Support NeoGAF

[duckroll]

I honestly don't mind not being able to pick my runes as I level up. It doesn't seem like such a huge deal.

I think runes is basically the breaking point for me in terms of how much I'm willing to tolerate as "okay" in terms of totally streamlining the game. But at this point, it is basically indefensible that Diablo 3 is a game where there are literally zero character growth choices. The only choices any player can make is in what skills to equip at a given time, and what equipment they can find and wear.

I'm sure there are players who are okay with this, but it is pretty disappointing to me the amount of "streamlining" they are doing, which is in reality simply removing options instead of improving them. When they said that you cannot assign stats, some people were upset, but the majority said "well everyone in Diablo 2 just built the same characters for each class anyway in terms of min/max!" which was true. But instead of improving that system by making choices in stat delegation more meaningful to building different but equally effective sort of sub-class builds, they just removed that assignment feature completely. Still, not a big deal.

Then it became clear that there was no skill tree at all. Instead you get skills unlocked as you level up, and you can choose to equip a limited number of skills at a given time. This was pretty bad because it means there is no specialization at all. As you progress you cannot put a preference or priority to a certain direction in terms of what skills you want to learn. The game just decides that you learn [x] at [y] level, and that's it. But then they said that since you can only change skills in town, at altars placed late within larger dungeons, the choice of what skills you have to equip would be meaningful. Fair enough, sounds like a different sort of focus.

Now there aren't even altars anymore. Instead you can swap skills in and out whenever you want, and the only penalty is a cool down. Sure it CAN be argued that it's not a huge change, because previously you could just town portal back to town, change shit, and then come back, so now they're just removing hassle! But the hassle -is- part of what makes the decisions you pick more meaningful. By removing every single barrier, it makes the tactical decisions even more meaningless, since there is minimal penalty to making any possible bad decision.

Now finally we get to runes. A system fans have been looking forward to for a long time and it hasn't been in the beta. We've heard from people who played it at Blizzcon how fun runes were, and getting drops meant you get expanded customization functions to augment your character. Finally, they implement it into the beta and it is now a totally streamlined skill augmentation system. No drops, no choices, nothing. You are forced to keep leveling to unlock each rune, as Blizzard babysits everyone to ensure that there are NO bad choices ever made, because that might offend someone to stop playing the game, and that might be one less player who would spend money on the auction house!!!!!

Seriously, fuck this shit and fuck the mindset behind it.

 

[Joe Shlabotnik]

Yup. Any other issues at this point can be handled with post launch patches. It's time to push this thing out!

Blizzard's starting to dilate!

This is such, such, such bullshit. It makes me angry just reading it.

Ha, he keeps saying things that almost make sense but phrased in the worst possible way. Clearly Blizzard just doesn't agree with the choose-your-own-rune philosophy right now--this is how they want to launch it, and it's how they want everyone to play it. But they'll consider patching it in if there's enough demand for it in the future. (Probably well after most players have maxed out a few characters using the release version mechanics.) Unfortunately in an effort to not sound dismissive of the idea, his answer sounded more like "it's a great idea! but we just want to finish the fucking thing."

 

[Hazaro]

I think a compromise could be that level 6-10 are clumped together. 11-15, 16-20, etc.

So you'd be able to pick at least in advance a little bit from the next 5 and it would be better for newer players.

Though honestly we should just be able to pick imo.

 

[aechris]

Anyone else unable to log in? I wanted to play tonight.

 

[duckroll]

If it were up to me, I would want the entire skill system overhauled such that you keep all the categories they have now as of the latest Beta patch (I like how they're split up), but instead of making each individual skill a tier, make all the skills in a given category a base skill.

When you first level up to the point where you can earn the first one, let's say lvl3 for the Wizard, you get to pick if you want to learn: Shock Pulse, Spectral Blade, or Electrocute. You must pick one.

When you hit lvl9, you should get a choice to either learn one of the remaining two, or upgrade one of your two existing Primary Skills to a more powerful tier2 version. When you hit lvl11, you are once again given this choice to either learn another skill or upgrade one to a more powerful tier2 version.

This would mean that for Primary Skills for a Wizard, by the time you hit lvl11, you have the following meaningful choices:

a) You have access to a basic version of all four Primary Skills, which can be further augmented with Runes, and swapped at any time making a versatile but weaker character.

b) You have access to three of the Primary Skills of your choosing, but one of them is stronger than usual, giving you a slight edge in that specialization.

c) You have access to only two Primary Skills, but they are both significantly more powerful and specialized.

d) You have access to only two Primary Skills, but one of them exhibits your strong preference in that play style and the mastery of that skill gives you a huge edge in the niche that skill is applied in, at the expense of being able to use a variety of Primary Skills for different situations.


There, it's only 4 possible outcomes, so that's still not too "complicated" for the average gamer to understand, but it immediately applies more depth into the game for people interested in creating interesting characters. Players are then further encouraged to augment the weaknesses and strengths of their choices by more carefully considering what sort of equipment to use.

Why can't we have something like this?

 

[Rentahamster]

This is such, such, such bullshit. It makes me angry just reading it.

They could have just saved the trouble and went with the original system from 6 months ago without all the "unattuned rune" BS that lead to the inventory bloat problem that made them scrap the whole system. Why throw the baby out with the bathwater? They had a working system ages ago...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l2hZxhXCBP8#t=05m20s

"this one thing we still want to try with that system. If it works (the unattuned, random rune attribute system), we'll keep it. If it doesn't, then the system works pretty good as it is".

And at the very end of the video:

"The nice thing is, the system is already cool, so if it doesn't work, we'll just leave it the way it is".


It's stuff like this that makes he hesitant to fully agree with their reasons that the change is a good thing.


I still think my idea is a good compromise that promotes all the good points of both systems.

 

[Rentahamster]

When you hit lvl9, you should get a choice to either learn one of the remaining two, or upgrade one of your two existing Primary Skills to a more powerful tier2 version.


Why can't we have something like this?

Well, considering Jay's position on skill points, as you can see here from this 6 month old video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NVTVMqtmxPU&feature=relmfu

He mentions that it's always better to mass points in one skill than to spread them out amongst multiple skills.

I think in the scenario presented with your system, it would almost always be better to upgrade to tier 2 rather than have 2 tier one spells.

