Sets in D3 are boosting skills by 2000% because if you don't do that, there's never a reason to use that skill, ever.
The D3 skill system lends itself to very few optimal builds, because there's no interdependency. If the class has a damage skill that does a little more damage than the others, why would you ever attack another way? Use the rest of your slots for buffs or utility. And if the attacks are all painstakingly balanced so that none of them are better than the rest... it's not so much a build choice as a cosmetic difference.
Sets broadened the specs and skills it made sense to use by tying certain skills together, or by making a skill do something it didn't do naturally.
And other games have done this more elegantly by not locking down a skill into just 5 variations.
Is there a game that did this without also having some kind of tree for interdependency?
That's my main problem with D3's skills system, each skill being independant of the others, making builds indistinct.
Having more variations of individual builds doesn't make builds more varied unless there's some reason not to just use the strongest skill options every time.
0
Options
jungleroomxIt's never too many graves, it's always not enough shovelsRegistered Userregular
Sets in D3 are boosting skills by 2000% because if you don't do that, there's never a reason to use that skill, ever.
The D3 skill system lends itself to very few optimal builds, because there's no interdependency. If the class has a damage skill that does a little more damage than the others, why would you ever attack another way? Use the rest of your slots for buffs or utility. And if the attacks are all painstakingly balanced so that none of them are better than the rest... it's not so much a build choice as a cosmetic difference.
Sets broadened the specs and skills it made sense to use by tying certain skills together, or by making a skill do something it didn't do naturally.
And other games have done this more elegantly by not locking down a skill into just 5 variations.
Is there a game that did this without also having some kind of tree for interdependency?
That's my main problem with D3's skills system, each skill being independant of the others, making builds indistinct.
Having more variations of individual builds doesn't make builds more varied unless there's some reason not to just use the strongest skill options every time.
Path of Exile. Each piece of gear has 1-6 sockets (usually 4-6 near endgame) and you use a skill gem that you socket into those gear pieces to get attacks, then choose from this big honking fucking list of support gems to power them up and change their behavior.
Sets in D3 are boosting skills by 2000% because if you don't do that, there's never a reason to use that skill, ever.
The D3 skill system lends itself to very few optimal builds, because there's no interdependency. If the class has a damage skill that does a little more damage than the others, why would you ever attack another way? Use the rest of your slots for buffs or utility. And if the attacks are all painstakingly balanced so that none of them are better than the rest... it's not so much a build choice as a cosmetic difference.
Sets broadened the specs and skills it made sense to use by tying certain skills together, or by making a skill do something it didn't do naturally.
And other games have done this more elegantly by not locking down a skill into just 5 variations.
I just want some rpg in my arpg. Some choice and customization. They were doing this about the same time they thought it was a good thing for WoW too. And it wasnt.
Sets in D3 are boosting skills by 2000% because if you don't do that, there's never a reason to use that skill, ever.
The D3 skill system lends itself to very few optimal builds, because there's no interdependency. If the class has a damage skill that does a little more damage than the others, why would you ever attack another way? Use the rest of your slots for buffs or utility. And if the attacks are all painstakingly balanced so that none of them are better than the rest... it's not so much a build choice as a cosmetic difference.
Sets broadened the specs and skills it made sense to use by tying certain skills together, or by making a skill do something it didn't do naturally.
And other games have done this more elegantly by not locking down a skill into just 5 variations.
Is there a game that did this without also having some kind of tree for interdependency?
That's my main problem with D3's skills system, each skill being independant of the others, making builds indistinct.
Having more variations of individual builds doesn't make builds more varied unless there's some reason not to just use the strongest skill options every time.
Path of Exile. Each piece of gear has 1-6 sockets (usually 4-6 near endgame) and you use a skill gem that you socket into those gear pieces to get attacks, then choose from this big honking fucking list of support gems to power them up and change their behavior.
But Path of Exile also has a giant honking tree to cover build variety.
