All things being equal I probably would go Barb, I always liked playing them in D2.
However, I have decided to pick my first character based on what I believe others will be choosing. In particular, I'll be choosing the character that is chosen the least by others. The idea is that character specific items will be easier to trade for if less people are playing that character. It seems as though the Demon Hunter will be the least popular, so that's probably what I'll go with.
Strangely, being a male I would have assumed that all of my characters would be the male versions. But I'm so engrained in the idea of the amazon that it would just seem strange to build a bow toting male character. Probably go with the female, but not totally decided.
-
- cherd
- Registered User
-
Member for 14 years, 6 months, and 26 days
Last active Tue, Feb, 21 2012 20:03:01
- 0 Followers
- 163 Total Posts
- 2 Thanks
-
Jul 2, 2010cherd posted a message on Is the Lack of News our Fault?Sad to see that nothing has changed.....Posted in: News
I was keeping up with the forum 6 months ago until I got tired of hunkering down under Blizzard's table waiting for a freaking crumb to fall. I thought I'd check back and see if we fans had been granted any information of value, and this scenario answers my question in full. Not only do we have to wait for a crumb to fall, but we are expected to beg for it.
Why the constant shroud of secrecy? They are working (at least they claim to be working) on a game. They guard every detail from us as though it was a matter of freaking national security. How hard is it to let us know how things are going, what progress has been made, what possibilities are being considered? We love the game and simply want to feel as though we are part of the process.
Here are a couple of questions:
-When will the game be released?
-Why the hell is it taking so long?
Are those "core issue" enough -
Jul 2, 2010cherd posted a message on No ENIGMA for D3I liked runewords, and I liked the idea that other character's skills could be obtained from them. True, the way that they eventually dominated the game was a bit aggravating, but that's not how it was supposed to be. The problem with D2 wasn't the runewords or what they did, it was the dupers. There simply should not have been enough Jah and Ber runes going around for everyone to have 5 Enigmas.Posted in: News
The elite runewords provided overpowering abilities which reflected how difficult they should have been to obtain. The real purpose of "Enigma" wasn't supposed to be giving everyone teleport, it was simply supposed to provide endgame players with something further for which to strive. This is important because continuously having a variety of goals to strive for is what makes a game like Diablo fun over the long run. Achieving that 1 in 100,000 Pallys that could teleport would have been something special. -
Nov 22, 2009cherd posted a message on More Hopes Dashed, 1.13 Delay Going StrongAs someone pointed out earlier, there was a time when so many people were playing on bnet that you could type in something like "awebpav" and get "game already exists". There will not be neeearly as many people playing now as there were then. How could a change in stash size possibly account for a performance difference that would outweigh the number of players? Whole thing seems fishy.Posted in: News
-
Nov 19, 2009cherd posted a message on More Hopes Dashed, 1.13 Delay Going StrongPosted in: News
That's just it, WE did not create the situation! Blizzard came out and announced that a patch was coming soon. They created the situation, They intentionally created the hype. We get excited and then the patch doesn't come, and it doesn't come, then it doesn't come again. We get excited about D3, then it doesn't come. All the while we are left in the dark as to what is going on.Quote from "luc1027" »You all complain about it, but blizzard is not forced to do that, they don't obtain cash for, they use resource for us and you all cry !!
All I'm saying is, don't get our hopes up about something that cannot be delivered as promised. And, if our interest is supposed to be sustained, then be more transparent about what is going on. The ultra-secrecy is confounding to me. Why can't they be more interactive?
I don't know whether they do these things intentionally, I am seriously beginning to wonder. I prefer to give them the benefit of the doubt and assume that unexpected hitches cause delays that could not have been foreseen. But their resistance to share meaningful information tends to make me believe otherwise. Do they refuse to share information because there is nothing to share? Are people dropping the ball? Is the whole team dropping the ball? Are these people really motivated to get work done in an efficient manner?
I don't know what is going on. But, I do know that in my line of work this type of performance would not be tolerated. Missing deadlines by years SHOULD NOT be the NORM. When you make a promise to your customers, your first priority should be to make good on that promise. Unfortunately for us, Blizzard does not seem to follow these philosophies. I suppose that they do not feel pressured to do so.
