Why all the love for D2 but hate for D3?

Games & Technology
Prev 1 10 11 12 Next
05/09/2017 03:51 PMPosted by Reslin
Arguably Diablo 2 and Diablo 3 have a similar number of builds to be fair.


Dam it ok one more post, then leaving forums for a year... D2 viable builds that can do hell baal vs meta builds, no.... D2 has way more viable builds.

But, if you add non meta and meta... D3 probably would have more, if it was viable.

K bye!!
05/09/2017 03:56 PMPosted by Saidosha
. Such contributed immensely to why Sorcs were the farming class of choice, Teleport included, as running NM Meph endlessly could eventually get you some stuff for Hell. Trying to do it any other way was just grossly inefficient with time even if you knew the "trick" to finding Meph quickly.

[/quote]

Pretty much. People would rage if the most efficient way to get gear in D3 was endless Belial runs. But apparently Meph runs were the bomb because "reasons, noob".
05/05/2017 02:17 PMPosted by terascque
Honest question. I did play D2 but didn't think it was the greatest thing ever. So topic. Everyone complains that there is no build diversity and that if you don't play a handful of ways you can't progress, be uber, whatever​ you want to call it

Did everyone forget if you wanted top tier builds in D2 you had limited options?

Think about it. Paladins were hammerdins, or maybe smite, or vengeance.

Sorcereress was meteor/orb or lightning/orb.

Necro was bone Necro or summons/ revives.

Point is if you didn't play those you were limited. Sure use any skill or distribute your points any way you want. But you had limited options to be uber.

[/quote]

There were loads more builds. Your sorc list is laughable honestly....

And who are you to say how people should play. People like building chars in ARPG. It's the only real depth to these games. See GD/PoE. Or D2!

But anyway, you are missing or ignoring the most obvious reason D3 is a letdown. You are comparing it to a game that came out almost 20 years ago. And you still have to lie to make it not sound as bad. Diablo 3 should have had a new interesting way to play end game, it should have had a better SP campaign with more content, it should have had a deep and robust skill tree or whatever blizzard could come up with to make char creation more interesting. It should have had cont support. Instead we had a laughable end game at launch then some lame changes so we could at least play it. D2 was a pioneer, D3 is totally unoriginal and shallow.
Most of the people who bash D2 most likely didn't actually play it enough to understand the depth of it or how diverse it really was. Probably got rushed to the CS/Baal and leeched most of the game. Their comments make it more then obvious. Casual D2 play doesn't make one an expert.
There were loads more builds. Your sorc list is laughable honestly....

By miles.
05/09/2017 04:17 PMPosted by ChaosLeech
Most of the people who bash D2 most likely didn't actually play it enough to understand the depth of it or how diverse it really was. Probably got rushed to the CS/Baal and leeched most of the game. Their comments make it more then obvious. Casual D2 play doesn't make one an expert.
There were loads more builds. Your sorc list is laughable honestly....

By miles.


Agreed. Off the top of my head I can think of 10 viable sorceress builds. Three doesn't do the sorceress justice.
Probly because most people here only ever played 2 and liked it because it wasn't a true sequel to 1, which was basically a couple mechanics away from being a full-on roguelike.

Diablo 2 got "good looking" and by that, I mean it !@#$ the bed for visuals as far as enemy design is concerned, but it was far more 3D than Diablo 1 was. People around that time were stupidly obsessed with fully 3D games, while they probly never played any game by Epic Games, which has done 3D before Blizzard by far, or ID Software who made Quake around then also.

Most importantly, Diablo 2 got ALOT of hype behind it. It was a larger game overall, but design-wise, it's vastly inferior IMO to Diablo 1.

However, in my eyes, Diablo 2 failed to be a true sequel to Diablo 1, but... Diablo 3? You can't even really CALL it a sequel. Sure, story-wise it's a total sequel, but gameplay-wise, it's a spinoff, can be called a sequel, but just a little bit. Essentially like WoW, it's a sequel story-wise, but gameplay-wise, it's a spinoff and categorically cannot be called a sequel even a little bit.

Starting off, people were more or less disappointed with the game in some way, but it grew on them.
Now as it becomes more and more apparent that the devs have no real ideas left and seem to be grasping at straws just a little bit, people are liking it less and less.

Granted, some of the hate Diablo 3 is a bit exaggerated, because Hate is VERY contagious, Mephisto infecting Kurast with his Hateful aura is evidence of that.

However, Diablo 3, from a design standpoint is easily the weakest entry in Blizzard's ENTIRE history of games, let alone the weakest in Diablo 1.

Just some points, sorta condensed.

1. Diablo 3 has NO item mystery. Once you pick up a leg, you see what it is before identifying it. Identifying can be done anywhere and anytime, sure, it's annoying to get identify scrolls, but it played a part in the anticipation of knowing whether you got something good. There's no surprise in finding a Barber, or a Hellrack.