 

[duckroll]

I think in the scenario presented with your system, it would almost always be better to upgrade to tier 2 rather than have 2 tier one spells.

That would be at the discretion of the player though. Basically, you start with a fixed basic Primary Attack. At a certain level, you will be given a choice to learn one additional Primary Attack, out of a possibility of three. This is a meaningful decision which has nothing to do with tiers yet, but simply a play style preference. Beyond this, once you already have 2 Primary Attacks to choose from, at the next leveling point where you get to make a decision on Primary Attacks, even if it is always more beneficial that you make a skill stronger than to learn an additional one, you have two skills to choose from in terms of which to make stronger.

I don't see how this goes against his design philosophy much at all, and it definitely benefits players in terms of a more meaningful leveling experience.

 

[KareBear]

Does anyone know how do display your fps with the client?Apparently the command is -showfps.But were do you enter it?I tried entering it in the chat-box but nothing happens and there does not seem to be a developer console available.

Edit:The command was removed.Ill trying using Fraps,has anyone else used it with the beta?

 

[Cru Jones]

That would be at the discretion of the player though. Basically, you start with a fixed basic Primary Attack. At a certain level, you will be given a choice to learn one additional Primary Attack, out of a possibility of three. This is a meaningful decision which has nothing to do with tiers yet, but simply a play style preference. Beyond this, once you already have 2 Primary Attacks to choose from, at the next leveling point where you get to make a decision on Primary Attacks, even if it is always more beneficial that you make a skill stronger than to learn an additional one, you have two skills to choose from in terms of which to make stronger.

I don't see how this goes against his design philosophy much at all, and it definitely benefits players in terms of a more meaningful leveling experience.

I like the system because it will allow for much more experimentation without having to drop tons of hours into the game each time you want to try a new build. Also, my hope is that the overall experience is a much more focused and interesting one because the game will
be that much easier for them to balance.

 

[duckroll]

I like the system because it will allow for much more experimentation without having to drop tons of hours into the game each time you want to try a new build. Also, my hope is that the overall experience is a much more focused and interesting one because the game will
be that much easier for them to balance.

But there is no such thing as a "build" anymore. It just means every single player will have the exact same base character with the exact same stats, and the exact same availability of skills at a given level. Of course it is easier to balance, when everyone is the same.

 

[Rentahamster]

I like the system because it will allow for much more experimentation without having to drop tons of hours into the game each time you want to try a new build.

They already had that with the system from 6 months ago.

 

[Oblivionmancer]

But there is no such thing as a "build" anymore. It just means every single player will have the exact same base character with the exact same stats, and the exact same availability of skills at a given level. Of course it is easier to balance, when everyone is the same.

I'm glad to see others sharing this wisdom with the world. Preach it!

Again, the insidious thing about the systems they've designed is that there is literally nothing you can use to differentiate your character from any other character of the same class that can't be bought and sold for cash in the auction house, cash of which Blizzard takes a percentage. This is no coincidence.

 

[Boken]

But there is no such thing as a "build" anymore. It just means every single player will have the exact same base character with the exact same stats, and the exact same availability of skills at a given level. Of course it is easier to balance, when everyone is the same.

I don't get this. Builds arent about investment, it's about choice. The "everybody has it" design doesn't eliminate builds, since you still have to make choices about which skills and runes to take.

 

[duckroll]

I don't get this. Builds arent about investment, it's about choice. The "everybody has it" design doesn't eliminate builds, since you still have to make choices about which skills and runes to take.

There are different types of choices in game design. Some are more meaningful in certain ways than others. Equipment choice and the choice of what attacks to use out of those you already have, are reactive choices which are made to manage challenges you encounter in the game. Character building choices are decisions which allow the player to communicate to the game what sort of character he/she wants to develop, and in doing so open up or limit reactive choices they have throughout the game.

Here, the design seems to be entirely shifted towards reactive choices, with the claim that character building choices either do not matter, should not matter, or are simply something they are not interested in making matter in this game they are making. That is a bad thing for people who are actually interested in that sort of gameplay and are invested in forming connections with characters by developing them as they level up.

 

[Rentahamster]

I don't get this. Builds arent about investment, it's about choice.

They've traditionally been about both, for good reason. Investment bonds players with their characters and fosters a sense of identity, but the potential drawbacks are enough for Blizzard to do away with it.

 

[maharg]

There are different types of choices in game design. Some are more meaningful in certain ways than others. Equipment choice and the choice of what attacks to use out of those you already have, are reactive choices which are made to manage challenges you encounter in the game. Character building choices are decisions which allow the player to communicate to the game what sort of character he/she wants to develop, and in doing so open up or limit reactive choices they have throughout the game.

Here, the design seems to be entirely shifted towards reactive choices, with the claim that character building choices either do not matter, should not matter, or are simply something they are not interested in making matter in this game they are making. That is a bad thing for people who are actually interested in that sort of gameplay and are invested in forming connections with characters by developing them as they level up.

Well put.

 

[ParityBit]

This all keeps getting worse and worse. I blame activision! Here's hoping that a game shows up which picks up the slack that D3 appears to be dropping.

 

[Oblivionmancer]

They've traditionally been about both, for good reason. Investment bonds players with their characters and fosters a sense of identity, but the potential drawbacks are enough for Blizzard to do away with it.

That's probably their thought process, yes, but I have serious concerns about the longevity of a game where any given player only needs to play 5 characters to see everything the game has to offer. Sure they'll grind gear for a while, but that's all efficiencies and percentages, not any kind of substantial long term choice. I can't imagine that I'll be playing a game as mechanically thin as Diablo 3 appears to be as fervently 5 years from now as I will be 5 days from when it comes out.

Even worse, Blizzard's new sanction of real money trade for items impresses certain obligations upon them; making radical changes that render expensive items obsolete is not going to be easy to swallow by a public that bought those items with Blizzard explicitly acting as broker. Officially sanctioned RMT could end up paralyzing this game's longevity and health post launch in so many ways that we can't predict. So I don't see them seeing the light and swooping in with a patch 1.10-like set of changes that reformulates the workings of the game. It could happen, but they've created an environment that is much less hospitable to that kind of refactoring.

