- Registered User
Member for 9 years, 7 months, and 1 day
Last active Sun, Dec, 11 2011 10:23:40
- 0 Followers
- 163 Total Posts
- 5 Thanks
Dec 11, 2011I think we need to drop the mentality that these games are made for serious gamers, and subsequently 'dumbed down' for a wider audience. These games are made for the wider audience from the get-go, because that's what sells. Detailed class balance, end-game difficulty, etc., are then added on to this base layer for the more serious gamers.Posted in: Diablo III General Discussion
Nov 29, 2011Yes, that was my reaction as well. Some things they seem to take forever on, worrying quite a bit about getting it just right, and then other seemingly major (to us) bits they just plan on throwing together right before launch.Posted in: Diablo III General Discussion
Nov 17, 2011The skills for each follower have been released. The level 30 skills for the Scoundrel (named Lyndon) are buffs. The options are :Posted in: Diablo III General Discussion
1) 10% precision, for everyone in your party, with 100% uptime,
2) 10% attack, for you and the scoundrel, with max 50% uptime.
In order for these skills to be equal in power, we would need attack to be at least twice as valuable as precision.
Yet I understood that attack and precision are balanced to be approximately equal in value (as stated by Bashiok ). Precision may lead to more overkill, but also more procs. So, for most, attack would be preferable, not not by a factor of two to three.
Which means that hopefully these numbers switch before launch. Or you think it's fine? Or am I missing something? Attack can increase to the high heavens, while crit chance is capped at 100. Since precision needs diminishing returns, it will become less valuable after all...
EDIT: damn sunglasses smiley
Nov 10, 2011Of course Diablo will use fear as his primary tool! it is scary to think that we have been played for fools all along, and that everything we've done out of fear of Hell has ended up playing right into their hands. And now we have to be afraid to act on our own fear, or else we're just helping Hell, but that's just another thing we're afraid of, and... oh my...Posted in: Lore & Storyline
Nov 10, 2011I've read second hand accounts of the lore panel, where it is stated that the Worldstone was used by both Heaven and Hell to create worlds. Yet, in my understanding, the Worldstone was unique to Sanctuary. At the least, Sanctuary was initially hidden from Heaven and Hell (hence the name), so if it ALSO contained the Worldstone, Heaven and Hell should have noticed it missing.Posted in: Lore & Storyline
Is this a retcon, or is there any explanation for this?
Also, I always thought Baal was trying to corrupt the Worldstone to allow Hell to invade Sanctuary. I guess Phrozen's article points out all these inconsistencies. Hopefully D3 clears this all up.
Nov 8, 2011I like it... the beams heave predictably, yet are thrown around in a randomish cluster. So technically they're avoidable, but it will be difficult with lots of them out. Look at how the monk is weaving in and out of range in the vid. Couple this with a champion with lots of health, etc. and you've got a nice fight.Posted in: News & Announcements
Also, the range goes all the way off the screen, so I don't see how this makes it even easier for ranged classes.
Nov 6, 2011Sorry this is sourceless... but I recall a developer being asked about this, and they said no to it. Personally, I don't like the idea of having to worry about two extra gear slots to fill, or of having to micromanage which weapon is out for which skill to maximize damage output. Besides a shield / no shield setup, I don't see the point. In what situations in D3 would a weapon swap help?Posted in: Diablo III General Discussion
Nov 6, 2011Posted in: Witch Doctor: The Mbwiru EikuraQuote from warIsADangerousPlace
Unless I am missing something, there seems to be some discontinuity in your build. You have two skills (grasp and zombie wall) and one rune stone (golden on zombie wall) devoted to keeping enemies at bay but your main damage spell only works on 'nearby' enemies (reading the alabaster rune stone on the bats). So you're going to CC mobs to prevent them from getting to you..and then move close to them and use bats? Soul harvest's damage component doesn't help either since it's short ranged too (15 yards).
I'd swap the bats' alabaster rune stone for the crimson one (reading the text, it seems like dire bats are more of a ranged nuke). I would then replace soul harvest or zombie wall with one of the other 'vermin' (just because taking a passive that benefits only one skill seems like a waste).
Using spirit walk to pick up globes feels kind of awkward. I mean, spirit walk seems like it's supposed to be used in an 'oh sh!t' situation not for mobility. If you want to preserve this playstyle I'd swap spirit walk with horrify with the alabaster rune stone. That way you can horrify, run in, get the health globes, and go back to nuking.
Here's an updated version of your build:
I would think any Witch Doctor that is going to be spamming short range spells on the front lines will still want a slow such as Grasp, so they can stay right on that edge between the oncoming masses and freedom, and not get overwhelmed.
Nov 6, 2011Heads up, the linked build doesn't include Blood Ritual, but Spiritual Attunement instead.Posted in: Witch Doctor: The Mbwiru Eikura
I don't think this build will work well (though I can't be positive). But I can't see a build using only one main damage skill, and rune-ing that for survivability (if you go life-leech). Bats would really have to eat up everything in sight for this to work, which means it would have to be balanced by a huge mana cost to keep it in check. Then your build tries to get around that, with lots of life steal. But right now Firebats mana cost is not that out of line with other skills (two other damagers cost as much, one more), and 15% mana as health is not much. Also, taking Zombie Wall, Grasp, and Spirit Walk seems like much overkill.
