Will Bliz admit that D3 is not an RPG like Tales dev?

General Discussion
Prev 1 8 9 10 19 Next
05/15/2019 01:25 AMPosted by Gr8Hornytoad
05/14/2019 10:07 PMPosted by clueso
a portion of the damage of your spells and summons can come from your weapon.


This I don’t disagree with. But having affixes & suffixes that buff spells on those weapons is completely different than using the stat that represents the power of a strike as a multiplier.

Who says that this number just has to represent the power of a physical strike against an enemy with this weapon? It does not necessarily mean that this number represents the damage of of hitting an enemy with this weapon. It also can represent the power of the weapon and therefore it doesn't matter if you hit an enemy with it directly or not.

Now, we can make the distinction between magic weapons and physical weapons, where for physical weapons (aka, axes, swords etc) the weapon damage actually represents its physical power on impact, while for magic weapons (aka wands, staves, orbs etc) the weapon damage represents some innate magical power or energy that somehow amplifies a spell in one way or another...

It makes total sense.

05/15/2019 01:25 AMPosted by Gr8Hornytoad
To me, the action of striking an enemy should have nothing to do with materializing something magical into existence. It’s nonsensical and game breaking.

By the same (or at least a similar) logic there shouldn't be any weapon damage on a bow, because you don't hit enemies with the bow, but with an arrow.
05/15/2019 12:28 PMPosted by clueso
By the same (or at least a similar) logic there shouldn't be any weapon damage on a bow, because you don't hit enemies with the bow, but with an arrow.

[/quote]

An arrow trowed by an british warbow(150 lbf+) and trowed by a "kid's bow" have the same strength? But yes, an rpg should have many arrowheads, bodkin, broadheads, etc;
05/15/2019 12:39 PMPosted by L0rdV1ct0r
05/15/2019 12:28 PMPosted by clueso
By the same (or at least a similar) logic there shouldn't be any weapon damage on a bow, because you don't hit enemies with the bow, but with an arrow.

An arrow trowed by an british warbow(150 lbf+) and trowed by a "kid's bow" have the same strength? But yes, an rpg should have many arrowheads, bodkin, broadheads, etc;

Indeed. What I was referring to was that the damage of an arrow impact should not be determined 100% by the bow itself if you want to go by certain criteria.
05/15/2019 01:15 PMPosted by clueso
Indeed. What I was referring to was that the damage of an arrow impact should not be determined 100% by the bow itself if you want to go by certain criteria.


You would think the damage of the arrow would be a combination of the arrowhead used, the type of bow used and the strength of the character properly draw the bow.
05/15/2019 08:19 AMPosted by Gr8Hornytoad
And how is casters worrying about weapon damage LESS depth than ignoring it completely?


Because it condensed all the possible variables that should have existed if the developers knew what the hell they were doing down to one.


No, that's the developers attaching almost all the scaling to weapon damage. That's an entirely different question than whether or not casters should worry about it in the first place.

Yes, piling literally all the scaling onto weapon damage was a mistake, but it’s kinda far down on the depth chart for me.


The weapon damage system in combination with the multiplicative damage calculation used in this game is extremely high on my depth chart.


Why is that? I mean, even if damage were calculated differently the Rune system would still be horribly incomplete, the itemization system would still suck, we'd still be shoehorned into doing Rifts, and Paragons would still be terrible.

what exactly IS realistic about Diablo?


There is obvious similarities between our characters and us, like we aren’t playing aliens or Lizards here. A lot of the gear, minus the magical properties exists in reality, Armor, weapons, and how they are equipped and used etc. There is a lot of this game that came straight out of somebody’s imagination but a significant amount is surely sourced from experience and drawing from the history of human combat.


So, in other words, the bare basics of the physical aspects of combat are followed?

Which is another way of saying "not a whole hell of a lot."

And forget calculations - how much logical sense does it make that our enemies frequently carry equipment they have no use for from ages past that are perfectly suited for slaughtering them wholesale?


In most respectable RPG’s, the only equipment that can drop is that which the enemy actually has equipped and is attempting to use to defeat you with.


Well, I guess all 3 Diablo games aren't respectable. Or Path of Exile (and don't you like PoE?). Or Grim Dawn.