Sets in D3 were a cludge to cover for the lack of reasons to use anything but the skills that were individually optimal. Greater variety in skills is a separate issue.
0
Options
jungleroomxIt's never too many graves, it's always not enough shovelsRegistered Userregular
Sets in D3 are boosting skills by 2000% because if you don't do that, there's never a reason to use that skill, ever.
The D3 skill system lends itself to very few optimal builds, because there's no interdependency. If the class has a damage skill that does a little more damage than the others, why would you ever attack another way? Use the rest of your slots for buffs or utility. And if the attacks are all painstakingly balanced so that none of them are better than the rest... it's not so much a build choice as a cosmetic difference.
Sets broadened the specs and skills it made sense to use by tying certain skills together, or by making a skill do something it didn't do naturally.
And other games have done this more elegantly by not locking down a skill into just 5 variations.
Is there a game that did this without also having some kind of tree for interdependency?
That's my main problem with D3's skills system, each skill being independant of the others, making builds indistinct.
Having more variations of individual builds doesn't make builds more varied unless there's some reason not to just use the strongest skill options every time.
Path of Exile. Each piece of gear has 1-6 sockets (usually 4-6 near endgame) and you use a skill gem that you socket into those gear pieces to get attacks, then choose from this big honking fucking list of support gems to power them up and change their behavior.
But Path of Exile also has a giant honking tree to cover build variety.
Sets in D3 were a cludge to cover for the lack of reasons to use anything but the skills that were individually optimal. Greater variety in skills is a separate issue.
You can have nearly the exact same skill tree on two completely different builds in PoE.
The passive tree is generalized as hell. There's no skill gem related nodes (except for minions/totems, etc), just generalized damage, status, or defense.
Sets in D3 are boosting skills by 2000% because if you don't do that, there's never a reason to use that skill, ever.
The D3 skill system lends itself to very few optimal builds, because there's no interdependency. If the class has a damage skill that does a little more damage than the others, why would you ever attack another way? Use the rest of your slots for buffs or utility. And if the attacks are all painstakingly balanced so that none of them are better than the rest... it's not so much a build choice as a cosmetic difference.
Sets broadened the specs and skills it made sense to use by tying certain skills together, or by making a skill do something it didn't do naturally.
And other games have done this more elegantly by not locking down a skill into just 5 variations.
Is there a game that did this without also having some kind of tree for interdependency?
That's my main problem with D3's skills system, each skill being independant of the others, making builds indistinct.
Having more variations of individual builds doesn't make builds more varied unless there's some reason not to just use the strongest skill options every time.
Path of Exile. Each piece of gear has 1-6 sockets (usually 4-6 near endgame) and you use a skill gem that you socket into those gear pieces to get attacks, then choose from this big honking fucking list of support gems to power them up and change their behavior.
But Path of Exile also has a giant honking tree to cover build variety.
Sets in D3 were a cludge to cover for the lack of reasons to use anything but the skills that were individually optimal. Greater variety in skills is a separate issue.
You can have nearly the exact same skill tree on two completely different characters in PoE.
The passive tree is generalized as hell. There's no skill gem related nodes, just generalized damage, status, or defense.
But the nodes are related to particular attributes that skills feature, yes?
The tree is still inherently tied to build variety.
Sets in D3 are boosting skills by 2000% because if you don't do that, there's never a reason to use that skill, ever.
The D3 skill system lends itself to very few optimal builds, because there's no interdependency. If the class has a damage skill that does a little more damage than the others, why would you ever attack another way? Use the rest of your slots for buffs or utility. And if the attacks are all painstakingly balanced so that none of them are better than the rest... it's not so much a build choice as a cosmetic difference.
Sets broadened the specs and skills it made sense to use by tying certain skills together, or by making a skill do something it didn't do naturally.
And other games have done this more elegantly by not locking down a skill into just 5 variations.
Is there a game that did this without also having some kind of tree for interdependency?
That's my main problem with D3's skills system, each skill being independant of the others, making builds indistinct.
