep playing this amazing game cause you have to, not because you want to).
So you got 2 BoE weapons, and you can't decide which to wear...
+20STR +10AGI
or
+10STR +20AGI
Too bad you'd have to equip the item to find out which one you actually wanted more . . .
Seriously shouldn't even call it auto-stats... it should be called wupty do doesn't do anything anyways, because your character is defined by what they wear, not by the level in which they attain status.
You character is ultimately defined by his/her level. Why even level up if gear defines your character more so than their level. You could always just keep making items get sequentially better, and have 'flags' before you can wear tiers of items.. like x amount of kills... killed x boss, killed boss solo.. etc.. Should gear be your defining factor of your character, or how you designed them ?
Gear would mean, even thou you leveled up, your not at your 'peak' and must time sink to get your character for random drops. Sounds anti-casual honestly.
Some classes benefited more from individual modifiers, and there were times inbetween patches where it was balanced that way.
But...
The MODIFIERS themselves gave less affect as you leveled up, that argument is COMPLETELY invalid.
The reason stats were more valuable in WoW- Blizzard tried to balance the relative PVE effectiveness of gems. 16 agi SHOULD give approximately the same DPS as 32 AP. The main difference? Raw stats were affected by KINGS, where RAW AP was only affected by some specific specs (Like sub rogues), RAW crit isnt affected by anything.
A clear example. DPS warriors should ALWAYS prefer strength. 16 STR gem and 32 AP gem are given the same point allocation. However, for a warrior, a 16 STR gem gives 32 AP PLUS Block if you need to swap to a shield and parry. AND you get an extra benefit when you have kings.
For a rogue, 32 AP is 32 AP. 16 Agi is 16 AP, .4% (In BC) crit, dodge, and armor. The 16 AP and .4% crit alone makes it better than 32 RAW AP, especially when considering Kings.
And again, that has NOTHING to do with Diablo 3. Dont just assume because that is how it worked in WoW that it's going to work the same way in Diablo.
The 10 STR 20 AGI vs 20 STR 10 AGI are probably roughly the same, but it is easier to compare 2 stats than... +Damage +Crit +Hit +Dodge +Block ect ect w/e the stats affect.
Anyone that's honestly played wow knows that + modifiers were always better than the stat alternative to begin with
WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG. Raw stats are far better than individual modifiers. I've been playing WoW since release. There were a few lapses where raw +AP or whatnot yielded higher damage output, but for the majority of the game stats were the way to go.
COMPLETELY wrong topic though. The way WoW balances stats to modifiers has NOTHING to do with the way Diablo 3 will.
The main reason for showing stats are...
It's real easy to see two items, one with 50 agility and one with 49, and to know which one is better. If one item had 79 hit rating, 41 crit rating, and 32 dodge rating... And the other had 60 hit rating, 50 crit rating, and 35 dodge rating... It would take a lot of number crunching to really optimize and that just slows down gameplay.
The other is for a reason you seem to hate. Having every modifier displayed takes up a lot of space. Instead of having 4 stats that you rarely NEED to break down, you would have a dozen + stats. It's just too much for every day play.
that depends on who you ask I didn't understand english when I first played D2, but it was still fun. I play alot of games with 0 story and it is nothing wrong with them. I think that that a game should either have a really good story, or no story at all.
A example of a game with a close to non-existant story is WoW The story in it is basically: "Characters from the other faction are your enemies, kill them. Demons are invading, kill them too."
Perhaps it has a deeper story, but then I didn't get it.
The story in WoW is very deep. There are novels to explain it. Every single dungeon, every raid, every zone, every race, every NPC had a deep and long history behind it.
Graphics and Gameplay are both important aspects of a good video game to me. By saying I expect high end graphics does not mean I don't expect high end gameplay.
I've said before, you aren't looking at a game you can play now, you are looking at a game you will be playing in 2 years.
And Jake, I'VE SAID BEFORE, I am not talking about expecting people to have the LATEST AND GREATEST, I'm talking people having budget computers appropriate to the era. If your computer is no more than 5 years old it will be compatible with dual core CPUs, and have a PCI-E slot. If you cant afford to buy a BRAND NEW computer, do what I do, set aside a few bucks a week and upgrade it when you can. You can have a decent computer without being rich.
