Diablo® III

DIABLO 2 FANS

Posts: 1,231
View profile
Are you joking? There were like 50 builds that could steamroll hell in D2. In D3, there's only like 10 runes that are actually worth using per class
Reply Quote
Posts: 12,864
View profile
09/09/2013 11:41 AMPosted by pandaforest
Are you joking? There were like 50 builds that could steamroll hell in D2. In D3, there's only like 10 runes that are actually worth using per class


Now answer some questions.

In D2 can you way out level the content? Yes you can and that is the reason why some builds could beat the game naked.

In D2 when you way out leveled the content did it affect the amount of damage taken in Hell difficulty? Yes it did, because IIRC the chances that monsters would be able to hit you was reduced as well as their damage done to you was also reduced when you were higher in level than they are.

In D2 could you way out gear the content? Of course you can way out gear the content. Add in the fact that you can way out level the content as well and it becomes clear as to why you can crush the game with a lot of different builds as compared to D3.

Now the same questions for D3

In D3 you cannot out level the content so the first two will not have any meaning. Simply because you will not get a big reduction in damage taken due to be a higher level than the enemies.

The only thing you can do in this game is way out gear the content.

Now there is one fact that needs to be explained here, we are waiting for a skills/runes revamp before we can be able to use more builds.

So finally one last question. What does that have to do with the fact that there were only a few builds per class that were optimal.
Reply Quote
09/09/2013 03:41 PMPosted by ShadowAegis
In D2 can you way out level the content? Yes you can and that is the reason why some builds could beat the game naked.


Not sure what you point is. Outlevelling the content was one of the strengths of Diablo II. Eventually, you would feel ultra-powerful. You could then farm or take a piece of awesome loot you found and replay the limited content with a build so different that it felt like an entirely new experience.
Reply Quote
Posts: 12,864
View profile
09/09/2013 04:04 PMPosted by Jeger
In D2 can you way out level the content? Yes you can and that is the reason why some builds could beat the game naked.


Not sure what you point is. Outlevelling the content was one of the strengths of Diablo II. Eventually, you would feel ultra-powerful. You could then farm or take a piece of awesome loot you found and replay the limited content with a build so different that it felt like an entirely new experience.


When you add in the fact that the monsters had very little chance to hit you and did very little damage to you due to the fact that you out leveled them. Then add in out gearing the content is why you had a lot of sub optimal that could stomp hell in D2.

I do believe that there was a chart that actually showed you the chance to hit, damage that the monsters do and how much experience you got for each kill when the enemies where x amount of levels either above or below you. I just cannot find that chart because my search fu is a little weak.
Reply Quote
Posts: 3,155
09/09/2013 07:56 PMPosted by ShadowAegis
I do believe that there was a chart that actually showed you the chance to hit, damage that the monsters do and how much experience you got for each kill when the enemies where x amount of levels either above or below you. I just cannot find that chart because my search fu is a little weak.

don't talk about chances to hit when D3 has no accuracy stat for your character. it's a dumb comparison to d2 by default.

09/09/2013 07:56 PMPosted by ShadowAegis
When you add in the fact that the monsters had very little chance to hit you and did very little damage to you due to the fact that you out leveled them. Then add in out gearing the content is why you had a lot of sub optimal that could stomp hell in D2.

to add on top of the person you're responding to, you're going off topic again, he said that was one of the strengths of d2 and to feel ultra powerful, what's that got to do with the fact that monsters had very little chance ot hit and do little dmg? His point was to feel powerful and a progressed character with replayability. Stop derailing topics.
Edited by KradisZ#1651 on 9/10/2013 1:17 AM PDT
Reply Quote
Posts: 12,864
View profile
09/10/2013 01:12 AMPosted by KradisZ
I do believe that there was a chart that actually showed you the chance to hit, damage that the monsters do and how much experience you got for each kill when the enemies where x amount of levels either above or below you. I just cannot find that chart because my search fu is a little weak.

don't talk about chances to hit when D3 has no accuracy stat for your character. it's a dumb comparison to d2 by default.

When you add in the fact that the monsters had very little chance to hit you and did very little damage to you due to the fact that you out leveled them. Then add in out gearing the content is why you had a lot of sub optimal that could stomp hell in D2.

to add on top of the person you're responding to, you're going off topic again, he said that was one of the strengths of d2 and to feel ultra powerful, what's that got to do with the fact that monsters had very little chance ot hit and do little dmg? His point was to feel powerful and a progressed character with replayability. Stop derailing topics.


