There is zero reason to use basic attacks when you have zero-cost, resource generating abilities. Consequently, there is no reason for them to be in the game.
I'm actually a very very casual gamer, maybe a couple hours a week, I don't even have a dedicated videocard at the moment (waiting for kepler come on nvidia!)
In the context of this discussion we're not talking about the amount of hours you play, we're talking about your formal game knowledge. You have plenty of it already. For purposes of this discussion, you're not a casual gamer.
The example of the tooltips is not to show what got in MY way, but what can get into regular players way, those people who does not follow D3 patch changes like we do, and does not know to press ctrl, and the option toggle.
Isn't that what we are talking about? it's not about us, but the general gamers out there, the casual gamers out there, the mainstream gamers out there.
And by and large, the simplified tooltips are a great tool for casual gamers (casual as in those who may have no formal gaming experience whatsoever). There have been several posts on other forums already detailing how complete novices have benefited from the new, simplified tooltips. You might now, because as already mentioned, you're not new to gaming or Diablo or RPG's. If you like, I can post these examples of people benefiting. But the fact remains; simplified tooltips serve a very useful purpose. And if they get in your way, they can be disabled. Period.
Lastly, even though it is the beta, the changes and additions they made are done for a reason, and have gone through internal testing. These changes has to be first thought up by the designers, for a reason, brainstormed, designed and implemented into the game. It then went through internal testing and the internal testers believe the change have carried out their original reason rather well, so they release it to the beta testers. Even though it may not be the final version of it, it gives you a glimpse of what they have in their head and what they are planning to convey the game to be. Since several of their changes have pointed to the issue we are discussing, it is quite logical to connect that dot.
Yes, it gives you a glimpse. And it's not final. And you have no evidence whatsoever to suggest that they have intentionally sacrificed functionality for the sake of catering to casuals.
Looking at the current skill UI, and taking into consideration what a disorganized mess it is, the fact that the arrows overlap useful information, the fact that it's buggy, and other such things which demonstrate that the interface isn't finalized... it should be COMPLETELY OBVIOUS to EVERYONE that what you have now is NOWHERE NEAR FINALIZED. And that likely ALL YOUR COMPLAINTS ABOUT LOSING USABILITY TO A GUIDED EXPERIENCE WILL BE FIXED.
Yes, we get it. You would absolutely love to make the correlation that because the first iteration of an interface that we've seen isn't perfect that it constitutes proof that they've intentionally sacrificed quality in order to cater to the casuals. And I'm saying, that argument is retarded.
Edit - I just replayed through the beta again - no arrow pointing the way to the royal crypts.
First, you cannot deny that they are putting effort and time towards this goal of having a guided experience. I'm not saying it's bad, but it's overly done, and a lot of this effort i feel is going to be a little wasted.
Who are you to say it's overdone? You're obviously not a casual gamer, and it'd be very difficult if not impossible for you to go back and put your mentality in the shoes of one. Blizzard has a lot more experience on the matter of playtesting for casuals than YOU do, they've put hundreds and hundreds of casuals through their testing phases and monitored them for the issues that REAL casuals have, not what a hardcore who THINKS he knows what casuals think/do. So I think I'm going to go with their standard of what constitutes 'overly done', if you don't mind.
The simplified tool tips for example, if you are an experienced rpg player, but never touched diablo, never followed the beta like we are doing right now, what would your first thought be when you see those tool-tips (punch the enemy hard)? would you know if there's actually an option to toggle that off? or press ctrl?
That is NOT an example of getting in your way, which is what I asked you for. Because you can disable simplified tooltips with a checkbox. Done. Next?
What's the fun in exploring if you are guided to the goal?
Exactly, it wasn't there in prior patches. How do you know this isn't a glitch? It doesn't happen anywhere else except this one instance, and no further. How do you know it doesn't occur on normal only? How about we wait until we have the full picture before we start jumping to random conclusions, yes?
As for the UI, if they publish it through the beta patch, they are at least some what confident that this is the correct direction, which is to sacrifice usability for guided experience. And this should be where we need to get concerned. If this is the direction that they are going with, what other mechanism might they sacrifice in the future for the sake of making the game more guided/accessible for new players? Would it be worth it to make that sacrifice? In the long term?
