• 0

    posted a message on Weapon damage or DPS modifiers
    Quote from "PhrozenDragon" »

    One weapon speed 1, one weapons speed 2 (in WoW terms). The first weapon would perhaps have 4% chance, while the latter would have 8%.
    Hmm that is an interesting idea, but if implemented, why would one player want a slower weapon instead of a faster weapon? or a faster weapon instead of a slower weapon?

    The example I used in the beginning of the thread, Barman Shanker, the dagger with a slow attack speed, did not work with every single build. In fact players that used that specific item made their character build around that item. All the players I knew that farmed for that item, changed their build just for that one item. This is an example of players making a good decision, because the build was tailored specifically just for that item.

    Now if the player wielding the Barman Shanker made a build that was for daggers with fast attack speed, then he would do significantly less damage.

    Here is a quick example
    With damage as a modifier:
    Fast weapon 5dps will be good under Build #1
    Slow weapon 5dps will be good under Build #2
    Fast weapon 5dps will be not as good under Build #2
    Slow weapon 5dps will be not as good under Build #1

    This is a very simple example, but it illustrates the drawbacks of fast and slow weapons, there are trade offs and benefits. Leaving the player the player to make choices. Sure some players will make bad decisions, and some players will make better decisions, but just because some players make bad choices, does not mean that the rules should be changed to accommodate them.

    But with DPS as a modifier
    Fast weapon 5dps will be same under Build #1
    Slow weapon 5dps will be same under Build #2
    Fast weapon 5dps will be same under Build #2
    Slow weapon 5dps will be same under Build #1

    This makes builds that would have been good for fast weapons just as good if they player used a slow weapon, vice versa. What it does is it undermines the players choice by making them the same. When all of the choices have the same effect, then you really are not having one.
    Posted in: Diablo III General Discussion
  • 0

    posted a message on Weapon damage or DPS modifiers
    Quote from "PhrozenDragon" »
    Or, procs are chance per second instead of chance per hit.

    Or, fire damage becomes fire dps.

    This way, all weapons are equal, and it comes down to the the modifiers. More boring perhaps, but certainly not unbalanced.
    I totally agree 100% with you, but that is not what happened.
    In WoW +7 damage weapon enchants only do +7 damage to min and max damage, not DPS, thus increasing DPS more for faster weapons and less for slower weapons. Also, adding strait DPS does not address the advantage fast weapons have on proccing passive skills.
    Posted in: Diablo III General Discussion
  • 0

    posted a message on Diablo - What Could Have Been
    Hind sight is 20/20, its easy to say now that it would be better if they did a live action game like they did and how much it would suck if Diablo was turn based, but it was a very risky decision at the time!

    Who knows, maybe if they made a turn based game it could have lead to a Fall Diablo Out 3 or World of Diablo-craft?
    Posted in: News & Announcements
  • 0

    posted a message on Weapon damage or DPS modifiers
    Do you guys think that active skills such as Bash will be based off of weapon damage or DPS?

    In WoW, old school WoW, the Barman Shanker was a Rare dagger with 2.0 attack speed that in some regards was better than most Epic Daggers most of which had attack speed between 1.4 and 1.6. Although it did less DPS than some of the Epic Daggers, it did more damage per hit, thus had a higher damage modifier when used with skills. Allowing some players to acheive higher overall DPS with weapon with lower DPS.

    Later because so many people complained how "imba" this was, Blizzard released a patch that made skills based on DPS instead of weapon damage, even though in the skill tree it said X% of weapon damage. The modifier was DPS.

    I beleive using DPS as the modifier instead of weapon damage is a terrible idea.

    Weapons types should be unique, if weapon damage is the modifier, then there will be trade offs that the player will have to decide. For example in Diablo 3, there is a skill called Berserker State for the Barbarian, http://www.diii.net/skilltrees/?class=barb, hitting enemies have a 6% chance proccing berserker state for 4 seconds which increases attack speed by 5% and movement speed by 3%.

    If Blizzard used the DPS modifier system like they did in WoW for Diablo 3, this would be imbalanced for slow weapons. Fast weapons will be able tp proc this skill more often and still do the same damage as a slow weapon(given the same DPS) on a skill like Bash.

    Another reason I feel that the DPS modfier system is imbalanced is the fact that there are random enchantments to weapons. An example of this would be 36-55 fire damage per hit, or 5 life leech per hit.

    This certainy favors fast weapons. Imagine 2 weapons, one attacks very fast, 1 hit every .5 seconds at 10 dps, and the other only hits once per second also at 10 dps. Now lets assume both weapons have +10 fire damage per hit added from a gem. The first weapon would have a +20 dps increase from this +10 fire damage, while the second weapon would have a +10 dps increase from the fire damage

    This means that with a +10 fire damage enchant to both weapons, the fast weapon would have 30 dps, where as the slow weapon would only have 20 dps. If Blizzard used the DPS modifier system, there would be no incentive for players to use a slow weapon. Because players would know that fast weapons always better than slow weapons given the same DPS.

