|
On May 01 2012 20:21 kuresuti wrote:Show nested quote +On May 01 2012 20:17 dmfg wrote:On May 01 2012 17:27 killa_robot wrote:
Also a bit disappointed that resistances seem to be taking a backseat now. You can only see them by opening up that advanced tab, and with blizzard wanting to make as many builds as possible work, I think we won't be seeing many creatures be completely resistant to certain types of magic, and we won't be needing resistances like we needed previously. Though this is mainly speculation as it was pretty early in the game.
You can also only see physical damage reduction by opening up the advanced tab, and that's gonna be pretty important. They've stated that they don't want players in normal worrying about resistances, to the point where many resistance affixes don't even drop in normal. That doesn't mean it's not going to be incredibly important later on. IIRC there won't be any complete monster immunities.
In D2 that was important since characters did so much damage that it didn't matter that much if you did 100% or 10% damage, the monsters died anyway. Try play D3 without getting a better weapon than the starterweapon. You wont be able to kill anything at all with that after a few levels even though you do more than 10% of your max dps.
|
On May 01 2012 20:21 kuresuti wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On May 01 2012 20:17 dmfg wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On May 01 2012 17:27 killa_robot wrote:
Also a bit disappointed that resistances seem to be taking a backseat now. You can only see them by opening up that advanced tab, and with blizzard wanting to make as many builds as possible work, I think we won't be seeing many creatures be completely resistant to certain types of magic, and we won't be needing resistances like we needed previously. Though this is mainly speculation as it was pretty early in the game.
You can also only see physical damage reduction by opening up the advanced tab, and that's gonna be pretty important. They've stated that they don't want players in normal worrying about resistances, to the point where many resistance affixes don't even drop in normal. That doesn't mean it's not going to be incredibly important later on. IIRC there won't be any complete monster immunities.
Which is not necessary a bad thing. Monster immunities were artifical barriers to make the game harder. Without this, it means they've figured other ways of making the game harder and hopefully more fun to play at higher difficulties/
Resistances aren't flat % based anymore, they're rating based, which means having 50 resists to lightning at level 15 is a lot different than at level 60.
I love how people make d3 sound all casual and easy when it's only 1/3 of a1 on NORMAL we get to play. Just please don't bitch about things getting too hard later on bnet forums, it'll make life much better for the rest of us.
|
On May 01 2012 22:02 LoliKuma wrote:Show nested quote +On May 01 2012 20:21 kuresuti wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On May 01 2012 20:17 dmfg wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On May 01 2012 17:27 killa_robot wrote:
Also a bit disappointed that resistances seem to be taking a backseat now. You can only see them by opening up that advanced tab, and with blizzard wanting to make as many builds as possible work, I think we won't be seeing many creatures be completely resistant to certain types of magic, and we won't be needing resistances like we needed previously. Though this is mainly speculation as it was pretty early in the game.
You can also only see physical damage reduction by opening up the advanced tab, and that's gonna be pretty important. They've stated that they don't want players in normal worrying about resistances, to the point where many resistance affixes don't even drop in normal. That doesn't mean it's not going to be incredibly important later on. IIRC there won't be any complete monster immunities. Which is not necessary a bad thing. Monster immunities were artifical barriers to make the game harder. Without this, it means they've figured other ways of making the game harder and hopefully more fun to play at higher difficulties/ Resistances aren't flat % based anymore, they're rating based, which means having 50 resists to lightning at level 15 is a lot different than at level 60. I love how people make d3 sound all casual and easy when it's only 1/3 of a1 on NORMAL we get to play. Just please don't bitch about things getting too hard later on bnet forums, it'll make life much better for the rest of us.
Tbh, most of the time immunities didn't make things harder at all, they just made them less fun.
It didn't prevent builds with a single damage type like most sorcs or druids, so if it was supposed to encourage build diversity it kinda failed hard at that. It just meant that when you found an immune monster, you ran away from it/went AFK while your merc killed it.
|
I will play this really only because it is free with my annual WoW subscription. I doubt I would have been willing to spend any money on it otherwise. Will probably play it through once or twice and then I'm back to WoW/SC2.
|
On May 01 2012 19:01 ffreakk wrote:Show nested quote +On May 01 2012 17:27 killa_robot wrote:On April 24 2012 00:35 zJayy962 wrote:On April 24 2012 00:02 c0ldfusion wrote:On April 23 2012 23:52 fighter2_40 wrote:On April 23 2012 19:31 Ace1123 wrote:
5/5 For Me. it is really fun and i Like how the diablo feel was preserved. The graphics are also good and of course the new changes are awesome. I just hope there will be more classes in the future -_- 3/5. really? i felt the exact opposite. i felt like i was playing a tweeked dragonage/runescape game for 12 year olds. Where is the darkness/ raw feel of diablo 2? There is too much lighting, too little blood, and the items look like shit in the inventory. Diablo 2 from like a decade ago had better inventory graphics. It's retarded. Also, people are saying that the game will be good because it's harder later on, but Is it going to be in the way that EVERYTHING is dependent on items (which blizzard wants to monopolize on) or because you'll need to plan out your character build? (shitty hdins/well planned casters could do well even w/ poor mans gear in d2). My guess is the former since every character will be exactly the same in that they are not specialized by skill trees. The only defining factor is your passives and your items. I'm only hoping they fix these issues before destroying my childhood. Agreed. I wish I had read your post before posting in the other thread. That's the real problem of the current skill system - end game will be 100% item dependent. No build commitment means that either everyone will be viable in the endgame or only those with elite gear will be. I'm guessing with so much emphasis placed on things like crafting and RMAH, it'll be the latter. Just