It's like you have an Xbox and are bitching at Microsoft games for making games for Xbox360. If you want to play the newest games, you need to buy a damn 360 and not expect microsoft to make games that are compatible with your crappy old xbox.
Technology moves fast, if you expect to keep up with it (Play the NEWEST video games) expect to pay for it.
Yes, I am talking about playing the video game with my friends. That's a very large part of the enjoyment for me.
@Entity, I wasn't talking about what will be available, I'm talking about what will be considered "Budget".
And Windows 7 does run very nicely, I've been using 64bit Ultimate for a while now.
You are right about the GDDR6/DDR4 issue, but that wasn't my point. My point was people are comparing D3 to the budget technology of 3+ years ago, and not the budget technology of today to release.
Also keep in mind, the game isnt going to be out for what? Atleast 2 years? We're looking at budget quad/8 core processors? 64 bit OSes with RAM 30 bucks a gig? DDR4-5 on video cards and ddr3-4 RAM?
I have a minimum wage job with bills aplenty to pay. If I can set aside a few bucks a week (By a few I mean like $5) to keep my computer up to par, no one should seriously EXPECT to play state of the art games with a computer 2-3 years behind par.
Thats exactly what i mean with low end comps >.> im talking about the shittiest of the shitty, no offense to those who have them most don't most hasve an update 2005 2006 computer still i know i have one from 07 a crappy macbook and im looking to get a 1.4k gming comp with a at radeon HD 4870x2 which is extremely fast pretty sure itll be able to run D3 on maxed setting with at least 30 fps maybe evenn more but back to my point they're catering to everyone with a computer withing the last ten years. maybe even the past two decades. People do still use those. Just they need to cater to those low end comps so that you can play with everyone completely fine. But i dont even thin they are 4 players max gotta be 6 cuz a 2v2 pvp is just not good enough 3v3 is okay and 4v4 is perfect butt i think 8 will start to strain some graphics card, aka such as the onboard graphics from a computer in 03 or something. they just simply arent enough for the massive skills and effect that would go on in a 4v4.
10 YEARS? Even 5 years in the world of technology is eternity. 5 years ago they were JUST switching to DDR2, and dual core technology wasn't even on the market. I understand designing for LOWER BUDGET technology, but designing for OLD technology holds back programmers from making truly amazing games.
As far as TWO decades ago, Diablo 1 wasn't even out. DOOM wasn't out. THE INTERNET ITSELF WAS NOT PUBLICLY USED 2 decades ago.
If you expect to be able to play the latest and greatest games, you should atleast have a budget computer appropriate to the era. (Meaning 2-3 year old medium end computer at the least!)
I have at least 5 real life friends I am looking forward to playing D3 with.
My opinion on the matter - If your computer can't handle 6 players, or 8 players, or 12 players: Turn down your graphics, Restrict the number of players in your game to what your computer can handle, or get a better computer!
I understand wanting to make the game accessible to those with low end machines, but there are ways to do that without making those with high end machines suffer!
I will be most upset if I can't play with all my friends. "Sorry Chase, Ned joined first!"
0
Ah, makes sense! Thankyou!
On a side note, I was just given a warning for calling someone a retard on these forums. So I am prolly going to be banned for calling the admin who gave me the warning a retard for warning me over something so trivial. I have no desire to be part of a community that gets butt hurt over something so small. So peace out!
0
And to the person saying trading with a medium is overly complicated: there is a reason every stable economy in the world trades with a medium.
0
Some classes benefited more from individual modifiers, and there were times inbetween patches where it was balanced that way.
But...
The MODIFIERS themselves gave less affect as you leveled up, that argument is COMPLETELY invalid.
The reason stats were more valuable in WoW- Blizzard tried to balance the relative PVE effectiveness of gems. 16 agi SHOULD give approximately the same DPS as 32 AP. The main difference? Raw stats were affected by KINGS, where RAW AP was only affected by some specific specs (Like sub rogues), RAW crit isnt affected by anything.
A clear example. DPS warriors should ALWAYS prefer strength. 16 STR gem and 32 AP gem are given the same point allocation. However, for a warrior, a 16 STR gem gives 32 AP PLUS Block if you need to swap to a shield and parry. AND you get an extra benefit when you have kings.
