DiabloFans

I think it's unethical, but I would like to think I'm a highly ethical and principled person (although I'm sure I fall short). If one uses shortcuts or cheats their way into something, they didn't earn it, and in my book, that's not ethical behavior. Moreover, though one looses the sense of accomplishment they would have had, if they really achieved something without cheating or short-cutting. Granted, there are always assholes, and unethical behavior is rampant, but that doesn't make it right. I would also add, if one feels the need to 'shortcut' the game for whatever reason, they must not be playing the game anymore for pure enjoyment. It seems logical to assume, they must have another motive. Something like Farming, ePeen, Etc.. Therefore, they are not enjoying the game, and perhaps it might be time to find some other game, or something else to do. Whatever it is you do, you should enjoy it without feeling the need to shortcut it.

Yay for Beta Keys! I've been waiting for Path of Exile for a while now.

I agree with the special damage increase affixes for the Wizard and Witch Doctor, however I don't agree with the attribute changes. To some it might seem simpler or more straight forward, however I see it as just more dumbing down. I don't think it's a difficult prospect to learn the difference between Strength and Willpower, or how they play into character customization. Also I don't see how limiting character customization or simplifying it creates more "build diversity"? Sometimes simplification is not a good thing, and the more and more I follow Diablo 3's development, the angrier I get because of these "tweaks". First it was the graphics, then it was AutoStat Distribution, so on, and so on, and now we get this.

I'm waiting for them to hand over Project Lead to Michael Bay at this point. /facepalm

I had generally hoped that Blizzard wouldn't go this route, but seeing how ActiBlizz (i.e., Bobby Kotick's Vision) is following in the footsteps of EA, this makes sense. The executives of development studios these days are not so much interested in producing great games (the people who actually create the game might be however), but in generating revenue. They seem a game as 'product', and that they need to push as much 'product' as possible with the lowest possible cost. Sadly at this time, executives see consoles as a cash cow, and even sadder still, some of them see their capabilities as equal to the PC.

However, I see the following quote as their attempt to blow smoke up our *****. Notice the portion of 'no intention', rather than 'we will not allow' or something similar. The phrasing of words is important, and this statement, in no way, takes a definitive stance against a single product on multiple platforms. The people sitting in comfy chairs at the top of the building could could very easily step in and force a single product on multiple platforms.

Quote from "Blizzard" »

"We are first and foremost developing Diablo III for Windows and Mac PCs, and we have no intention of allowing a console interpretation to delay or otherwise affect the release of the game.

As I said above, it's about pushing product with minimal costs, and that means producing one product on multiple platforms. I also think that it's important to point out that Blizzard is not totally in control of their ship, and because of that, the internal policies regarding development may not be as definitive as they once were.

Also as I pointed out in the other thread dealing with this topic, if Blizzard takes this route, they may generate revenue from console sales, but it will also hurt revenue due to disgruntled PC Users.

Quote from Don_guillotine

My guess is that like WoW, each respec will get progressively more expensive.

I generally assumed that to begin with.

Quote from badgermilk69

Royalkin,

I would actually argue that Blizzard is making the game MORE complicated in that each rune will drastically change the skill, right? I cant remember if there are 6 or 7 runes but that means their are either 36 or 49 different variations of skills for each class, which seems like a good number to me.

Another good point... Forgot about the runes. I'm beginning to feel like an ass.

Quote from SFJake

Even D2 had these limitations, but in the form of innefficiency. If everyone can run around with every skill, then there's a lack of uniqueness. Instead, you actually have to make choices, which makes for more obvious differences.

For example, just because you're a sorceress doesn't mean you have teleport. Its useful, but what if someone find something else more useful? There's a choice to be made that creates a difference. Given the freedom to choose as many skills as you want and just put 1 point in them, who would not put 1 point in teleport?

No matter what, there is a limit. A limit because of usefulness (because spreading your points too much is futile) or a limit because the developers said so. I don't disagree that having such a limit set on us is annoying, but it might just be for the better. There's a lot of angles to this, and both D2 and D3's systems are imperfect, and both have limits. I only wish that each skills would require less points in D2 to be useful and that I could spend them in only a few, so that I could actually use more than one skill or 2 per character.