curious, did you guys play and enjoy diablo 2? If you wanted to clear content alone, every character/build was extremely gear dependent. Hammerdins are probably the only exception but it'd be pretty hard to solo any boss as a Hammerdin in Hell with shitty gear which is what you needed to do to get gear in the first place. Just because you couldn't solo hell bosses naked that doesn't mean gear was extremely important,at least not for casters. I remember several times dying in hell and being able to kill several monsters using magic without my gear on just to reach my body. In D3, you are completely powerless without gear. Even magic relies solely on your weapon damage to determine how much damage you'll do. If you have a shitty weapon(or none at all), then it doesn't matter if you're using your end game spells or early game spells, you'll do shit all for damage either way. Personally I don't think I'll get the game anymore, or at the very least I'm going to wait until a few weeks after it's release to make my final decision. I was able to play in the open beta weekend and it just felt....aimless. I mean, I won't praise the D2 skill system as being awesome, but at the very least it gave you something to look forward to with each level. Each level you either gained a new skill, or you improved an old one. In D3, you get a predetermined skill or rune-skill. Often times I would level up in the beta, look at what it gave me, and be like.....meh, I don't want that, and just ignore the new skill. I just didn't feel excited or even happy like when I leveled up in D2. Not too mention the fact that due to you always getting the same skills, there's no need for you two make a second character of the same class. There's also the stat allocation. Granted, I don't really care that they took that away too much, but at the very least my level 9 wizard shouldn't have identical health to my level 9 barbarian. It's just odd that each character gets the same vitality; two points every level, and 10 health per point, for every class. I played the demon hunter, barb, and wizard for the beta. Demon hunter I had fun with, and felt was pretty strong. Wizard was pretty meh, and I didn't like the barb (died too often with him). Then again I rarely like melee characters. Finally there's the complete dependency on equipment. I enjoyed the fact that in D2 I could get along fine as a caster without a decent weapon. It made sense, after all casters use magic, not weapons, to hurt their enemies. But in D3 you need a good weapon, otherwise your magic is useless. Furthermore it can be any weapon, which just feels weird. Why would my wizard carrying a club make an ice beam that does more damage than her having no weapon? What would the amount of damage that club is supposed to do when you bash someone with it have to do with the amount of damage that your ice beam does? Also a bit disappointed that resistances seem to be taking a backseat now. You can only see them by opening up that advanced tab, and with blizzard wanting to make as many builds as possible work, I think we won't be seeing many creatures be completely resistant to certain types of magic, and we won't be needing resistances like we needed previously. Though this is mainly speculation as it was pretty early in the game. Game does look good, and the production value of it is clearly high. I just don't think I would enjoy it. Hmm.. You said you died too many times with a Barb in Beta. I take it you are a casual player then, and won't go in-depth into the more subtle differences. What skill did you improve and/or look forward to from level 1 to 23 when you played Lightning Fury Amazon again? lvl 1-29 for Whirlwind Barb? lvl 1-29 Fury Druid? the list could go on. See, with the new system, you get a new Skill every level (which is more than you can say for Diablo 2). Now you may or may not choose to use it, but the option is there. And you say it as if it was better in Diablo 2: "w00t level 6, now what skills did i get? Double Swing, Taunt?.. meh, back to basic attacks  " (and let's not forget that the next time you get something new is lvl 12) The new system improves our strength with your gear. And what's difficult to understand about how your magical weapons empower the skills that you use? Most of your concern (how you cant do dmg w/o items, etc) seem to basically converge to 1 point: "This game is different from Diablo 2", and yes it is. However, you don't see to point out how those differences are bad. In Diablo 3, more than just your skills, more gears define your build (especially at higher levels). So I believe that point is rather moot, about how one need only switch skills and he has a new character. If you switch gears too, then it's about the same for every game (in Diablo 2, you can switch your skills in 10 minutes, in the past, it used to take ~3 hours). And lol at the guy you quoted. Hammerdin the only class to be able to clear Hell without good gear? Evidently one of those guys who reads a few forums posts on the internet, seeing "Hammerdin OP" here and there, and proceed to talk like a master of the game. For the record, Zookeeper Nec can clear Hell naked, Trapsin, most Sorcs, Tesladin, Fireclaw Bear, and many more classes can clear Hell just as effectively, if not even more so than Hammerdin.
Actually he mostly does point out why they are bad, and i have to agree with him.
I want my games to offer me as many options as possible be they pointless or not. That includes stat allocation (even if it all ends up in vit ... or well you know we could just make the other stats have more use) and talent trees with synergies.(And please dont argue that the current system allows for as much diversity, repeating it simply wont make it true)
Yes D3 is different but that is not why i dont like it. I dont like it because it takes away options i had before instead of improving upon them.
I dont like it because in the end it will pretty much boil down the entire equipment to a single same stat for all classes (which is weapon damage).
I dont like it because i want my fingers to race over more than just a handfull of hotkeys to get the most out of my char.
And i dont like it because i will never be able to get a group of friends together for a completely naked hardcore run through all difficulties like in D2 (everyone who never tried that should really give it a taste)
That i will only be able to play it with a running connection doesnt help either, even though thats by far not the most important point.
That D3 will ever be truely difficult is something i still doubt as well, although i admit i cant know that yet for certain. It just a feeling iam having from reading what blizzard tells us.
|
I think then D3 is the wrong game for you  All the things you hate are things I'm glad they changed
Did you use more than 6 skills quickly in succession in D2? I could possibly stretch it to that with Teleport and TP.