For a rogue, 32 AP is 32 AP. 16 Agi is 16 AP, .4% (In BC) crit, dodge, and armor. The 16 AP and .4% crit alone makes it better than 32 RAW AP, especially when considering Kings.
And again, that has NOTHING to do with Diablo 3. Dont just assume because that is how it worked in WoW that it's going to work the same way in Diablo.
The 10 STR 20 AGI vs 20 STR 10 AGI are probably roughly the same, but it is easier to compare 2 stats than... +Damage +Crit +Hit +Dodge +Block ect ect w/e the stats affect.
0
WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG. Raw stats are far better than individual modifiers. I've been playing WoW since release. There were a few lapses where raw +AP or whatnot yielded higher damage output, but for the majority of the game stats were the way to go.
COMPLETELY wrong topic though. The way WoW balances stats to modifiers has NOTHING to do with the way Diablo 3 will.
The main reason for showing stats are...
It's real easy to see two items, one with 50 agility and one with 49, and to know which one is better. If one item had 79 hit rating, 41 crit rating, and 32 dodge rating... And the other had 60 hit rating, 50 crit rating, and 35 dodge rating... It would take a lot of number crunching to really optimize and that just slows down gameplay.
The other is for a reason you seem to hate. Having every modifier displayed takes up a lot of space. Instead of having 4 stats that you rarely NEED to break down, you would have a dozen + stats. It's just too much for every day play.
0
The story in WoW is very deep. There are novels to explain it. Every single dungeon, every raid, every zone, every race, every NPC had a deep and long history behind it.
0
I've said before, you aren't looking at a game you can play now, you are looking at a game you will be playing in 2 years.
And Jake, I'VE SAID BEFORE, I am not talking about expecting people to have the LATEST AND GREATEST, I'm talking people having budget computers appropriate to the era. If your computer is no more than 5 years old it will be compatible with dual core CPUs, and have a PCI-E slot. If you cant afford to buy a BRAND NEW computer, do what I do, set aside a few bucks a week and upgrade it when you can. You can have a decent computer without being rich.
It's like you have an Xbox and are bitching at Microsoft games for making games for Xbox360. If you want to play the newest games, you need to buy a damn 360 and not expect microsoft to make games that are compatible with your crappy old xbox.
Technology moves fast, if you expect to keep up with it (Play the NEWEST video games) expect to pay for it.
0
@Entity, I wasn't talking about what will be available, I'm talking about what will be considered "Budget".
And Windows 7 does run very nicely, I've been using 64bit Ultimate for a while now.
You are right about the GDDR6/DDR4 issue, but that wasn't my point. My point was people are comparing D3 to the budget technology of 3+ years ago, and not the budget technology of today to release.
0
I have a minimum wage job with bills aplenty to pay. If I can set aside a few bucks a week (By a few I mean like $5) to keep my computer up to par, no one should seriously EXPECT to play state of the art games with a computer 2-3 years behind par.
0
10 YEARS? Even 5 years in the world of technology is eternity. 5 years ago they were JUST switching to DDR2, and dual core technology wasn't even on the market. I understand designing for LOWER BUDGET technology, but designing for OLD technology holds back programmers from making truly amazing games.
As far as TWO decades ago, Diablo 1 wasn't even out. DOOM wasn't out. THE INTERNET ITSELF WAS NOT PUBLICLY USED 2 decades ago.
If you expect to be able to play the latest and greatest games, you should atleast have a budget computer appropriate to the era. (Meaning 2-3 year old medium end computer at the least!)
0
I preferred 40 man raids. Part of the reason I quit was the implementation of 10/25 man versions of the same raid, and on top of that easy/hard modes.
That's another discussion all together though.
4 doesn't feel like true online multiplayer to me. I have more friends over on a nightly basis to LAN different games.
moot discussion anyway, they do what they do, and we all know we are going to play regardless. I just hope it's atleast 6 people.
0
0
My opinion on the matter - If your computer can't handle 6 players, or 8 players, or 12 players: Turn down your graphics, Restrict the number of players in your game to what your computer can handle, or get a better computer!
I understand wanting to make the game accessible to those with low end machines, but there are ways to do that without making those with high end machines suffer!
I will be most upset if I can't play with all my friends. "Sorry Chase, Ned joined first!"