granted this isn't very helpful... but a good way to deal with sony laptops is to never buy sony laptops. they do too much to customize the hardware, and they just don't have the support for it.
Try "The chat gem is working as intended." (no quotes, keep the period). Seriously... that phrase was hidden in some javascript in an object called D3BetaSignup or something, and faked being used when you clicked the skull or chat gem.
If that doesn't work, try: VGhlIGNoYXQgZ2VtIGlzIHdvcmtpbmcgYXMgaW50ZW5kZWQu
i still cant figure out what the whole art-direction dust up was about... these look like the same zone as the pictures that caused issues, and they really look like up-to-date screenshots of D2 act 1 (in a VERY good way).
I liked Diablo 2 for PvX, and so everyone that likes it for PvY is wrong.
Replace X and Y as required in your mind, and don't bother adding your own reply. Or, post something other than the same dead tired horse that is the last sentence.
Actually, seeing as how several of my friends that work for Blizzard have told me that this is EXACTLY why they're delaying it... there's plenty of reason to believe it.
More power to you if you aren't a troll, but I pretty strongly doubt they are planning for a simultaneous console release on early 2012 when they still have public job posting for senior engineers for a console version. Maybe they just label their positions with the expectation that "senior" will get what they want for the bottom of the pyramid; but if those are really senior positions they are trying to fill, a console port is more than 6 months away.
The only problem I see with this is that in the beginning all wizards will be using the melee weapons over the wands, because progression in diablo starts out slowly. So we could be talking perhaps the entirety of act 1 and part of act 2 before you get a wand that has such attributes. If D3 has only 4 acts like D2 then that's about 1/4th of the game.
It's not that I'm claiming this is game breaking, but to me it ruins the chances that I will use it as an alt.
for a first character, meh... i doubt it. depends on luck of course, but making the general itemization work so this is unlikely is the kind of think blizzard delays games for.
for an alt? no way. if you haven't tossed a half decent wand and orb in your stash, you can pop some out at the smith that will beat most physical weapons you will find. that is what the smith is -- a slightly different take on gambling. say you get 20 weapon drops, all different types, all random stats. if none float your boat, you can turn those into maybe 5 or 8 wands with random stats. chances are one of those wands will be better than one of the axes in the original 20.
Sword shield holy archetype is what I just so truly miss from this game and it seems like a few niche are missing, including use for shields. Frankly, I don't see any of the current class to feel right with a shield. They seem to all have better alternatives that also fits them better.
A paladin would also fit perfectly of course for defensive and offensive oriented shield skills.
So, a holy, melee, healing, aura, shield archetype is needed to complement the holy, melee, healing, aura, not-shield archetype?
Paladin is just what you know, maybe not so much what Blizzard can make you happy with. If everything but the shield is what really made you love the paladin, I would bet (or at least hope) you will enjoy the monk. If the shield was what really made the paladin tick for you, I think Blizzard can do a lot better than adding something so similar to the monk.
I don't disagree that there is room for a shield-based class, but if they fill that niche in an expansion, I think it the right way to do it to make something a lot more distinct from the monk than "we brought back the diablo pally." That role is kinda filled.
The cool kids these days like to pretend that Blizzard doesn't make absolutely amazing games, and that everyone who can register a forum account can make better games, but I guess I'm just not cool. If they expand with a shield-based class, I expect them to bring something a little more unique, and would be shocked if it is anything short of awesome. If they can't come up with something distinct from the monk and barbarian (just including cause shield-based tends towards melee), something awesome, I expect they wont make a shield class. That would make me a bit sad, but not as sad as if they gave us something mediocre.
Don't be fooled by it saying "weapon damage"... this doesn't mean you are going to be running around with the biggest axe you can find (at least, not once any random white item that drops might be an upgrade).
All that this means -- working together with +% damage to wizard spells stat -- is that your damage scales by item. With the +% damage to wizard spells stat, wizards essentially have two damage numbers on a weapon. One is the regular DPS if you want to walk up and hit something with an axe, or zap it with a wand. The real number is the spell damage from the weapon, which is the DPS modified by +% damage to wizard spells.
Once you have some reasonable gear, you will want the wizard gear. Of course, swinging a 300dps axe will do a lot more damage than zapping with a 100 dps/+400% damage to wizard spells... but you will do a lot more damage with your spells -- the stuff you actually USE -- with the wand.
What the system does is make wizards actually care about/scale with the quality of their weapon, but at the same time, still rely on their spells for damage. As bad as it would be for wizards to not care about their weapon, it would also be bad if they were to run around hitting like a freight train with an axe... it just doesn't fit the wizard's role. This system solves both.
There was a decent argument in another thread (which is probably where this post should go ><) about it potentially being difficult to determine whether an amazing axe is better than a mediocre wand; but I think that will be the exception rather than the rule. I'm guessing that will only really happen if the axe is really a MUCH higher quality item than the wand.
Of course, this may go out the window with a spectral blade/magic weapon battle-wizard build -- but really, that is kindof the point of a battle-wizard build, so that may still be a good thing.
Has anyone wandered why there are no shield skills at all? How could they have shields and not have any skills that gives players more of an incentive to use them?
I personally am a fan of using shields, but I think it would be nice if we had some special moves or abilities that gives us reason to use shields, other than an extra boost to our defense.