|
On May 02 2012 01:14 Icemind wrote:Show nested quote +On May 01 2012 19:01 ffreakk wrote:On May 01 2012 17:27 killa_robot wrote:On April 24 2012 00:35 zJayy962 wrote:On April 24 2012 00:02 c0ldfusion wrote:On April 23 2012 23:52 fighter2_40 wrote:On April 23 2012 19:31 Ace1123 wrote:
5/5 For Me. it is really fun and i Like how the diablo feel was preserved. The graphics are also good and of course the new changes are awesome. I just hope there will be more classes in the future -_- 3/5. really? i felt the exact opposite. i felt like i was playing a tweeked dragonage/runescape game for 12 year olds. Where is the darkness/ raw feel of diablo 2? There is too much lighting, too little blood, and the items look like shit in the inventory. Diablo 2 from like a decade ago had better inventory graphics. It's retarded. Also, people are saying that the game will be good because it's harder later on, but Is it going to be in the way that EVERYTHING is dependent on items (which blizzard wants to monopolize on) or because you'll need to plan out your character build? (shitty hdins/well planned casters could do well even w/ poor mans gear in d2). My guess is the former since every character will be exactly the same in that they are not specialized by skill trees. The only defining factor is your passives and your items. I'm only hoping they fix these issues before destroying my childhood. Agreed. I wish I had read your post before posting in the other thread. That's the real problem of the current skill system - end game will be 100% item dependent. No build commitment means that either everyone will be viable in the endgame or only those with elite gear will be. I'm guessing with so much emphasis placed on things like crafting and RMAH, it'll be the latter. Just curious, did you guys play and enjoy diablo 2? If you wanted to clear content alone, every character/build was extremely gear dependent. Hammerdins are probably the only exception but it'd be pretty hard to solo any boss as a Hammerdin in Hell with shitty gear which is what you needed to do to get gear in the first place. Just because you couldn't solo hell bosses naked that doesn't mean gear was extremely important,at least not for casters. I remember several times dying in hell and being able to kill several monsters using magic without my gear on just to reach my body. In D3, you are completely powerless without gear. Even magic relies solely on your weapon damage to determine how much damage you'll do. If you have a shitty weapon(or none at all), then it doesn't matter if you're using your end game spells or early game spells, you'll do shit all for damage either way. Personally I don't think I'll get the game anymore, or at the very least I'm going to wait until a few weeks after it's release to make my final decision. I was able to play in the open beta weekend and it just felt....aimless. I mean, I won't praise the D2 skill system as being awesome, but at the very least it gave you something to look forward to with each level. Each level you either gained a new skill, or you improved an old one. In D3, you get a predetermined skill or rune-skill. Often times I would level up in the beta, look at what it gave me, and be like.....meh, I don't want that, and just ignore the new skill. I just didn't feel excited or even happy like when I leveled up in D2. Not too mention the fact that due to you always getting the same skills, there's no need for you two make a second character of the same class. There's also the stat allocation. Granted, I don't really care that they took that away too much, but at the very least my level 9 wizard shouldn't have identical health to my level 9 barbarian. It's just odd that each character gets the same vitality; two points every level, and 10 health per point, for every class. I played the demon hunter, barb, and wizard for the beta. Demon hunter I had fun with, and felt was pretty strong. Wizard was pretty meh, and I didn't like the barb (died too often with him). Then again I rarely like melee characters. Finally there's the complete dependency on equipment. I enjoyed the fact that in D2 I could get along fine as a caster without a decent weapon. It made sense, after all casters use magic, not weapons, to hurt their enemies. But in D3 you need a good weapon, otherwise your magic is useless. Furthermore it can be any weapon, which just feels weird. Why would my wizard carrying a club make an ice beam that does more damage than her having no weapon? What would the amount of damage that club is supposed to do when you bash someone with it have to do with the amount of damage that your ice beam does? Also a bit disappointed that resistances seem to be taking a backseat now. You can only see them by opening up that advanced tab, and with blizzard wanting to make as many builds as possible work, I think we won't be seeing many creatures be completely resistant to certain types of magic, and we won't be needing resistances like we needed previously. Though this is mainly speculation as it was pretty early in the game. Game does look good, and the production value of it is clearly high. I just don't think I would enjoy it. Hmm.. You said you died too many times with a Barb in Beta. I take it you are a casual player then, and won't go in-depth into the more subtle differences. What skill did you improve and/or look forward to from level 1 to 23 when you played Lightning Fury Amazon again? lvl 1-29 for Whirlwind Barb? lvl 1-29 Fury Druid? the list could go on. See, with the new system, you get a new Skill every level (which is more than you can say for Diablo 2). Now you may or may not choose to use it, but the option is there. And you say it as if it was better in Diablo 2: "w00t level 6, now what skills did i get? Double Swing, Taunt?.. meh, back to basic attacks " (and let's not forget that the next time you get something new is lvl 12) The new system improves our strength with your gear. And what's difficult to understand about how your magical weapons empower the skills that you use? Most of your concern (how you cant do dmg w/o items, etc) seem to basically converge to 1 point: "This game is different from Diablo 2", and yes it is. However, you don't see to point out how those differences are bad. In Diablo 3, more than just your skills, more gears define your build (especially at higher levels). So I believe that point is rather moot, about how one need only switch skills and he has a new character. If you switch gears too, then it's about the same for every game (in Diablo 2, you can switch your skills in 10 minutes, in the past, it used to take ~3 hours). And lol at the guy you quoted. Hammerdin the only class to be able to clear Hell without good gear? Evidently one of those guys who reads a few forums posts on the internet, seeing "Hammerdin OP" here and there, and proceed to talk like a master of the game. For the record, Zookeeper Nec can clear Hell naked, Trapsin, most Sorcs, Tesladin, Fireclaw Bear, and many more classes can clear Hell just as effectively, if not even more so than Hammerdin. Actually he mostly does point out why they are bad, and i have to agree with him. I want my games to offer me as many options as possible be they pointless or not. That includes stat allocation (even if it all ends up in vit ... or well you know we could just make the other stats have more use) and talent trees with synergies.(And please dont argue that the current system allows for as much diversity, repeating it simply wont make it true) Yes D3 is different but that is not why i dont like it. I dont like it because it takes away options i had before instead of improving upon them. I dont like it because in the end it will pretty much boil down the entire equipment to a single same stat for all classes (which is weapon damage). I dont like it because i want my fingers to race over more than just a handfull of hotkeys to get the most out of my char. And i dont like it because i will never be able to get a group of friends together for a completely naked hardcore run through all difficulties like in D2 (everyone who never tried that should really give it a taste) That i will only be able to play it with a running connection doesnt help either, even though thats by far not the most important point. That D3 will ever be truely difficult is something i still doubt as well, although i admit i cant know that yet for certain. It just a feeling iam having from reading what blizzard tells us.
I actually completely disagree with you on your game play points.
Yes D3 is different but that is not why i dont like it. I dont like it because it takes away options i had before instead of improving upon them.
The game didn't take any options away. The way I see it, they made the with fewer options but made many more paths viable then Diablo 2 will ever have.
I dont like it because i want my fingers to race over more than just a handfull of hotkeys to get the most out of my char.
I played a paladin, sorc, and amazon all to the low 90s when leveling was actually hard (read 1.08 - 1.09) and most of the time it was spamming a single skill or using other skills to get around or recharge buffs. I don't think I ever needed to use 6 skills all at once. Not sure if you are talking about D2 here, but you never had to make use of a lot of skills to be good at D2.
That D3 will ever be truely difficult is something i still doubt as well, although i admit i cant know that yet for certain. It just a feeling iam having from reading what blizzard tells us.
If you still doubt this part, I don't think you've read or watched enough of the developer content that Blizz releases. For me, as long as the game is as hard as it is in Diablo 2, I think thats good enough for me. So most people clear nightmare and a smaller percentage clear Hell at the beginning of ladder resets (before you can be rushed).
|
I played the beta and really loved it. I´m okay with the new skill and runesystem and even the attribute points. Also the crafting systems seems really enjoyable.