This whole statement from you makes some GROSS assumptions you have no basis for and cannot prove at all. You falsely assume that because they publish something in a beta patch that that is the direction they're headed, when we have countless examples of them doing complete 180's in the past. You falsely assume that they have intentionally sacrificed usability for a guided experience, when the UI is BLATANTLY, OBVIOUSLY A FIRST ATTEMPT, and then top it off with an awesome logical fallacy to further drive home the point you don't actually have a legitimate argument; slippery slope. "If this goes through, THEN JUST IMAGINE WHAT ELSE WILL GO THROUGH!1!!!"
Knock it off. You're smarter than this nonsense above.
And to Engagequadlaser, not all of us are like that. I for one am just concerned that these many many guiding features (who knows what else they have in store) are going to get in the way of our regular gameplay. Currently the skill UI is a good example of how they have to spend time to create an Elective Mode that creates a hassle for regular players, just so that they can have a system that tells new players which skill to put on which button. In addition to that, those 'new' players will become experienced players and despise this system later down the road.
How exactly are they going to 'get in your way'? Are the tooltips on your screen so big that they get in the way of your mouse clicks? Why point to something such as the skill UI, which is OBVIOUSLY in its first iteration, as evidence? You know it's not final. For christ's sake, there's elements that overlap and obscure others.
So again, how exactly are you being inconvenienced by these measures?
Modern gamers are concidered idiots by the game designers. Back in the day you sat down and learned by playing and it was good! You didn't need a tutorial because it was all kind of self-explanatory (atleast the good ones were). Take a look at Egoraptor's sequelitis where he talks about Mega Man X, he really hits his head on the nail when it comes to modern game design (it's very funny too if you havn't seen it).
Fuck man, so glad to have watched this. Just yesterday at work I was talking to my buddy about the new rune system changes. I brought up the point of why not just have it explained in a game manual? The thing that I cannot understand is that; all new players inevitably will become an experienced player. They will play, figure things out, and become experienced. Experienced players will NEVER revert to being a new player. So by this logic ultimately the majority of players will be experienced. Why not cater to this? Blizzard emphasizes so heavily on pick up and play and simple to figure out, yet within a week at most people will have caught on to this shit and be wanting something more challenging and stimulating, not something dumbed down. And unfortunately you won't find something like that until an expansion. This is why WoW's sub's drop so dramatically and the hardcore players plow through new content in less than a month and then quit.
/rant
The video actually explains why they DON'T have it in a game manual... because it's better to teach as you play...
Yes, eventually everyone will be experienced. By that point, there will be NO MORE TOOLTIPS, and they can go into elective mode if they want. So again, how exactly are YOU being hurt by their decisions to provide some help for newer players? Help that you're QUICKLY going to blast through and probably never have to deal with again.
All I see is another unfounded whine post about "wahhhhhh! wahhhhh! catering to casuals! How? Umm... I don't know..."
The rhetoric "catering to casuals" is probably one of the most ignorant statements the "hardcore" gaming community loves to make now. It stems from people upset that their hobby is no longer niche, a special little place just for them. They don't want gaming to be inviting, to be streamlined and intuitive. The worst part is, these simpletons don't even realize that the changes blizzard makes aren't just for casual players - they're for EVERYONE. EVERYONE benefits from easily understood explanations and intelligent streamlining. The problem is these people, in their disingenuous argument, have turned these things into dirty words, idiotically. They don't realize that even if they themselves are completely ignorant of the streamlining, or the hand-holding of new players, that it has no effect on their gameplay experience whatsoever. So what it you don't like simple tooltips? Turn them off. So what if you don't like the hand-holding of the new skill system? There's elective mode.
The problem is idiots love to pretend that every single change they don't like is directly caused by Blizzard's policy of including everyone within their development considerations. It's a completely shallow, idiotic argument that people latch onto because they either don't like a (usually VERY intelligent and warranted) design decision, or they feel like they're no longer the beautiful and unique hardcore snowflakes they thought they were, with developers' attention all to themselves.
The most ironic thing? The people who frequently think of themselves as the ones with the most "mature" taste in gaming and experienc, are frequently the most intellectually and developmentally stunted when it comes to consideration for others in gaming.
Are you seriously telling me you would have collected every rune of every level for every skill and class? Thats bullshit. You'd play around with them at the start and then quickly settle into your desired build and focus on those. Yeah, there might be a few anal retentive players having to collect them all, but thats not the majority of players.
