|
On April 22 2012 07:56 Redox wrote:Show nested quote +On April 22 2012 07:45 Puph wrote:On April 22 2012 07:08 Redox wrote: Oh god why did they have to make the game THAT easy at the beginning? It is impossible to die, and you dont need any skills except for left click. It was so tedious to click through this without falling asleep.
They would just have to change some numbers and the game would be really good, I dont get it. Read the thread, you'll know exactly why. If you happened to miss the last X pages of discussion on the topic, I will reiterate: Because act 1 on Normal mode is easy. You heard me. The game is that easy in the beginning because act 1 on Normal mode is just that; easy. I know that is easy, that was exactly my point. My question was why. Seems so pointless. And it is all fine that it might become better later. But why do I have to spend hours with mindless leftklicking to reach the "real" game at some point? Thats worse than the 30 minutes of ads before the movie in cinema. That does at least not take THAT long and I can skip it by comming later. I see no way to skip this.
Have you played like any video game ever? It's called easing into it. Making the game difficult from the get go is bad game design in most cases, this is definitely one of them. Would you like your first piece of music to be something by Bach when learning the violin?
|
On April 22 2012 07:12 valaki wrote:Show nested quote +On April 22 2012 05:27 dmfg wrote:On April 22 2012 05:19 solidbebe wrote: Why are there only 4 slots? Why not 8 or something. Why this limitation to 4? Because every skill you get, is always at its max effectiveness when you used it. Having access to more skills would make you more powerful than intended. It's the exact same reason you only got 1 point per level in Diablo 2. You may as well ask "Why are there only 102 skill points? Why not 200 or something. Why this limitation to 102?". I don't think it's a valid point at all. While in Diablo 2, you could spend the 102 points to just 4-5 skills, and could have 1-2 strong core skills with a few 1 pointers like teleport, or (sub-optimally, but you could if you wanted) to put points to as many active skills as you wanted. But in Diablo 3, you are limited to just a few. Why? Consoles.
Never had to use more than 4-5 skills from the start to end Hell, in D2. And that is counting for the fact there are skills you use just because you wait for something else and then never use again.
Also you cant say passives are really a skill in D2 (and skills you take only for synergy) otherwise you have also to count D3 passives in the equation and a choice of 9 skills isntead of 6.
|
On April 22 2012 08:23 dmfg wrote:Show nested quote +On April 22 2012 07:56 Redox wrote:On April 22 2012 07:45 Puph wrote:On April 22 2012 07:08 Redox wrote: Oh god why did they have to make the game THAT easy at the beginning? It is impossible to die, and you dont need any skills except for left click. It was so tedious to click through this without falling asleep.
They would just have to change some numbers and the game would be really good, I dont get it. Read the thread, you'll know exactly why. If you happened to miss the last X pages of discussion on the topic, I will reiterate: Because act 1 on Normal mode is easy. You heard me. The game is that easy in the beginning because act 1 on Normal mode is just that; easy. I know that is easy, that was exactly my point. My question was why. Seems so pointless. And it is all fine that it might become better later. But why do I have to spend hours with mindless leftklicking to reach the "real" game at some point? Thats worse than the 30 minutes of ads before the movie in cinema. That does at least not take THAT long and I can skip it by comming later. I see no way to skip this. Because not everyone is familiar with diablo style controls, and dying repeatedly in the tutorial while you're trying to get the hang of how to move/attack/experiment with new skills and runes, is really annoying? There's a reason games start easy and get challenging later. It's because dying to a hard monster you need to figure out how to beat, with tools you understand, can make for fun gameplay. Dying because you're 5 minutes into a game where you have no idea wtf you are doing, is not fun. I am a very casual player, I play maybe 4 hours per week. I am 30 years old, and mechanically too bad to play sc2 or even LoL at a level that it would be fun for me to play. I dont think there are many gamers worse than me, except some girls. Yet diablo 3 beta seemed just ridiculously easy to me. It was literally impossible to die if you not forgot to click on the left mouse button. And I guess it would not even have grave consequences if I died once. This is much, much easier than it had to be to introduce new players to it.