2. Most enemy types do literally nothing to contribute specially. Diablo 1? some enemies threw elemental damage projectiles of specific types. Other enemies teleported when you hit them, others charged from a distance, some shot projectiles that did huge damage. Some could teleport once you got close, away from them. Some could shoot charged bolts, Diablo could hit you with long-range fire blasts that stagger and do high fire damage. Some, hit you with high-DPS that leave puddles of acid, which does most of the damage.
Diablo 3? Only Belial and Hell witches have anything vaguely unique that means anything in combat without being stupid, cheap, or massively overused everywhere in the game (Looking at you, Knockback). The snakepeople's invisibility gives no bonuses, it simply just literally wastes your time.

3. Skills are unlocked via level, making the best parts of Diablo games, only truly enjoyable at Max Level, which is really shoddy design. It's really kinda sad actually. IMHO, the skill point system of Diablo 2 was great, but Diablo 1's book system has never been beaten, not even by PAth of Exile, whom actually kinda does it dumber than even Diablo 2/3.

4. Legendaries and Sets, due to their mere design at their core, KILLS build diversity at a truly horrific scale. Blizzard likes to go on and on about "Muh Build Diversity" but let's be real. There's no diversity in "Do these 3 things, or fail and stay at the very bottom of the end-game ladder" (Not seasonal ladder, I mean ladder of succession, relative to which builds are best, versus which suck crap). Like, granted, you CAN go without sets, but then you have to use TONS of legendaries, only of which specific powers, you ABSOLUTELY need to play at Max Difficulty without instantly dying every second you're alive. (Looking at you, Aquila Cuirass).
Randomly rolling legendary powers, would be far better.
Removing sets, would be better.
Removing Legendaries, anything that isn't Magic or Mundane, would be the best.

LEgendaries or Sets = Power, is again, horrifically lazy design. It's actually not difficult to come up with a good legendary power or to balance it. What's hard, it to come up with something so then you don't NEED to make a new bloody item for every power you make up.

Maybe...

Removing all non-magic, non-mundane qualities, and allow powers to roll on magic items with a massive rarity? Doing so with no actual limitation to which powers on which items.

Just my 2 cents, just... Design-wise, Diablo 3 is just a pathetic mess.

It's literally like a wall built by a master engineer, on a foundation made by a class of kindergartners.
For anyone saying D2 had only so many builds.

http://diablo.gamepedia.com/Class_Builds_(Diablo_II)

And that's not including all the variations. Most of these builds also have a lot of leeway. For example with a necro fishy build you really only have like 72 required points, and the rest are up to you. That to me is the real crime. Not that there are top builds in D3, but most builds have 0 variation.
05/09/2017 07:18 PMPosted by AshyLarry
For anyone saying D2 had only so many builds.

http://diablo.gamepedia.com/Class_Builds_(Diablo_II)

And that's not including all the variations. Most of these builds also have a lot of leeway. For example with a necro fishy build you really only have like 72 required points, and the rest are up to you. That to me is the real crime. Not that there are top builds in D3, but most builds have 0 variation.


Yeah, even that list is very incomplete. There's more builds than that. It's missing quite a few of the sorceress builds and it doesn't even have the poisonmancer build. That being said, we do have variations here. Now, monk is the class I know the most so I'll stick there.

We have:

Inna Support which can be mixed with ulianna or Raiment which are two different variations.
Lashing tail kick sunwuko, Lashing Tail Kick LON, Lashing Tail Kick Inna as three variations.
Crippling Wave/Inna Gen
Seven Sided Strike Ulianna
Inna Mantra and Inna exploding palm as two variations. There's the less popular variant Inna 6 Sunwoku 4 which I am running (managed to hit GR80)
Wave of Light Sunwoku.

So monk alone has 12 different builds/variations of the builds. I'm also probably missing some. Sometimes I think people underestimate the number of builds in diablo 3. Does this make Diablo 3 better than Diablo 2? Absolutely not. The game most definitely has it's flaws and mentioning that Diablo's builds are based on sets is definitely worthy criticism. Not to mention many of the builds listed above, despite being variations, play very similarly as well. However, Diablo 3 does have more than "One or two builds" as is often cited as well as different variations.

I personally play diablo 2 very heavily but I do enjoy Diablo 3 as well for what it is. I'm the rare guy who likes both games.
05/09/2017 07:18 PMPosted by AshyLarry
For anyone saying D2 had only so many builds.

http://diablo.gamepedia.com/Class_Builds_(Diablo_II)

And that's not including all the variations.