I was saying why you could have a lot of sub optimal builds that can stomp hell in D2. Now if you disagree then okay I say that Blizz can remove the attack rating, chance to hit and increase the levels of monsters in all difficulties where you cannot out level them then increase the health and damage where D2 would be like D3 in that regard. Then tell me how many sub optimal builds will stomp hell.

Look when you have a game where a sub optimal build can easily stomp the content then sure you have a lot of build diversity. But then the problem is that the optimal builds are bored to tears.
Reply Quote
Posts: 3,155


don't talk about chances to hit when D3 has no accuracy stat for your character. it's a dumb comparison to d2 by default.

to add on top of the person you're responding to, you're going off topic again, he said that was one of the strengths of d2 and to feel ultra powerful, what's that got to do with the fact that monsters had very little chance ot hit and do little dmg? His point was to feel powerful and a progressed character with replayability. Stop derailing topics.


I was saying why you could have a lot of sub optimal builds that can stomp hell in D2. Now if you disagree then okay I say that Blizz can remove the attack rating, chance to hit and increase the levels of monsters in all difficulties where you cannot out level them then increase the health and damage where D2 would be like D3 in that regard. Then tell me how many sub optimal builds will stomp hell.

Look when you have a game where a sub optimal build can easily stomp the content then sure you have a lot of build diversity. But then the problem is that the optimal builds are bored to tears.

If that's what you're saying in response to what Jeger said it is completely irrelevant troll. If that is your point truly.

What you've suggested here in terms of points is basically D3 launch inferno pre-nerf. You think brickwalling and broken design sense is better than giving players a sense of accomplishment and experimentation in an RPG game? wow...

what's funny is the litmus test argument for efficiency is MP10 or you're trash for D3. so really they didn't fix anything they just added a bandaid that could be ripped on and off whenever players choose so, which means they can't design a game well enough to work around their own systems.

No f***ing clue why you're talking about optimality when people were just speaking that there were a lot of different builds in D2 that weren't sublime near-copies of one another like D3 with very little variation. Get the drift?

Your character is a hero, not some homeless sh** that wears armor and tries to be a wannabe hero. Get that example between D2 and D3?
In case you didn't I'll spell it out for you with your words
09/09/2013 03:41 PMPosted by ShadowAegis
In D2 can you way out level the content? Yes you can and that is the reason why some builds could beat the game naked.


Lol try that in D3 and see how pathetic your "hero" is, there is not a single build in D3 that can beat the game naked in Inferno MP10.
Yeah who needs suboptimal builds right, let's just funnel down 1 tunnel that everyone shoudl cater/eventually figure out that is the only possible viable solution./sarcasm

What stupidity.
Edited by KradisZ#1651 on 9/10/2013 4:56 AM PDT
Reply Quote
The easiest way to prove that d3 is not addictive as d2, is look at forums. Instead of playing the "adictive game", people is wondering in forums/RMAH/AH.
I played d2 in singleplayer or in lan, never in inet, and it was great (even before LoD was still a great game).

Many people stated what was great about d2 (some things that shared with d1):
-Stats: Makes every char different
-Affixes: on monsters and also in your weapons/spells
-Play your style: you could go hac and slash, or either read all of the npc´s histories, but you decided
-Diversity: on d2 for each char, u have differents build, at the cost of balance betwen clases. But really, i dont care if there are other people who is more OP than me, i just want to get fun with my char. In that way, David got i right with MH, there´s so much heres, thats impossible to make classes balanced, you just have to play what you like (for example ema frost gets mind controled minions permanently, hulk "hurts", wolverine is almost indestructible, human torch has tons of AoE, cable is awesome in general, so if you can play OP chars you can do it and its not bad, or if you like X gamestyle you go ahead and play it). I remember on wow that shamans got crappy dps, but buffed up all party, now every char is balanced and is all the same.
Now d3 got the same north, they just looked for balanced classes, so developers looked as a north to be all classes similar in dps at cost of diversity.
- Lvling: Leveling was more difficult and also enjoyable.
-RPG: You can look up in forums that many people descrbed so great about what this element that d3 lost.
Reply Quote
Posts: 12,864
View profile
If that's what you're saying in response to what Jeger said it is completely irrelevant troll. If that is your point truly.

What you've suggested here in terms of points is basically D3 launch inferno pre-nerf. You think brickwalling and broken design sense is better than giving players a sense of accomplishment and experimentation in an RPG game? wow...

what's funny is the litmus test argument for efficiency is MP10 or you're trash for D3. so really they didn't fix anything they just added a bandaid that could be ripped on and off whenever players choose so, which means they can't design a game well enough to work around their own systems.