Having more variations of individual builds doesn't make builds more varied unless there's some reason not to just use the strongest skill options every time.
Path of Exile. Each piece of gear has 1-6 sockets (usually 4-6 near endgame) and you use a skill gem that you socket into those gear pieces to get attacks, then choose from this big honking fucking list of support gems to power them up and change their behavior.
But Path of Exile also has a giant honking tree to cover build variety.
Sets in D3 were a cludge to cover for the lack of reasons to use anything but the skills that were individually optimal. Greater variety in skills is a separate issue.
You can have nearly the exact same skill tree on two completely different characters in PoE.
The passive tree is generalized as hell. There's no skill gem related nodes, just generalized damage, status, or defense.
But the nodes are related to particular attributes that skills feature, yes?
The tree is still inherently tied to build variety.
Yes, but just damage. And the way things work is each skill has a set of tags at the top
And you match those tags to nodes on the tree.
Something like "projectile" can refer to spells, or arrow attacks, or something like Spectral Shield.
So, I mean, yes it contributes, but by far the build variety comes from Ascendancy specialization, skill gems, and the breadth of item choices and variety of prefixes, suffixes, and corruption effects you can put on items. The skill tree is not the source of the variety for offensive techniques. It does let you decide between life, hybrid, low-life, and energy shield builds, but primarily it's there to crank up your damage and life.
jungleroomx on
0
Options
jungleroomxIt's never too many graves, it's always not enough shovelsRegistered Userregular
PoE tree is all base dmg, base notable enhancement (like more dmg for bow skills closer) and survivability so not really. Not directly.
The only thing I could say is the notables on the outside DO have some effect, like Avatar of Fire, CI, or Blood Magic.
But yeah, really you could theoretically make an entire build without the skill tree if the game was balanced for it.
Even those are a base dmg. They just happen to be specific to elemental/fire dmg or a specific survivability type etc.
Oh yeah, it's all base.
You occasionally get status effects like Fortify boosts or being able to steal charges in the eastern claw circle, but it's all just basic ass level-up figures.
It's really an elegant system. The tree is reserved for passive abilities that are always on. The skill gems are the actions on your hotbar.
This doesn't mean the passive tree can't be build defining. There is a passive that lets you summon extra totems, but now you can't deal damage without totems. There is a passive that converts all your non-fire damage to fire damage.
The tagging system present in the game reminds me a lot of Magic: the Gathering's keyword system. It probably reminds me of that because Chris Wilson is a huge MTG nerd and it comes through in his design.
Strictly speaking this was supposed to be a Classics thread to begin with I think. But it sort of transformed into the Blizzard thread, probably just because of how the title was written.
Personally I'm happy that I finally have Demon Hunter Sombra and I didn't have to pay for an e-ticket to get it. I hope that isn't the only diablo related news for me to get excited over.
I got up to Hogger, or rather the queue to be Hogger, beat Hogger, and never played WoW again.
I need something where I can click on heads.
I don't need to click on heads, but I do need something more....I dunno, engaging? Guess I done got spoiled by Soulsborne games. WoW with Dark Souls combat would be very, VERY bad for my time management.
| Origin/R*SC: Ein7919 | Battle.net: Erlkonig#1448 | XBL: Lexicanum | Steam: Der Erlkönig (the umlaut is important) |
It looks really fanservice-y which works on me. It has got me wanting to see it at least. It looked and felt diablo 2 which is what they were going after. So now I wait for more details on the systems.
D4 looks cool and all but I realized after watching the trailer that I was unknowningly more interested in the rumored D2 remaster.
Business-wise, given that they said D4 isn't coming anytime soon, "not even Blizzard-Soon", it seems like a D2 remaster would be a good way to throw something out there while people were waiting.
And the mobile game isn't going to cut it. The world doesn't need any more gatcha games, and certainly doesn't need a dumbed down version of a game that already isn't terribly complex to play.
I guess there's still the closing ceremony or whatever; but has Blizzard ever announced anything in their closing stuff?