WoW statistics disagree with you. Entirely. You may not do it. I may not do it. But a surprisingly large amount of people would, and it was definitely a legitimate concern for Blizzard. Trying to handwave it away simply because you don't like something is not an argument.
Yep they do, but.... there's 4 types of gems, 14 levels requiring 3 of each level to combine up to the next. Do the math, Gems are a bigger issue then the proposed rune system listed above.
You do the math. Because evidently you don't understand the basics of it. You put 3 in, you get 1 out. That is a reducing system. Do you still honestly need help with this?
It is. The game is balanced for people with "an attention span of normal" to play till normal. The higher difficulties are for hardcore players. Also, what you aren't comprehending is with the old system, you could have your build and runes you wanted by level 30 (your "normal attention span") Now however, you CAN'T have your build till you reach 60 (well beyond your limited attention span)
No. It isn't. The game is not being balanced for people with a short attention span. It's being balanced to accommodate everyone. You falsely try to correlate consideration for other players/playstyles as resulting in a game which is being made easier for you - how? You don't know that. You don't have any proof that inferno will be anything short of as balls-difficult as all the developers and the panel at blizzcon said it would be. You don't have any proof that normal through hell won't be exactly as challenging as Blizzard wants it to be. You also don't have ANY proof that these changes result in an easier game. If you actually HAVE some evidence to the contrary, present it then. I'll wait.
Yes, with the old system you could have your entire build laid out by 30. You could also have huge itemization issues, balancing issues, and the pain in the ass that would be managing this entire inventory of runes. That's why they're gone, and they're not coming back, no matter how much you would like to refer to the 1 good aspect the old system brought.
You also like to pretend that this system is catering towards the ADD'ers who will never make it to 60; how? When this system actively encourages you to get to 60 to finalize your build? And why are you upset then? You plan on playing to 60, don't you?
#1- Enough with the '4200 runes' argument, that system was never fully implemented; people against this new system advocated the old one: 5 rune types that fit all skills, 7 rune ranks per type, total 35 different runes.
5 runes per skill, 23 skills per class, 5 classes, not counting repeats. All in one universal stash. It was an inventory nightmare, whether you would like to admit it or not.
#2- A very high fact that you won't even try the build you wanted? Try again. In the old system, lower level runes were fairly common, so you would never want a crimson rune and not have it (for long). And don't tell me that your particular build absolutely needs level 7 runes to work, that's BS. The old system guaranteed that you'd have all varieties of runes fairly quickly, while still maintaining the desire to hunt for more powerful (but not essential) rune ranks.
Thank you for admitting what a balancing nightmare this would have been.
#3- So, it's okay to grind for gems, but not for runes? I don't follow you.
Gems combine to reduce from 3 to 1. Follow now?
#4- "Im really happy about the changes, and this way, it will give the people with a gaming attention span of a normal play through, more of a reason to play the higher difficulties." - and now we get to the heart of the matter.
Pretty much anyone with two brain cells to rub together saw that the old incarnation of the rune system wouldn't work. It would've been an inventory headache and a balancing nightmare (what rank runes do you balance inferno around? 7? What happens to everyone who doesn't have rank 7 runes? Do you balance around 4? What happens when people get all rank 7? Trivialize NE content?)
Nah, the new system is loads better. This incessant crying and whining will go away after the children get over their "Blizz just took my toys!" tantrum and they realize this systems pros outweigh the cons. Or they won't get over it. But who gives a shit if they don't. Their loss.
Tell me, how are you going to adapt your build on the fly to challenges in front of you, when you can't see what's ahead, and there's a 15 second cooldown before you can actually even use the ability you've just swapped in to take advantage of?
Do you honestly believe it is possible for Blizzard to make builds be within 1-5% of each other?
WoW, which is constantly being tuned thorugh patches, has had similar goals in the past, and never succeeded. Today I don't think the dev's would even throw out such a claim regarding their balancing goals - because they simply cannot do it.
Blizzard telling you some lofty goal, doesn't turn it into reality.
You are telling me that, for example, a spec made only with AoE in mind - made for killing tons and tons of weaker enemies very fast - will only be 5% better at AoEing those mobs down, than a viable-specced single-target focused char?
That is my damn dispute, because it simply is not possible for Blizzard (or anyone else) to do.
It is more than possible. It is likely.