And this is bad for casual players, because as a casual player you dont have the time or patience to click through this for hours until the real game starts. While the hardcore players that play the game anyway for hundreds of hours probably dont mind to waste a few on the beginning.
|
On April 22 2012 07:12 valaki wrote:Show nested quote +On April 22 2012 05:27 dmfg wrote:On April 22 2012 05:19 solidbebe wrote: Why are there only 4 slots? Why not 8 or something. Why this limitation to 4? Because every skill you get, is always at its max effectiveness when you used it. Having access to more skills would make you more powerful than intended. It's the exact same reason you only got 1 point per level in Diablo 2. You may as well ask "Why are there only 102 skill points? Why not 200 or something. Why this limitation to 102?". I don't think it's a valid point at all. While in Diablo 2, you could spend the 102 points to just 4-5 skills, and could have 1-2 strong core skills with a few 1 pointers like teleport, or (sub-optimally, but you could if you wanted) to put points to as many active skills as you wanted. But in Diablo 3, you are limited to just a few. Why? Consoles.
I don't get this argument at all. Are you saying it's bad that you can't choose to make a bad character? You get all skills in D3, just like you could in D2, except this time around they might all be useful.
EDIT: At above, I think there is some sort of feature which lets you start playing from the point you stopped playing last time. This solves the time problem no?
|
He's saying that the 30 mins it takes to beat 1/3 of the first act is a waste of time because it's too easy. In other words, he's saying that literally every progressive game and life is bad / a waste of time.
|
On April 22 2012 08:40 Redox wrote:Show nested quote +On April 22 2012 08:23 dmfg wrote:On April 22 2012 07:56 Redox wrote:On April 22 2012 07:45 Puph wrote:On April 22 2012 07:08 Redox wrote: Oh god why did they have to make the game THAT easy at the beginning? It is impossible to die, and you dont need any skills except for left click. It was so tedious to click through this without falling asleep.
They would just have to change some numbers and the game would be really good, I dont get it. Read the thread, you'll know exactly why. If you happened to miss the last X pages of discussion on the topic, I will reiterate: Because act 1 on Normal mode is easy. You heard me. The game is that easy in the beginning because act 1 on Normal mode is just that; easy. I know that is easy, that was exactly my point. My question was why. Seems so pointless. And it is all fine that it might become better later. But why do I have to spend hours with mindless leftklicking to reach the "real" game at some point? Thats worse than the 30 minutes of ads before the movie in cinema. That does at least not take THAT long and I can skip it by comming later. I see no way to skip this. Because not everyone is familiar with diablo style controls, and dying repeatedly in the tutorial while you're trying to get the hang of how to move/attack/experiment with new skills and runes, is really annoying? There's a reason games start easy and get challenging later. It's because dying to a hard monster you need to figure out how to beat, with tools you understand, can make for fun gameplay. Dying because you're 5 minutes into a game where you have no idea wtf you are doing, is not fun. I am a very casual player, I play maybe 4 hours per week. I am 30 years old, and mechanically too bad to play sc2 or even LoL at a level that it would be fun for me to play. I dont think there are many gamers worse than me, except some girls. Yet diablo 3 beta seemed just ridiculously easy to me. It was literally impossible to die if you not forgot to click on the left mouse button. And I guess it would not even have grave consequences if I died once. This is much, much easier than it had to be to introduce new players to it. And this is bad for casual players, because as a casual player you dont have the time or patience to click through this for hours until the real game starts. While the hardcore players that play the game anyway for hundreds of hours probably dont mind to waste a few on the beginning. You may be casual but that doesn't mean you are terrible.
It feels right for bad players. My girlfriend is really bad, the beta felt right for her, she died 2 or 3 times but still really enjoyed the game. If the game was harder she might have already given up since a lot of deaths in the first 10minutes can be really daunting for casual players of her kind. 70% of the time spent was me explaining mechanics as she went through, this is really a tutorial.
I'm pretty sure it will ramp up step by step. I died maybe twice in the 7 months of beta and that was to the old arcane enchanted uniques, I'm also concerned about the difficulty overall but I have faith for what's next and I understand why its easy in the very start of the game.
|
which character do you think will be faster at getting through the game, wizard or barb?