The only thing that annoyed me was the stats interface. It only displayed 1 dps number. Wtf was that number telling me? My auto hit dps? I don´t now but I really want to see how much min and max dmg my spells and skills do. It would be great if they had at least 2 fields in the status box to display the dmg of left and right click so you can compare your skill dmg easier.
Till the end of the beta i couldn´t figur out if weapon speed affected my casting speed so i couldn´t check if a high dmg but low dps weapon would do greater dmg for a caster overall or not.
|
On May 02 2012 02:16 007Kain wrote:
I played the beta and really loved it. I´m okay with the new skill and runesystem and even the attribute points. Also the crafting systems seems really enjoyable.
The only thing that annoyed me was the stats interface. It only displayed 1 dps number. Wtf was that number telling me? My auto hit dps? I don´t now but I really want to see how much min and max dmg my spells and skills do. It would be great if they had at least 2 fields in the status box to display the dmg of left and right click so you can compare your skill dmg easier.
Till the end of the beta i couldn´t figur out if weapon speed affected my casting speed so i couldn´t check if a high dmg but low dps weapon would do greater dmg for a caster overall or not.
You need to turn on advanced tool tips. The dps number tells you your auto attack. All your skills' damages are based on that number (usually a percentage of that number). With advanced tooltips turned on the game allows you to see the damage of your skills.
Weapon speed DOES affect your casting speed but the other important stat of an item is the "DPS" of the weapon. That "DPS" number takes into account speed and damage per attack to calculate how much damage you can do over time.
|
On May 02 2012 01:14 Icemind wrote:Show nested quote +On May 01 2012 19:01 ffreakk wrote:On May 01 2012 17:27 killa_robot wrote:On April 24 2012 00:35 zJayy962 wrote:On April 24 2012 00:02 c0ldfusion wrote:On April 23 2012 23:52 fighter2_40 wrote:On April 23 2012 19:31 Ace1123 wrote:
5/5 For Me. it is really fun and i Like how the diablo feel was preserved. The graphics are also good and of course the new changes are awesome. I just hope there will be more classes in the future -_- 3/5. really? i felt the exact opposite. i felt like i was playing a tweeked dragonage/runescape game for 12 year olds. Where is the darkness/ raw feel of diablo 2? There is too much lighting, too little blood, and the items look like shit in the inventory. Diablo 2 from like a decade ago had better inventory graphics. It's retarded. Also, people are saying that the game will be good because it's harder later on, but Is it going to be in the way that EVERYTHING is dependent on items (which blizzard wants to monopolize on) or because you'll need to plan out your character build? (shitty hdins/well planned casters could do well even w/ poor mans gear in d2). My guess is the former since every character will be exactly the same in that they are not specialized by skill trees. The only defining factor is your passives and your items. I'm only hoping they fix these issues before destroying my childhood. Agreed. I wish I had read your post before posting in the other thread. That's the real problem of the current skill system - end game will be 100% item dependent. No build commitment means that either everyone will be viable in the endgame or only those with elite gear will be. I'm guessing with so much emphasis placed on things like crafting and RMAH, it'll be the latter. Just curious, did you guys play and enjoy diablo 2? If you wanted to clear content alone, every character/build was extremely gear dependent. Hammerdins are probably the only exception but it'd be pretty hard to solo any boss as a Hammerdin in Hell with shitty gear which is what you needed to do to get gear in the first place. Just because you couldn't solo hell bosses naked that doesn't mean gear was extremely important,at least not for casters. I remember several times dying in hell and being able to kill several monsters using magic without my gear on just to reach my body. In D3, you are completely powerless without gear. Even magic relies solely on your weapon damage to determine how much damage you'll do. If you have a shitty weapon(or none at all), then it doesn't matter if you're using your end game spells or early game spells, you'll do shit all for damage either way. Personally I don't think I'll get the game anymore, or at the very least I'm going to wait until a few weeks after it's release to make my final decision. I was able to play in the open beta weekend and it just felt....aimless. I mean, I won't praise the D2 skill system as being awesome, but at the very least it gave you something to look forward to with each level. Each level you either gained a new skill, or you improved an old one. In D3, you get a predetermined skill or rune-skill. Often times I would level up in the beta, look at what it gave me, and be like.....meh, I don't want that, and just ignore the new skill. I just didn't feel excited or even happy like when I leveled up in D2. Not too mention the fact that due to you always getting the same skills, there's no need for you two make a second character of the same class. There's also the stat allocation. Granted, I don't really care that they took that away too much, but at the very least my level 9 wizard shouldn't have identical health to my level 9 barbarian. It's just odd that each character gets the same vitality; two points every level, and 10 health per point, for every class. I played the demon hunter, barb, and wizard for the beta. Demon hunter I had fun with, and felt was pretty strong. Wizard was pretty meh, and I didn't like the barb (died too often with him). Then again I rarely like melee characters. Finally there's the complete dependency on equipment. I enjoyed the fact that in D2 I could get along fine as a caster without a decent weapon. It made sense, after all casters use magic, not weapons, to hurt their enemies. But in D3 you need a good weapon, otherwise your magic is useless. Furthermore it can be any weapon, which just feels weird. Why would my wizard carrying a club make an ice beam that does more damage than her having no weapon? What would the amount of damage that club is supposed to do when you bash someone with it have to do with the amount of damage that your ice beam does? Also a bit disappointed that resistances seem to be taking a backseat now. You can only see them by opening up that advanced tab, and with blizzard wanting to make as many builds as possible work, I think we won't be seeing many creatures be completely resistant to certain types of magic, and we won't be needing resistances like we needed previously. Though this is mainly speculation as it was pretty early in the game. Game does look good, and the production value of it is clearly high. I just don't think I would enjoy it. Hmm.. You said you died too many times with a Barb in Beta. I take it you are a casual player then, and won't go in-depth into the more subtle differences. What skill did you improve and/or look forward to from level 1 to 23 when you played Lightning Fury Amazon again? lvl 1-29 for Whirlwind Barb? lvl 1-29 Fury Druid? the list could go on. See, with the new system, you get a new Skill every level (which is more than you can say for Diablo 2). Now you may or may not choose to use it, but the option is there. And you say it as if it was better in Diablo 2: "w00t level 6, now what skills did i get? Double Swing, Taunt?.. meh, back to basic attacks " (and let's not forget that the next time you get something new is lvl 12) The new system improves our strength with your gear. And what's difficult to understand about how your magical weapons empower the skills that you use? Most of your concern (how you cant do dmg w/o items, etc) seem to basically converge to 1 point: "This game is different from Diablo 2", and yes it is. However, you don't see to point out how those differences are bad. In Diablo 3, more than just your skills, more gears define your build (especially at higher levels). So I believe that point is rather moot, about how one need only switch skills and he has a new character. If you switch gears too, then it's about the same for every game (in Diablo 2, you can switch your skills in 10 minutes, in the past, it used to take ~3 hours). And lol at the guy you quoted. Hammerdin the only class to be able to clear Hell without good gear? Evidently one of those guys who reads a few forums posts on the internet, seeing "Hammerdin OP" here and there, and proceed to talk like a master of the game. For the record, Zookeeper Nec can clear Hell naked, Trapsin, most Sorcs, Tesladin, Fireclaw Bear, and many more classes can clear Hell just as effectively, if not even more so than Hammerdin. Actually he mostly does point out why they are bad, and i have to agree with him. I want my games to offer me as many options as possible be they pointless or not. That includes stat allocation (even if it all ends up in vit ... or well you know we could just make the other stats have more use) and talent trees with synergies.(And please dont argue that the current system allows for as much diversity, repeating it simply wont make it true) Yes D3 is different but that is not why i dont like it. I dont like it because it takes away options i had before instead of improving upon them. I dont like it because in the end it will pretty much boil down the entire equipment to a single same stat for all classes (which is weapon damage). I dont like it because i want my fingers to race over more than just a handfull of hotkeys to get the most out of my char. And i dont like it because i will never be able to get a group of friends together for a completely naked hardcore run through all difficulties like in D2 (everyone who never tried that should really give it a taste) That i will only be able to play it with a running connection doesnt help either, even though thats by far not the most important point. That D3 will ever be truely difficult is something i still doubt as well, although i admit i cant know that yet for certain. It just a feeling iam having from reading what blizzard tells us.
