• 1

    posted a message on 2.3 set reviews PLEASE COMMENT

    He's not being rude. He's saying what you presented is almost unreadable. It is unpleasant to try to read. You need to use things like paragraphs, capitalization, or spacing between separate ideas if presenting in a non-paragraphical format. Even bold or colors if you want to go the extra mile to be pleasing to the reader. I find your topic idea to be interesting, but I didn't even try reading a single sentence based on the presentation. Based on your post above, I would have to assume you don't speak English well. But after seeing your reply it looks like you just don't give a shit about using your words correctly.

    I know this is a shocking thing to say on the internets, but communication still does require some base amount of effort when using writing.

    Posted in: Diablo III General Discussion
  • 1

    posted a message on world first grift 49 solo
    Quote from Belloc

    In that case, are there any games with similar gameplay but have an actual end-game that isn't specifically about farming loot?

    It sucks, because I'm apparently one of the few people that likes Diablo's storyline, which I don't really expect to see in other point-and-click ARPGs. I like the story, I like the gameplay, I just don't like the focus on endlessly acquiring gear. What game should I be playing?
    Well, there only a few types of "end-games" out there for games. For about half of games, the end game is the credits. You get 8-50 hours of playtime, then you've completed the game. This is enough to justify a $30-$50 game in most cases.

    For games without end, there are a few different types.
    There are games with the solo play nonexistent or limited, which focus solely on competition - League of Legends, Counterstrike, etc. These games have no real end-game, because the game doesn't change much in structure from first play-through to expert play-through. There are some hybrids here, but the solo play is usually pushed to the side rather quickly (Starcraft).
    MMOs generally focus on team-play and combining efforts in order to provide essentially just a slowed-down version of what an ARPG does. You're still grinding for loot forever, it just comes less often and has more "depth" in what is required to get to that loot. These generally have trimmed down storylines, which are often simply ignored anyway.
    Sandbox games, like GTA are another option, they generally have good storylines, but the "end-game" isn't really anything more than what the name describes.. a place to play around in endlessly, likely without any real feeling of progress.

    To answer your question specifically, there generally are NOT story-focused games that don't end. It simply wouldn't make sense. It sounds to me like you should be playing a good action game like Shadows of Mordor. Great gameplay, good story, tons of fun and interesting mechanics, and you cap out your stats/items at around 40 hours played. After that you play until you're bored, then move on.
    If you think there should be a game you can play hundreds of hours, and still not be doing the same thing for hundreds of hours.. well those don't exist. The closest thing would be the competitive PVP games, because the content/nature of the game is mostly decided by player actions.
    Posted in: Diablo III General Discussion
  • 1

    posted a message on Blood shards bank
    No loot tables. Flippin' teenagers man. I have trouble believing rational adults buy into this loot table conspiracy theory.

    FYI, if you believe there are preset loot tables for each game, please put it in your sig. Then I can easily filter my reading to ignore every post from people with such ridiculous notions.

    In case you missed it... http://us.battle.net/d3/en/forum/topic/12880358320#8
    In case you're of the opinion that Blizzard blues lie blatantly to "trick" you... I have nothing to help you. Wait a few years and you'll look back on your opinions as silly and probably a bit childish.

    Back on topic, I agree, it's to keep people from twinking alternate characters to ridiculous levels. I think it makes sense, although I wouldn't mind a bump, to 1k or something.
    Posted in: Diablo III General Discussion
  • 2

    posted a message on RIP Turbohud, creator called it quits.
    ITT - Worthless, sad cheaters defending cheating. Others pointlessly pointing out the obvious low character and moral value of said cheaters. Repeat.
    Posted in: Diablo III General Discussion
  • 1

    posted a message on My sugestions and improvements for Diablo III
    Totes. I would hazard a guess that far less than half the people that would read your post, will watch your video. My wild guess is maybe 10%.