It's simply a matter of balancing individual skills against one another. Have you not noticed yet how abilities of similar categories all tend to hover around the same damage amounts? The same stun durations? Same resource costs? And where they differ in these areas, they are forced to compensate by other means? Blizzard is doing a fantastic job of balancing skills against one another, and when you balance the parts, you balance the whole. If certain builds are found to be outperforming, it's a simple matter of tweaking the metrics on individual skills until the build is brought in line. This is INCREDIBLY easy to do when you have as many systems of numerical analysis and data reporting as Blizzard has on their end. What, you don't think while you're playing they're not collecting tons and tons of data about your class and spec?
Your AOE example is ridiculous, because a build whose sole purpose is putting out AOE damage will not be viable. Blizzard is smart enough to actually design their content such that players will be required to meet several skill category requirements to get through it; you'll not ONLY be putting out damage. You'll also need to incorporate movement and escape abilities, CC, battlefield control, buffs/debuffs, etc.
It's becoming painfully obvious at this point that you don't actually have an argument to make. Because a real argument goes facts -> analysis -> conclusion. You are doing no such thing. You have already determined what the conclusion you want to make is, and now you're following the process in reverse; making up the facts and accompanying it with poor analysis to try to support your conclusion, and disregarding everything else presented to you which does not agree with the conclusion you want to come to. All in desperate hope of trying to support your argument which is built on nothing more than hyperbole and poor assumptions about what may or may not occur in the future which have very little to do with reality.
Sorry, I'm going to take the word of the devs over that. I'll come back when you can support this argument beyond, "It's going to be terrible! Why...? Umm....because I say so..."
First rule don`t argue with trolls, don`t read what they herp derp because nothing logical will come out from their mouth.
This coming from the troll who has utterly failed to support his stance at any available opportunity. Fly away son. You got beat, and it's not even worth waiting for your next poorly written retort.
1) I havent said it is balanced for constant respeccing (as in every 15 sec), only that it will be balanced around the ability to respec whenever you want to. As in whenever there is an advantage to be gained in respeccing.
Why are people at an disadvantage for not respeccing?
Because you can make much better builds which are specialized at specific tasks, than you can make builds which have to be reasonably good at everything the game can ever throw against you.
Pretty much irregardless of how the game is actually balanced, how difficult it is etc. that ought to be a constant truth.
Specializing at one task makes you better at that one task, than if you are generalized.
Please tell me how that would not be the case. Always.
Because as has already been mentioned, specs will perform within a very tight % of each other, and as many builds will be viable as possible. If the advantage to swap is as minimal as 5% (what Blizzard has said is their tolerance for acceptability), then the advantage is negligible. If you want to pretend that the 5% advantage is too significant and forces people to respec anyways - take it up with Blizzard. They do not agree with you.
With that in mind, it is NOT being balanced around skill swapping. It is being balanced around accommodating everyone's playstyle; those who want permanence, and those who like variety. If you have any actual evidence to the contrary, instead of imaginary hypothetical scenarios which may or may not occur in the future, please feel free to present them.
Admittedly that might be a bad choice of words. A better game in terms of character customization - not a better game in ultimate terms. Which comes from creating a character with strength and weakness (and not just strengths with no weaknesses). Thinking about consequences of your decisions.
Which I and others in this thread (and elsewhere) had already explained.
Not even in terms of customization, because as has already been stated, customization has not taken a hit. You will still have characters with strengths and weaknesses. No character is strong all the time. Not even those who choose to skill swap. The 6-skill limit makes sure of that. The skills you choose to use on a fight to fight basis will still involve just as much thinking and consequences to it, whether you continue on with that build after the fight, or you change it out again immediately after. The only thing which can assign thinking and meaningfulness to your choices, is you.
ok so say i pick pure arcane abilities as a wizard no other element, then while i'm running through hell i run into a arcane immune, is changing to some other element abilities to kill something that was 100% immune to me before hand a 5% advantage? whats a challenge when there is no challenge?
There are no more immunes in the game. That goes a long way towards making sure all builds are within acceptable #'s of each other.
In addition, you would have picked a terrible build, and you wouldn't be able to get through hell anyways until you fix your build to account for all the other things an actually viable build will need; i.e., defense, escape mechanics, crowd control, etc.
0
0
Fin.