K I lied last one. (-_-).... Wanted to help out Ashylarry, k gotta get ready to leave town now. -.-'

https://www.diabloii.net/forums/threads/spf-mat-pat-guardian-build-compilation-v4.734413/
Your list is much better.
lmao if these are all D2 "Builds" then D3 Ray of Frost Wizard is a build.

Not to menton just the FO/meteor build variation is listed like 50 times there. Thats like saying Goldwrap UE MS build is different from Witching Hour UE MS build.
05/09/2017 07:42 PMPosted by DragonsBlood
05/09/2017 07:18 PMPosted by AshyLarry
For anyone saying D2 had only so many builds.

http://diablo.gamepedia.com/Class_Builds_(Diablo_II)

And that's not including all the variations.


K I lied last one. (-_-).... Wanted to help out Ashylarry, k gotta get ready to leave town now. -.-'

https://www.diabloii.net/forums/threads/spf-mat-pat-guardian-build-compilation-v4.734413/


While that lists seems impressive these are any build that the community threw up and was catalogued. A lot of them are very subpar, barely function, or only work in some of the most controlled circumstances. Equivalent to the D3 builds that are fine on Torment 10 but aren't going to go any higher than that. Others that are built for a concept but aren't actually efficient for MF running or will hold up in a duel.

Some are the same as other builds but with extra points going into another skill. It'd be no different than going:

Monk Lashing Tail Kick Sweeping Armada build, Monk Lashing Tail Kick Vulture Claw, Monk Lashing Tail Kick Hand of Ytar, etc. which.. can all hit GR 80+. However, they're also all Monk Lashing Tail Kick builds. I had a poison nova mancer who put his left over points in revive so when I'd use engima they'd clump up giving me added protection in pvp. I could cast iron maiden on WW Barbs so they die on my revives but for the most part I was still a poison novamancer.

There's a reason why when most people ask for build advice in the d2 forums they don't list to a massive selection but recommend the staples. Much like people do here. Again, if you want, you can run many many many different builds through torment 10 and be fine. Just like you can play what you want in d2 but if you're interested in dueling, racing the ladder, etc. Most of those aren't going to cut it either.
05/09/2017 08:01 PMPosted by Reslin
While that lists seems impressive these are any build that the community threw up and was catalogued. A lot of them are very subpar, barely function, or only work in some of the most controlled circumstances.


thought it was the last one well forums seems like the end game keeps sucking me back in!

but when you can beat the game in blues, you basically can play you way. ever seen a video of 8 HC players that beat the whole game naked from normal to hell? you should check it out if you never seen it. :)

05/09/2017 08:01 PMPosted by Reslin
racing the ladder, etc. Most of those aren't going to cut it either.


Ya wouldn't even try it people bot with 4 chars now, its ridiculous....

05/09/2017 08:01 PMPosted by Reslin
you can run many many many different builds through torment 10 and be fine.


Ya the cost of doing that is playing alone with slow progression, way to kill the game off. I mostly solo, If i want to level gems, I would have to have meta carry me which is stupid, and I refuse to play meta, going to try to make it to GR 100 playing my way..... D2 never had this problem, didn't matter what you built, if you know what you're doing.

In D2 always had fun in groups building what ever I want, D3 can't really enjoy meta groups when playing my way, so I solo...

But people saying D3 has more viable builds then D2, is totally wrong.

took me 3 years to hit GR 81, try that with out sets... even longer.
05/09/2017 08:01 PMPosted by Reslin
05/09/2017 07:42 PMPosted by DragonsBlood
...

K I lied last one. (-_-).... Wanted to help out Ashylarry, k gotta get ready to leave town now. -.-'

https://www.diabloii.net/forums/threads/spf-mat-pat-guardian-build-compilation-v4.734413/


While that lists seems impressive these are any build that the community threw up and was catalogued. A lot of them are very subpar, barely function, or only work in some of the most controlled circumstances. Equivalent to the D3 builds that are fine on Torment 10 but aren't going to go any higher than that. Others that are built for a concept but aren't actually efficient for MF running or will hold up in a duel.

Some are the same as other builds but with extra points going into another skill. It'd be no different than going:

Monk Lashing Tail Kick Sweeping Armada build, Monk Lashing Tail Kick Vulture Claw, Monk Lashing Tail Kick Hand of Ytar, etc. which.. can all hit GR 80+. However, they're also all Monk Lashing Tail Kick builds. I had a poison nova mancer who put his left over points in revive so when I'd use engima they'd clump up giving me added protection in pvp. I could cast iron maiden on WW Barbs so they die on my revives but for the most part I was still a poison novamancer.

There's a reason why when most people ask for build advice in the d2 forums they don't list to a massive selection but recommend the staples. Much like people do here. Again, if you want, you can run many many many different builds through torment 10 and be fine. Just like you can play what you want in d2 but if you're interested in dueling, racing the ladder, etc. Most of those aren't going to cut it either.