    I know I didn't. (Although honestly, I was already sure they were rubbish because of the misspelled title, nothing personal.)
    Posted in: Diablo III General Discussion
  • 1

    posted a message on Depth Diggers, clarification on the affix
    Here's an example filled description that may not help anybody, but will make a few people that already understand it go "Yea, duh!".

    Diminishing returns is an artificial applied effect on the results of adding more of something. It is not the inherent nature of a second 20% modifying the net sum less of a percentage than the first 20%.

    For example (NOT diminishing returns): 100% + 20% = 20% gain. 100% + 40% = 40% gain. You measure against the base, not the modified value. It's obvious that 140% is not 20% more than 120%, but that is NOT diminishing returns. If you think so, it's because you partially understand the idea, but think you get to decide what the phrase means.

    Diminishing return example:

    "Every 10% after the first has a 10% diminishing return": 100% + 10% = 110%. 100% + 20% = 119%. 100% + 40% = 134%. Diminishing returns usually indicate that at some point the return will be diminished to a point it doesn't add anything if the trend continues. 100% + 90% = 154%. 100% + 100% = 155%. After +100%, each 10% would add less than 1% to the base.
    Posted in: Barbarian: Bastion's Keep
  • 1

    posted a message on Hackers making their way to PS4
    This should be a lesson to the Diablo community in general. Remember how you wanted offline mode? (And yes I realize there's a small minority that wanted a completely separate offline mode where you can't ever show off your characters online, but that's not what most wanted)
    Posted in: Diablo III General Discussion
  • 1

    posted a message on The Waypoint
    Quote from ThyHoneyComb

    next ?
    Your ideas are bad and OP.

    Posted in: Diablo III General Discussion
  • 1

    posted a message on Greater Rift 38 plus.... Very Very frusterating
    Quote from rigz79

    I guess what I'm saying is that I don't like the one shot kill as the way to stop your progress. One shotting to stop you is not a matter of skill it becomes a matter of luck. Like alot of other people say the higher greater rifts are all about RNG and if your "lucky" enough to not get the jailor effect or to have a maps mob density be poor and so on and so fourth.

    However I would much prefer it based on a skill perspective somehow. Honestly I don't know what the solution is, however the system that's currently in place, while it "works" to a point it's fundamentally flawed in my opinion. What's the point of having a pinnacle if no one can reach it. Like someone said earlier at GR 40+ you potentially have mobs that will kill you from off the screen. There in no skill in that it's all luck based.
    OK... but One-shotting is NOT how they stop your progress. They stop your progress by making it timed. You could, I guarantee, change your items and build around to have 2x+ the survivability you have now.. easily.. no matter what your build is. Then you would NOT get one shot by things that one-shot you now. You get one-shot because the way to get the farthest is to have as much damage as you can squeeze in until you're JUST ABOUT getting one-shot. It would be less fun to do less damage, and it may not even be practical, because at some point, it doesn't matter that you don't get one-shot, because you won't kill stuff fast enough to not die from it anyway.

    You get one-shot because you're trying to ride the line of "How much damage can I possibly do". Because of that, there is no possible way they can make you NOT on the verge of getting one-shot, because you'll just lower your survivability for more damage until you're right back at the edge.

    In short, you can change your build to be FAR more defensive, and you will not get one-shot any more. You WILL run out of time, because you need to ride the edge to get as far as you are now, but that's a choice you're making. You are CHOOSING to be on the verge of being one-shot, you don't have to, you just won't get as far. That's the limit of where skill can take you - to where you die from bad luck because there's nothing left to improve. And that point has to exist.
    Posted in: Diablo III General Discussion
  • 1

    posted a message on 【preview】 monk's new set item?!
    Maybe if I still didn't capitalize sentences or spell very well, this would be downright amusing. What age is that? I think 7 according to Weird Al.


    Perhaps someone can explain the joke to someone simple like me? Is it some sort of inside reference to something in pop culture? Because as far as I can see it's just a crappy faked image with no substance beyond that and a waste of the forum's eyeballs.
    Posted in: Diablo III General Discussion
  • To post a comment, please or register a new account.