0
In the context of this discussion we're not talking about the amount of hours you play, we're talking about your formal game knowledge. You have plenty of it already. For purposes of this discussion, you're not a casual gamer.
And by and large, the simplified tooltips are a great tool for casual gamers (casual as in those who may have no formal gaming experience whatsoever). There have been several posts on other forums already detailing how complete novices have benefited from the new, simplified tooltips. You might now, because as already mentioned, you're not new to gaming or Diablo or RPG's. If you like, I can post these examples of people benefiting. But the fact remains; simplified tooltips serve a very useful purpose. And if they get in your way, they can be disabled. Period.
Yes, it gives you a glimpse. And it's not final. And you have no evidence whatsoever to suggest that they have intentionally sacrificed functionality for the sake of catering to casuals.
Looking at the current skill UI, and taking into consideration what a disorganized mess it is, the fact that the arrows overlap useful information, the fact that it's buggy, and other such things which demonstrate that the interface isn't finalized... it should be COMPLETELY OBVIOUS to EVERYONE that what you have now is NOWHERE NEAR FINALIZED. And that likely ALL YOUR COMPLAINTS ABOUT LOSING USABILITY TO A GUIDED EXPERIENCE WILL BE FIXED.
Yes, we get it. You would absolutely love to make the correlation that because the first iteration of an interface that we've seen isn't perfect that it constitutes proof that they've intentionally sacrificed quality in order to cater to the casuals. And I'm saying, that argument is retarded.
Edit - I just replayed through the beta again - no arrow pointing the way to the royal crypts.
0
Who are you to say it's overdone? You're obviously not a casual gamer, and it'd be very difficult if not impossible for you to go back and put your mentality in the shoes of one. Blizzard has a lot more experience on the matter of playtesting for casuals than YOU do, they've put hundreds and hundreds of casuals through their testing phases and monitored them for the issues that REAL casuals have, not what a hardcore who THINKS he knows what casuals think/do. So I think I'm going to go with their standard of what constitutes 'overly done', if you don't mind.
That is NOT an example of getting in your way, which is what I asked you for. Because you can disable simplified tooltips with a checkbox. Done. Next?
Exactly, it wasn't there in prior patches. How do you know this isn't a glitch? It doesn't happen anywhere else except this one instance, and no further. How do you know it doesn't occur on normal only? How about we wait until we have the full picture before we start jumping to random conclusions, yes?
This whole statement from you makes some GROSS assumptions you have no basis for and cannot prove at all. You falsely assume that because they publish something in a beta patch that that is the direction they're headed, when we have countless examples of them doing complete 180's in the past. You falsely assume that they have intentionally sacrificed usability for a guided experience, when the UI is BLATANTLY, OBVIOUSLY A FIRST ATTEMPT, and then top it off with an awesome logical fallacy to further drive home the point you don't actually have a legitimate argument; slippery slope. "If this goes through, THEN JUST IMAGINE WHAT ELSE WILL GO THROUGH!1!!!"
Knock it off. You're smarter than this nonsense above.
0
We already read your post, but thanks for the alternate interpretation!
Are you finished with your tantrum? Have you adequately stuck it to Bli$$ard yet in telling them what they can and can't do?
0
Those days are gone.
This is not D2.
0
So laughably childish.
0
How exactly are they going to 'get in your way'? Are the tooltips on your screen so big that they get in the way of your mouse clicks? Why point to something such as the skill UI, which is OBVIOUSLY in its first iteration, as evidence? You know it's not final. For christ's sake, there's elements that overlap and obscure others.
So again, how exactly are you being inconvenienced by these measures?
The video actually explains why they DON'T have it in a game manual... because it's better to teach as you play...
Yes, eventually everyone will be experienced. By that point, there will be NO MORE TOOLTIPS, and they can go into elective mode if they want. So again, how exactly are YOU being hurt by their decisions to provide some help for newer players? Help that you're QUICKLY going to blast through and probably never have to deal with again.
All I see is another unfounded whine post about "wahhhhhh! wahhhhh! catering to casuals! How? Umm... I don't know..."
0
The problem is idiots love to pretend that every single change they don't like is directly caused by Blizzard's policy of including everyone within their development considerations. It's a completely shallow, idiotic argument that people latch onto because they either don't like a (usually VERY intelligent and warranted) design decision, or they feel like they're no longer the beautiful and unique hardcore snowflakes they thought they were, with developers' attention all to themselves.