Poll: Which character is better?Barb (10) 50% Wizard (10) 50% 20 total votes Your vote: Which character is better? (Vote): Barb (Vote): Wizard
|
Barb. Wizard's blink feels so gimped compared to every other class.
|
On April 22 2012 02:05 paralleluniverse wrote:Show nested quote +On April 22 2012 01:09 dmfg wrote:On April 22 2012 00:37 paralleluniverse wrote:On April 21 2012 21:04 Pr0wler wrote:On April 21 2012 19:42 Nilrem wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On April 21 2012 11:34 pellejohnson wrote: The absolutely worst part with D3 is the change to the skill system. Did they really have to dumb it down this much? I mean it feels so wrong not really having any choice leveling up, feels like everything is auto, what skills you get, what stats go up and the runes. What happened to actually tweaking your character using different builds? What happened to the amazing discussions whether this extra point in this skill over that other skill was worth it or not.
No sorry but I can't say I'm too pleased with these changes, also the max players = 4 is terrible considering that I have a group of 5 friends who would love to play together but right now one of us have to skip playing every single session... I sort of disagree. Diablo 2 is a game that gives off the sense of allowing an exuberant amount of freedom. Unfortunately, that freedom is only a mask since the game itself is limiting. Take for example the attributes; you can place the points where ever you want. But for you to get gear needed to be at least descent, you have to put X amount of points into Y. It gave off the illusion of being free but in reality, you are constrained by gear and the general fact that you can easily gimp your hero. Once you put the points in, there is no turning back and down the line (end game content, which is the important content), you will end up deleting the hero and starting over again. Since there is a glimmer of "right" way. The same is for the skill system. It gives off the illusion of being free but you are actually restricted, it is more restrictive and linear than the Diablo III system. The reason for this is simple, you do get to choose three choices; good job. Now, you have to put X amount of points in Y skill to get the better skill, otherwise you are weak. Than, you go to the next skill opened up, so on and so forth. You get a choice but you are also forced in the amount of points. If you throw them where ever, than you have completely gimped yourself. Diablo III allows for more freedom for the skills for one good reason. You are not limited to having X skill to use Y. If you want to use X skill and you are that level, go right ahead. You can mix and swap the skills all you want without being tied down by a very linear system. Right in the beginning, and I mean within the first few levels. The Diablo II game has more freedom in terms of skills. But, the more you level, the more freedom you have, the more skills, and less restraint you have. The last point I want to make is in regards to the player amount. There are three portions I wish to address. The first is simple, why does it matter how many friends you have that want to play? I can say I X amount of friends, so it should be increased. The two main reasons is this; the animation of the skills will kill the game. I do not know how much of the game you have seen, but with 4 players alone (and especially with the later skills), the screen is nearly covered with skills. If we had 8 players (as an example), you would not even be able to see what you were attacking. The last point is simply party mechanics. Blizzard really wishes for emphasis to be with parties. Diablo II was a near failure when it came to parties. Most common games you see that had 8 players were Dueling rooms, trading rooms, and Mf runs. The games when people were actually trying to play, the players were either split up or doing entirely different things. There was no need for the players to be together. Even Mf runs were done so for the sake of getting the sweet 8 number, and not the necessity of needing 8 people for dps. Diablo III, because it has less players. There is more emphasis on you the player. Having one person slag behind can be bad, especially with bosses. There is more consequence for not putting in the effort. Especially since the difficulty is easier to balance with the amount of players when there is a maximum of 4. It is easier to make the difficult of the game based on the number of players when there are less to begin with. Anyway yeah, I disagree with your points. The changes have been made to keep the end game content more entertaining and not relying on mechanics that punish you for dumb mistakes. What ? About the stats part : In Diablo 2 you can build you character in really different ways. As example you can build sorceress with max block, or you can neglect the block and go for more vitality... It's entirely up to the player. The game does not force you do one or the other. In Diablo 3 there is no such thing... The game raises your stats instead of you just like in WoW. The skills: This is the same as the stats. You can build your character in many different ways -> Hammerdin, Charger, Zealot, Smiter - these are just 4 of the many variations of the paladin. The player can use his creativity and can mix some of the skills to create hybrid etc. etc. In Diablo 3 there is no such thing again. All players get all the skills, no thinking involved. I played the beta yesterday, and as a long time D2 player I'm pretty disappointed. What makes my character different from the others when the stats system is automated and all the players take the same skills ? Maybe only the items system can bring some diversity, but I'm not sure