 

[duckroll]

Even worse, Blizzard's new sanction of real money trade for items impresses certain obligations upon them; making radical changes that render expensive items obsolete is not going to be easy to swallow by a public that bought those items with Blizzard explicitly acting as broker. Officially sanctioned RMT could end up paralyzing this game's longevity and health post launch in so many ways that we can't predict. So I don't see them seeing the light and swooping in with a patch 1.10-like set of changes that reformulates the workings of the game. It could happen, but they've created an environment that is much less hospitable to that kind of refactoring.

Actually I'm pretty interested in knowing how they can keep this going in a way which is acceptable and legal in every part of the world. Different countries have different laws which regulate transactions and good faith. Auctions operate on the basis that one person has something which another person wants, and the assumption is that the object changing hands will not be artificially manipulated post-transaction.

With the system operating the way it is now in Diablo 3, what is stopping Blizzard from artificially influencing the marketplace such that players who are willing to pay for good items will not be unwittingly forced into a cycle of paying high for equipment which is then nerfed, only to have to spend more money to get something else which has been boosted in efficiency - rinse and repeat.

And if there is nothing stopping Blizzard from doing this, wouldn't that make the real money element of the Auction House illegal in more than just South Korea? I'm sure there are several countries which would frown upon the potential for abuse here, and even in America, would they not be opening themselves up to potential litigation simply by supporting and balancing their game in post-release?

 

[TylerD]

I wonder if there will be some kind of legal agreement associated with the auction house that covers that kind of stuff.

 

[duckroll]

I wonder if there will be some kind of legal agreement associated with the auction house that covers that kind of stuff.

If it's just a click through user agreement, it might not be legally binding.

 

[ElyrionX]

I think runes is basically the breaking point for me in terms of how much I'm willing to tolerate as "okay" in terms of totally streamlining the game. But at this point, it is basically indefensible that Diablo 3 is a game where there are literally zero character growth choices. The only choices any player can make is in what skills to equip at a given time, and what equipment they can find and wear.

I'm sure there are players who are okay with this, but it is pretty disappointing to me the amount of "streamlining" they are doing, which is in reality simply removing options instead of improving them. When they said that you cannot assign stats, some people were upset, but the majority said "well everyone in Diablo 2 just built the same characters for each class anyway in terms of min/max!" which was true. But instead of improving that system by making choices in stat delegation more meaningful to building different but equally effective sort of sub-class builds, they just removed that assignment feature completely. Still, not a big deal.

Then it became clear that there was no skill tree at all. Instead you get skills unlocked as you level up, and you can choose to equip a limited number of skills at a given time. This was pretty bad because it means there is no specialization at all. As you progress you cannot put a preference or priority to a certain direction in terms of what skills you want to learn. The game just decides that you learn [x] at [y] level, and that's it. But then they said that since you can only change skills in town, at altars placed late within larger dungeons, the choice of what skills you have to equip would be meaningful. Fair enough, sounds like a different sort of focus.

Now there aren't even altars anymore. Instead you can swap skills in and out whenever you want, and the only penalty is a cool down. Sure it CAN be argued that it's not a huge change, because previously you could just town portal back to town, change shit, and then come back, so now they're just removing hassle! But the hassle -is- part of what makes the decisions you pick more meaningful. By removing every single barrier, it makes the tactical decisions even more meaningless, since there is minimal penalty to making any possible bad decision.

Now finally we get to runes. A system fans have been looking forward to for a long time and it hasn't been in the beta. We've heard from people who played it at Blizzcon how fun runes were, and getting drops meant you get expanded customization functions to augment your character. Finally, they implement it into the beta and it is now a totally streamlined skill augmentation system. No drops, no choices, nothing. You are forced to keep leveling to unlock each rune, as Blizzard babysits everyone to ensure that there are NO bad choices ever made, because that might offend someone to stop playing the game, and that might be one less player who would spend money on the auction house!!!!!

Seriously, fuck this shit and fuck the mindset behind it.

If I understand what you're saying correctly, essentially there will be no more builds such as Meteorb Sorcs, Hammerdins and Fishymancers? And that all characters of the same class will have access to the exact same skills and attributes? So effectively, if you wish to switch up your Monk build to a completely different playstyle using a different set of abilities, all you need is to tweak it in the menus and acquire the necessary equipment? No more grinding from Level 1 to 80 just to play a new type of Monk like you would hav to in Diablo 2?

 

[Oblivionmancer]

Actually I'm pretty interested in knowing how they can keep this going in a way which is acceptable and legal in every part of the world. Different countries have different laws which regulate transactions and good faith. Auctions operate on the basis that one person has something which another person wants, and the assumption is that the object changing hands will not be artificially manipulated post-transaction.

With the system operating the way it is now in Diablo 3, what is stopping Blizzard from artificially influencing the marketplace such that players who are willing to pay for good items will not be unwittingly forced into a cycle of paying high for equipment which is then nerfed, only to have to spend more money to get something else which has been boosted in efficiency - rinse and repeat.

And if there is nothing stopping Blizzard from doing this, wouldn't that make the real money element of the Auction House illegal in more than just South Korea? I'm sure there are several countries which would frown upon the potential for abuse here, and even in America, would they not be opening themselves up to potential litigation simply by supporting and balancing their game in post-release?

You're absolutely right. I worked from the assumption that they pretty much can't, but you're right, the even tougher question is what the hell happens if they decide they can? Do they get around it by abandoning the direct nerf for constant power creep where there's a new wiz-bang mega axe of even more awesome every two months? Do they allow the game to stagnate? Or do they try to cover their butts with a sentence or two in the TOS stating that all these items are actually Blizzard's anyway and you're just exchanging the license to use them, which they can revoke or alter at any time? Probably that, but I'm curious to see what happens when that gets challenged in a court of law.

That TOS issue is applicable to account bans too. A banned player might be denied access not just to gameplay, but to hundreds (thousands?) of dollars worth of virtual goods that were bought and paid for. Yeah I'd say Blizzard's only move is to claim that none of it was actually ever theirs to begin with. Again though, what happens the first time that goes to court?

The closest example I can think of of developer sanctioned real money trade is CCP's use of PLEX in Eve Online. This is very different because it's a single item that has a clear and concrete real world value--30 days of gametime; there's a guarantee of value received that just can't be present in the system that Blizzard is creating.

