Agreed. Why is there no gallery feature to flip through the pictures easier?
Appreciate the work involved nonetheless though.
-
- itirnitii
- Registered User
-
Member for 11 years, 4 months, and 17 days
Last active Sat, May, 21 2016 22:10:56
- 1 Follower
- 383 Total Posts
- 55 Thanks
-
Dec 23, 2013
itirnitii posted a message on 50 More Legendary Items (Gallery), Jaetch's Torrent Archon Wizard, Curse Weekly RoundupPosted in: News -
Oct 17, 2013
itirnitii posted a message on Announcing the DiabloFans "Site Update" Beta, Diablo 3 For PS3 and Xbox 360 GiveawayChose Loot 1.5 as it's the only actually cool thing that completely separates the console from the PC version in what the game is primarily about: LOOT! There are other minor things, such as dodging but those things are not revolutionary to the game like how an entire new loot function has been. A lot of the other options were either available for PC in their own way (such as "offline mode" - I could just create games and never play with anyone else) or they are coming soon to PC anyways (such as no AH).Posted in: News
[PS3] -
Sep 26, 2013
itirnitii posted a message on New Datamined Patch - Class Changes, Passive Effects, Character slots, Stat caps, Quests, and MUCH morePosted in: NewsQuote from Enty
- X1_MastaBlasta_Rider_Boss_Event_ChronoTrigger - Siege Runekeeper
- X1_MastaBlasta_Rider_Boss_Event_ChronoTrigger - Rekkar
- X1_MooMooHalls - Slaughterhaus
I'm not a fan of Chrono Trigger, nor have I ever played it but I have heard about it. Anyone care to explain these two lines? Do they mean something.
I am a huge chrono trigger fan, none of those make any sense to me. -
Sep 12, 2013
itirnitii posted a message on [SPOILERS AHEAD] Diablo III Expansion - Reaper of Souls: Datamining Post, Bosses, Game modes, Clans, Ladders, and moreHoly hell. How exciting!!Posted in: News
-
Aug 23, 2013
itirnitii posted a message on Interviews with the Devs, Full RoS Gamescom Presentation in HD, Official Gameplay ScreenshotsWell... Blizzard is a US company what do you expect? What does it matter anyways. A yard is arbitrary in the game word anyways.Posted in: News
-
Jul 13, 2013
itirnitii posted a message on DiabloFans Interview With the Devs: HighlightsPosted in: NewsQuote from StoneTheRock
Quote from itirnitii
Why do they have to make paragon account wide? Why not just make the highest MF/GF bonus of the entire account apply to all characters.
If they made no changes to paragon then that would be fine. But:
There are talks about making Paragon levels account-wide, so that you don't feel like you're losing experience while playing your Paragon 100 character. Also potentially adding customization like stat allocation to it
If additions to the Paragon system are made, people that already have the required Paragon level will get the rewards on patch day
If you get extra bonuses like stats or even in game perks, then you'd be back to feeling like you're playing the game wrong by not being on your highest paragon.
No, it's separate character development.
For instance I have a level 100 paragon wizard, but right now I am playing my DH and she is paragon 41. I don't feel gimped in power by playing my 41 DH because I know I need to progress her separately and get her just as strong. To me, it's no different than having a level 60 monk and a level 30 wizard. The only way I have felt hindered on her is by losing the 300 MF/GF that my wizard has at level 100. I enjoyed starting her at level 60 no paragon and watching her progress to 41 and I will enjoy progressing her to paragon 100. I don't want her to just automatically be 100 and have nothing to do on her and lose any sense of progression. I want her to gain exp and actually play her and power her up, even if just a minimal amount per level. The reason I don't play my wizard anymore is because I don't gain experience so I don't really feel a sense of progression, all I do is play item lottery by killing monsters which isn't that fun lately because if I spend 4 hours farming and gain nothing I don't even have paragon level progression to feel I did something worthwhile. We shouldn't be striving for less things to do, but more things, and making paragon completely account bound would do just that.
What I would really like to see is have an insane paragon level cap (or another champion system with 100 extremely difficult levels that take thousands of hours to progress through), and you gain absolutely no benefits, it's strictly just for bragging rights and showing how long you have played your character in comparison to others. So at least you are progressing in some way at all times, even if just for vanity.