In conclusion, either Firebats is unbalanced and overpowered, or the build is unbalanced and underpowered.
Nov 5, 2011So much runeword hate! It seems no one can separate the concept of runewords from the horrible implementation in D2.Posted in: Diablo III General Discussion
Right now in D3, there are 4 gems, each of which (helm excluded) adds to a primary stat. Wouldn't it be nice to give up a couple gem slots in order to get more specialized bonus or effect? It doesn't have to be a complicated system, and there need not be 33 different runes clogging your inventory. With just 8 runes you can get 64 combinations. Make half of those runewords - a few general, a few class specific, and blam. Customization. Enchanting has mostly taken over this function, but maybe you really need some cold resist, and runewords could fill that niche.
Anyways, I really like the flavor of runewords. It just need be done in a way that adds richness to the skill and stat system, not just complication, and needs to not throw the whole itemization game off-balance.
Also, won't happen.
- To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Sep 30, 2011Even though the square layouts of D2 were possibly unrealistic, it never bothered me. I think I will miss their openness. The above-ground areas in D3 seem too one-dimensional (so far), and it just doesn't feel like much of a game if there's only ever one choice for which way to go.Posted in: News
Aug 3, 2011Posted in: NewsQuote from xRand0mH3rox
The idea behind the recent rune ideas that Jay talked about in the interview gave me the idea to solve the problems most of us have with this new skill system. It is ok to swap the skills without any consequences, but the skills could be made like runes.
If we insert a skill into a slot, it is unmastered, so it can be changed any time, like in the current concept. But every slot would have a mastering option. 30-60 is 30 levels, divided by 5 is 6. So the characters would get one mastering points every 5 level after level 30, which means 6 points total.
Every slot would have 3 master level, like advanced, expert and master.
If someone starts to master a skill, that would be locked into the slot. Mastering would give affixes semi-connected to the skill, like increasing critical-chance or resource pool maybe.
So basically it would keep the skill changing option to experiment any time, but if someone wants to really go deep into customization and maxing out the potential of a character, mastering a skill would be a choice to go as well, and it would make the skill build locked.
I really like this idea, I think it is similar to mine above, where I proposed a 4-total-skill-point system, whereas yours is six, and slightly more flexible. I hope the devs read this and consider refining something along these lines and seeing how it plays.
Aug 3, 2011Two proposals:Posted in: News
A) Bring back 'skill points', but give one major and two minor per character. So each player has six skills... one major buffed, two minor buffed, and three regular. This adds further customization on top of the six skills one makes their build from. I think it can greatly add to the complexity of the game, while avoiding the pitfalls that made skill points unfun.
A lock-in system for old characters. Once you've found a skill set you love, you can lock it in, announcing to the world that that is who your character is.
Thoughts on the removal of skill points:
1) They now CAN make a 1/2 skill system not viable, by balancing the game to need more than 1/2 skills. If Whirlwind can kill every monster on screen, every time, then it will have a cooldown or resource cost to make that impossible. You will need to fill that gap with another skill, either an attack or a resource regen. Then, this can be repeated until you need at least 3 skills to have no downtime, etc. The only way you would be able to get away with only using 1/2 skills is then if those skills are to weak to clear the screen of monsters by themselves.
2) The skill point system in D2 was dumb for the reasons Mr. Wilson states... having to save points while leveling is just against the way one feels a game should be played. As others point out, the synergies made it worse. Anyways, who wants to play a game for 3 hours, and have cast the same spell 30,000 times, and nothing else?
3) I think what players will miss is the sense of identity that comes with choosing a certain build. Who knows if the barbarian you see is really into swinging axes, or just testing it out before swapping skills? When every player of a certain class can wake up tomorrow and respec the same way, that makes one feel not unique.
4) Similarly, players seem to be worried about the current degree of customizability. In D2, even two characters with the same skills could (theoretically at least) have a different point spread, and therefore a different emphasis on different skills. It seems like what Mr. Wilson was saying was that they couldn't build this degree of complication into D3 without it being only skin deep... it would seem like there were a lot of choices, but really there were only a couple ways to do it 'right'. Yet the idea of two characters choosing the same 6 skills, but playing them slightly different, is interesting. One character might use skill A as a main attack, and B situationally, while another uses B regularly, and A only occasionally.
5) Replayability vs. time. The nice thing about the system laid out for D3 is the ability to play around and test a skill/build. Once you find one you consider optimal for you, bam, you're an axe barb. But tomorrow, you could be a sword barb, and that makes the original choice less meaningful since there was no cost in making it. A system with locked-in builds helps replayability, and is good for those who can/do play a lot. A system with respecs is good for those who shouldn't have to play for 10 hours just to try out swords instead of axes. I feel for both groups.
Thanks for reading. Edit: inadvertent smiley, lolz.
- To post a comment, please login or register a new account.