This game ruined Diablo 3 for me...

"

Autocthon wrote:

Why would you EVER want to make a non-optimal choice. Players make choices because they are fun. Players do not make a choice (other than difficulty setting) in an effort to make the game harder. If you're a player who likes to make bad choices just to see how hard you can make it for yourself you are in a VERY minor minority. The way skill systems work by DEFINITION require that you meet minimum basic requirements to be at the point wherein the game expects you to be.

Player make choices to create the character they want, that is not limited by forcing you to max 6 skills. Fun comes from that, making the character that you want. Fun doesn't come from making character that is OPbut does not play the way you want.
Also the game has 4 difficulties, but you complete the game on normal, so if build is good enough to complete the game, it means that build is viable enough. Not anyone will play last difficulty.

"

Autocthon wrote:

No DPS skill will ever have a CD. No player will ever have their DPS skill at less than max points. Look at EVERY ARPG EVER RRELEASED. There has never been a primary DPS spell/attack/ability that was CD restricted.

Who is talking about primary atack? I'm talking about dmg skill that have CD,but do much more damage than primary skill in that 1 use. It makes you use more dmg skills, and not only primary dmg skill.

"

Autocthon wrote:

What does that mean? Quite simply it means that CDs don't matter in the context of sustained DPS. Skill point systems HAVE NEVER been effective for managing damaging spells. The ONLY times skill point systems have ever succeeded at creating a semblance of balance were in games where the skill points were not tied to making your abilities useable.

It metters. Any rpg includong d2 has it. But im talkin here about dmg skill, not primary dmg skills that dont have CD

"

Autocthon wrote:

As far as your rebuttal to my second point: There's no nice things I can think of to explain how you're wrong. More specifically the only way I can explain you're wrong is a way that you have consistently and completely ignored.

You can't explain it because your not correct.

"

Autocthon wrote:

Why would you want a WEAKER build than the game expects you to have. BEcause there really is only black and white: Either a build does what it needs to and meets benchamarks or it doesn't.

Also I would like to point out that there ARE +skill effects in D3 at higher levels. And items which interact with skills to produce the equivalent of putting points into your skills. The option is still there but it now relies on gear.

When I create a build, I do not create it to be powerful, but create it to play as I want, thats why games are called RPG.The option has moved to items, that is not a good option.

I dont want black and white, i want more, as i said before all colors between, as in any rpg game.

"

Autocthon wrote:

Non-optimized builds are not options. They are idiocies.

Everything is a option. There are non optimal builds that will not be able to play last difficulty, but possible to complete other difficulty. I call that a option. You complete the game when you finish normal. Idiotic is to limit the player so he can't do whatever he wants.

"

Autocthon wrote:

Yes there would. Though to be more accurate you would be choosing 4-5 skills and a couple passives because that is actually what most players DO with the system.

You can't choose passives, because you can choose 4 or 5 skills, including pasives. Wee are talking here about d2 without skill points and skill tree. There would not be more viable builds, becouse all viable builds did as you said maxed 4 skills. With no skill points, system would do exactly that. There would be exactly the same number of viable builds. But there would not be less viable builds. As you see, it doesn't add to more viable builds.

"

Autocthon wrote:

90% of endgame builds which can make it through nightmare require that you specialize your points and preform a minimum degree of optimization. This is the part that you fail to realize: D3 has shifted player's ability to make builds that completely suck from choosing skills (note you can still choose REALLY bad skill loadouts just like D2 and any other ARPG) to kitting yourself with equipment. You are still free to penalize yourself and make the game as hard on yourself as you wish.

I do not penalize my self because i want harder game,I penilayz my self becouse I want to create a different build that is interesting to me, and uses more skills.

Im trying to say 10 times alredy, tha removing skill points never increase the number of viable builds. Visabel builds are increased by skill design and balance. You are only talking about max builds. Im not talking about min/max builds, skill points dont add to viable builds, but they also dont remove tham, but the thing they add are less viable builds.

"

thepmrc wrote:

D3 was designed for casuals. This is not a complaint, it is a statement. There are no binding choices to be made. There is a level cap that will be easily attained. No reason to make different builds of the same class as there are no binding choices to differentiate one character from another of the same class. Literally ZERO thought is required to level/build your character. The game is designed for casuals and children imo.

It's a false statement.
Those are not factors that decides if a game is made for casuals or not.

What does the fact that they made skill system less interesting for people who only play normal and far greater for people who play inferno tell you?

That the game is made for casuals? That is just utterly ridiculous.
You need to get over yourself, just because it's not just the way you like it doesn't mean it's "designed for casuals".

It is TERRIBLE game design to give someone a choice, which isn't really a choice - the players who want to make it harder on themselves (for example in one of the many ways I suggested last post) have plenty of ways to do it, and the players who don't know better get upset when they fail because they were "allowed" to screw up.

I mean, that's one of the "Top 10 pitfalls of Game Design" in Game Theory 101.

"

AgentDave wrote:

It is TERRIBLE game design to give someone a choice, which isn't really a choice - the players who want to make it harder on themselves (for example in one of the many ways I suggested last post) have plenty of ways to do it, and the players who don't know better get upset when they fail because they were "allowed" to screw up.

I mean, that's one of the "Top 10 pitfalls of Game Design" in Game Theory 101.

If your choise can complete the game, its a viable choise. Also you ALWAYS have free respect, remeber that.

"

miljan wrote:

"

AgentDave wrote:

It is TERRIBLE game design to give someone a choice, which isn't really a choice - the players who want to make it harder on themselves (for example in one of the many ways I suggested last post) have plenty of ways to do it, and the players who don't know better get upset when they fail because they were "allowed" to screw up.