The problem is that they have us by the balls, and they know it!! -
Nov 18, 2009cherd posted a message on Grabbing All That LootPlaying Torchlight has changed my mind about auto pick-up for gold. I like it, and hope that it's included in D3.Posted in: News
-
Nov 18, 2009cherd posted a message on More Hopes Dashed, 1.13 Delay Going StrongI'm getting to the point where I'm a bit tired of giving Blizzard the benefit of the doubt. They come out and announce various things (D3, 1.13 Patch), get everyone hyped up, and then slam the door in our faces. Of course, we are expected to then wait outside the door in hopes of being thrown a bone every once in a while, and all the while being happy about it. Of course we could not possibly know that the "wait" ends up being a horrendously long time.Posted in: News
I agree, Bashiok cannot be blamed for the news that he delivers, he just happens to be the spokesperson. But, to me, Bashiok's statements have come to represent Blizzards attitude as a whole when it comes to Diablo fans. I was reading through Bashiok's posts in the Blizz Tracker section. A person made a statement indicating that it was "strange" to announce a game 3 years before it will be completed (I agree). Bashiok responded:
Quote from "Bashiok" »We're working hard to make a great game - and we announce as early as we do because we want you along for the ride. It's important for us to show all of you what we're working on and see what you think. It's integral to the development process.
A few threads later, someone was inquiring about a graphic in some video from D3, Bashioks response was:
Quote from "Bashiok" »This place seems to have mechanized and magical defenses, still working, despite the place looking like it could collapse in on itself at any moment. The question truly is then, what is this place, and for what purpose was it built? We'll likely never* know.
So, they announce the game early because they "want us along for the ride". They want to "show us what they're working on". Of course they never show us a damn thing that they are working on until it has been thoroughly filtered and hyped up at Blizzcon. When anyone asks about anything specific, the response is basically, "STFU, you'll find out when the game is released, and you'll get the game when we give it to you!!"Quote from Bashiok »
*Never is defined as the length of time before the game is released.
I barely even bother reading interviews anymore. The only information provided is vague and generally unimportant. When anyone asks a real question the responses are "Oh, I can't talk about that, but it's gonna be cool!" or "Oh, we're looking a lot of different things that we can't tell you about, but it's gonna be cool!".
What's the deal?! You would think that we were trying to pry national security information from a CIA operative. It's a video game. We are interested in knowing what it is going to be. How are we supposed to be an integral part of the development process if they never tell us anything?!
And what is the freaking hold up?! Torchlight was produced by a couple of guys in 11 months. I understand that the scale of the games is different, but Blizzard has infinitely more resources and teams of people. What on earth are they doing? Make the stinking game already! Or, at least make a freaking D2 patch! Do something. -
Oct 15, 2009cherd posted a message on Grabbing All That LootPosted in: News
I had a gold find barb that could have collected 20,000,000 in a matter of hours. I especially would not have liked auto pick up on that character. I liked seeing those 100,000 gold piles.Quote from "pernunz" »To get a 40% increase in MF, you would need 20,000,000 gold. Not sure how many people would have ever collected that much gold in D2. -
Oct 14, 2009cherd posted a message on Grabbing All That LootPosted in: News
As long as there is still a sense of it coming from individual monsters and having been picked up, I suppose I don't mind not having to click it.Quote from "SFJake" »Yes, big difference there. Gold is ultra common. And its not like you won't see it on the ground. You just won't have to CLICK IT. -
Oct 14, 2009cherd posted a message on Grabbing All That LootIf gold were auto pick up, then there would be no sense of gold dropping from monsters. It would become a quantity that simply increases by killing things. It would be kinda like experience, except gold would be spendable.Posted in: News
I prefer to retain the feel of gold dropping from monsters. The same goes for quest items. When I kill Hephasto I liked to see the hammer sitting on the ground, as if he had actually been holding it. Having it instantly appear in your inventory would cheapen the experience. It would become more like a quest reward, as opposed to an item that you took from a monster that you had killed. -
Oct 12, 2009cherd posted a message on Diablo III Side Quests- Will the Myriad be Worth It?I like the idea of side, random, or scripted quests. But, if people are going to do them then there has to be some motivation. In the end, Diablo players end up pursuing 2 things, items and experience.Posted in: News
With this in mind, I think that the quests need to provide these things. Instead of getting exp by doing 1000 Baal runs in a row, we would do particular types of quests. Or instead of mfing Meph 1000 times in a row we would do other types of quests. We would be pursuing the same goals, but doing it it a way that provides more variety and randomness. -
Oct 9, 2009cherd posted a message on Auras to Return in Diablo III?Posted in: News
What's the point? It's a sequel, the predecessors are the only point of comparison that are available. People want a certain amount of consistency and familiarity from one game to the next. They want an improved version, but a version that retains the positive qualities from the old games that they loved so much.Quote from "mattheo_majik" »Same as usual,
Come on a thread and reading a handfull of comments
doing nothing but comparing D3 to how D2 was. What's the point?
Quote from "mattheo_majik" »I just don't get how people come on and say "F*ck that, auras are only for pallys".
It may be silly to say "auras are only for pallys". But, I think that the people you are referring to are trying to make a slightly different point. That being, if the designers want to try so hard to include characteristics akin to that of the paladin, then why didn't they just retain the paladin as a character class?
