Quote fromSo we could expect the laadder reset with the patch in __ months?
WOOOO Ladder reset, I have a mule with some uber gear on ladder that I got from joining "free games" and I'm just waiting for a ladder reset to access them. Then also me and a friend are gonna go on ladder and make ladder only runeword chars.
Woooo ladder reset.
*ahem* yay new patch
0
According to the site itself they transcribed the stuff from a PDF document. Which means that as we're referencing the manual itself and not the PDF one, we can either switch all the references to credit the PDF document (as the page numbers are pretty much copied straight from that site) or we can switch the page numbers to accurately reflect the printed manual.
You'd have to find a manual printed later that is drastically different than the one before mine (Copyrighted 2000-2002), so if you've got a printed manual that is printed after that year and it's different then we always credit the most recent one. Then you'd have to go to the trouble of changing the page numbers again.
0
Well try and imagine casually calling someone deckard. It doesn't really work. "Hello Deckard."
And Cain can be just as bad "Hello Cain." the only way his name works is with the whole "Hello Deckard Cain."
It just doesn't work in a casual setting that's all
0
Also I corrected all the grammar and spelling mistakes.
0
One thing me and my friends had a huge rant about was the impracticality of Deckard Cain's name. I mean it just doesn't work in English.
"Welcome, outlander, to our Glorious hovel!"
0
Okay, now then, the page numbers on this site are drastically wrong. Just as an example, page 3 is the 'Getting Started' portion of the manual, and Chris Metzen's poem is page 1.
Developing your character is page 34, not page 28. I have this manual sitting in front of me, and I've just went through the Necromancer and the Barbarian and added the correct page references.
Now, this isn't important in absolutely any way, but it's principle of the thing.
Basically, every single reference I've come across (except for a few with the Necromancer and the Paladin) has referenced the wrong page number, often being off by 20 pages or more.
Anyways I'm trying to correct them and it's a real pain so any help from someone with the manual on any of classes would be great in correcting/giving references (which is the real point of making this thread actually ;))
I'm also trying to standardise the layout of the skills. It goes for every single skill
Name
Skill progression
then after that it should be ==Description== (or any other word or titles) then ==Lore==, then reference. So just asking if it's possible for more people than me to edit them to this layout. Though if you're working on a new article or doing something more important for the wiki then fixing layout issues I understand. Thanks for your time. :diablo:
0
Hmmmmm delicious curtains. Maybe they're giving the random level generator an 'upgrade' or overhaul. Other than that I personally don't think this is too much of a problem.
0
Hm, that's strange, I've noticed places that sell them like JB hi-fi and EB games (I'm in Australia so our countries may differ)
You should be able to get it off a friend who still has it, or possibly you look harder, not that I'm saying that your looking has been inadequate. Just search around and you shall find it one way or another
Also, welcome iTwenty! :):)
1
Down in the Diablo 2 section of this it says 'Cube Recipies', obvious spelling mistake (recipes) but I'm not sure how I'd fix it so I'm asking you guys to. Phrozendragon I was gonna just pm you but I thought it might get fixed sooner if I just posted it here.
Thankyou
0
So it's been difficult finding reviews for the 9200m ge, I don't know why,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AwAqmXggKIA
It's impossible to find anything other than this but I do think it will have a bit of lag and you'll have to have everything on lowest and probably under 30 fps but as I'm never played a game with consistent over 30 fps it's really not that much of a hindrance, trust me.
Also the general word on forums (dubious sources in other words) that it runs CoD 4 okay as well
0
Well I wouldn't say you're an idiot. That's going too far. Autistic savant is a better title
Enjoyment is not optional... :confused:
0
LOL
I just feel that it's necessary for me to express my amusement when I read that
0
Oh shit I'm sorry, I didn't read when it was posted. I'm sorry.
0
Well lets be honest, the amazon can kick some serious ass with the right gear. Especially since like the Sorcerer she can just stand back and damage deal. However, I think you're right that not many people roll this character as their first. I had a horrible time being an Amazon in single player D2.
I think though that the monk is gonna be kickass too. And rolling him as a first character is a matter of choice, when it comes down to it, most people, when they create their first character have no idea what they're doing. So don't you see that people create their first character based on their own personal preference, not because they're aware of it being difficult?
With all that said, some of your moves sound really cool. Your stances however in PvP would either work out that for 20 minutes before they actually start doing moves they're both standing around switching stances (which could make for a very funny standoff). PvP could also be fun where you have to master switching stances very quickly and pulling off moves very fast while watching your opponent all the time in order to gauge what stance he's in so you can switch to the optimal stance (in monk v monk combat only, of course). Which could actually be very fun to watch if the two people playing were good.
Ummmm well personally Imma leave it up to Blizzard to make it a good character, it's good to see you've put so much work into thinking through these things. Not all of them are viable ideas really but they sound cool :thumbsup:
1
First game I'm playing when I get my new computer
0
Well yes P2P will be a kick in the ass for me, any P2P is going to piss me off, even this kind of P2P:
http://www.evilavatar.com/forums/showthread.php?t=93406
And this is how I know there will be a single player mode:
http://diablo3x.com/diablo-3-singleplayer/
Well look as far as I know then WoW is not on battle.net servers, which StarCraft 2 will be. So I doubt there will be a monthly fee.
WOW really requires lots of expensive servers, updates and people. A monthly fee is justified for WOW, because it would really cost Blizzard too much otherwise. This doesn't apply to SC2 though. Battle.net doesn't need so many servers because the games work on a peer-to-peer basis (in sc1 at least). A playing fee would scare off so many customers, I don't think it would be a good move even from a monetary point of view. Currently, Blizzard is so rich from WOW winnings that they can really concentrate on satisfying customers and extend their reputation as the best game developing company in the world.
WoW is roleplaying, and SC2 is RTS ... I don't see anything similiar.. if they make World of Starcraft, it will be pay 2 play... A real-time-strategy game does NOT have the addictive factor and huge player base of an MMORPG, the reason people get addicted to online RTS's is because they want to get good, and they have fun vsing good players and having a challenge and being forced to think, not because you're constantly trying to get that next-best item or level up.
Diablo 3 is an RPG, it has a single player mode, there are WoW private servers, meaning that there can be D3 private servers. This is something that Blizzard would want to avoid, pushing people into these options because they can't afford it is bad business. I think that Pseudo-LAN is an interesting suggestion because, quite simply, if you can't have internet, you can't have LAN. This is also not the greatest of ideas, but Blizzard needed to think of something to stem the uproar around "No LAN". I have only played LAN in internet cafes, where the experience is different from many of you I'm sure who have set up there LAN networks and gone for a game with a bunch of friends. Unfortunately this mechanic and the inclusion or exclusion of it will not be affecting me. Though it's still something I think should be put into a game as an intrinsic mechanic.
Blizzard makes a lot of money from every release it does, it also makes a lot of money from WoW, and it's games are still being bought today. This is a GOOD business model, make your games so good in 10 years time people will still buy them and play online.
I'm very sorry for going off-topic into SC2, but basically the same thing applies and I already have had this conversation on SC2 forums so I just copied and pasted myself from there :). Just go through and replace Diablo 3 with Starcraft 2 at every opportunity except the one about SC2 being an rts and you'll see how it correlates.
Look guys to sum up, if the game is P2P, that's bad, if it's not, that's good, why don't we wait until the game comes out? And then do a little bit of research before you buy. It's pointless hypothesising about it here when it will come out and all your questions shall be answered anyway. And then, when it is out, you can make a truly informed opinion about the game, rather than all the conjecture and baseless misinformation that is on the internet at the moment.