- brimg
- Registered User
-
Member for 12 years, 8 months, and 21 days
Last active Sun, Dec, 11 2011 10:23:40
- 0 Followers
- 163 Total Posts
- 5 Thanks
-
Oct 11, 2011brimg posted a message on Diablo III Beta Key SweepstakesA little sick of needing FB / Twitter for so many key contests. C'mon Blizz, you have enough P.R., you don't need me to whore out my profile for you.Posted in: News
-
Sep 30, 2011brimg posted a message on DiabloCast: Episode XXVIIIEven 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, 2011brimg posted a message on Skill Points Removal Fuels Game ControversyPosted 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, 2011brimg posted a message on Skill Points Removal Fuels Game ControversyTwo 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.
0
0
Enchant! Man, if I had the time I would be downloading D2 and trying that out right now...
0
"Enchants work like Gems. We wanted the enchant to do what it does each time, rather than force players to use the enchant over and over again (on the same item)."
Astion - I see your point about how it could diminish the value of those nice rare finds.
0
How did a ranged Barbarian work in D2? Jeesh, or a melee Sorceress... I never thought about how each class could be up-close or ranged, pretty neat system they ended up with there.
0
If you have a sword with 15 strength, but it could have a maximum of 20, you can pay for a chance to increase the strength up to 20 (preferably staying at 15 if a lower number is rolled). Adjusting the price by the current stat values would keep everyone from having perfect items.
Since everyone wants bigger numbers, it will always be popular. It also provides another, smaller but more sure, mechanism for upgrades, other than praying for new drops or trawling the AH all day.
And, as far as I am aware, the only gold-sink in the game right now is the death penalty, which will only be as effective at sucking up gold as players are at dying. Upgrading items is a more pro-active approach, and in games that have a system similar to this, I am always strapped for gold. Unfortunately, I think the developers are against a system like this.
0
I like the idea of having another option to consider when choosing stats, but it could be difficult to not make them overpowered.
0
0
Clypheous, I also think it will be crazy to have runes so early, long before you get all your spells. One might imagine they could be rare enough that it wouldn't be too overwhelming. But what the devs are trying to hammer in to us is that with so many skill/rune combos, we will need a long time to just play around and try things out. So if they "drop like candy", as I think I heard they will, there won't be a large cost to socketing a rune just for kicks and deleting it if you don't like it, etc. Or, they could just be mostly ignored... it doesn't have to be such a serious choice until you are later in the game and understand how most of them work, and have an idea on a build/style you are working towards.
0
0
I think it adds more depth when each class uses the same resource, yet may value it differently. It also allows for mana steal, mana regeneration, etc. on items, adding more complexity to your build, whereas if they do that now it must be class specific.
0
I remember, maybe Jay Wilson, saying something along the lines of how they didn't like that players in D2 had to have two separate sets of gear, one normal and one MF. And so MF in D3 would be restricted in some way, either to certain slots, or maybe that it would always be 'extra' -- MF on items would not come at the expense of other stats.
0
Anyways, I at least find it well-made and a good listen.
But why would anyone who hates Blizzard make a podcast devoted to a Blizzard game? Probably most podcasts seem like they're made by fans because only fans would put the effort in, eh.
0
I've been PC-exclusive for many years, but I think something like this would just be super-awesome-fun with a controller.
0
As someone who has been looking forward to the MMO since before the original Torchlight release, I'm a little bummed, but at least the MMO won't conflict w/ Diablo III. Though, this does have me more excited for TL2.
TLDR 1) No TL2 on Xbox Live Arcade. Would consider full redesign of game for actual Xbox release.
TLDR 2) TL MMO may or may not be next after TL2.
0