To be clear, in case there are any misunderstandings my stance would be to have any perks that don't affect character strength (MF, GF, vanity items) should be account-wide based on the highest paragon level and any character development progression should be based on that specific character's personal paragon level (stat points, paragon skills). -
Jul 13, 2013
itirnitii posted a message on DiabloFans Interview With the Devs: HighlightsWhy do they have to make paragon account wide? Why not just make the highest MF/GF bonus of the entire account apply to all characters.Posted in: News
- To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
0
0
sounds awesome
0
The thing is if all gold is wiped then the price of all the NPC vendor abilities will probably go down. So anyone who "has collected a lot legitly" will probably still be better off because crafting and gem combining costs won't be as high to combat the huge excess of gold that is out there. I have a strange feeling that Blizzard will keep balancing the vendor costs in relation to those who have mounds of gold stockpiled, not those who barely have anything or who are playing fresh characters. In the long run, you'd be better off with a wipe if it meant lower vendor costs in ratio to how fast you can collect gold off monsters.
The only reason this kind of wipe would be entertained by me is because gold is already being drastically devalued by having it not be useable for trading it for items. It's basically just taking it a tiny step further and just completely devaluing it by removing it all together and starting clean for the fairness of balancing vendor costs to be more appropriate with the rate at which gold can be fairly collected by an individual in the state of the game at release. At least that is how I see it. Someone who has 1 billion+ gold will just laugh at vendor costs if they make them too low and someone who has hardly any gold or is starting anew will struggle to keep up if they make them too high. Both of those scenarios seem pretty unpalatable, even for me who is stockpiling to a great degree and would have a great advantage.
For me, it has nothing to do with fair or unfair as far as the player base is concerned, I'm more concerned about it from a game balancing perspective in relation to inflated vendor costs.
I hope when people are voting they are thinking beyond "do I want to keep my gold?"
It's interesting nonetheless to see the reaction.
0
Should the game start fresh and wipe all gold with a fair amount of warning?
I have about 4 billion gold now and I still would love to see a wipe. I have spent my real life money on gold in the past, but I still would not care if I instantly lost it in the fair interest of the game.
I'm not petitioning for a wipe to happen, I'm just genuinely curious what is everyone's opinion on this I am quite curious?
0
0
0
0
If you can't understand that it's okay and reasonable to play a game for competitive reasons and that doesn't relate to the real life acquisition of wealth then I feel pity for your logical faculties. For goodness sake, the third definition of "game" at dictionary.com uses the word "competitive". The definition of "life" does not have the same luxury.
0
0
For me personally, it's okay for traders to have SOME advantage. I think what people are tired of is traders having ALL the advantage. I'm mostly talking about traders and pay-to-win players who are so wealthy that nothing is out of reach for them in that they can be instantly decked out in any item of their choosing, and they don't even have to play the game proper. Sadly, I am actually one of these players in the current state of the game. I'm by no means the most powerful, but if the game was more fun in its current state I might keep trading my way to the top as I have already done to some extent.
Well, keeping legendaries out of the trading arena makes those items esteemed and not instantly accessible to those who play the least yet spend the most. Legendaries have to actually be worked for by playing the game explicitly, and that gives those who care about item reverence something to feel good about. Maybe rares will still be very useful, and can be traded and easily acquired, but they don't have the title of "legendary" so they shouldn't have to fit that mold necessarily; and as long as legendaries do fit that mold it creates that niche that is not tainted by players who circumvent actually playing the game to acquire items that are supposed to hold a higher regard. A Diablo 3 where I would be forced to find the legendaries I want, yet could trade for useful rares to complement the legendaries that supplement the build I am using would still be a Diablo 3 I would enjoy. In my mind, it doesn't go hand in hand that if an item is useful it should automatically be bind on account, it's just solely that legendaries have a responsibility to feel legendary in and of their own name and that's what solely drives my like for BoA on them.
0
You have 13 slots my friend, you don't need 13 bonuses. The key is to balance how many bonuses you want vs. how much stats you want to find a sweet spot for the build you are going for.
0
I guess I didn't mean to suggest that equipping an entire set of legendaries should automatically be insufficient. I just meant in a way that it wasn't the obvious mandatory choice for peak output. The utilities shouldn't completely dwarf the desire to equip some rares for stats alongside the legendaries.
0
If the top difficulties made it so that being completely outfitted in legendaries made it so your DPS suffered too drastically, despite having multiple unique legendaries gimmicks, you'd have to supplement some rares for damage and then make a decision about what gimmicks to sacrifice.
1
At least bounties and rifts are random and offer different sceneries and monsters to fight. Bounties are everywhere in all acts so you can choose which ones you want to do. Not really sure I am understanding what the downside is.
Monster Density could be a valid complaint, but it has nothing to do specifically with Rifts and Bounties.
0
Exactly this. I keep seeing people complain about things dropping too frequently not realizing this is most likely for testing purposes.