DiabloFans

Quote from Umpa

Quote from Juystafan

Yeah, I noticed it too... Although.. I'm not much of one to talk either. I spend more time reading them than posting. Atleast I've been a member longer than 1 day.

Nah, you're fine my man. 9 posts is more than enough to not look like someone just out for a key. Keep posting!

Thanks again Flyarion, I'm really looking forward to trying out some Mythos!

Heh... appreciate it.

I look forward to posting video's of beta game play. Anything I can do to help out.

Hmm... now where did that beta key holder run off to? ; )

Juystafan: *Check pockets for beta key. Alas, his key chain is just a key chain*
*sad face*

Quote from Umpa

Lol...I love how all these 1 post wonders show up for beta keys....

Yeah, I noticed it too... Although.. I'm not much of one to talk either. I spend more time reading them than posting. Atleast I've been a member longer than 1 day.

When will the lucky recipients be announced?

I would be very lucky and thankful for one as well.

Quote from Jackzor

Well the inventory in D3 is kind of like a cleaner tetris. There's more space, and even though items do vary in size, the largest is maybe two or three slots. So things will line up much easier. But as for your specific question, no I don't think you can rotate items, but the inventory has been improved in other ways.

Yeah... I know... but still... if you have one item on top of another, its possible depending on the size of the item, that one dinky cell maybe unused except for a ring or potion. I never liked storing potions between armor and weapons on the left side of my inventory. I tended to keep a clean stash by having all scrolls and potions on the right side. I might be a little too picky, but having that function should not be too hard to implement, I would think...

I figure with item rotation as function, it would cure my OCD-ness about inventory stash.

Heh

-Juystafan

Depending on he inventory system being implemented in D3, if its anything like D2, I think it would be great if we could rotate some of the items for the purposes of inventory organization. In D2, I always got frustrated because I had unused slots in my inventory while picking up items in-game. If I had a system of turning objects, the unused single slots would get reduced. I just think it would be a neat idea to be able to turn tombs or wands sideways, especially since now that town portals will not be used as often. In D2, no body complained because they could just go straight to town. That may change in D3.

I assume this hasn't been talked about yet... (It didn't come up in the search)

What are your thoughts?

-Juystafan

Quote from zerg4hire

Most level 99 were bots anyways.

Yeah, I forgot about bots... Ick.

Quote from FingolfinGR

I'm pretty sure it's been discussed alot already but whatever, let's give it a go.

I think that with each level up the character should get more powerful. In that sense, Diablo II didn't do it that well, except for specific levels that you could gain access to new spells.

Thinking back, I do agree that Diablo II leveling was pretty weak, I guess just because they had too much room for expansion. I guess to do something similarly in Diablo III may be impractical because of the system already implemented (Which I do like so far). I also assume that like WoW, the expansions may expand the level cap as well. I feel that a lower level, yet similar type of grinding might occur, but instead of it being for leveling, it will probably be for item finding. Certain items dropping from certain monsters? Anyways, just more thoughts...

By the way, I would like to have a mode beyond Hell that would require level 60 through all acts. That way the starting portion of the game can be replayed the same way. I mean, nobody ever went back to ACT I in D2. (I threw this thought in here just because it suddenly occurred to me) - Thread about it yet?

Hello players,

I remember back when I played Diablo 2, it was a very intensive process to reach level 99. Most people stopped leveling just before, at, or around level 90. A character carried some prestige with them if they were level 92 or above. I really liked this aspect because there weren't a bunch of level 99 characters. I worry that in Diablo 3, level 60 will be a relatively easy to attain level. I'm not a huge fan of having several max level characters running around just like there are in WoW and then placing the primary focus on gear. I understand the concept and see why it would be preferred and really don't mind it if implemented correctly. But I like having that little bit of room for growth in level where most people might not care enough to reach, no matter how intensive it is. The prestige is well worth it for some people. At the very least, the option of an intensive last 5 to 10 levels would be nice to have... Besides I don't remember there being too big of a difference between a level 98 player fighting a level 93 player. The emphasis was still mostly on gear. But those who take the time to reach a higher level should reap what little benefit they can get from it.

In summary:
I just hope its just as hard to get to level 60 in Diablo 3 as it was to get to level 99 in Diablo 2 if not similarly (There is also the prestige aspect). I think it really added extra play to the game, it's also why i think people stuck around as long as they did in DIablo 2. What will people do if they can't do Baal runs anymore. I wonder what they implemented for us to enjoy after we've reached max level. Besides PvP that is... Having that extra room for growth always available was a nice thing to have.

Share your thoughts guys. I'm curious what previous Diablo 2 fans think about this.

Cheers,

-Juystafan

Scalable Set items: This would be a pretty bad idea... I think... Mainly because this could dissuade people from trying new gear. Of course that all depends on the stats of the set items. If set items are to be scaled with character level, they should be scaled back at the very least, 1-2 tier levels so that drops during the game always have the potential of being better suited than that a particular set items attributes. I prefer the creativity be left to the players for determining the right attributes to have on equipment rather than them be pre-seleced for an entire armor/weapon set. It does too much work for the player. Hence my quote, "Set items are for lazy players, or players that are trying to get some laughs".

Digression:
The common, magical, rare, unique, and crafted gear in Diablo 2 was a fairly nice, simple at that. However, I like the idea of having a very few amount of rare items that have the potential to be better than some of the best Unique items. If that makes any sense. Like magical items, rare items can have varying attributes with varying additions like 20-35% block rate, or +70-150% damage. If a certain tiered rare was to be perfect, it should outshine most perfect unique items of that same tier. I understand I may be pretty vague, but thats the best way I can currently explain it using old d2 terminology. Call it an ultra-rare if you will... Because rare items have far more variations in types of attributes, the odds of landing a perfect rare with not only all the attributes you want but also perfect stats on those attributes, (i.e. 150% if the range was 70%-150%) is far more improbable than that of Uniques items with set attributes and varying stats. (By attributes I mean +Dexterity, or Item casts blizzard 5% chance on hit, or + life, etc.) (By stats i mean the %'s and numbers reflecting those attributes, like 10 dexterity, or the given %). I believe that because it is so improbable that a rare may outshine a Unique item, that Unique items will still play a primary role in the trading system. But my thought on rare's would allow for an additional, very improbable level of slight improvement from perfect unique items. I may try to work out a model using d2 items as a basis for comparison to show everyone if there is enough interest.

Back on topic: Anyways back to the question, I like set items, I do... but they take away from a lot of the mystery. Diablo 2 did practically make set items irrelevant in the end, which I liked. As a result, i believe it should be implemented in a similar way. I think sets should be treated more as a gimmick than an actually usable item to a certain degree(We wouldn't want to make them completely useless). Its stuff for fun, and I can't say no to variety. I think Diablo 2 had it about right.

Ohh and I say Nay to craftable sets..., unless they are purely gimmick or decorative items with no actual use. Then it would just be a fun economy dump.

-JuystaFan