if it will cut it. I agree. The argument of cookie cutter specs and having a correct way to spec, as the person you're responding to claimed, is not valid for Diablo games. In Diablo 2, there were a large variety of creative ways to spec your character, some were not optimal, but many of them more than viable and it's very fun to be able to build your character the way you want and experiment with different builds. However, as a WoW player, I understand completely why WoW gives you the same core sets of abilities with the exception of spec spells and talents, and why this model is optimal for WoW. WoW is a very competitive game, where players min-max everything for progression raiding and PvP. Therefore, the D2 system will not work, as everyone will just copy the best build and go with it (in fact this is why their changing the talent system in MOP, which I support). Being min-maxed to be absolutely optimal is a part of the competitive nature of WoW. But Diablo is not this type of game, it's not as competitive as WoW. There isn't a fixation on damage meters like WoW. This is because it's nowhere near as hard as WoW at the high-end. Diablo 2 gives players many systems of customizations and a lot of freedom to build your character the way you want, and this is how Diablo 3 should have been. WoW has a excellent spell system. But Diablo 3 isn't WoW, and copying this system is a waste of potential and needlessly constraints player creativity and choice. But I really don't see what's so different about diablo 2 and diablo3 in terms of variety. D2, you have a handful of solid cookie cutter builds, but you could use underused skills and make them work. D3, you will probably also have a handful of solid cookie cutter skill setups, but you will be able to use underused skill + rune combos and make them work. The only real differences are 1. D3 doesn't require you to click multiple times on a skill icon to get there 2. If in D3 your build turns out to be completely unviable (or you just plain don't like playing it), you can change your skill/rune setup instead of having to re-roll a new char I mean, they could change D3 so instead of having to choose which skills/runes you use, you could hotkey any of them but they start at level 1 (where they're worthless) and you're given skill points that you have to allocate in order to make them usable. Then let you respec your skill points in town. The end result would be exactly the same (albeit with a LOT more clicking), but it wouldn't be any better as a game for it. You can't do anything crazy or unique, and then optimize for your crazy idea. There's no equivalent to a sorc with maxed charged bolts, or throwing barb, etc. You just choose fill exactly 6 spells and runes, further restricted to 2 click spells, and 1 spell for each of some 4 roles, depending on your class, instead of choosing how many skill points to put into each skill, which synergies to get, and how to distribute your stats. In D3, it's completely binary, you have spell A or you don't, unlike in D2 where you have spell A with 1 point or 10 point or 20 points, with X amount of synergy.
You cant do that in d2 either. You have to max what you're going otherwise its garbage. Basically D2's level 20+ skills and D3s non-level rune abilities are equivalents. In D3 the damage scales with your gear and it diablo 2 its mostly with skill points(leveling up).
Basically youre thinking that putting all your points into your build is optimization/choice. But how is it? You put all your points into your main ability or you're worthless. In D3 you pick your main abilities and focus on how they work together. So both games end up with 1 choice, what skills do you want?
As far as stats go. D2 = all vitality. D3 = pick what gems you want.
|
My 2 (very biased) cents on the whole customization debate are this. A build in D2 that makes any kind of sense, and this includes out-there builds focusing on uncommonly used skills, put the vast majority of the 100 some odd points into 3-5 active skills and their synergies. Your choice of build was really a choice of those 3-5 skills, and then an attempt to work out the best way to skill each of them in turn over the course of levelling. It would be laughable to even think about casting the 1 point pre-requisites you had to take to get deeper into the tree, with the obvious exception of just a few "1 point wonders".
You get to make exactly these choices in D3. The differences are first, that you don't have a half dozen useless skills, which hopefully doesn't bother anyone, and second that you can change which skills you're focusing on without re-rolling. Maybe other people really do hate this idea, but I can't tell you how many times I've wished there were easier respecs in D2 so that I could experiment with builds, instead of relying on a mix of theorycraft, google searches, and hope when deciding what kind of character to make.
As has been said before, what the system really prevents you from doing is playing a character for a month, realising that you can't handle the next difficulty and having to start again from level 1.
There's also a pretty humorous split going on. On the one hand you have people up in arms that anyone can switch to any skill build whenever they like, and this removes all customisation, and on the other hand you have people complaining that switching skills is too clunky and can't be done in combat. I don't know about you, but I think this is at least a little bit funny.
|
In Slovakia we have this crazy school system. We go home on the 11th of May so we can study 10 days for our last exams. With this exam we finish the school. If we fail we are doomed. I quess that Im not going to be the only one taking that test at least 3 times.