Quote from Don_guillotine

Remember that Blizzard has to make sure that the pants-on-head-retarded beginners can get through at least the normal difficulty with enough head-banging (which wasn't given in DII).

Why? This is how they can make sure the game is actually difficult for everyone who grasps the concept of pants.

Problem with Diablo II was that you had to balance the game both for the casual newbie and the hardcore min/maxer. At the end of the day the game was far too easy for the min/maxer and a bit hard for all the friendly neighborhood retards.

You both make good points, and I can't really defend arguments against them. I guess this was more of a rant/venting thread, apologies for that. It's just an annoyance when I see the game industry forcing things on it's customers. Good or bad, it's still an annoyance. I guess we'll have to see how it works out.

/shrug

Quote from SFJake

In D2, there was little to no point in having more skills unless that 1 point in them make them effective enough. Their line of thought is most likely as simple as that: we need limits to balance usefulness and freedom. The freedom to put 1 point in every skill that are now completely useless for the entire game, is that useful freedom?

See though, your making my point. What rational person would really do that? Obviously, people know that specialization is far better than being a jack of all trades. Also, not everyone is interested in pvp, which I think is the main argument for this system (i.e., builds). However, it seems they assume that people would put a single point in a skill, so they make choices for the player, because they know better (or think they know better). That makes me angry.

I'm just irritated because I feel as though I'm loosing options and customization options, and I'm not getting any thing worthwhile in return.

However, I can appreciate the balancing argument. But even if not using the limiting option, there should be trade-offs. Either way a character shouldn't be that powerful. Let's say if a character has a certain type of skill or a specific skill, they shouldn't be able to equip (they can't equip it, but they can train it) others. Although I concede that might take more time to implement that simply limiting skills.

I'm just irritated because I feel as though I'm loosing options and customization capability, and that I'm not getting anything worthwhile in return.

Quote from SFJake

The idea is that your characters have a limit on what they acquire as to make sure each one is different.

I don't think I follow you here. How does limiting options ensure diversity and differentiality?

For the longest time, I had thought that characters were limited to 7 skills on the skillbar. However, know I've learned that a character can only train 7 seven skills per character period (Respecing aside, and I'm sure it will cost you something).

Why? Yes, I've heard the argument that no one ever used that many skills in Diablo 2, but that's a poor argument in my estimation. Is it just me or do Jay and the boys seem to be attempting to make this game idiot-proof? They seem to be discounting people's ability to rationally judge which skills they should train. Isn't that somewhat arrogant? This is like the Health & Safety people limiting people's intake of sugar or salt because it's bad for them, and apparently the average person is too stupid to limit their intake of it. So, they legislate the amounts a person is legally able to eat (or drink).

This just irks me to no end. It's fine to limit how many skills your able to place on the skillbar at any one time, but it's not fine to limit the amount of skills a character is able to train. First it was the auto-stat distribution, and now skills... Why can't I be freely able to screw up my character as I see fit?

Why is there such a movement towards the simplification of games? It seems to be that if it doesn't involve running around and killing things, its being cut, simplified, or severly limited, as if people can't be bothered to stop doing that in order to do something that actually requires a few brain cells.

Quote from Zoobi

P.S. Real-world physics don't apply to fantasy worlds.

Sorry, and with all due respect, that's simply stupid. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for a bit of believable magic, but a character (such as the Demon Hunter) running around in plate mail that at best weighs somewhere close to 80 pounds isn't going to be doing cartwheels. It's just not happening.

When someone is in a fight and falls down, or gets knocked down while wearing plate mail, 90 percent of the time, they die. Or if not in a fight, they will at least require someone to help them up. It's just stupid to think someone wearing such heavy gear can move that fast. I guess stupidity reigns. But in the end, I agree with Syanoq:

Quote from Siaynoq

I hate that argument where people think just cause it's not a real place that objects and gravity, etc shouldn't [or that there somehow magically exists an excuse to not] have to behave normally.