It's an interesting set of problems that have, in my mind, contributed to the creation of a less interesting game.

Edit: ah I see the TOS/EULA issue came while I was typing. Yeah, I'm sure Blizzard has legal shock-troopers working the problem. But to what end?

If I understand what you're saying correctly, essentially there will be no more builds such as Meteorb Sorcs, Hammerdins and Fishymancers? And that all characters of the same class will have access to the exact same skills and attributes? So effectively, if you wish to switch up your Monk build to a completely different playstyle using a different set of abilities, all you need is to tweak it in the menus and acquire the necessary equipment? No more grinding from Level 1 to 80 just to play a new type of Monk like you would hav to in Diablo 2?

That's right; it might even sound good at first, but as someone who wants a game with Diablo 2's longevity, the idea that I could be done with the task of building characters within weeks of the game coming out is, to put it kindly, disappointing.

 

[duckroll]

If I understand what you're saying correctly, essentially there will be no more builds such as Meteorb Sorcs, Hammerdins and Fishymancers? And that all characters of the same class will have access to the exact same skills and attributes? So effectively, if you wish to switch up your Monk build to a completely different playstyle using a different set of abilities, all you need is to tweak it in the menus and acquire the necessary equipment? No more grinding from Level 1 to 80 just to play a new type of Monk like you would hav to in Diablo 2?

Yes. Think of it as a JRPG where you just unlock active skills, passive skills, rune abilities, and skill slots as you level up. All stats are auto-assigned as you level up as well. The only decision the player makes is which skills to equip, and you can swap skills at any time by bringing up the skill menu. When you swap skills out, there is a short cool-down period before you can use the skill you just swapped, but otherwise you can do it anywhere at any time.

The game is totally designed to be as easy to play as possible and totally accessible to even the most casual player as long as you can use a mouse.

 

[perfectnight]

I think runes is basically the breaking point for me in terms of how much I'm willing to tolerate as "okay" in terms of totally streamlining the game. But at this point, it is basically indefensible that Diablo 3 is a game where there are literally zero character growth choices. The only choices any player can make is in what skills to equip at a given time, and what equipment they can find and wear.

This has been known for at least 3 years and probably 4+ for people who work at Blizzard. This isn't anything recent or some sudden change. This is what the game has been like for a long time now.

I'm sure there are players who are okay with this, but it is pretty disappointing to me the amount of "streamlining" they are doing, which is in reality simply removing options instead of improving them. When they said that you cannot assign stats, some people were upset, but the majority said "well everyone in Diablo 2 just built the same characters for each class anyway in terms of min/max!" which was true. But instead of improving that system by making choices in stat delegation more meaningful to building different but equally effective sort of sub-class builds, they just removed that assignment feature completely. Still, not a big deal.

Well you have to be specific when you are talking about them removing options. Stat customization? Yes. They chose to go that route not only because stats in d2 sucked but because they wanted a more guided player stat growth that they could build skills around. Skills, passives, character diversity? Diablo 3 completely surpasses anything D2 did in these areas. Not only do the classes have more skills, but each skill can be modified 5 times resulting in quite a lot more diversity than D2 offered. A custom stat system would have probably made runes incredibly hard to design/balance. They chose to make skills the aspect that truly defines your character.

Then it became clear that there was no skill tree at all. Instead you get skills unlocked as you level up, and you can choose to equip a limited number of skills at a given time. This was pretty bad because it means there is no specialization at all. As you progress you cannot put a preference or priority to a certain direction in terms of what skills you want to learn. The game just decides that you learn [x] at [y] level, and that's it. But then they said that since you can only change skills in town, at altars placed late within larger dungeons, the choice of what skills you have to equip would be meaningful. Fair enough, sounds like a different sort of focus.

The bolded is completely wrong. There absolutely is specialization just not long term, hard set specialization (unless you so desire and never change your skills). This being pretty good or bad is completely subjective.

Now there aren't even altars anymore. Instead you can swap skills in and out whenever you want, and the only penalty is a cool down. Sure it CAN be argued that it's not a huge change, because previously you could just town portal back to town, change shit, and then come back, so now they're just removing hassle! But the hassle -is- part of what makes the decisions you pick more meaningful. By removing every single barrier, it makes the tactical decisions even more meaningless, since there is minimal penalty to making any possible bad decision.

They specifically said that the altars weren't set in stone and would likely change over the course of the beta like so many other things in the game. As for the hassle making choices meaningful, hardly. The altars served as little more than a time sink. All you had to do was portal back to town whenever you felt like changing. This doesn't really add anything to the game other than making the inevitable slightly more annoying to carry out. The altars were a bad idea because it places stationary limits on what skills you could choose and when. The game's design philosophy was at odds with such a mechanic and made skill swapping cumbersome rather than give it any real meaning. Yes, the entire skill system is based around trying to minimalize penalty for simply trying out different builds. Why you think this is a bad idea is astounding to me but hey to each his own.

Now finally we get to runes. A system fans have been looking forward to for a long time and it hasn't been in the beta. We've heard from people who played it at Blizzcon how fun runes were, and getting drops meant you get expanded customization functions to augment your character. Finally, they implement it into the beta and it is now a totally streamlined skill augmentation system. No drops, no choices, nothing. You are forced to keep leveling to unlock each rune, as Blizzard babysits everyone to ensure that there are NO bad choices ever made, because that might offend someone to stop playing the game, and that might be one less player who would spend money on the auction house!!!!!

Seriously, fuck this shit and fuck the mindset behind it.

The drops weren't what made expanding your customization possible, the runes were. The delivery of said runes is different from the runes and their effects. They changed runes from physical items into an integrated UI mechanic. They still do what they've always done.

Whether rune drops are better/worse than what we have now is up in the air and you certainly do not know more than the hundreds of in house testers blizzard has working on this game day and night so it is silly to try to make the fact that runes aren't items anymore sound like a negative.

I do agree that it is shitty that you have to level up to 60 to have every rune available, and I am hoping that they change it by release and allow us to pick runes each time we level. It sucks but it doesn't change the fact that D3 has the best combat, skill and item systems of any RPG to date and it will by no means turn the game into shit.

