07/03/2013 03:16 AMPosted by SnoodooI disagree with this because I felt by adding the synergies it prevented players from being too much of a hybrid.
07/03/2013 09:47 AMPosted by SeedersI fully disagree. Making one or two skills powerful is character defining. Its should be a puzzle to figure out how to make a skill work. What the game needs is a reason to create more characters so you can try the rest of the skills.
This may somewhat be so, but remember some people's complaints about immunities in D2? That they couldn't progress when they packed a single, supermaxed skill of the resisted element? (That relates to the conundrum with D2's system versus the environment that I mentioned).
In order for the game to accommodate one- or two-skilled builds, but without creating depth-based roadblocks, you have to remove depth from the enemies since your character doesn't have any depth within its arsenal.
That's what they did in D3. There's almost zero damage-type diversity that actually matter (i.e. elements and resist diversity), so every attack's damage type is equally damage-effective.
Furthermore, on the character itself, the next difference is resource costs, which, in D3, are easily derailed but not originally designed to be so, so the fact that, say, Arcane orb costs so much doesn't really matter when you can earn huge amounts of AP on crit.
Since neither of those two factors are very significant (especially at level 60), people simply choose the attack with the most damage and good AoE.
And so, besides single targets, there's just very little reason to use anything else.
I don't think it should be reasonable to expect one attack to be perfectly useable to clear the entire game. It has become more that way, but I wish it hadn't.
If you simply want to try different builds, for fun, you shouldn't need to suffer in-built losses to viability. If you make every skill able to perform with near-equally effectiveness, but in different situations, then, so long as they are somewhat reasonably balanced, no skill is ever overpowered or underpowered, only situational.
I guess it depends if each particular player wants more depth or not. Which, funnily enough, is much of the difference between D2 and D3.
In fact, I'll even add in an example.
Meteorb Sorcs would typically use Fireball, Meteor, and Frozen Orb frequently. That's three attacks, and each attack's role is defined not just in the way they that work and their damage number, but also in their damage type (and in a theoretical modern Diablo game, proper resource costs would be yet another factor, too).
Add in the mercenary that you could, if you so wished, gear for enough physical damage to deal with double immunes, and that's four separate 'main outputs'. Most builds aren't actually as diverse as the Meteorb Sorc, but it's a great example of a build that actually has a bit of depth, especially situational depth, within its arsenal.
(Mercenaries were actually one of the few redeeming factors for a number of single-attack builds when they encountered an immune, that even allowed them to function at all in those situations. But why not allow that sort of diversity within your own character, relatively unpenalized, as opposed to how it has been in the past two games?)
The reason Meteorb was so viable, despite synergies, is because those skills actually had less synergies than others in order to be viable. They could afford a little bit of diversity. That relates back to everything in my original post.
And at the end of all that, was Meteorb too powerful or versatile? No. They were more versatile than most, and that was great. But there was still a good amount of variability in their overall effectiveness depending on the situation.
Hammerdins were overpowered because they could supermax one skill to kill almost everything in the game. Infinity lightning builds, too.
Now every D3 build is like that, and there is no depth.