Shields are pretty much for casters... they don't really make sense for what the monk, barb, and dh are supposed to be. Remember, the barb is a crazed death machine, not a warrior/paladin/templar/indestructible killer in a can type. Killing with your fists with a shield on your back is pretty dumb as well, and so is being a quick agile class, throwing traps, plinking at things with a little one handed crossbow pistol, and doing backflips while holding a large wall of metal.
For the casters, its a choice between a class restricted offhand (orbs and voodoo dolls), or a shield. Just stats either way.
Would be kind of odd to give a caster shield attacks, the wizard's armor spells fill the enchant-my-shield niche, and the witch doctors defenses are all more active. I think it actually makes a lot of sense that there aren't shield skills... they just wouldn't really fit anywhere.
I liked Diablo 2 for PvX, and so everyone that likes it for PvY is wrong.
Replace X and Y as required in your mind, and don't bother adding your own reply. Or, post something other than the same dead tired horse that is the last sentence.
0
0
If that doesn't work, try: VGhlIGNoYXQgZ2VtIGlzIHdvcmtpbmcgYXMgaW50ZW5kZWQu
0
0
spears are one handed, polearms are two (perhaps barbs can dual wield polearms, dunno)
0
Replace X and Y as required in your mind, and don't bother adding your own reply. Or, post something other than the same dead tired horse that is the last sentence.
1
0
More power to you if you aren't a troll, but I pretty strongly doubt they are planning for a simultaneous console release on early 2012 when they still have public job posting for senior engineers for a console version. Maybe they just label their positions with the expectation that "senior" will get what they want for the bottom of the pyramid; but if those are really senior positions they are trying to fill, a console port is more than 6 months away.
1
for a first character, meh... i doubt it. depends on luck of course, but making the general itemization work so this is unlikely is the kind of think blizzard delays games for.
for an alt? no way. if you haven't tossed a half decent wand and orb in your stash, you can pop some out at the smith that will beat most physical weapons you will find. that is what the smith is -- a slightly different take on gambling. say you get 20 weapon drops, all different types, all random stats. if none float your boat, you can turn those into maybe 5 or 8 wands with random stats. chances are one of those wands will be better than one of the axes in the original 20.
0
1
So, a holy, melee, healing, aura, shield archetype is needed to complement the holy, melee, healing, aura, not-shield archetype?
Paladin is just what you know, maybe not so much what Blizzard can make you happy with. If everything but the shield is what really made you love the paladin, I would bet (or at least hope) you will enjoy the monk. If the shield was what really made the paladin tick for you, I think Blizzard can do a lot better than adding something so similar to the monk.
I don't disagree that there is room for a shield-based class, but if they fill that niche in an expansion, I think it the right way to do it to make something a lot more distinct from the monk than "we brought back the diablo pally." That role is kinda filled.
The cool kids these days like to pretend that Blizzard doesn't make absolutely amazing games, and that everyone who can register a forum account can make better games, but I guess I'm just not cool. If they expand with a shield-based class, I expect them to bring something a little more unique, and would be shocked if it is anything short of awesome. If they can't come up with something distinct from the monk and barbarian (just including cause shield-based tends towards melee), something awesome, I expect they wont make a shield class. That would make me a bit sad, but not as sad as if they gave us something mediocre.
0
All that this means -- working together with +% damage to wizard spells stat -- is that your damage scales by item. With the +% damage to wizard spells stat, wizards essentially have two damage numbers on a weapon. One is the regular DPS if you want to walk up and hit something with an axe, or zap it with a wand. The real number is the spell damage from the weapon, which is the DPS modified by +% damage to wizard spells.
Once you have some reasonable gear, you will want the wizard gear. Of course, swinging a 300dps axe will do a lot more damage than zapping with a 100 dps/+400% damage to wizard spells... but you will do a lot more damage with your spells -- the stuff you actually USE -- with the wand.
What the system does is make wizards actually care about/scale with the quality of their weapon, but at the same time, still rely on their spells for damage. As bad as it would be for wizards to not care about their weapon, it would also be bad if they were to run around hitting like a freight train with an axe... it just doesn't fit the wizard's role. This system solves both.
There was a decent argument in another thread (which is probably where this post should go ><) about it potentially being difficult to determine whether an amazing axe is better than a mediocre wand; but I think that will be the exception rather than the rule. I'm guessing that will only really happen if the axe is really a MUCH higher quality item than the wand.
Of course, this may go out the window with a spectral blade/magic weapon battle-wizard build -- but really, that is kindof the point of a battle-wizard build, so that may still be a good thing.
0
Uh... no there aren't. What are you talking about?
0
to think -- all that time wasted on the professional mario kart 64 circuit.
0
Shields are pretty much for casters... they don't really make sense for what the monk, barb, and dh are supposed to be. Remember, the barb is a crazed death machine, not a warrior/paladin/templar/indestructible killer in a can type. Killing with your fists with a shield on your back is pretty dumb as well, and so is being a quick agile class, throwing traps, plinking at things with a little one handed crossbow pistol, and doing backflips while holding a large wall of metal.
For the casters, its a choice between a class restricted offhand (orbs and voodoo dolls), or a shield. Just stats either way.
Would be kind of odd to give a caster shield attacks, the wizard's armor spells fill the enchant-my-shield niche, and the witch doctors defenses are all more active. I think it actually makes a lot of sense that there aren't shield skills... they just wouldn't really fit anywhere.
0
*popcorn*