Quote from "mattheo_majik" »If it where the other way around and D2 had a monk, they would be saying the same thing about the Paladin.
This is probably true.
Quote from "mattheo_majik" »I would bet my right nut that they know about the silly issues from the D2 era, in other words, they don't really need folks to come on saying how a Bowazon with Zeal+Might was OP. And I'm sure as shit that they are implementing something cool with Runes, keeping the aura factor balanced at the same time.
By posting here we are not attempting to tell the game designers anything, we are merely discussing the topic amongst ourselves.
Quote from "mattheo_majik" »It's a no breainer that unless soloing, everyone would go for a rune that made your aura apply to the team if it wasn't so by default.
If sharing diminishes the effect of the aura to the aura'd character, then it's not necessarily a "no brainer". Sharing may be the appropriate thing to do from a strategic standpoint during group play, but it would require an unselfish act by the aura provider. -
Oct 9, 2009cherd posted a message on Auras to Return in Diablo III?Auras are fun, but they do present some balance issues when all partied members benefit. When a character has auras (like the pally), they design his other skills with this in mind. If single player is to be balanced, then the killing power of each character needs to be balanced. This leads to a situation where the character with auras will need the auras to perform comparably to the other character types. For instance, in D2 the pally, barb, and zon were fairly well balanced on their own, however, a frenzy barb or bowazon with a pally level fanat were freakin ridiculous.Posted in: News
Quote from "Luckmann" »I'm also interested in seeing how runes would work with Auras. Didn't they mention somewhere that runes will work with absolutely all skills? Makes me wonder how a Multistrike rune on things like Slow time will work.
This actually presents an interesting possibility. They could design the auras to only effect the aura'd character. But, one of the runes could provide the benefit of effecting partied members as well (multistrike would be appropriate for this). Of course, there would be some downside as well, such as percentage decrease in aura effect for all characters. This way the aura'd character would have to sacrifice some benefit for the purpose of being a "supporter". - To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
0
Before you try to insult me, try to have some idea what you are talking about. 100% mf doesn't mean that you have a 100% chance of having a magic item drop. It means that you have 2 times the base chance of having a magical item drop.
Ignoring the effects of diminishing returns, let?s say that with 0% mf an item has a 1% chance of dropping as unique from a particular monster. If you have 100% mf, then you increase the chance to 2%. 200% mf you increase the chance to 3%. See how that works?
That?s not true, mf is not required to find any particular type of item, it can just increase the chances. If you have not been able to obtain 400% mf on a character then you either have not put in much effort, or you are implementing the wrong strategy. It's not all that hard to do.
I assure you that the Diablo programmers have a firm grasp of fundamental mathematics. They are not going to keep things simple for the sole purpose of comforting those that do not.
0
0
0
This actually presents an interesting possibility. They could design the auras to only effect the aura'd character. But, one of the runes could provide the benefit of effecting partied members as well (multistrike would be appropriate for this). Of course, there would be some downside as well, such as percentage decrease in aura effect for all characters. This way the aura'd character would have to sacrifice some benefit for the purpose of being a "supporter".
0
0
This is why it is silly for people to think that they needed 800% mf. You could build a sorc with 350-400% mf that effectively had the same mf benefits and could still kill very effectively.
Good point.
I mean, The begin of the game is good but at the end, when you need to redo many time to have better items, I find that boring, I feel like wasting my time. Exemple : I never find soj, i never make runeword, i never see all kind of uber and I got many character above level 70.
So, you would rather the game be easy and not require a time investment? I agree, those that obtain godly status cannot have lives. But that is the price that they pay for doing the things you listed above.
0
I understand that they do not want to remake D2, but I do not fully understand the point of trashing the old characters. Maybe trash the druid and assassin, but the barb, sorc, pally, and necro should have stayed.
0
0
If there are going to be 5 levels of runes, then the occurence difference between each level needs to be considerable. If not, then we will all soon have all slots socketed with the highest runes. If this is the case, then what is the point of having 5 levels to begin with?
0
0
Let?s face it, pursuit of items is basically the whole point of Diablo. Making players feel as though they can become as efficient as possible at achieving this will keep people interested.
0
0
0
Building characters for specific purposes (MFing, damage, PvP, leveling, goldfind) also adds to the sense of variety in the game. If this is all integrated into each character in a systematic way then the variety in character type will be diminished.
And capping these attributes is a horrible idea. For instance, if the cap for MF is 100% then EVERY character would have exactly 100% mf. They would all be the same. If all characters end up the same then what is the point of having the attribute in the first place?
0
Not saying that I will not be impressed otherwise, in fact I expect to be pleasantly surprised. However, creating a game as described above would be a surefire method for success.