For some reason you seem to think that this game needs to follow the old, overused and often archaic game design of so many other RPGs for it to be acceptable. I am just glad that blizzard doesn't think the same. What worked for D2 10 years ago won't necessarily work for D3 now. I sure as fuck am glad that I won't have to invest 30 hours every time I want to try a new build.

 

[Hazaro]

If I understand what you're saying correctly, essentially there will be no more builds such as Meteorb Sorcs, Hammerdins and Fishymancers? And that all characters of the same class will have access to the exact same skills and attributes? So effectively, if you wish to switch up your Monk build to a completely different playstyle using a different set of abilities, all you need is to tweak it in the menus and acquire the necessary equipment? No more grinding from Level 1 to 80 just to play a new type of Monk like you would hav to in Diablo 2?

You'd probably have to have a different set of gear to take complete advantage, but basically yes.

Skills you swap, attributes of skills (Runes) you can swap. Anytime.
However, these skills and runes unlock at a set pace of about 1 per level. That's something I don't like, although going from 1-30 will probably not take that long.

 

[ElyrionX]

Wait. So how do skills become more powerful? Do you even add points to them anymore?

Also, I'm looking at Skill Calculator on the Blizzard website. For Wizard, there is Primary and Secondary for the two mouse buttons and then there are Action Bar Skills for Defensive, Arcane, Conjuration and Mastery. Clicking on those have spells classified under the respective categories but I seem to be able to assign skills to categories they don't belong to, ie. assiging Energy Armor, a Conjuration ability, to the Arcane slot . First of all, what does the Action Bar Skills mean? You press the keyboard shortcut to cast them directly instead of pressing the shortcut and clicking the assigned mouse button like in D2? And are the categories assigned to the four action bar skills meant to be merely a guideline or does it matter what type of skills you assign to each slot?

 

[Xanathus]

It seems to me that they're actually making these changes in order to simplify balancing because they're rushing to hit a deadline, Q2 or otherwise. I can't be sure whether these changes are good in the long run or otherwise, but I feel that they may be rushing things too quickly without putting enough thought into them. I'm worried that the released product will not be up to the expected standards of the Blizzard name but maaaybe they could fix it post-release.

 

[krameriffic]

Wait. So how do skills become more powerful? Do you even add points to them anymore?

Also, I'm looking at Skill Calculator on the Blizzard website. For Wizard, there is Primary and Secondary for the two mouse buttons and then there are Action Bar Skills for Defensive, Arcane, Conjuration and Mastery. Clicking on those have spells classified under the respective categories but I seem to be able to assign skills to categories they don't belong to, ie. assiging Energy Armor, a Conjuration ability, to the Arcane slot . First of all, what does the Action Bar Skills mean? You press the keyboard shortcut to cast them directly instead of pressing the shortcut and clicking the assigned mouse button like in D2? And are the categories assigned to the four action bar skills meant to be merely a guideline or does it matter what type of skills you assign to each slot?

Skills scale with weapon damage, thus dictating that the best weapon in the game for a sorcerer looking to maximize damage is a fucking 2-hand axe right now. I mean, D2 had certain incongruities in its mechanics, but this is just an asinine system.

 

[perfectnight]

Wait. So how do skills become more powerful? Do you even add points to them anymore?

Also, I'm looking at Skill Calculator on the Blizzard website. For Wizard, there is Primary and Secondary for the two mouse buttons and then there are Action Bar Skills for Defensive, Arcane, Conjuration and Mastery. Clicking on those have spells classified under the respective categories but I seem to be able to assign skills to categories they don't belong to, ie. assiging Energy Armor, a Conjuration ability, to the Arcane slot . First of all, what does the Action Bar Skills mean? You press the keyboard shortcut to cast them directly instead of pressing the shortcut and clicking the assigned mouse button like in D2? And are the categories assigned to the four action bar skills meant to be merely a guideline or does it matter what type of skills you assign to each slot?

And this is why the new UI sucks.

Most Skills are based off of your weapon's DPS. The stronger your weapon, the stronger your skills are. There are no skill points in the game.

 

[duckroll]

Wait. So how do skills become more powerful? Do you even add points to them anymore?

They become stronger based on whatever base they draw on for damage. You'll notice that instead of the skills doing specific amounts of damage, they usually do % damage based on your weapon damage. So by using better gear, you improve the effectiveness of all your skills.

Also, I'm looking at Skill Calculator on the Blizzard website. For Wizard, there is Primary and Secondary for the two mouse buttons and then there are Action Bar Skills for Defensive, Arcane, Conjuration and Mastery. Clicking on those have spells classified under the respective categories but I seem to be able to assign skills to categories they don't belong to, ie. assiging Energy Armor, a Conjuration ability, to the Arcane slot . First of all, what does the Action Bar Skills mean? You press the keyboard shortcut to cast them directly instead of pressing the shortcut and clicking the assigned mouse button like in D2? And are the categories assigned to the four action bar skills meant to be merely a guideline or does it matter what type of skills you assign to each slot?

Action Bar Skills is a fancy term for Hotkey skills. Previously you just unlocked the skills and you could assign them to anything including the mouse buttons. But they've since streamlined the direct attack (projectile/melee) skills to be fixed on the mouse buttons, while the rest are grouped into the hotkey bar where you can use them using 1, 2, 3, and 4 on your keyboard.

 

[duckroll]

I do agree that it is shitty that you have to level up to 60 to have every rune available, and I am hoping that they change it by release and allow us to pick runes each time we level. It sucks but it doesn't change the fact that D3 has the best combat, skill and item systems of any RPG to date and it will by no means turn the game into shit.

For some reason you seem to think that this game needs to follow the old, overused and often archaic game design of so many other RPGs for it to be acceptable. I am just glad that blizzard doesn't think the same. What worked for D2 10 years ago won't necessarily work for D3 now. I sure as fuck am glad that I won't have to invest 30 hours every time I want to try a new build.

But I'm not talking about what is acceptable and what is not. I am merely pointing out that there is a part of the Diablo 2 experience, and the RPG experience in general, which Diablo 3 no longer caters for. This is not simply a matter of what is good or bad, but a preference for a sort of play style which Blizzard is moving away from.

I feel it is inconsiderate to label it as "old, overused, and often archaic game design" simply because some people prefer streamlining. There are pros and cons to any sort of design choice, but I am pretty disappointed that with almost every decision in Diablo 3, they are completely ignoring one element of the fan base in favor of trying to convince everyone that this is automatically and absolutely better. Different != better.