Your fingers raced over what? o.O Which class did you play?
Other than PvP, which _might_ involve more buttons for some classes (even in this case, most of them are pre-buffs, and aren't used at all through out the duel), PvE absolutely doesn't involve any class that employ 6 active skills (pre-buffing every few minutes out-of-combat isn't considered "active").
You are allowed to customize stat points in Diablo 3 by the way, you just have to do that via Gems.
You said the only stats right now is "weapon damage". What happen to Armor? Resistance? Dodge? If we are talking "damage stats", Diablo 2 was the same. Either 100% dmg from skill, or 100% dmg from weapon.
As far as build diversity goes, I guess we won't be convincing one another. (For your info, the sentence "repeating it simply wont make it true" can be thrown right back at you .. ).
|
Gahh. It seems like people keep thinking this is going to be anything like WoW. Its not like WoW.
1. you are not supposed to be able to have 20 different skill buttons to press per class. Using the right skill at the right time is not the point of diablo - its about using mana and resources effectively using limited options against overwhelming forces of enemies.
2. You have Many, Many character customization/stat customization options in Diablo. Unlike WoW, your equipment is not standardized for your class. you also have many different stats and magical properties on items which allow you to customize.
3. You actually have many MORE viable options in diablo than you ever did in WoW, or even most other games of its kind.
4. The original Diablo was developed as a SINGLE PLAYER game, not an MMO, and it should retain this feel. Grouping up is allowed, but is not necessary to conquer the game.
5. Go back and play the original Diablo 1 - its a pretty freakin hard game. I think (hope) D3 will be true to this spirit and Inferno will actually be quite tough.
6. They keep talking about "tier" items, which is a misnomer. Itemization in Diablo is much much more random than WoW. Even if you get High tier armor, there might be the exact same piece of armor floating around with slightly better stats on it. Its always about getting slighty better stuff, not beating the new boss and going up a tier.
my $0.02
|
On May 01 2012 19:01 ffreakk wrote:Show nested quote +On May 01 2012 17:27 killa_robot wrote:On April 24 2012 00:35 zJayy962 wrote:On April 24 2012 00:02 c0ldfusion wrote:On April 23 2012 23:52 fighter2_40 wrote:On April 23 2012 19:31 Ace1123 wrote:
5/5 For Me. it is really fun and i Like how the diablo feel was preserved. The graphics are also good and of course the new changes are awesome. I just hope there will be more classes in the future -_- 3/5. really? i felt the exact opposite. i felt like i was playing a tweeked dragonage/runescape game for 12 year olds. Where is the darkness/ raw feel of diablo 2? There is too much lighting, too little blood, and the items look like shit in the inventory. Diablo 2 from like a decade ago had better inventory graphics. It's retarded. Also, people are saying that the game will be good because it's harder later on, but Is it going to be in the way that EVERYTHING is dependent on items (which blizzard wants to monopolize on) or because you'll need to plan out your character build? (shitty hdins/well planned casters could do well even w/ poor mans gear in d2). My guess is the former since every character will be exactly the same in that they are not specialized by skill trees. The only defining factor is your passives and your items. I'm only hoping they fix these issues before destroying my childhood. Agreed. I wish I had read your post before posting in the other thread. That's the real problem of the current skill system - end game will be 100% item dependent. No build commitment means that either everyone will be viable in the endgame or only those with elite gear will be. I'm guessing with so much emphasis placed on things like crafting and RMAH, it'll be the latter. Just curious, did you guys play and enjoy diablo 2? If you wanted to clear content alone, every character/build was extremely gear dependent. Hammerdins are probably the only exception but it'd be pretty hard to solo any boss as a Hammerdin in Hell with shitty gear which is what you needed to do to get gear in the first place. Just because you couldn't solo hell bosses naked that doesn't mean gear was extremely important,at least not for casters. I remember several times dying in hell and being able to kill several monsters using magic without my gear on just to reach my body. In D3, you are completely powerless without gear. Even magic relies solely on your weapon damage to determine how much damage you'll do. If you have a shitty weapon(or none at all), then it doesn't matter if you're using your end game spells or early game spells, you'll do shit all for damage either way. Personally I don't think I'll get the game anymore, or at the very least I'm going to wait until a few weeks after it's release to make my final decision. I was able to play in the open beta weekend and it just felt....aimless. I mean, I won't praise the D2 skill system as being awesome, but at the very least it gave you something to look forward to with each level. Each level you either gained a new skill, or you improved an old one. In D3, you get a predetermined skill or rune-skill. Often times I would level up in the beta, look at what it gave me, and be like.....meh, I don't want that, and just ignore the new skill. I just didn't feel excited or even happy like when I leveled up in D2. Not too mention the fact that due to you always getting the same skills, there's no need for you two make a second character of the same class. There's also the stat allocation. Granted, I don't really care that they took that away too much, but at the very least my level 9 wizard shouldn't have identical health to my level 9 barbarian. It's just odd that each character gets the same vitality; two points every level, and 10 health per point, for