No f***ing clue why you're talking about optimality when people were just speaking that there were a lot of different builds in D2 that weren't sublime near-copies of one another like D3 with very little variation. Get the drift?

Your character is a hero, not some homeless sh** that wears armor and tries to be a wannabe hero. Get that example between D2 and D3?
In case you didn't I'll spell it out for you with your words


Name calling will not get you anywhere, that is a useless fallacy called an appeal to emotions primarily fear. Figuring that I would be so afraid being called a troll that I would start playing yes-man sorry but that is not gonna happen.

But you know you got a good idea, hey devs listen to him. True build diversity should come from the fact that you can way out level and way out gear the content.

In fact it should go to the point where you would be able to take a build like the following, link below, solo inferno MP10 with your starter weapon and all first tier white gear, no rings, or amulet.

http://us.battle.net/d3/en/calculator/wizard#UjfTOX!ZXf!aaaaca

What is this idea that skills/runes and gear should matter where you used your skills and gear to be content that is challenging. No you need to have your build diversity based on a game with zero challenge.

Maybe even the movie, TV, books and all other entertainment media where there is a hero of the story has it all wrong. A hero is not marked because he can win in the end because he conquered everything that was thrown at him, even things that no mere normal man could beat. Instead a hero is a hero because he is seen as a god. Where nothing really challenges him.

Now do you get the point, I am saying that if you take those same so called 50 builds per class and throw them at something that is designed to challenge a level 99 character with top notch gear then they are seen as no longer being viable. How many of those so called 50 builds could stomp both ubers with low end nightmare gear?

Lol try that in D3 and see how pathetic your "hero" is, there is not a single build in D3 that can beat the game naked in Inferno MP10.
Yeah who needs suboptimal builds right, let's just funnel down 1 tunnel that everyone shoudl cater/eventually figure out that is the only possible viable solution./sarcasm

What stupidity.


It is just as stupid to base build diversity on the fact that nothing can hardly touch you and when it does it basically does zero damage. That is not build diversity it is an illusion of build diversity.

Now as far as suboptimal, sure it should exist but the difference should not be a wide chasm between the two. Build diversity should be there because you have a lot of builds that are close to the optimal build. Where the difference is like Jay said a while back around 5%. If that were to exist here then you would have a ton of build diversity. Then add to it gear that would be different for each spec you are playing. Then this game would have a ton of build diversity that would be a lot better than D2. That only was an illusion to having build diversity.

Also you wonder why I talk about optimal builds anyway, huh. Well it is because the majority of the player base of any game will gravitate towards the optimal builds for a class. The majority of players love using the optimal builds ones that can crush content.
Reply Quote
Posts: 12,864
View profile
-Stats: Makes every char different
-Affixes: on monsters and also in your weapons/spells
-Play your style: you could go hac and slash, or either read all of the npc´s histories, but you decided
-Diversity: on d2 for each char, u have differents build, at the cost of balance betwen clases. But really, i dont care if there are other people who is more OP than me, i just want to get fun with my char. In that way, David got i right with MH, there´s so much heres, thats impossible to make classes balanced, you just have to play what you like (for example ema frost gets mind controled minions permanently, hulk "hurts", wolverine is almost indestructible, human torch has tons of AoE, cable is awesome in general, so if you can play OP chars you can do it and its not bad, or if you like X gamestyle you go ahead and play it). I remember on wow that shamans got crappy dps, but buffed up all party, now every char is balanced and is all the same.
Now d3 got the same north, they just looked for balanced classes, so developers looked as a north to be all classes similar in dps at cost of diversity.
- Lvling: Leveling was more difficult and also enjoyable.
-RPG: You can look up in forums that many people descrbed so great about what this element that d3 lost.


Stats: When you have the majority that went strength enough for gear, dexterity enough for gear or max block, the rest vitality, unless you were an energy shield sorc.

Show me where you have to learn all NPC's stories in order to go through the game. I have played enough characters to 60 and not even bothered to chat with the NPC's about their back stories.

Balance in a game is where you have each class performing at the same bar of performance for all classes. If David has no bar of performance at all then that game will crash and burn. I am sure David is smart enough to know he has to set the bar of performance for all heroes in that game.

Build diversity should come because you have a lot of good builds that can beat the most challenging content with good gear.