[sarcasm] Oh no, your wrong. It's fantasy, I can do anything! [/sarcasm]

Quote from exen88

"[1] She [the Demon Hunter] can be all agile she wants with whatever she is wearing. [2] The character needs to have an impressive visual to please our eyes."

Yes, on the second part. I totally agree. However, as to the first part, no, not exactly. While it is important for the characters to be visually pleasing and have a great 'silhouette' as the developers repeatedly pointed out throughout all the panels. It doesn't make sense for a character to be wearing heavy plate mail and be dancing all around. I think most people would scoff at seeing that and point out the ridiculousness.

Although know that I think about it, I think there are examples of every class doing that. I would assume though that they are using some kind of skill/spell in order to achieve it. The Barbarian gets away with it though because he's the human incarnation of Atlas.

Yup, this is some excellent stuff. Although I do hope they change the graphics for the inventory screen though. I'm a graphic designer by trade and that bugs the hell out of me. Very unbalanced left/right wise.

Quote from PhrozenDragon

I'm definitely hoping for a knight in a future expansion though.

Likewise, hopefully we will get one in an expansion. I guess I'll have to go with the next best option, the Barbarian.

Quote from Don_guillotine

Everyone and their grandmother knew it was going to be a ranged (bow/x-bow) class. No huge surprises there, you're right. While I agree with you that the fact there's no real sword&shield class as of now is kind of a bummer, having no ranged class would've been even worse one. And I think all of the 5 classes presented so far have their own niches and I don't personally see which one could've been replaced.

I don't disagree with you Don, at least for the most part. The other classes I'm fine with and they do seem to be Diabloesque, but the Demon Hunter just seems to have a bit too much of a Vampiric or Van Helsing feel to it. It just seems that they sat down at a conference table one day, and decided they needed a ranged class (which I don't disagree that one was needed), but also something that didn't seem recycled or regurgitated. So, voala, we get the "Demon Hunter". But once again, that's just my opinion.

Oh, I don't think I could be more unimpressed. Congratulations for those of you who think this class is great, but I don't see it as very original. Now some might see these comments as sour grapes, and that's fine, but I was really hoping for a sword/shield class (similar to the Paladin, but not necessarily the same). Don't get me wrong, my enthusiasm for Diablo 3 is still quite high, but this makes me sad.

Quote from BloodAngel

So... the OP's about grammar? Talk about picky...

No, not exactly. Once again, the issue is that Jay has stated that the player (, or the character, they are both the same entity in my opinion. The character is still an extension of the player, and thus is the one pushing the 'Craft Item' button.) is not the one crafting when they are in fact the one crafting. Moreover though, I'm pointing out that such a claim is just silly, and is at best, a public relations tool. Now that came more harshly than I intended, apologies.

Quote from BloodAngel

Why would you even make this topic when you agree with it? It sounds to me that you don't like it and want a system where the player isn't involved at all.

No, I've said it before, and I will say it again, I do like the Artisan system. I think it works great, and the numerous posters in this thread have pointed that out, and I agree with them. A totally player (or character) involved crafting system in Diablo 3 just wouldn't work, it would bog the game down. The dissent is what it is claimed to be, which I believe is not accurate. In the end, my irritation is that some people, if Jay had stated that the game had player crafting which is actually does, instead of 'non-player crafting', would have been up in arms. This is silly because, they are actually the same thing. Once again, I ask the question if you take the system exactly as we currently know of it, but remove the Artisan, what is different?

I am big enough to admit a kink in my argument though, but I don't think it has been confirmed as of yet. If the player has gathered all materials, payed the gold, and clicked the button, but then the item 'creation' has a time requirement, then yes, the Artisan is crafting and the player character is not. This is the case, because even though there is a time requirement, which would require the player to at least be near the forge if not activly using it, the player cannot both do that and leave and continue to slay monsters. However, if the item creation is instantaneous, then the original argument is valid.

Quote from FingolfinGR

However, in all honesty I think the artisan discussion can go no farther than it already has given the limits of our knowledge.

I somewhat agree with this, but it's a discussion. Granted at least a portion of it's conjecture and speculation, but isn't that the basis of discussion? The what ifs?