    If Blizzard decides to use DPS as a modifier for the sake of "balance", then the only way this balance can be achieved is if all weapons attack at the same speed, which would make itemization incredibly boring.

    Do you think Blizzard should use Damage instead of DPS as a modifier?
    Posted in: Diablo III General Discussion
  • 0

    posted a message on Unique Weapons in Diablo III
    Quote from "Azylium" »
    I think Unique should mean Unique, and not just "An item with the same mods as everything else, just better".

    In my opinion, there should be certain mods you can only find on a unique item. They are supposed to be unique in all aspects, not just apperance, so there being "unique only" mods sounds logical to me. That way, you would actually use uniques when you need that specific mod, even if the item itself might not be the greatest. This is because you can only get this mod from that one unique item, and not randomly find a rare with the same mod. Then all uniques wouldn't have to be overpowered to warrant use, or just be so bad that you'd rather find a rare that could be better.

    The main problem with uniques in D2 is that they have static modifiers, while most other items have rather randomized ones. Now this wouldn't be a problem, if at least some of those mods were unique as well, but that's not the case as we all know. This means you could end up with a rare that's actually better than the unique you just found.

    Bottom line: For D3, they should make uniques truely unique by giving them certain mods only that item can have. Not making it overpowered, but just giving it something that actually makes it unique aside from apperance, so you'll know that you'll have to stick with the item if you want the mod.

    Yes this is an awesome idea!
    Ring: Devils Gift
    +100 armor
    +2 all skills
    +2% crit chance
    -50% health from health globes
    +10% damage from health globes for 5 seconds
    Posted in: News & Announcements
  • 0

    posted a message on Wanting to get to 99
    Quote from "Layne" »
    I dont see why you have to stop getting stronger at lvl 99. This isn't exactly a new idea, but why not have a system where, after lvl 99, you could begin to "sell" experience to get small amounts of stats. For ex. if you were the witch doctor you could trade a set amount of exp for a little mana. Then, to make this worthwhile, you could have a few high level skills with high cooldowns that would use mana to do damage. The more mana you have, the more damage. It would provide an incentive to keep playing.
    I like where you are going with this idea...
    I would like a system where you reach 99, and you still accumulate experience.
    Once you get to the amount of experience it would take to get to 100, instead of leveling up, a box would pop up and you are awarded a special item which you get to choose. To receive this item you would also have to pay a tribute of X amount of gold. Once reaching level "100", and paying tribute, your experience drops back down to level 99, allowing you to repeat this cycle.
    You may have more than one of these items at any given time and may be traded.

    These items are non permanent and can only be used once:
    These items would give you a buff for a period of time, lets say 2 weeks.
    Each item would only provide one buff, but these items could be saved and used at the same time, buffs stack except for the same buff. This would prevent some one walking around with +250% damage 1shotting everything.

    Buffs may include
    +25% Magic Find
    +25% damage
    +25% Max Health
    +25% Mana regeneration
    +25% more likely to spawn epic difficulty random quest
    So on...

    This would be a great system because, these items would be incredibly hard to get, yet rewarding to those that reach level 99, creating replayability and add incentive to get there in the first place. But at the same time, it would be a gold sink because it would have a substantial cost just to get the item in addition to the tradability of the item. Further cementing gold in to the economy as a currency. Although hypothetically the item I described could become a type of currency all by it self, it would still make gold a staple in the economy because it would require gold to get such an item.

    Further ideas on how to get the item and cost:
    The effect of the item, the cost of the item, and the duration of the effect could be calculated by algorithm.

    Players that are at level 99 that reach the '100' should be rewarded on how quickly they get from 99 to '100'. The effects of the item can be stronger if they player reaches the 100 marker fast than 1.5 standard deviations.

    The cost of the item, in terms of the tribute required to obtain the item, should be based on the number of players, number of players at level 99 and the total amount of gold in the economy.

    (((Σ g(55)+g(56)+.....g(99)/((Σ (n(55)+n(56)+.......n(99))))*X+(n99/(Σ (n(1)+n(2)+.......n(99))

    Keep in mind this formula recognizes player accounts, not individual players. So if the player account has a single character over level 55, the accrued gold of that account is accounted for in the equation, while only each character level 55 or higher is accounted for. This means that players that have level 1 mules hording tons of gold will not effect this equation!

    So this equation means all of the gold in the economy(this is why I did not include low level characters, because low level characters have little effect in the economy),

    (((Σ g(55)+g(56)+.....g(99)/((Σ (n(55)+n(56)+.......n(99))

    The total accumulated gold of all ACCOUNTS with characters over level 55 divided by the total number of CHARACTERS level 55-99. This means that you will get an average gold amount for our economy(the gold from accounts with characters 55-99.

    This is how much gold the "average" player has. Then this then multiplied by the number of players that are level 99.

    X+(n99/(Σ (n(1)+n(2)+.......n(99))

    The modifier is a number represented by X added to the number of level 99 in relation to the number of all players playing Diablo. X could be a constant number like 1 or 2 or 5, or it could be determined by another algorithm which I am not even going to try to get into...

