Their explanation leans back on the "it's not Diablo II" argument which has been touted since the game's announcement back in 2008:
Official Blizzard Quote:
We've been playing the game, we know what skill points were causing, and it was not interesting and unique builds. It was not meaningful customization. It was maxing out a couple skills, and that's it. It was Diablo II. What we have now actually forces people to make interesting choices, to craft interesting builds based on very strict limitations.
But the Diablo III team wants the latest game in the series to go beyond, as they see it, another shortcoming they saw in Diablo II's skill system. Bashiok says that "one common mistake people are making is thinking all the class skills are straight damaging attack skills... There's no variety because you just pick the most powerful six, and you're done."
Their latest iteration of the skill system essentially splits what would have been called passive and active skills in Diablo II into two exactly that: passive and active skills. Where passive skills are invested in separately and contribute to your character's brawn in secret, regular skills are the ones you will use to blast your enemies into gooey bits, as well as zip around the screen at lightning speeds and issue combo attacks. Not all of these skills are straight damage dealers. Some of them allow resource regeneration or life steal, which adds another level of tactical flare to your combat experience.
Whereas in the past you would have used skill points (awarded at each level-up) to augment the power of your favorite skills (or the potency of synergies), the new skill system in Diablo III scales your skills based on your level. In addition, runestones, including their numerous tiers, affect the look, feel, and effects of your skills. Beyond them, gear directly affects your battle potency. Bashiok laid out a Diablo II scenario for demonstration:
Official Blizzard Quote:
The base problem with skill points is that we found they simply put too much incentive toward pumping up one or two skills. If we wanted to balance the game it means we'd have to let someone be able to essentially beat the game with that build since it's the most obvious. You're not going to put a few points here, a few there, you're going to go the D2 route, horde points, and dump them all into a core skill or two. It really limited builds since points always went toward specific types of attacks that scaled well with additional points, and we're not going to keep systems that are stifling (viable) build potential and (meaningful) character customization.
So, removing functionality encourages customization? While many would argue the case of stat point removal for Diablo III, this might not be exactly the same thing. Regardless, this solution does directly address the "one or two skills" scenario (Diablo II cookie-cutter builds, anyone?), so maybe it is a big step in the right direction.
Interestingly enough, the removal of skill point allotment indirectly addresses yet another controversial topic: respeccing. Many have argued that allowing for respeccing caters to a "softer" gaming audience and drains the game of an element of challenge (just take a look through a 2008 article's responses). Without skill points, there's no longer any need for respeccing. Whether or not this appeases more hardcore players is another question entirely.
Force had some excellent one-on-one time with Jay Wilson to get the full story straight from the Diablo man, himself. Wilson talked about everything leading up to the latest decision, including observations from alpha testing and conclusions drawn from prior strategy scenarios in the older games.
But does all this wishy-washy skill softness mean something more than encouraging more diverse builds? As a user on the Battle.net board asked, "Do you come upon a particularly nasty group that this other skill would just be perfect for, so you hang back, grab that skill, then destroy the group?"
Bashiok did not shoot the idea down entirely:
Official Blizzard Quote:
You're far more likely to see a player sticking with a build and working to become better at it than constantly swapping around. That's not a rule, it's player psychology so there's going to be a wide range of variables, but it's what we have found to be true not only for Diablo III, but a lot of the games out there with similar free-swapping of builds.
The removal of skill points seems like a step away from the spirit of the franchise, instilled in us with Diablo II. It will restrict cookie-cutter and low-skill-count builds to an extent, and it indirectly removes the need for a controversial respeccing system. But it is a far cry different from the original games and many "Diablo clones," possibly alienating parts of an otherwise eager audience.
I agree too, after reading about the possible revisions to the rune system, it will create a lot more consequences when it comes to selecting skills and sticking runes to it, but only high level runes, sicne apparently low level runes drop like candy. You can use the low level runes to find what runes work and which ones dont, so I guess your high level runes better get a good roll or your off to find more...
Like i said before "Blizzard knows what they are doing". Let them do it.
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.
So, after reading your e-rage. I see that you are actually agreeing with my original argument since you assume that you cannot change skills freely and that it will possibly cost something to change you skills. Furthermore, I am not whining, I am just providing alternative views regarding the new system. Dont join a forum and start mouthing off to people who are just giving there two cents regarding recent changes. I know the game isnt out yet and we wont know how any of this will work until we play it...
First of all, calm down, I already said I am not trolling, just trying to understand how the new system deals with these aspects.