every class. I played the demon hunter, barb, and wizard for the beta. Demon hunter I had fun with, and felt was pretty strong. Wizard was pretty meh, and I didn't like the barb (died too often with him). Then again I rarely like melee characters. Finally there's the complete dependency on equipment. I enjoyed the fact that in D2 I could get along fine as a caster without a decent weapon. It made sense, after all casters use magic, not weapons, to hurt their enemies. But in D3 you need a good weapon, otherwise your magic is useless. Furthermore it can be any weapon, which just feels weird. Why would my wizard carrying a club make an ice beam that does more damage than her having no weapon? What would the amount of damage that club is supposed to do when you bash someone with it have to do with the amount of damage that your ice beam does? Also a bit disappointed that resistances seem to be taking a backseat now. You can only see them by opening up that advanced tab, and with blizzard wanting to make as many builds as possible work, I think we won't be seeing many creatures be completely resistant to certain types of magic, and we won't be needing resistances like we needed previously. Though this is mainly speculation as it was pretty early in the game. Game does look good, and the production value of it is clearly high. I just don't think I would enjoy it. Hmm.. You said you died too many times with a Barb in Beta. I take it you are a casual player then, and won't go in-depth into the more subtle differences. What skill did you improve and/or look forward to from level 1 to 23 when you played Lightning Fury Amazon again? lvl 1-29 for Whirlwind Barb? lvl 1-29 Fury Druid? the list could go on. See, with the new system, you get a new Skill every level (which is more than you can say for Diablo 2). Now you may or may not choose to use it, but the option is there. And you say it as if it was better in Diablo 2: "w00t level 6, now what skills did i get? Double Swing, Taunt?.. meh, back to basic attacks " (and let's not forget that the next time you get something new is lvl 12) The new system improves our strength with your gear. And what's difficult to understand about how your magical weapons empower the skills that you use? Most of your concern (how you cant do dmg w/o items, etc) seem to basically converge to 1 point: "This game is different from Diablo 2", and yes it is. However, you don't see to point out how those differences are bad. In Diablo 3, more than just your skills, more gears define your build (especially at higher levels). So I believe that point is rather moot, about how one need only switch skills and he has a new character. If you switch gears too, then it's about the same for every game (in Diablo 2, you can switch your skills in 10 minutes, in the past, it used to take ~3 hours). And lol at the guy you quoted. Hammerdin the only class to be able to clear Hell without good gear? Evidently one of those guys who reads a few forums posts on the internet, seeing "Hammerdin OP" here and there, and proceed to talk like a master of the game. For the record, Zookeeper Nec can clear Hell naked, Trapsin, most Sorcs, Tesladin, Fireclaw Bear, and many more classes can clear Hell just as effectively, if not even more so than Hammerdin.
I like how you arbitrarily determine I'm a casual player because I died with the barb lol.
You forgot to mention the poison necro, who was almost completely useless until you got poison nova. A couple of builds being different doesn't change the meaning of my point. You could just stick to other builds if you didn't want to play like that.
I know you get a new skill every level (not every level actually, but close), I pointed it out in my post. I said it was better in D2 because every level mattered, whether you were improving an old skill, gaining a new skill, or hell, even just hording your points until later levels. Every time you level'd up you had the potential to improve yourself however you wanted to. Apparently you don't see the difference between that, and being handed a new pre-determined skill every level. You next point isn't even a point at all, as you're just implying that getting a new random skill every level is better than getting a skill you actually want every 6+ levels, which is baseless.
You can use any weapon to improve your magic, not just magical ones, which removes that uniqueness to casters which was you don't need a weapon to hurt someone. Wands/staves helping makes sense, because we've been told they help in their own world. That's their purpose. The purpose of a club or sword is to hit someone, not to help with magic. This is something that we already expect, and something that is re-enforced in the game. There's been no connection between how good a sword is and how effective your magic is, so why should I believe there's any connection at all?
No, most of my points say something along the lines of: D3 has done things which I don't like. I make the comparison to D2 because I liked how it did it more. I specifically stated I wasn't praising D2 as being great in those areas. Apparently you're only reading what you want to see. I said I didn't like the differences. Them being bad is my subjective opinion on them, I can't prove they're actually bad changes any more than you can prove they're good ones.
In D3 your gear is entirely what makes your character. Builds don't even really exist, as the entire idea of a build is that your character ends up different from other characters based on your choices when improving that character. Given that every character gets the same skills and stats in the end, your choices are entirely based on which skills you actually use and which gear you wear. Granted builds tend to have pre-selected best armour for them, but they're only end-game and not actually part of the building.
I agree, because Hammerdin was one of the strongest character everyone always goes "OMG you couldn't do anything unless you were a hammerdin!". It's pretty annoying.