Leveling was fun, then tell me why all of the rush games on the battle.net. I would be a billionaire if I played exclusively on the battle.net and had $1 for all of the rush games that were made in it's entire lifetime, Oh btw the servers are still up so I would still be making money.

Sure rushing through to level cap is important on a ladder, but you had the same thing on non ladder characters.

If leveling was truly fun then on all non ladder characters there should not have been a single rush game at all. Because then the fun would've been watching the hero slowly grow in power.
Reply Quote
09/10/2013 02:05 PMPosted by ShadowAegis
It is just as stupid to base build diversity on the fact that nothing can hardly touch you and when it does it basically does zero damage. That is not build diversity it is an illusion of build diversity.


I lost track - are you talking theory, or criticizing Diablo II?

Diablo II isn't about "challenge." It's about fun and replayability. Many, many builds are challenging for a while (sometimes a long time,) but gradually become very strong. I found that to be fun. Once I levelled a character to become strong, I could make another, completely different character. Many people had ten characters or more - all different. It was fun.

I do not argue that Diablo III might be more challenging.I don't really care, though, because I don't find it fun or replayable.
Reply Quote
09/10/2013 02:17 PMPosted by ShadowAegis
If leveling was truly fun then on all non ladder characters there should not have been a single rush game at all


I never rushed myself, but others did. People who did found that to be fun. Whatever floats their boat, I guess. If they found it fun - who am I to argue?

Diablo II let you play more how you wanted. Diablo III is more about: "Play it our way or don't play."
Edited by Jeger#1583 on 9/10/2013 2:47 PM PDT
Reply Quote
Posts: 3,155
Name calling will not get you anywhere, that is a useless fallacy called an appeal to emotions primarily fear. Figuring that I would be so afraid being called a troll that I would start playing yes-man sorry but that is not gonna happen.

But you know you got a good idea, hey devs listen to him. True build diversity should come from the fact that you can way out level and way out gear the content.

I really could care less, you are a troll undoubtedly regardless of what you are afraid of or not. Why would the devs change their game at my behest retard? I don't know what this yes-man stupid theory of yours is, you should learn what trolling means, I'll give you a hint, fishing for a response, geek. They already aren't doing anything of the sort. Name calling will not get me anywhere? Anywhere to where? Once again I'm just calling you out cuz ur making a ton of senseless dribble and derailing a topic.

Good bye, not in the mood for another pointless dribbling off topic discussion with ShadowAegis the guy who tells others how to have fun. A$$hole.

FYI Troll isn't a name.
Edited by KradisZ#1651 on 9/10/2013 7:07 PM PDT
Reply Quote
Posts: 12,864
View profile
09/10/2013 02:42 PMPosted by Jeger
It is just as stupid to base build diversity on the fact that nothing can hardly touch you and when it does it basically does zero damage. That is not build diversity it is an illusion of build diversity.


I lost track - are you talking theory, or criticizing Diablo II?

Diablo II isn't about "challenge." It's about fun and replayability. Many, many builds are challenging for a while (sometimes a long time,) but gradually become very strong. I found that to be fun. Once I levelled a character to become strong, I could make another, completely different character. Many people had ten characters or more - all different. It was fun.

I do not argue that Diablo III might be more challenging.I don't really care, though, because I don't find it fun or replayable.


Video games have to have a challenge or they just do not get played period. If build diversity is gonna be based on zero challenge then wee what build diversity this game can have. They could make the game like I said where be build in the link would be able to solo MP10 inferno, Heck make it where it could solo MP10 pre nerfed inferno.

This game has a whole difficulty where you can play and never out level the content. Sure you can still way out gear it but that is okay, because as long as the game has some challenge then it will be a good game. But if everyone will have gods for characters (from level one on) then were is the fun in overcoming a challenge. That is part of the reason that I play a game is to overcome the challenges of the game. If the game presents zero challenge then I leave it quickly.

Why do you think that MP was added in. It was there because there were already players will GG that had no challenge. It was added along with ubers to give the players that challenge that they craved for. Sure you might not like a challenge but others do and that is what I am talking about. True build diversity is when you have a lot of builds that can handle the highest difficulty that the game can throw at you. Tell me how many builds per class could solo the two ubers in good gear in D2.
Reply Quote
Posts: 12,864
View profile
I really could care less, you are a troll undoubtedly regardless of what you are afraid of or not. Why would the devs change their game at my behest retard? I don't know what this yes-man stupid theory of yours is, you should learn what trolling means, I'll give you a hint, fishing for a response, geek. They already aren't doing anything of the sort. Name calling will not get me anywhere? Anywhere to where? Once again I'm just calling you out cuz ur making a ton of senseless dribble and derailing a topic.

