Quote from
So yea we lose a bit senseless customization like having a wizard wield a maul twice his size (in the real world it would be like putting a medic with a rocket launcher in the front line, kinda wierd huh) but on the other hand as bashiok has said they will put the effort of senseless customization and direct it towards more skills , skill rune effects, so basically adding a lot more meaningful depth to each individual class. I prefer that idea over being able to use a freakin 2 handed pillar as an archer. I hope i was clear.
I'm sorry, but you just bought his whole silly excuse which is nothing but a joke to make you think exactly that "I prefer that over this".
His excuses makes no technical sense.
I don't disagree entirely with the decisions, I mean the wizard can't use big two-handed stuff, the barbarian can't use wands.. I mean, that kind of things I couldn't care less and won't affect the game much, except those that really love to try anything.
All I'm saying is, Bashiok doesn't deserve any credit for his comment. Sweet, he's talking to the community, but his text is there for nothing. A few lines would be saying the same thing.
1
0
Lengthening the game, since it lengthens each difficulty separately as well, as a big impact on everything too.
The end result is no matter what you add, they would be better off rebalancing. How much useless crap was in D2 after all?
0
There are TONS of unique ideas. Even for a Paladin like class, you could easily think about something else that isn't holy at all with swords and shields that has abilities centered around them. If they can't think of 2 distinctive new class per expansion then they need to hire more people to give them ideas, because they clearly don't have enough.
If there is, I just don't want ladder exclusive item or such crap. Trying to merge competition with a coop based game is a stupid idea to me in the first place, but if people want to compete its their choice: as long as it doesn't have more than the normal game.
0
0
If its small -additions- then I'm fine, but I do -not- want them to change it beyond rebalancing and small tweaks. They could put that effort in new acts.
So what would I want, I'll comment on those on the first post first.
1- New act, of course. But just 1? LoD was short even by expansion standard. And since D3 is looking as long is not shorter (many hints at that) than D2... I'm hoping expansions can really expand here. At least 2 acts or the equivalent.
2- New class, hell yeah. Wouldn't consider this a Diablo expansion if it doesn't have any new class.
3- Disagree completely there. If they want Diablo to the badass boss of Act 5 (or 6, or 15), then make it so. I don't want to fight Diablo two times unless he's completely different (like, merged with other demons or whatever).
4- Increased max level was confirmed, no? If it wasn't well, I'm expecting it, and I want it, too. Along with new skills would be really sweet, but those skills would be unlocked at early levels, so it would be kind of a weird transition for all level 60.
5- See above. They can expand, but not change dramatically.
Other changes I'm really hoping for in expansions or content patches are simple extension of what Diablo is capable in its randomness: More random quests, more random boss attributes, new type of item stats, new types of items. Heck, they could add 1 entirely new type of rune per expansion... Though thats doubtful, would be a lot of work
0
Thinking that they listen to the fans and will just follow the people's will is wrong. Its funny, its like, they say that one time for one thing and suddenly everybody feels listened to.
News flash: If they don't agree, no amount of people whining about it will change it.
0
He is level 10 with a level 10 skill to choose and has exactly 0/28,900 XP.
Me thinks they scale.
0
"Do Hirelings or Minions take any extra experience?
No. You don't get any less experience for using Hirelings. "
0
"Players will not know what Hardcore does, so they will activate it and whine. Better have it off for the first playthrough so they don't accidentally put it on and ruin their games because they couldn't read the big signs that appears when you click it that says "In hardcore mode, death is PERMANENT"".
I'm sorry. Its just I'm trying to justify this. It has no purpose. A few people will not be able to experience the game hardcore right away, "just because". God, I hate stupid decisions like those.
0
1. The merc never "steals" eperience from you, you get the same amount if you have a merc or not.
2. If you kill a monster when you have a merc, he will get the same amount of experience as you do. (Not 100% sure)
3. If your merc kills a monster, he will get 3 times as much experience as you do.
So while he could level up faster or slower, you were unaffected. Looks to me like you didn't want to use mercs in D2 for no reasons whatsoever.
0
1
But once you're done, you're done. I mean, D2 always had so much randomness but its still that one game that I went through completely (never farmed or anything, just played), and eventually you finish it and you move on.
In my eyes, thats just what games should be. Blizzard loves to try and suck people in the same game until forever, but that never worked for me. A game has a beginning, and it has an end. I put it down, and I come back months, if not years later.
The only reason a game lasts longer really is just because you're wasting tremendous amount of time on it. Its easy as a kid to get absorbed in a game like D2 and just keep doing it. But reality is that eventually, if a game is lasting forever, its because its wasting your time, and you're running on addiction. I'm not saying you're dangerously addicted if you keep playing 1 hour a day because it still satisfies you, but you know.
I don't see just one game. I see plenty. Some people have been waiting for D3 a long time, and some people have lived of almost nothing but Diablo. I can understand they kind of want it to last forever, but again, its not supposed to last forever.
So what could they add to the game? They could add content. Anything they had is finite, and will present the same eventual problem. We'll get expansions to freshen it up a few times. Take it for what it is. You can only eat so much chocolate.
0
All good stuff. More incentive for higher difficulties, more unique things about them. Hope they didn't forget some more distinct monsters, too. (new abilities and the likes).
Solo-able inferno = Expected. Anything else would have been a disgrace. However, I really hope the difficulty scales far enough for multiplayer. It should be a challenge there, too.
However, no boss runs... well, that is the good part, yes, no boss runs are great. But they seem to focus loots completely on rares and champs... There is something that just feels completely off with bosses not offering good loot. There are countless solutions that don't involve just making them drop shits and making every boss drop nothing, which is extremely "anti-climatic". I don't know if people see my point, here.
I'd dig either solution, I guess. Out of combat would be better, because if you're out of combat then you can go back to town, which would just take 10 more annoying seconds. Build commitment isn't fixed at all though, but countless abuse with macros and such are.
Followers not viable past normal sounded so dumb and incredibly stupid to me. People should be allowed to play alone with their followers through the entire game if they so desire. They shouldn't be "influenced" to multiplayer by making it pathetic.
So, I'm glad if they make them viable everywhere.
0
Just for kicks:
Millions of people will disagree with me? Geeze, ain't that a shocker. FF7 is incredibly popular and loved. I don't recall saying otherwise.
I post these things because I almost always have a different view of the masses. I'm sorry if I don't blend into this stupid society to be exactly like everybody else and doing things the way they are "meant to be" and liking things because "they say so".
And here's a fact: 3D models with very small polygons didn't age well. They represent the worst looking games ever and these probably all come from around 1996. Older games tend to use more 2D than 3D, and that 2D looks more believable and realistic than models for games around 1996, which are so blocky its ridiculous.
But you're perfectly entitled to find it all beautiful. And if my negativity displeases you then feel free to ignore me, but don't attack me just because you can't take my opinion, its quite absurd.
0
However the Hell area = complete crap. Where's the details?