 

[ElyrionX]

Skills scale with weapon damage, thus dictating that the best weapon in the game for a sorcerer looking to maximize damage is a fucking 2-hand axe right now. I mean, D2 had certain incongruities in its mechanics, but this is just an asinine system.

Can a Wizard even equip a two-handed axe in this game? How does the weapon system work here? Are requirements based on class, attributes or level?

They become stronger based on whatever base they draw on for damage. You'll notice that instead of the skills doing specific amounts of damage, they usually do % damage based on your weapon damage. So by using better gear, you improve the effectiveness of all your skills.



Action Bar Skills is a fancy term for Hotkey skills. Previously you just unlocked the skills and you could assign them to anything including the mouse buttons. But they've since streamlined the direct attack (projectile/melee) skills to be fixed on the mouse buttons, while the rest are grouped into the hotkey bar where you can use them using 1, 2, 3, and 4 on your keyboard.

So, pressing 1, 2, 3 or 4 instantly casts the assigned skill and does not require any clicking?

 

[maharg]

Skills scale with weapon damage, thus dictating that the best weapon in the game for a sorcerer looking to maximize damage is a fucking 2-hand axe right now. I mean, D2 had certain incongruities in its mechanics, but this is just an asinine system.

I think making your weapon important in skill damage is a great thing, personally. My favorite classes in D2 were the ones structured this way (particularly were-druids and amazons). They should find ways to encourage use of class specific items to buff skill damage, though.

I do agree that it is shitty that you have to level up to 60 to have every rune available, and I am hoping that they change it by release and allow us to pick runes each time we level. It sucks but it doesn't change the fact that D3 has the best combat, skill and item systems of any RPG to date and it will by no means turn the game into shit.

For some reason you seem to think that this game needs to follow the old, overused and often archaic game design of so many other RPGs for it to be acceptable. I am just glad that blizzard doesn't think the same. What worked for D2 10 years ago won't necessarily work for D3 now. I sure as fuck am glad that I won't have to invest 30 hours every time I want to try a new build.

You know, after a certain point I think it starts begging the question of whether you can call it an rpg in any meaningful sense any more. If you don't guide your characters development and there is no consequence to your decisions, you're edging very directly into adventure game territory, more like Zelda.

Not to say Diablo was a posterchild for RPGs, or that its stat allocations were even very good (you only have to look at any build guide for D2 and see "+ into energy = newb" to recognize that they made some mistakes there. But at least that was a choice you got to make and you were mostly stuck with it.

And not that there's anything wrong with Zelda games. Until the last 3 or so of them Zelda was by far my favorite video game series. But I think there's a real argument to be made that D3 is getting into a whole different kind of game than D2 or D1. It's a matter of taste if that's a good thing or not, but I can't help but be a little disappointed in the shift.

 

[Hazaro]

Can a Wizard even equip a two-handed axe in this game? How does the weapon system work here? Are requirements based on class, attributes or level?

So, pressing 1, 2, 3 or 4 instantly casts the assigned skill and does not require any clicking?

Reqs are level and class. Most are general, but some things like warrior belts, monk star hats, and class specific weapons (2h axe/mauls, 1h xbows, etc.) are class specific.
I don't think the Wiz and weild a 2h axe, but I know either the Wiz or WD or both could use the level 13 1h Axes that have the highest DPS in beta. Or was it Monk?
Either way it feels kind of simple to have it tie into weapon DPS.

*A notable thing to skill casting is some stuff like Lashing Tail Kick activates on your cursor if you use 1,2,3,4 which I thought was silly.

 

[perfectnight]

Skills scale with weapon damage, thus dictating that the best weapon in the game for a sorcerer looking to maximize damage is a fucking 2-hand axe right now. I mean, D2 had certain incongruities in its mechanics, but this is just an asinine system.

This is not true btw. Whether 2 handers or 1 handed weapons are better for casters is dependent on their build. See this very informative blue post on the subject: http://us.battle.net/d3/en/forum/topic/3424908246

 

[duckroll]

Can a Wizard even equip a two-handed axe in this game? How does the weapon system work here? Are requirements based on class, attributes or level?

Weapon requirements are based on class and level. Some types of equipment are only for certain class, but most are not. The main requirement for the majority of magical weapons is level.

So, pressing 1, 2, 3 or 4 instantly casts the assigned skill and does not require any clicking?

Yup. These skills are usually the type of skills which does an AOE attack around your character, or puts up a shield, or heals, etc.

 

[ElyrionX]

Hmm. I think the decision to streamline the skill trees like that allowing for instant respecs is a great idea. I remember the hassle of looking for speed run games in D2 just to level a new character so I can try a new class/build. In fact, respecs was actually one of those things I was hoping would get added in D3.

 

[duckroll]

Hmm. I think the decision to streamline the skill trees like that allowing for instant respecs is a great idea. I remember the hassle of looking for speed run games in D2 just to level a new character so I can try a new class/build. In fact, respecs was actually one of those things I was hoping would get added in D3.

I think respecs are always good. You'll never hear a long time RPG player argue against well implemented respecs imo. I definitely think that it is an unneeded chore to "force" the player to replay an entire character just to take advantage of a different set of skills.

What I don't like about the implementation of Diablo 3's skills and runes right now is not that they allow you to respec instantly, but rather that they dictate and hold your hand throughout the entire leveling process. I like picking which skills to unlock first, and I like picking which runes to unlock first. I don't see a meaningful reason why I have to keep leveling just to get to the skills I would personally want, while someone else might prefer the skills which unlock earlier, making the game more fun for him faster. It's silly imo. Give me some choice at least in how I progress in the game!

 

[perfectnight]

But I'm not talking about what is acceptable and what is not. I am merely pointing out that there is a part of the Diablo 2 experience, and the RPG experience in general, which Diablo 3 no longer caters for. This is not simply a matter of what is good or bad, but a preference for a sort of play style which Blizzard is moving away from.

I feel it is inconsiderate to label it as "old, overused, and often archaic game design" simply because some people prefer streamlining. There are pros and cons to any sort of design choice, but I am pretty disappointed that with almost every decision in Diablo 3, they are completely ignoring one element of the fan base in favor of trying to convince everyone that this is automatically and absolutely better. Different != better.