I mean, that's one of the "Top 10 pitfalls of Game Design" in Game Theory 101.

If your choise can complete the game, its a viable choise. Also you ALWAYS have free respect, remeber that.

I didn't say that they weren't choices (Just that they aren't legitimate choices. Which, they're not, no matter how you want to slice it or try to make up your own definitions.). I said it was terrible game design. Anything you can do to remove these false choices should be done, especially once they can be identified.

Respecs are irrelivent.

"

AgentDave wrote:

I didn't say that they weren't choices (Just that they aren't legitimate choices. Which, they're not, no matter how you want to slice it or try to make up your own definitions.). I said it was terrible game design. Anything you can do to remove these false choices should be done, especially once they can be identified.

Respecs are irrelivent.

Il repeat, if you can complete the game, it means they are legitimate choices.

"

Autocthon wrote:

"

Sickness wrote:

Non-optimized builds are not options.

I agree with pretty much everything you are saying, except for this absolutist statement.

They are infact option for some people. For the casual crowd who don't care about the endgame.
For the rest of us, you are ofcourse correct, the new skill system offers far more variety and balance than D2 could ever hope to do.

This is also why it boggles my mind to see people complaining that D3 was designed for casuals.

D3 was designed for casuals. This is not a complaint, it is a statement. There are no binding choices to be made. There is a level cap that will be easily attained. No reason to make different builds of the same class as there are no binding choices to differentiate one character from another of the same class. Literally ZERO thought is required to level/build your character. The game is designed for casuals and children imo.

"

Autocthon wrote:

D3 was designed with casuals in mind.

However the developers stated that the difficulty of the game increases exponentially (to the point where casuals will not want to play) as it progresses and taht they do not expect any influx of the casual playr population into the Inferno difficulty (which is significantly harder than Hell).

Additionally the developers have chosen GEAR and chhoice in active skill kit to differentiate players. Shich is NO DIFFERENT from the reality of D2. Othr than the fact in D2 everyone used the same gear for the most part (because it was just taht good). Rather than relying on a contrived "skill point" system later items will interact ith skils in some way (perhaps by increasing the numerical effectiveness of certain skills) which will make players stop and question what abilities they truly want to use. There is also a "soft" respec deterrent in the form of nephalem valor, a MF/drop buff that is removed whenever you chang skills. This means that at least for the purpose of a game ou are rewarded for not changing your skill loadout. And next game you are free to change it again.

At least make an effort to understand the system instead of judging it on a 90 minute beta test with access to ONLY the tutorial. The reality is that D3 has little functional difference form D2, only that the exact "choices" you make are made in a different venue (items instead of arbitrary points, skill permanence in the sense of a single instance of playing and not in a "no going back" situation). These attributes actually make playing the game MORE fun in general as you can ALWAYS try something new instead of slogging through content you don't really want to do for the tenth... eleventh... thirtieth... time. And since ITEMS determine true skill specialization you can choose to change kits based on your newest drops, and not have to reroll just to play with a new skill that you may not even like.

Learn. To. Research. Your. Facts.

Edit: The quote you responded to was talking about barbarians in a D2 sense of trap builds. Normal in D2 was designed for casuals to, but yet you AL FORGET THAT. And pretend like it was so much greater.

I don't forget, and I have not judged the game solely on the beta (which I have been in for quite a while). I do research, and I formulate my own opinions rather than blindly accepting the D3 developers point of view.

Forcing groups is not increasing difficulty, and that is what I understand will be the case for Inferno Difficulty. This again kills the tradition of Diablo as a game that is essentially a Solo game.

We have very differing viewpoints on it, but will both play the game. I will play it simply to develop a farm system to make money off the RMAH. You will play it to enjoy the game.

Finding a good item and choosing whether or not too equip it is not a character choice. You do not decide what loot drops when you level so please do not try to equate equipment with character choice as its just foolishness. Deciding which piece of gear to buy from the AH is similarly not a character choice. Choosing which skills to have active at any one time is the only character choice, and considering it is not binding in any way or limiting in any way it is not a meaningful choice (I do not consider the stupid drop buff limiting). Which brings me back to my main issue with the game, lack of meaningful choices in character development. Granted D2 was not perfect in this regard by any means, but at least it made an attempt. The fact that there is no joy in leveling in D3 has been my biggest complaint since I first played the Beta months ago and nothing they have done addresses this problem. When I level in an ARPG I want to 'feel' as though I am getting more powerful and I want to 'feel' as though I am developing a unique character. I do not get this feeling at all in D3, I get the feeling that I leveled and the game chose what I wanted for me.....

this turned into quite a wall of text. Bottom line is I am not just pulling assumptions out of my ass. I am stating my opinion based on YEARS of playing RPGs. D3 does not satisfy from a character development perspective.

"

thepmrc wrote:

....

Yes, leveling in d3 is really boring. Agree.

miljan, I don't understand your reasoning at all. D3 still allows you to make terrible loadouts if you feel like gimping yourself. Nothing is forcing you to take "OP builds" (which D3 shouldn't have anyway).

"

Antilurker77 wrote:

miljan, I don't understand your reasoning at all. D3 still allows you to make terrible loadouts if you feel like gimping yourself. Nothing is forcing you to take "OP builds" (which D3 shouldn't have anyway).

It doesn't allow me to choose more skills, but to be less effective. I said it 10 times, i don't play so it is hard, i play to create a character that I want, with more than 6 different skill if I want. Also as thepmrc said, they removed fun of leveling.