Yeah you're right. I should of gotten a better list instead of just clicking the first thing that popped in google. Now that I look at it, it's not what I thought it was.
05/09/2017 11:15 AMPosted by Palladiamors

As for item hunt...seriously? I spent a week grinding out for ONE ring for my Crusader in D3 and never saw it. Same amount of time I lazily ground for ONE Crusader shield. Not to long, four to five hours day, but never saw either. The difference is that in D2 I didn't NEED those items, they buffed me a bit but it wasn't the end of my build without them. In D3 without those items you're running sub par builds that can't do higher level GR's. The game is also absolutely reliant on sets in order to function past a certain point and again, in order to make actual builds work. Meanwhile said items also lock you into certain skills. This might be fine if every single skill had a set based on it but that doesn't happen.


That said it all.
Why D2 not D3? Because there was this thing call a hex editor that people abused the fk out of. I considered not playing D3 because of it... And all the end game, infinite paragon complaints. Go figure out what a game called tibia is, you'd be extremely upset.
05/09/2017 08:33 PMPosted by DragonsBlood
05/09/2017 08:01 PMPosted by Reslin
While that lists seems impressive these are any build that the community threw up and was catalogued. A lot of them are very subpar, barely function, or only work in some of the most controlled circumstances.


thought it was the last one well forums seems like the end game keeps sucking me back in!

but when you can beat the game in blues, you basically can play you way. ever seen a video of 8 HC players that beat the whole game naked from normal to hell? you should check it out if you never seen it. :)

05/09/2017 08:01 PMPosted by Reslin
racing the ladder, etc. Most of those aren't going to cut it either.


Ya wouldn't even try it people bot with 4 chars now, its ridiculous....

05/09/2017 08:01 PMPosted by Reslin
you can run many many many different builds through torment 10 and be fine.


Ya the cost of doing that is playing alone with slow progression, way to kill the game off. I mostly solo, If i want to level gems, I would have to have meta carry me which is stupid, and I refuse to play meta, going to try to make it to GR 100 playing my way..... D2 never had this problem, didn't matter what you built, if you know what you're doing.

In D2 always had fun in groups building what ever I want, D3 can't really enjoy meta groups when playing my way, so I solo...

But people saying D3 has more viable builds then D2, is totally wrong.

took me 3 years to hit GR 81, try that with out sets... even longer.


You can hit GR80 without sets. Well, without the main sets. LON can get some builds there. Also GR80 isn't necessary. There's no extra rewards for GR80. You can "Beat the game in blues" in D2 but it'd be excruciatingly slow. You're not winning a pvp match and you're not ending up on the leaderboards. So what's the goal here? To beat Baal? You can beat Malthael in blues on master difficulty.

When people discuss builds they talk efficiency. GR100 isn't a limit. The GR's have no limit so if you're judging builds on how well they can complete "GR" then all builds fail because there's thousands of Greater Rift levels and not a single build can do it.

If you want primals you must complete GR70. There are many builds that can hit GR70. That's all you need for the "best gear." even then primals are still subjected to RNG and with the hours you put in to find a primal it's very likely you'll have a better rolled ancient. If you're going to talk about GR100 then you're talking about how well a build performs on a leaderboard. If you're going to compare leaderboard performance builds we must do the same in D2 for fairness sake and most builds can't do it. Even you point out "With bots? Yeah right." That's a flaw. You're not going to win against bots that are running the top builds with just some build someone scrambled together on the forums that can "technically" beat baal.

Ashy even realized your list wasn't really a good representation. There are MANY competitive builds in D2. Your list didn't represent them.

One final word. You're right that most builds on D3 do require sets. However, D2 had the opposite problem. Most D2 sets are garbage compared to uniques/runewords. I LOVED the occasional barbarian who actually thought his IK setup was competitive in a duel. It was hilarious.
I honestly don't think D3 is that bad. It's certainly come a long way since launch. It in of itself isn't a bad game at this point. It's just not the succesor to Diablo 2 that a lot of us were hoping for. I think most of the other posts summed up why quite elegantly.
I hated D3 for a while but now I see that it's actually not a bad game and have been playing quite a bit. Also, the fact that D2 has more customization is bull crap. The builds were all the same. Strength to wear gear, Dex for max block (LOD) and then VITA VITA VITA. Skills were all cookie cutter too.

So what if D3 is reliant on items to get good? In my mind, this prevents you from using some overpowered skill to reach endgame and extends the play time dramatically. The fact that a basically naked hammerdin could run the entire game alone should show just how broken D2 was. D3 isn't like that - no class stands a chance until they actually gear up. Isn't this exactly the point of hack and slash games?

Stop complaining.

Join the Conversation

Return to Forum