What I want to say is that I have seen so many streams / vods and cant wait for D3. Hopefully we are going to play together and have some fun. IM NOT PREPARED !
|
Will the beta achivements be removed when they release retail? Would be cool to have achivements that you could only get in beta.
|
On April 22 2012 21:21 Arnstein wrote: Will the beta achivements be removed when they release retail? Would be cool to have achivements that you could only get in beta. Yes they will be removed. Happened in SC2 beta too.
|
Blizzard is trying to do something new, they basically populated the nowadays industry standard skill tree and inventory system. But now they want to open a new path away from that.
With only 6 skills, you can play the same character with many possible ways. Lets say I play a Barb with what I think the best 6 skills thus I need to find items that enhanced these 6 skills, but other play 6 best skills may not be the same as me so they will have to opt for other items.
I don't know if that will be the case or not, but it better be or else the game will be boring as hell since everybody's build is gonna be the same.
|
Wish they'd make a whole D3 world where everyone can play together like WoW, making clan, 1vs10 if you can, direct trading in game. Adding point up to your class depend on strength,magic or health/ dexterity , more skills and more open world. It's kinda disappointed me how simple the game is, it's even more boring than TorchLight if you've ever played it.
|
On April 23 2012 02:48 tuho12345 wrote: Wish they'd make a whole D3 world where everyone can play together like WoW, making clan, 1vs10 if you can, direct trading in game. Adding point up to your class depend on strength,magic or health/ dexterity , more skills and more open world. It's kinda disappointed me how simple the game is, it's even more boring than TorchLight if you've ever played it.
Go buy guild wars 2
|
I think the new character customization system in D3 is a lot more appealing than the one in D2. In D2, you were actually discouraged from experimenting with different builds since most early skills scaled terribly into the late game, and there was no point getting a skill unless you were going to max it, it was a prerequisite/synergy for another skill, or it was a utility spell.
Similarly, that stat point system encouraged you to NOT spend the points as long as possible, since how much you put into str/dex was entirely dependent on what end-game gear you were going to wear. Every extra point put in str/dex that didn't help you equip an item (or get max-block) was wasted in the end game.
I like D3's take on this. Stats allocation has been moved to the endgame in the form of gems. As a new player you have no idea how you really want to allocate your stats early on anyways, so why not delay that decision until later in the game when you can make an informed choice?
Everyone makes a big deal about how every character will be bland and the same because of instant skill respec'ing. What they fail to consider is that many different combinations of builds will need different item builds to be successful in higher difficulties. Even if D2 had allowed you to respec skills for no cost, you aren't going to make your Zealadin into a good Hammerdin without overhauling the gear. I.E., maybe your defensive skills focused Monk will need a different set of item affixes and gems than your offensive focused monk.
Character customization is there in D3, just moved from a flawed stat/skill tree system to a new item-based system.
|
Russian Federation4235 Posts
On April 23 2012 03:04 Jyvblamo wrote: I think the new character customization system in D3 is a lot more appealing than the one in D2. In D2, you were actually discouraged from experimenting with different builds since most early skills scaled terribly into the late game, and there was no point getting a skill unless you were going to max it, it was a prerequisite/synergy for another skill, or it was a utility spell.
Similarly, that stat point system encouraged you to NOT spend the points as long as possible, since how much you put into str/dex was entirely dependent on what end-game gear you were going to wear. Every extra point put in str/dex that didn't help you equip an item (or get max-block) was wasted in the end game.
I like D3's take on this. Stats allocation has been moved to the endgame in the form of gems. As a new player you have no idea how you really want to allocate your stats early on anyways, so why not delay that decision until later in the game when you can make an informed choice?
Everyone makes a big deal about how every character will be bland and the same because of instant skill respec'ing. What they fail to consider is that many different combinations of builds will need different item builds to be successful in higher difficulties. Even if D2 had allowed you to respec skills for no cost, you aren't going to make your Zealadin into a good Hammerdin without overhauling the gear. I.E., maybe your defensive skills focused Monk will need a different set of item affixes and gems than your offensive focused monk.