Good bye, not in the mood for another pointless dribbling off topic discussion with ShadowAegis the guy who tells others how to have fun. A$$hole.


Well I guess I know things that you do not, like it is in all walks of life. Each ones experience in life teaches them different things. I guess you are a little lazy to look up the word.

yes-man

: a person who agrees with everything that is said; especially
: one who endorses or supports without criticism every opinion or proposal of an associate or superior.

This is the type of person that would agree with everything that everyone says regardless of whether it is true or not. Regardless of any personal feelings or thoughts.

Some people would use name calling to try to elicit the response of changing the person that they are responding to where they become a person that would agree with them wholeheartedly. Sorry but that will not happen here with me.

For me build diversity will only be true when you have multiple builds that can with the right gear beat the hardest challenges that the game can possibly throw at you. Where you have about a 5% difference between optimal and suboptimal. Which I do believe will be coming with the new skill/rune revamp and the new skills/runes in the expansion.
Reply Quote
09/10/2013 06:44 PMPosted by ShadowAegis


I lost track - are you talking theory, or criticizing Diablo II?

Diablo II isn't about "challenge." It's about fun and replayability. Many, many builds are challenging for a while (sometimes a long time,) but gradually become very strong. I found that to be fun. Once I levelled a character to become strong, I could make another, completely different character. Many people had ten characters or more - all different. It was fun.

I do not argue that Diablo III might be more challenging.I don't really care, though, because I don't find it fun or replayable.


Video games have to have a challenge or they just do not get played period. If build diversity is gonna be based on zero challenge then wee what build diversity this game can have. They could make the game like I said where be build in the link would be able to solo MP10 inferno, Heck make it where it could solo MP10 pre nerfed inferno.

This game has a whole difficulty where you can play and never out level the content. Sure you can still way out gear it but that is okay, because as long as the game has some challenge then it will be a good game. But if everyone will have gods for characters (from level one on) then were is the fun in overcoming a challenge. That is part of the reason that I play a game is to overcome the challenges of the game. If the game presents zero challenge then I leave it quickly.

Why do you think that MP was added in. It was there because there were already players will GG that had no challenge. It was added along with ubers to give the players that challenge that they craved for. Sure you might not like a challenge but others do and that is what I am talking about. True build diversity is when you have a lot of builds that can handle the highest difficulty that the game can throw at you. Tell me how many builds per class could solo the two ubers in good gear in D2.

With all the respect every people deserve (even though you are not with whom you disagree), maybe the genre "rpg" is not for you.
What i stated before is neither good/bad, its about tastes, but RPG games are not meant for you (you wount like baldurs gate series, torment, Ishtar, etc).
What some of d2 (and 1) defenders are saying, is that d3 should not have been called A"RPG", just a very good action game, but got nothing to do with its predecesors gamstyle and "rpg" genre
Remember d3 had a record of presales, and as "pre"sales tells, they where bought not because of the goodness//failure of the product, it had many sales thanks to d2 strength.
I am neither hater/lover of blizzard (or actiblizz). I judge products for what they are, and i dislike d3 and some changes blizz made to wow (making all chars almost the same, killing diversity, i remmeber when shaman was the offensive hybrid and paly the defensive 1, now they are almost the same...)
Reply Quote
09/10/2013 06:44 PMPosted by ShadowAegis
Video games have to have a challenge or they just do not get played period. If build diversity is gonna be based on zero challenge then wee what build diversity this game can have. They could make the game like I said where be build in the link would be able to solo MP10 inferno, Heck make it where it could solo MP10 pre nerfed inferno.


Of course. That is why Diablo II was so successful. Your point was that Diablo III had MORE challange, not that Diablo II had none. I freely admit that Diablo III has more challenge. Diablo II is more more fun.
Edited by Jeger#1583 on 9/11/2013 8:59 AM PDT
Reply Quote

Please report any Code of Conduct violations, including:

Threats of violence. We take these seriously and will alert the proper authorities.

Posts containing personal information about other players. This includes physical addresses, e-mail addresses, phone numbers, and inappropriate photos and/or videos.

Harassing or discriminatory language. This will not be tolerated.

Forums Code of Conduct

Report Post # written by

Reason
Explain (256 characters max)

Reported!

[Close]