I definitely agree that different does not always equate to a better or WORSE product. I just think that a lot of fans are too hung up on what D2 offered vs what D3's take on the top down, hack'n'slash, loot whoring fest will be like. D3 is very much it's own game. So much so that maybe they would have been better off calling this Diablo: the alternate.

You know, after a certain point I think it starts begging the question of whether you can call it an rpg in any meaningful sense any more. If you don't guide your characters development and there is no consequence to your decisions, you're edging very directly into adventure game territory, more like Zelda.

Not to say Diablo was a posterchild for RPGs, or that its stat allocations were even very good (you only have to look at any build guide for D2 and see "+ into energy = newb" to recognize that they made some mistakes there. But at least that was a choice you got to make and you were mostly stuck with it.

And not that there's anything wrong with Zelda games. Until the last 3 or so of them Zelda was by far my favorite video game series. But I think there's a real argument to be made that D3 is getting into a whole different kind of game than D2 or D1. It's a matter of taste if that's a good thing or not, but I can't help but be a little disappointed in the shift.

RPG is such a broad term these days. I just don't think the game is any worse for not following the set mechanics that so many other RPGs do. Even D2 was quite different from D1 and I think that is a big reason why it had the impact it did. I don't think I would have been as excited about D3 if it had simply been a formulaic follow up to D2. In the end I guess we'll just have to wait until we play the full game to really know what went right and what went wrong. Personally from the beta alone they have already done an insane amount of things right and I can't wait to see what's in store throughout the rest of the game.

 

[maharg]

Hmm. I think the decision to streamline the skill trees like that allowing for instant respecs is a great idea. I remember the hassle of looking for speed run games in D2 just to level a new character so I can try a new class/build. In fact, respecs was actually one of those things I was hoping would get added in D3.

It's worth noting that respecs were added in D2 eventually. Once per difficulty and then through a fairly convoluted process after that.

I'm totally in favour of respecs. But I think it's a disservice to the idea to consider what D3 has to even be a respec. What D3 has is really just a limit on how many actions you can have mapped to buttons/keys, a cooldown on the remapping, and skills that can't be activated at the same time as each other (see runes).

There's no specing to be respeced.

 

[duckroll]

I definitely agree that different does not always equate to a better or WORSE product. I just think that a lot of fans are too hung up on what D2 offered vs what D3's take on the top down, hack'n'slash, loot whoring fest will be like. D3 is very much it's own game. So much so that maybe they would have been better off calling this Diablo: the alternate.

I totally agree that long time fanbases tend to get hung up on certain things instead of looking at the big picture. Sometimes I am guilty of that too, but I try to at least allow myself to try things out before making a sweeping statement. The issue I have specifically with Diablo 3 is not that they're doing something different though. I've been in the beta for a while, and I've played through at least one new character each time there is a patch. Some changes I like, some I don't. I think I've made it quite clear what parts I don't particularly feel great about. I don't think it's unfair criticism either.

I feel the philosophy they have for Diablo 3 can still be retained while giving players more choice at level ups, and it will definitely make the early game more fun, even if the late game ends up exactly the same as it is now, once all skills are unlocked. That would be win-win, since right now they're saying that people who are annoyed at the current systems should just power through the early levels anyway, which I'm pretty offended by especially when they put it that way.

I do think the game at the base is fun, and they have some pretty solid combat mechanics. I'm also very happy that as the Beta gets patched more, the game actually feels more cohesive as a challenge even in Normal. It is still fucking easy, but at least I don't feel that my initial comments about how the game is completely brain dead are valid anymore. It was definitely true at that stage though, where I was simply not having fun because it was so mindlessly easy.

 

[ElyrionX]

It's worth noting that respecs were added in D2 eventually. Once per difficulty and then through a fairly convoluted process after that.

I'm totally in favour of respecs. But I think it's a disservice to the idea to consider what D3 has to even be a respec. What D3 has is really just a limit on how many actions you can have mapped to buttons/keys, a cooldown on the remapping, and skills that can't be activated at the same time as each other (see runes).

There's no specing to be respeced.

I get your point but in D2, viable builds always revolved around one to three skills most of the time anyway so it's not as if there's really going to be much difference in practice.

 

[zoukka]

Checked my account for the longest time...

 

[V_Arnold]

Duckroll, a few years ago I would have agreed with you on the whole "no choice, no interaction, no expression, no exchange" ways of the current Diablo 3.

Currently, however, I recognize that what we called interaction was simply the option to fail miserably - when not doing the "proper builds" in Diablo 2, for example, no matter what patch it was -, and the option to do the builds that were proper.

There are games out there with deep, good customization systems. I love those simply for being what they are. I never felt like what Diablo has offered as customization was anytime proper or "astonishing". The series's gameplay was always what caused the awe and awesomeness - and yet, even within the D2 structure, you could not really "customize" anything except for messing up. Either you played for "fun", meaning that you put points into a badly scaling, nightmare/hell useless skill, or you did not, and saved up for the proper synergies and went on with the boring 1-2 basic skills until lv30 at least. THAT is horrible design.

So is horrible that once you got to lv24-30, you basically grinded out to lv50 in a few hours (or less, whatever) just by repeating Act5 area 1's end and that pack of mobs in the next step. Or the zombie room. It was "hey, our system has a huge hole inside it, but players will get through it anyway".

All this goes away. Yes, you can say it is interaction and exchange, communication, expression, choice - whatever. The point is: you either had a useful build or you did not. Anything else was just a bad coverup of that. In Diablo 3, you can have the same. You can experiment or you can follow the "optimal" setups. Sometimes hardcore players would be amazed how easily beginners or even advanced players do not see the hole or the flaw in their skill setups in games like this, and does not adjust immediately, but after hours, days of mediocre damage-dealing and frustration. This is present and clearly visible in WoW as well.

Regardless, I respect that you feel that you have been stripped of meaningful freedom when it comes to character customization, with only Passive choices being "meaningful", and even they are reversible, as I recall. But I maintain that that freedom was illusionary in the first place, and the main power always came from proper gearing and proper skill-setup, the same still existing in Diablo 3, yet not hidden behind meaningless "barriers".