Character customization is there in D3, just moved from a flawed stat/skill tree system to a new item-based system.
The thing is, in diablo 2 you can find the gear to spec out specific skills, and the gear for a caster character is innately different from a autoattacker build. In D3 there are no skill levels, thus you can't find gear that boosts skills and everything is dependent on weapon damage so you can go with the most damage and be ok with any thinkable build.
|
On April 23 2012 03:47 BluzMan wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2012 03:04 Jyvblamo wrote: I think the new character customization system in D3 is a lot more appealing than the one in D2. In D2, you were actually discouraged from experimenting with different builds since most early skills scaled terribly into the late game, and there was no point getting a skill unless you were going to max it, it was a prerequisite/synergy for another skill, or it was a utility spell.
Similarly, that stat point system encouraged you to NOT spend the points as long as possible, since how much you put into str/dex was entirely dependent on what end-game gear you were going to wear. Every extra point put in str/dex that didn't help you equip an item (or get max-block) was wasted in the end game.
I like D3's take on this. Stats allocation has been moved to the endgame in the form of gems. As a new player you have no idea how you really want to allocate your stats early on anyways, so why not delay that decision until later in the game when you can make an informed choice?
Everyone makes a big deal about how every character will be bland and the same because of instant skill respec'ing. What they fail to consider is that many different combinations of builds will need different item builds to be successful in higher difficulties. Even if D2 had allowed you to respec skills for no cost, you aren't going to make your Zealadin into a good Hammerdin without overhauling the gear. I.E., maybe your defensive skills focused Monk will need a different set of item affixes and gems than your offensive focused monk.
Character customization is there in D3, just moved from a flawed stat/skill tree system to a new item-based system. The thing is, in diablo 2 you can find the gear to spec out specific skills, and the gear for a caster character is innately different from a autoattacker build. In D3 there are no skill levels, thus you can't find gear that boosts skills and everything is dependent on weapon damage so you can go with the most damage and be ok with any thinkable build.
It's been known for awhile that there will be +%dmg to skill X affixes...
|
On April 23 2012 03:50 kuresuti wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2012 03:47 BluzMan wrote:On April 23 2012 03:04 Jyvblamo wrote: I think the new character customization system in D3 is a lot more appealing than the one in D2. In D2, you were actually discouraged from experimenting with different builds since most early skills scaled terribly into the late game, and there was no point getting a skill unless you were going to max it, it was a prerequisite/synergy for another skill, or it was a utility spell.
Similarly, that stat point system encouraged you to NOT spend the points as long as possible, since how much you put into str/dex was entirely dependent on what end-game gear you were going to wear. Every extra point put in str/dex that didn't help you equip an item (or get max-block) was wasted in the end game.
I like D3's take on this. Stats allocation has been moved to the endgame in the form of gems. As a new player you have no idea how you really want to allocate your stats early on anyways, so why not delay that decision until later in the game when you can make an informed choice?
Everyone makes a big deal about how every character will be bland and the same because of instant skill respec'ing. What they fail to consider is that many different combinations of builds will need different item builds to be successful in higher difficulties. Even if D2 had allowed you to respec skills for no cost, you aren't going to make your Zealadin into a good Hammerdin without overhauling the gear. I.E., maybe your defensive skills focused Monk will need a different set of item affixes and gems than your offensive focused monk.
Character customization is there in D3, just moved from a flawed stat/skill tree system to a new item-based system. The thing is, in diablo 2 you can find the gear to spec out specific skills, and the gear for a caster character is innately different from a autoattacker build. In D3 there are no skill levels, thus you can't find gear that boosts skills and everything is dependent on weapon damage so you can go with the most damage and be ok with any thinkable build. It's been known for awhile that there will be +%dmg to skill X affixes...
Yup, I think some people have this innate belief that Diablo III will have absolutely no uniqueness for which blinds them to the truth. There will be customization; there will be more items, more skill variance, all the while leaving out the permanence. That variance will still be in the game, it is just that Blizzard is going about a different way of doing things.
Keep in mind, there is more of a focus on items in this game. Although mystic was removed to hopefully revamp her purpose and give us a better system. We still will have more items than Diablo II did with all the runes, we also have sockets/gems to use as well.
|
|
|
|
|
|