Also good lord, being away from WoW for a bunch of years now I can hardly track what the hell is even going on with its lore. I tried watching some of the cinematics in the past couple weeks, of the past few expansions and it didn't exactly help. Maybe there's a lot of context in quests? Or maybe they've just gone harder than they already were into putting important lore stuff in books and not in-game. :rotate: The cinematic looked cool, sure, but possibly since I just don't feel much connection to the game universe anymore, it didn't do much to stir any feelings. Which surprised me somewhat, given it had Icecrown and all that and WotLK was hands down, for me, the height of WoW.
I think this was the "remaster", they cribbed a crazy amount from D2. It would be bizarre to do a D2 remaster after this, it would practically be cannibalizing D4. But I could see them doing a quick and simple one that's basically just uprezzed assets.
I think this was the "remaster", they cribbed a crazy amount from D2. It would be bizarre to do a D2 remaster after this, it would practically be cannibalizing D4. But I could see them doing a quick and simple one that's basically just uprezzed assets.
Yeah that's all I really meant, like the SC one. I would be totally fine with that. I'm still on the fence about the WC3 one, the art style seems really not cohesive at all; the original, as badly as the models and stuff hold up today, the style does (which has always been the case with warcraft, and is super weird they're going with their cinematic styles instead of the in-game styles). D2 plays perfectly fine right now, but it could definitely use upscaled textures and better support for 16:9 screens (or other widescreen ratios).
SC was handcrafted assets, not using algorithms to do a quick upscale like Zek seems to be suggesting. Though I'd be curious how some of the AI upscalers used by the community on the FF games would work.
Well I think the bigger problem for fans is adjusting the game code so it can render the same game space in higher resolution. There's mods that increase resolution but that just shrinks things and puts more of the world on the screen, just like 640x480 -> 800x600 in the LoD expansion.
rahkeesh2000 on
0
Options
Dhalphirdon't you open that trapdooryou're a fool if you dareRegistered Userregular
SC was handcrafted assets, not using algorithms to do a quick upscale like Zek seems to be suggesting. Though I'd be curious how some of the AI upscalers used by the community on the FF games would work.
Yeah there was nothing "quick and simple" about SC: Remastered
+1
Options
Dhalphirdon't you open that trapdooryou're a fool if you dareRegistered Userregular
SC was handcrafted assets, not using algorithms to do a quick upscale like Zek seems to be suggesting. Though I'd be curious how some of the AI upscalers used by the community on the FF games would work.
Yeah there was nothing "quick and simple" about SC: Remastered
Posts
Is there a game that did this without also having some kind of tree for interdependency?
That's my main problem with D3's skills system, each skill being independant of the others, making builds indistinct.
Having more variations of individual builds doesn't make builds more varied unless there's some reason not to just use the strongest skill options every time.
Path of Exile. Each piece of gear has 1-6 sockets (usually 4-6 near endgame) and you use a skill gem that you socket into those gear pieces to get attacks, then choose from this big honking fucking list of support gems to power them up and change their behavior.
I just want some rpg in my arpg. Some choice and customization. They were doing this about the same time they thought it was a good thing for WoW too. And it wasnt.
But Path of Exile also has a giant honking tree to cover build variety.
Sets in D3 were a cludge to cover for the lack of reasons to use anything but the skills that were individually optimal. Greater variety in skills is a separate issue.
You can have nearly the exact same skill tree on two completely different builds in PoE.
The passive tree is generalized as hell. There's no skill gem related nodes (except for minions/totems, etc), just generalized damage, status, or defense.
But the nodes are related to particular attributes that skills feature, yes?
The tree is still inherently tied to build variety.
Yes, but just damage. And the way things work is each skill has a set of tags at the top
And you match those tags to nodes on the tree.
Something like "projectile" can refer to spells, or arrow attacks, or something like Spectral Shield.