And yes, if something allowed me to be imba in Hell, yet suck until I have 60+ skill point to properly set up the build, that is BAD gameplay design. We live in the present, where it is not acceptable to be stuck with 1-2 weak skills for 40+ hours just because there is an arbitrary restriction placed on us that comes with the customization system. I embrace this new one.

Needless to say though, the runes as drops would still had been good, even if it is pointless as well: you can just sell the one that you do not need in the AH and buy whatever you need. No real choice again.

 

[StevePharma]

*Gets into Beta by checking Battle.net*

*starts up beta*

*Gets login error 315300*


FFFUFFFUFFFFFFFUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU

Anyone know a fix for this. Blizzard is still looking into it but if they are on Blizzard time who knows how long it's gonna take...

Such trolls.

 

[Rentahamster]

you certainly do not know more than the hundreds of in house testers blizzard has working on this game day and night

If this previous statement is true...how are you so confident in stating the following:

D3 has the best combat, skill and item systems of any RPG to date and it will by no means turn the game into shit.

???

 

[Rentahamster]

Can a Wizard even equip a two-handed axe in this game? How does the weapon system work here? Are requirements based on class, attributes or level?

Wizard and Witch Doctor can equip giant 2-hand axes and swords if they wish. Some class and level restrictions. No stat restrictions.

If you want to spam no-cooldown skills, pick a fast attack weapon. If you use more hard hitting long-cooldown spells, then weapon speed don't mean shit, so you might as well use a high damage 2-hander.

Yeah, it's kinda weird.

 

[duckroll]

Duckroll, a few years ago I would have agreed with you on the whole "no choice, no interaction, no expression, no exchange" ways of the current Diablo 3.

Currently, however, I recognize that what we called interaction was simply the option to fail miserably - when not doing the "proper builds" in Diablo 2, for example, no matter what patch it was -, and the option to do the builds that were proper.

There are games out there with deep, good customization systems. I love those simply for being what they are. I never felt like what Diablo has offered as customization was anytime proper or "astonishing". The series's gameplay was always what caused the awe and awesomeness - and yet, even within the D2 structure, you could not really "customize" anything except for messing up. Either you played for "fun", meaning that you put points into a badly scaling, nightmare/hell useless skill, or you did not, and saved up for the proper synergies and went on with the boring 1-2 basic skills until lv30 at least. THAT is horrible design.

But no one here is asking for a system that is exactly like Diablo 2. This strawman defense makes no sense. We are not talking about Diablo 2, but Diablo 3. Improvements are expected of a sequel, especially one from a developer such as Blizzard. If the argument is that Diablo 2 had crappy skills which no one would normally put points into unless they were stupid or deceived by the usefulness in the description, I totally agree. Diablo 2 had a bunch of CRAPPY ASS skills for many classes, which if you were unfortunate enough to dump your points into, would be a waste and result in a weaker character.

The solution here is not to replicate that just to give players "false choice", but rather to not create crappy skills to begin with, and put more thought into making each and every skill that is in the game useful in some way. But this is a part of skill design, and it has nothing to do with how players actually end up getting these skills. That part of system design falls on character development. I have already presented a simple system above which showcases how the player can be given real actual choice while leveling, without overloading the player with so many choices where the majority of options are to basically fail harder.

All this goes away. Yes, you can say it is interaction and exchange, communication, expression, choice - whatever. The point is: you either had a useful build or you did not. Anything else was just a bad coverup of that. In Diablo 3, you can have the same. You can experiment or you can follow the "optimal" setups. Sometimes hardcore players would be amazed how easily beginners or even advanced players do not see the hole or the flaw in their skill setups in games like this, and does not adjust immediately, but after hours, days of mediocre damage-dealing and frustration. This is present and clearly visible in WoW as well.

The solution to this is to have better descriptions in what skills do when you give players a choice, and also not to design crappy skills which often have no actual long term usefulness, like I just said. Furthermore, players who are not as familiar with the game systems and might need to respec their characters later on should have an option - possibly at a cost. This would not require a player to completely replay a new character and grind through 60 levels just to create a useful character again, but at the same time the cost should be such that the player is aware that there is a penalty for poor decision making.

Decision making is part of gameplay and should be fun in itself, with the right balance of risk and reward, without it being overwhelmingly punishing, players should be motivated to make better decisions while playing a game, and feel that there is a true sense of achievement in doing so.

Regardless, I respect that you feel that you have been stripped of meaningful freedom when it comes to character customization, with only Passive choices being "meaningful", and even they are reversible, as I recall. But I maintain that that freedom was illusionary in the first place, and the main power always came from proper gearing and proper skill-setup, the same still existing in Diablo 3, yet not hidden behind meaningless "barriers".

There is nothing illusionary about freedom. We are talking about designing valid choice into games, and Diablo 2 is not the only example out there. Just because the previous game had less meaningful choices in character building does not mean that the sequel should instantly remove all player choice instead of trying to improve on the system to make the choices more valid and meaningful. That seems defeatist in thinking.

I would gladly accept it if we're talking about a weak developer who might not be able to design worthwhile systems to give meaningful choice in character customization, but instead wants to focus on the more "fun" aspects of the game because they're shit at proper system design. But we're talking about Blizzard here. Is Blizzard that sort of developer? Actually I don't know, maybe they are now...

Needless to say though, the runes as drops would still had been good, even if it is pointless as well: you can just sell the one that you do not need in the AH and buy whatever you need. No real choice again.

Again, if you notice, I haven't said a single thing about rune DROPS being better or worse than runes being part of the UI. My beef is with how scripted the entire process is where you get a fixed rune at a fixed level no matter what. That is without a doubt poor design meant to streamline things in an unneeded way.

In all honesty, can you tell me that the runes for each category are definitely stronger or weaker than each other? No, they're just different and provide different effects. Since that is the case, why are they divided across levels specifically? Why not let players choose which rune they want to unlock at each level? Is that choice meaningless? Not at all.

And how about skills? Can you definitely say that the skills you get at each increasing level is meant to be better than the one before? Definitely not. In fact, the balance is such that almost all skills are not better or worse than another, but instead serve different benefits. This is good skill design. But if that is the case, tell me why we cannot choose which skills to learn earlier as we level up? How is that "meaningless" choice if given to us?

I would love to hear a detailed response to this.