1. There is no incentive to make another character, thus the majority won't. So, you make a character for every class, reach lvl 60, and then what? Start swapping skills to see another builds at lvl 60. Meanwhile while the other players do the same, wouldn't it simply reduce drastically low-level characters and thus make people just bore from the game quicker? I am talking about replayability, and it seems reduced, don't you agree? This approach seems really better for a first play, I am not arguing about that, but the replayability that has always been one of the greatest aspects of the franchise, at least for now, seems greatly reduced.
2. Well, Diablo 2 skill points seemed really relevant and worth waiting in D2, even being stupid to wait to max only some skills, but all the planning went back every level that you had th rethink your character and see where you were going. Just as all the other RPGs. You say new spells with lvl up in D3, but weren't all skills available since the beginning? Right now I understand that lvl up will only get them stronger, am I wrong?
Customization = equipment --> trading --> $$ for Blizzard
We can still customize...for a price (which is a good business model)
Bingo!
Yep, this is what I was arguing before, so hopefully they put that in there, or some form of cost/consequence. We will just have to wait and see
What I see as the main flaw in the logic of this decision is thinking that this will "fix" cookie cutter builds simply because it makes it non-advantageous to use them. That's simply not true. You can still use two or three skills and stick in top-tier runestones. It would be the same result.
I can see that the way people just kept respecing skills every time a new one was gained in alpha testing means something needs to change. I just don't see how this is necessarily the solution to anything besides taking one more option for building power and a unique character. I'm still puzzling over it and don't get it. Maybe there's nothing to get.
In your argument here, you are assuming that everyone will make the wise/correct choice in skills and they will never want to change their skills around. But with the current system, there is no need to choose wisely, because you can easily change them if need be or just because. I believe that is what everyone is trying to say, that is why we want a cost/consequence if you do not choose wisely...
In diablo 2 the point of leveling was
1- Beeing able to wear better gear ( you had to lvl to 60+ to start wearing most uber unique/runeword)
2- Raising you skill. BUT you always knew exactly where to put them . If you wanted a hammerdin you would go Hammer>synergy>sacred shield and so on for most build .
3- Get more stats . Then again it was for the most part , enough str to wear gear > enough dex to cap block > everything else in vitality.
I mean ever sinve RPG are out the point of leveling is to get stronger ( gear , stronger spell ETC ) , wich is what we are getting in diablo 3 .
Your quote:
"You choose them WISELY and carefully, so they will be viable throughout the entirety of the game."
and then your quote again:
"The point is, that there ARE no "wise" choices"
Your argument is all over the place and I think you are missing the whole point of our argument, by your statement here:
"And besides, we don't know if there is gonna be cost of respeccing or not, regardless, it won't make a huge difference really."
We are arguing that it will make a big difference and there needs to be a cost...
It will be at 1:30pm PST (4:30 EST) Yay!
Hmm, very interesting approach, but I think that this adds a lot more confusion to skills and I think it would personally create a balancing nightmare for the team. Though, I like the out the box approach
I appreciate that they're trying to get rid of the problems of D2, but this in the end seems like it will only make the game boring and too easy. Not to mention too short. The replayability value is nonexistent. Get a char to lvl 60 (it's probably going to be very easy) and just freely swap around whatever you want. The end. You have all variations of that class at your disposal, what more do you want? Go play the market until you're old and gray.
They should try to find a balance between the harsh, punishing D2 system and just letting you make every character in one freely. Respeccing should have a cost. That way, you balance replayability, difficulty, rewarding actions, and fun.
Plus, this doesn't even make sense if you consider runes. Runes right now are a somewhat punishing system. So why keep those and remove skill points?
The removal of skill points seems like a step away from the spirit of the franchise, instilled in us with Diablo II. It will restrict cookie-cutter and low-skill-count builds to an extent, and it indirectly removes the need for a controversial respeccing system. But it is a far cry different from the original games and many "Diablo clones," possibly alienating parts of an otherwise eager audience.
[/quote]
As the skill tiers are unlocked (only) at certain level requirements, perhaps certain items/equipment (either crafted items or those found in-game) will have a chance to allow your character to access skills above your character level? Perhaps it will be that certain items will allow you to add +skill bonuses to your character and allow for more specialized builds?
Well, I think I get you point, but I don't agree. I always loved the way you could create a new character and start anew to do something you've never done before and live all the game with that. The first levels were always more fun than the last ones. Now that you can try different builds in higher level, people just won't try newer characters. Yes, I can do it, but most people won't and that will make less people in lower levels, which are the best IMO.
Thus, what I THINK will happen in MY OPINION is that people will just get to high-level and swap some builds, then bore from the game, even they having 1 bazillion builds left, it just bores to try A LOT of builds. The TIME they will spend replaying will be much lower than they spent in D2, that's why I say the replayability seems to be lower.