So, I mean, yes it contributes, but by far the build variety comes from Ascendancy specialization, skill gems, and the breadth of item choices and variety of prefixes, suffixes, and corruption effects you can put on items. The skill tree is not the source of the variety for offensive techniques. It does let you decide between life, hybrid, low-life, and energy shield builds, but primarily it's there to crank up your damage and life.
The only thing I could say is the notables on the outside DO have some effect, like Avatar of Fire, CI, or Blood Magic.
But yeah, really you could theoretically make an entire build without the skill tree if the game was balanced for it.
Even those are a base dmg. They just happen to be specific to elemental/fire dmg or a specific survivability type etc.
Oh yeah, it's all base.
You occasionally get status effects like Fortify boosts or being able to steal charges in the eastern claw circle, but it's all just basic ass level-up figures.
This doesn't mean the passive tree can't be build defining. There is a passive that lets you summon extra totems, but now you can't deal damage without totems. There is a passive that converts all your non-fire damage to fire damage.
The tagging system present in the game reminds me a lot of Magic: the Gathering's keyword system. It probably reminds me of that because Chris Wilson is a huge MTG nerd and it comes through in his design.
So any potential announcements and discussion is more than welcome over there, especially if we’re finally getting 4.
Twitch: KoopahTroopah - Steam: Koopah
Made in China.
Personally I'm happy that I finally have Demon Hunter Sombra and I didn't have to pay for an e-ticket to get it. I hope that isn't the only diablo related news for me to get excited over.
I need something where I can click on heads.
I don't need to click on heads, but I do need something more....I dunno, engaging? Guess I done got spoiled by Soulsborne games. WoW with Dark Souls combat would be very, VERY bad for my time management.
Nah if it exists could be closing ceremony.
It's a pretty known quantity at this point though I don't think there's really any news to say about it.
Business-wise, given that they said D4 isn't coming anytime soon, "not even Blizzard-Soon", it seems like a D2 remaster would be a good way to throw something out there while people were waiting.
And the mobile game isn't going to cut it. The world doesn't need any more gatcha games, and certainly doesn't need a dumbed down version of a game that already isn't terribly complex to play.
I guess there's still the closing ceremony or whatever; but has Blizzard ever announced anything in their closing stuff?
Also good lord, being away from WoW for a bunch of years now I can hardly track what the hell is even going on with its lore. I tried watching some of the cinematics in the past couple weeks, of the past few expansions and it didn't exactly help. Maybe there's a lot of context in quests? Or maybe they've just gone harder than they already were into putting important lore stuff in books and not in-game. :rotate: The cinematic looked cool, sure, but possibly since I just don't feel much connection to the game universe anymore, it didn't do much to stir any feelings. Which surprised me somewhat, given it had Icecrown and all that and WotLK was hands down, for me, the height of WoW.
Origin: Galedrid - Nintendo: Galedrid/3222-6858-1045
Blizzard: Galedrid#1367 - FFXIV: Galedrid Kingshand
Yeah that's all I really meant, like the SC one. I would be totally fine with that. I'm still on the fence about the WC3 one, the art style seems really not cohesive at all; the original, as badly as the models and stuff hold up today, the style does (which has always been the case with warcraft, and is super weird they're going with their cinematic styles instead of the in-game styles). D2 plays perfectly fine right now, but it could definitely use upscaled textures and better support for 16:9 screens (or other widescreen ratios).
Origin: Galedrid - Nintendo: Galedrid/3222-6858-1045
Blizzard: Galedrid#1367 - FFXIV: Galedrid Kingshand
Heck, maybe it has? It isn't something I've looked into.
Origin: Galedrid - Nintendo: Galedrid/3222-6858-1045
Blizzard: Galedrid#1367 - FFXIV: Galedrid Kingshand
Yeah there was nothing "quick and simple" about SC: Remastered
Yeah there was nothing "quick and simple" about SC: Remastered
They don't for sure. They don't even have the tools that those assets were made in.
They didn't have access to them for Starcraft, and that was made within Blizzard south!