The most ironic thing? The people who frequently think of themselves as the ones with the most "mature" taste in gaming and experienc, are frequently the most intellectually and developmentally stunted when it comes to consideration for others in gaming.
0
WoW statistics disagree with you. Entirely. You may not do it. I may not do it. But a surprisingly large amount of people would, and it was definitely a legitimate concern for Blizzard. Trying to handwave it away simply because you don't like something is not an argument.
When balancing inferno, what rank of rune do you balance it around?
You do the math. Because evidently you don't understand the basics of it. You put 3 in, you get 1 out. That is a reducing system. Do you still honestly need help with this?
No. It isn't. The game is not being balanced for people with a short attention span. It's being balanced to accommodate everyone. You falsely try to correlate consideration for other players/playstyles as resulting in a game which is being made easier for you - how? You don't know that. You don't have any proof that inferno will be anything short of as balls-difficult as all the developers and the panel at blizzcon said it would be. You don't have any proof that normal through hell won't be exactly as challenging as Blizzard wants it to be. You also don't have ANY proof that these changes result in an easier game. If you actually HAVE some evidence to the contrary, present it then. I'll wait.
Yes, with the old system you could have your entire build laid out by 30. You could also have huge itemization issues, balancing issues, and the pain in the ass that would be managing this entire inventory of runes. That's why they're gone, and they're not coming back, no matter how much you would like to refer to the 1 good aspect the old system brought.
You also like to pretend that this system is catering towards the ADD'ers who will never make it to 60; how? When this system actively encourages you to get to 60 to finalize your build? And why are you upset then? You plan on playing to 60, don't you?
Do you have any actual arguments to present?
0
5 runes per skill, 23 skills per class, 5 classes, not counting repeats. All in one universal stash. It was an inventory nightmare, whether you would like to admit it or not.
Thank you for admitting what a balancing nightmare this would have been.
Gems combine to reduce from 3 to 1. Follow now?
You say that like its a bad thing.
0
Nah, the new system is loads better. This incessant crying and whining will go away after the children get over their "Blizz just took my toys!" tantrum and they realize this systems pros outweigh the cons. Or they won't get over it. But who gives a shit if they don't. Their loss.
0
0
It is more than possible. It is likely.
It's simply a matter of balancing individual skills against one another. Have you not noticed yet how abilities of similar categories all tend to hover around the same damage amounts? The same stun durations? Same resource costs? And where they differ in these areas, they are forced to compensate by other means? Blizzard is doing a fantastic job of balancing skills against one another, and when you balance the parts, you balance the whole. If certain builds are found to be outperforming, it's a simple matter of tweaking the metrics on individual skills until the build is brought in line. This is INCREDIBLY easy to do when you have as many systems of numerical analysis and data reporting as Blizzard has on their end. What, you don't think while you're playing they're not collecting tons and tons of data about your class and spec?
Your AOE example is ridiculous, because a build whose sole purpose is putting out AOE damage will not be viable. Blizzard is smart enough to actually design their content such that players will be required to meet several skill category requirements to get through it; you'll not ONLY be putting out damage. You'll also need to incorporate movement and escape abilities, CC, battlefield control, buffs/debuffs, etc.
It's becoming painfully obvious at this point that you don't actually have an argument to make. Because a real argument goes facts -> analysis -> conclusion. You are doing no such thing. You have already determined what the conclusion you want to make is, and now you're following the process in reverse; making up the facts and accompanying it with poor analysis to try to support your conclusion, and disregarding everything else presented to you which does not agree with the conclusion you want to come to. All in desperate hope of trying to support your argument which is built on nothing more than hyperbole and poor assumptions about what may or may not occur in the future which have very little to do with reality.
Sorry, I'm going to take the word of the devs over that. I'll come back when you can support this argument beyond, "It's going to be terrible! Why...? Umm....because I say so..."
This coming from the troll who has utterly failed to support his stance at any available opportunity. Fly away son. You got beat, and it's not even worth waiting for your next poorly written retort.
0
There are no more immunes in the game. That goes a long way towards making sure all builds are within acceptable #'s of each other.
In addition, you would have picked a terrible build, and you wouldn't be able to get through hell anyways until you fix your build to account for all the other things an actually viable build will need; i.e., defense, escape mechanics, crowd control, etc.
This isn't D2 any more.