    So what this formula does, is increase the cost of this item as there are more level 99s. Prices also go up as there is Gold in the economy.

    The more gold there is in the economy, the more gold it will cost to get this item, thus drawing the price back down. Ultimately there should be an equilibrium at which it should stay at, but there should be expected spikes during periods of increased playing such as holidays or GM events.

    This does a few things on its own, If you are the first person to get to level 99, it would mean HUUUUUUUUUUUGE rewards. It would make you an economical millionaire in Diablo instantly. But a deserving reward non the less(just think of the commitment and dedication to be the first level 99 ever!) The tribute cost increases slightly as there are more level 99s. But any player that follows closely to the first few players that reach level 99 would also have a great "deal" on the purchase of this item. But when these later players(but in the relative scope of things, still very fast to reach 99) reach 99, they would bring the price up for ALL lvl 99s, even the level 99 was the first to get there. This effect somewhat offsets the first player to get to 99 to have an unfair permanent advantage, something from keeping him becoming a Diabo Billionare per say... It in effect creates a pool of Diablo millionaires, because the time it takes to get to 99 and the number of players that get to 99 there after is highly exponential. It would look like this
    X axis: # players
    Y axis: time(inverted)


    But alas, their wealth is not permanent, because these items are not permanent. This is why I believe such a system should be implemented in the Diablo 3 game.
    Posted in: Diablo III General Discussion
  • 0

    posted a message on Torchlight
    You like my mod?

    Posted in: Torchlight
  • 0

    posted a message on Anyone know of a good cost effective rig?
    What is your budget?
    What I suggest you do, is what I did.
    I bought a refurbished Dell computer at a great discount from their website.
    Make graphics card update, power supply, and ram if needed.

    I spent almost $700 total, including shipping,taxes, 20' LCD, 9800 GTX+, and 600W power supply.
    I have 8GB ram, Q6600 at 2.4GHz(can be OC to 3.2 with no additional cooling), and 64bit Vista OS. That was out of the box for around $350.

    Although it was refurbished, any parts that were damaged were replaced, in my instance it was a scratch on the case. The computer came with a brand new case with no damage what so ever. All computers are tested before sold and have the same warranty as new ones...
    Posted in: General Discussion (non-Diablo)
  • 0

    posted a message on New monster main page
    you forgot the vultures and mosquitoes in act 3
    Posted in: DiabloWiki
  • 0

    posted a message on Torchlight
    Quote from "liquid" »

    Not bad, finally got lucky with enchanting and I could do it 4-5 times without getting "You were unlucky!"
    I hate it when games augment DPS like this.
    They nerf slow DPS weapons, by making the spells do "X% of DPS", unlike before where it did X% of weapon damage.
    But they forget how OP even the slightest damage upgrades are to fast weapons, because the DPS per increase is far greater for a fast weapon than a slow weapon.
    Posted in: Torchlight
  • 0

    posted a message on Gamespot scared to play D3
    Quote from "Don_guillotine" »
    If something (let's say D3) is more fun than your social life, why would it be a bad thing?
    Posted in: Diablo III General Discussion
  • 0

    posted a message on Gamespot scared to play D3
    Quote from "DJAS" »
    It wont... but it would be a sad thing!
    Posted in: Diablo III General Discussion
  • 0

    posted a message on Cheaters
    They were virgins...
    Posted in: General Discussion (non-Diablo)
  • 0

    posted a message on BlizzCast 11 -- BlizzCon roundup
    Quote from "Sixen" »
    Agreed, that costume was crazy. It must've taken hours to complete, but it seems like it was well worth it...
    zomg tell him to post it up!
    I wanna see pics of real people not the official photos
    Posted in: News & Announcements
  • 0

    posted a message on Cheaters
    Quote from "emilemil1" »
    Monogamy is good because it prevents the spread of diseases, which is one objective of all life (survive). But it doesn't go before reproduction (survival of the species).

    Polygamy is good because you reproduce faster, which is the primary objective of all life. But it spreads diseases, which might kill faster than we life reproduces, which makes Monogamy the best way to preserve the species.

    Apparently Polygamy is the winning concept atm, but it might or might not be the optimal choice.

    Not to bust your nuts or anything, but polygamy is not the same as promiscuity.
    The Mormon ranch in Utah where one guy had like 18 wives was polygamy, he had multiple wives and had sex with them, but each wife only had one husband. There althought there is the possibility of transmission of deases, as there would be in any sexual relationship, the marriage in the polygamist relationship implies that they are only to have sex with the husband.

    Promiscuity on the other hand is the real disease spreader. People having sex with 5-6 differnt people every month allows for the rapid transimission of STDs. Children out of wedlock is also very common among promiscuous people, more often than not the child is left with the mother to provide while the dead beat dad eeks his way through life as a low life scum.
    Posted in: General Discussion (non-Diablo)
  • To post a comment, please or register a new account.