|
On May 02 2012 04:53 killa_robot wrote:Show nested quote +On May 01 2012 19:01 ffreakk wrote:On May 01 2012 17:27 killa_robot wrote:On April 24 2012 00:35 zJayy962 wrote:On April 24 2012 00:02 c0ldfusion wrote:On April 23 2012 23:52 fighter2_40 wrote:On April 23 2012 19:31 Ace1123 wrote:
5/5 For Me. it is really fun and i Like how the diablo feel was preserved. The graphics are also good and of course the new changes are awesome. I just hope there will be more classes in the future -_- 3/5. really? i felt the exact opposite. i felt like i was playing a tweeked dragonage/runescape game for 12 year olds. Where is the darkness/ raw feel of diablo 2? There is too much lighting, too little blood, and the items look like shit in the inventory. Diablo 2 from like a decade ago had better inventory graphics. It's retarded. Also, people are saying that the game will be good because it's harder later on, but Is it going to be in the way that EVERYTHING is dependent on items (which blizzard wants to monopolize on) or because you'll need to plan out your character build? (shitty hdins/well planned casters could do well even w/ poor mans gear in d2). My guess is the former since every character will be exactly the same in that they are not specialized by skill trees. The only defining factor is your passives and your items. I'm only hoping they fix these issues before destroying my childhood. Agreed. I wish I had read your post before posting in the other thread. That's the real problem of the current skill system - end game will be 100% item dependent. No build commitment means that either everyone will be viable in the endgame or only those with elite gear will be. I'm guessing with so much emphasis placed on things like crafting and RMAH, it'll be the latter. Just curious, did you guys play and enjoy diablo 2? If you wanted to clear content alone, every character/build was extremely gear dependent. Hammerdins are probably the only exception but it'd be pretty hard to solo any boss as a Hammerdin in Hell with shitty gear which is what you needed to do to get gear in the first place. Just because you couldn't solo hell bosses naked that doesn't mean gear was extremely important,at least not for casters. I remember several times dying in hell and being able to kill several monsters using magic without my gear on just to reach my body. In D3, you are completely powerless without gear. Even magic relies solely on your weapon damage to determine how much damage you'll do. If you have a shitty weapon(or none at all), then it doesn't matter if you're using your end game spells or early game spells, you'll do shit all for damage either way. Personally I don't think I'll get the game anymore, or at the very least I'm going to wait until a few weeks after it's release to make my final decision. I was able to play in the open beta weekend and it just felt....aimless. I mean, I won't praise the D2 skill system as being awesome, but at the very least it gave you something to look forward to with each level. Each level you either gained a new skill, or you improved an old one. In D3, you get a predetermined skill or rune-skill. Often times I would level up in the beta, look at what it gave me, and be like.....meh, I don't want that, and just ignore the new skill. I just didn't feel excited or even happy like when I leveled up in D2. Not too mention the fact that due to you always getting the same skills, there's no need for you two make a second character of the same class. There's also the stat allocation. Granted, I don't really care that they took that away too much, but at the very least my level 9 wizard shouldn't have identical health to my level 9 barbarian. It's just odd that each character gets the same vitality; two points every level, and 10 health per point, for every class. I played the demon hunter, barb, and wizard for the beta. Demon hunter I had fun with, and felt was pretty strong. Wizard was pretty meh, and I didn't like the barb (died too often with him). Then again I rarely like melee characters. Finally there's the complete dependency on equipment. I enjoyed the fact that in D2 I could get along fine as a caster without a decent weapon. It made sense, after all casters use magic, not weapons, to hurt their enemies. But in D3 you need a good weapon, otherwise your magic is useless. Furthermore it can be any weapon, which just feels weird. Why would my wizard carrying a club make an ice beam that does more damage than her having no weapon? What would the amount of damage that club is supposed to do when you bash someone with it have to do with the amount of damage that your ice beam does? Also a bit disappointed that resistances seem to be taking a backseat now. You can only see them by opening up that advanced tab, and with blizzard wanting to make as many builds as possible work, I think we won't be seeing many creatures be completely resistant to certain types of magic, and we won't be needing resistances like we needed previously. Though this is mainly speculation as it was pretty early in the game. Game does look good, and the production value of it is clearly high. I just don't think I would enjoy it. Hmm.. You said you died too many times with a Barb in Beta. I take it you are a casual player then, and won't go in-depth into the more subtle differences. What skill did you improve and/or look forward to from level 1 to 23 when you played Lightning Fury Amazon again? lvl 1-29 for Whirlwind Barb? lvl 1-29 Fury Druid? the list could go on. See, with the new system, you get a new Skill every level (which is more than you can say for Diablo 2). Now you may or may not choose to use it, but the option is there. And you say it as if it was better in Diablo 2: "w00t level 6, now what skills did i get? Double Swing, Taunt?.. meh, back to basic attacks " (and let's not forget that the next time you get something new is lvl 12) The new system improves our strength with your gear. And what's difficult to understand about how your magical weapons empower the skills that you use? Most of your concern (how you cant do dmg w/o items, etc) seem to basically converge to 1 point: "This game is different from Diablo 2", and yes it is. However, you don't see to point out how those differences are bad. In Diablo 3, more than just your skills, more gears define your build (especially at higher levels). So I believe that point is rather moot, about how one need only switch skills and he has a new character. If you switch gears too, then it's about the same for every game (in Diablo 2, you can switch your skills in 10 minutes, in the past, it used to take ~3 hours). And lol at the guy you quoted. Hammerdin the only class to be able to clear Hell without good gear? Evidently one of those guys who reads a few forums posts on the internet, seeing "Hammerdin OP" here and there, and proceed to talk like a master of the game. For the record, Zookeeper Nec can clear Hell naked, Trapsin, most Sorcs, Tesladin, Fireclaw Bear, and many more classes can clear Hell just as effectively, if not even more so than Hammerdin. I like how you arbitrarily determine I'm a casual player because I died with the barb lol. You forgot to mention the poison necro, who was almost completely useless until you got poison nova. A couple of builds being different doesn't change the meaning of my point. You could just stick to other builds if you didn't want to play like that. I know you get a new skill every level (not every level actually, but close), I pointed it out in my post. I said it was better in D2 because every level mattered, whether you were improving an old skill, gaining a new skill, or hell, even just hording your points until later levels. Every time you level'd up you had the potential to improve yourself however you wanted to. Apparently you don't see the difference between that, and being handed a new pre-determined skill every level. You next point isn't even a point at all, as you're just implying that getting a new random skill every level is better than getting a skill you actually want every 6+ levels, which is baseless. You can use any weapon to improve your magic, not just magical ones, which removes that uniqueness to casters which was you don't need a weapon to hurt someone. Wands/staves helping makes sense, because we've been told they help in their own world. That's their purpose. The purpose of a club or sword is to hit someone, not to help with magic. This is something that we already expect, and something that is re-enforced in the game. There's been no connection between how good a sword is and how effective your magic is, so why should I believe there's any connection at all? No, most of my points say something along the lines of: D3 has done things which I don't like. I make the comparison to D2 because I liked how it did it more. I specifically stated I wasn't praising D2 as being great in those areas. Apparently you're only reading what you want to see. I said I didn't like the differences. Them being bad is my subjective opinion on them, I can't prove they're actually bad changes any more than you can prove they're good ones. In D3 your gear is entirely what makes your character. Builds don't even really exist, as the entire idea of a build is that your character ends up different from other characters based on your choices when improving that character. Given that every character gets the same skills and stats in the end, your choices are entirely based on which skills you actually use and which gear you wear. Granted builds tend to have pre-selected best armour for them, but they're only end-game and not actually part of the building. I agree, because Hammerdin was one of the strongest character everyone always goes "OMG you couldn't do anything unless you were a hammerdin!". It's pretty annoying.
See.. You said you died too often with the Barb during Beta. If some guy loses too often in Bronze League, i am inclined to believe him to be a casual too, until solidly proven otherwise of course.
Agree to disagree on everything else, looks like neither of us will be changing the other person's mind.
A few facts thoughI know you get a new skill every level (not every level actually, but close)
This statement is false. You get at least one new skill every level. At later levels, you even get 4 skills per level (most of the time too).
And no, adding the Poisonmancer doesn't even make the list, not even half, or a third. MOST classes in Diablo uses a signature skill that's not from the early levels, and you have no choice but to slap people around w standard Physical hits till then.
|
Gave 5 stars, but not sure if Im going to buy it because of personal reasons. Wasted like 5 years of my life playing D2 - and problem with Diablo is that with my nature you cant really play it casually... And Im starting to consider myself too old for more than 5 hours/week gaming. So I might get stuck with SC2, despite huge sandness in my heart.
Definitely going to "rent it" somewhere and spend one nice week(end) playing just to see it all.
|
On May 02 2012 05:45 Sek-Kuar wrote:
Gave 5 stars, but not sure if Im going to buy it because of personal reasons. Wasted like 5 years of my life playing D2 - and problem with Diablo is that with my nature you cant really play it casually... And Im starting to consider myself too old for more than 5 hours/week gaming. So I might get stuck with SC2, despite huge sandness in my heart.
Definitely going to "rent it" somewhere and spend one nice week(end) playing just to see it all.
I don't think you can rent it, since blizzard uses account bound games. All you're gonna get is problaby a trial version.
|
On May 02 2012 05:54 solidbebe wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2012 05:45 Sek-Kuar wrote:
Gave 5 stars, but not sure if Im going to buy it because of personal reasons. Wasted like 5 years of my life playing D2 - and problem with Diablo is that with my nature you cant really play it casually... And Im starting to consider myself too old for more than 5 hours/week gaming. So I might get stuck with SC2, despite huge sandness in my heart.
Definitely going to "rent it" somewhere and spend one nice week(end) playing just to see it all. I don't think you can rent it, since blizzard uses account bound games. All you're gonna get is problaby a trial version.
I think he meant pirating, or maybe borrowing a friends copy.
|
We only think of things like staffs as "caster items" because Blizzard happened to itemise the uniques that way (and even then they weren't consistent with it - see Ribcracker).
If rares had been the focus in D2 (rather than uniques), there's no reason you couldn't have had casters running around with polearms, giant axes, hammers, etc. Yes staves and wands had a small extra bonus of random +skills, but guess what - so do class-specific items in D3, which are sure to satisfy any "CASTERS MUST USE WANDS" cravings you may have.
Also the system in D2 where some skills scaled from weapon damage and some didn't just created a massive balancing nightmare, and an unintuitive mess. The simple fact that many characters had skills that didn't scale in the same way all but prevented them both being used in the same build.
Making a barb? War cry is right out since it doesn't scale with weapon damage
Making a trapper? Blade fury/sentinel/shield are severely hampered because they scale with weapon damage not +skills (and only usable by losing a lot of trap damage by taking Bartucs)
Before 1.10 and its ridiculous runewords, it also led to massive imbalances between casters and any weapon damage based class not named WW barb, because of scaling issues.
Having some builds scale with weapon damage and others scale with +skills will almost by definition result in 1 gear level where their damage output is balanced, and imbalance at all higher and lower gear levels.
|
On May 02 2012 09:12 dmfg wrote:
We only think of things like staffs as "caster items" because Blizzard happened to itemise the uniques that way (and even then they weren't consistent with it - see Ribcracker).
If rares had been the focus in D2 (rather than uniques), there's no reason you couldn't have had casters running around with polearms, giant axes, hammers, etc. Yes staves and wands had a small extra bonus of random +skills, but guess what - so do class-specific items in D3, which are sure to satisfy any "CASTERS MUST USE WANDS" cravings you may have.
The issue I have is the direct relationship between the damage a weapon does and the damage your spell does. I said that quite a few times. A caster simply carrying a weapon for it's +X to spell or resistance or magic find or whatever is fine, because those are the magical effects of that weapon. It's when Blizzard decided that spells would be reliant on the damage that the weapon does that I disagreed.
I could accept spell damage being dependent on the damage of wands/staves, because those are meant for spellcasters, but the damage of swords/clubs/polearms/etc should have no relation to the damage of a magical spell.
|
On May 03 2012 04:01 killa_robot wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2012 09:12 dmfg wrote:
We only think of things like staffs as "caster items" because Blizzard happened to itemise the uniques that way (and even then they weren't consistent with it - see Ribcracker).
If rares had been the focus in D2 (rather than uniques), there's no reason you couldn't have had casters running around with polearms, giant axes, hammers, etc. Yes staves and wands had a small extra bonus of random +skills, but guess what - so do class-specific items in D3, which are sure to satisfy any "CASTERS MUST USE WANDS" cravings you may have.
The issue I have is the direct relationship between the damage a weapon does and the damage your spell does. I said that quite a few times. A caster simply carrying a weapon for it's +X to spell or resistance or magic find or whatever is fine, because those are the magical effects of that weapon. It's when Blizzard decided that spells would be reliant on the damage that the weapon does that I disagreed. I could accept spell damage being dependent on the damage of wands/staves, because those are meant for spellcasters, but the damage of swords/clubs/polearms/etc should have no relation to the damage of a magical spell.
These are some interesting points but we have yet to see any of the weapon stats later on in the game. It is very possible that later on in the game, some stats that come from class specific weapons are just better for their respective classes. I guess only time will tell if this is actually an issue. It would be quite sad to see casters with fist weapons or 2h weapons on or other classes that just look weird wielding a different class' weapons.
|
I'd rate it somewhere between 2 and 3. At this point I don't think I'm going to buy it, despite having logged hundreds of hours on D1 and D2/LoD.
I HATE how cookie-cutter the characters are due to automatic skill unlocks and the ability to re-spec. I know that in D2 there were optimized ways to allocate skills, but you didn't have to play that way. While I had a few optimized characters, I also had a 3-element Sorc that could rush hell, a hybrid shape/elemental Druid that contributed to ubers, and so on. Overall it just seems like the game is catering to bad players so that nobody feels like they messed up their character by not thinking about what they're doing. It's really unfortunate because it's going to make everyone's character essentially the same.
I think the general art style is a little bit off, though I love some of the flourishes they put in like having enemies crawling up cliffs to get to you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