Or any of the Final Fantasy games and similar titles.

You sure you don't want to rethink that one?

05/15/2019 07:32 AMPosted by Orrion
So going back to “different classes should be different,” monks should only be allowed to use fist weapons because their animations are punches and kicks?

At some point you have to be willing to to use suspension of disbelief here, or you shouldn’t be playing RPGs at all.

Well monks have skills that are not punches or kicks. But yes I think that fooling yourself into believing a monk can attack something in this way while at the same time dual wielding weapons or using a two hand weapon is insane and the design is pathetic.


Oh, sure, a Monk doing that is absolutely nuts. But a human being able call down flaming chunks of rock from the upper atmosphere at will or spraying an unlimited amount of bats from.. his mouth?.. or being able to dual wield hand crossbows accurately while never needing to stop and reload - those are A-Okay.

Cognitive dissonance, anyone?

So in your opinion does it make logical sense, in the Diablo realm that the number that represents the damage a weapon does while striking an enemy (weapon damage) is used as a base multiplier for all skills, including spells?
If you say yes or refuse to answer we may as well quit as continuing this debate will be pointless.


I knew you wouldn’t actually directly answer it. Want another crack?


Sure, how about this - I don't think any of them have ever been logical as far as "in the Diablo realm" goes.

So I've got a better idea. Why don't you tell me what kind of calculation you think does make logical sense in the Diablo realm? Because, honestly, I don't understand what the hell you're going for here.
05/15/2019 01:42 PMPosted by Zeddicuus
05/15/2019 01:15 PMPosted by clueso
Indeed. What I was referring to was that the damage of an arrow impact should not be determined 100% by the bow itself if you want to go by certain criteria.


You would think the damage of the arrow would be a combination of the arrowhead used, the type of bow used and the strength of the character properly draw the bow.


Don't forget wind resistance!
05/15/2019 05:44 PMPosted by Orrion
Don't forget wind resistance!


Unless you are hitting targets at 150+m, wind resistance should't be an big factor. The range of an 'heavy' English longbow is 350m

05/15/2019 05:42 PMPosted by Orrion
So I've got a better idea. Why don't you tell me what kind of calculation you think does make logical sense in the Diablo realm? Because, honestly, I don't understand what the hell you're going for here.


Some skills pure weapon damage
Some skills weapon damage + skill damage (poison dagger) and most elemental bow skills
Some skills raw skill damage
Some skills and item effects scaling with enemy health
(...)

Like was on D2???

Well, I guess all 3 Diablo games aren't respectable. Or Path of Exile (and don't you like PoE?). Or Grim Dawn.

Or any of the Final Fantasy games and similar titles.


I think that "respectable" is not the better word. "classical" is. In a loot hunt RPG, where loot matter much more than in a traditional, see werewolves droping nothing will be awful and nobody will engage WW.

But on VtMB for eg, if you kill an thug with an shotgun, he will drop the shotgun, if you kill someone with an .44 magnum, he will drop the .44 magnum. The same happens on fallout new vegas. You can kill deathclaws all day and loot zero weapons(some people here will say that deathclaws needs to have an powerful grenade launcher in order to have strong claw attacks). On most elder scrolls game, the same happens. You can in beginning of the game, with some strategy, kill an vivec guard and loot one of the best medium armors in the game.

Earlier versions of Diablo 1 pre alfa if i remember correctly din't had item loot. You loot parts that you use with certain materiel to craft your gear . Apparently was removed by being "too creepy", to have eyes, horns, ears, etc of demons in your backpack. I honestly disagree and think that D1/D2/D3 could be much better if had that system instead of a "magical slot machine", but is just my opinion.
05/15/2019 09:10 AMPosted by L0rdV1ct0r
Idiocy. Making casters care about weapons didn't make all the classes the same.


No? Making all classes gear in the same way in a game where gear determines everything is what?


I feel like I'm talking to Shadow Aegis. You're showing the same level of incapability toward distinctions.

You just asked what elements of RPGs D3 has. Leveling is an element often present in RPGs.


There are a lot of systems that doesn't use an overall char level. But they have attributes and skills measuring what your char can and cannot do.


Irrelevant. Again, all you asked for was elements of RPGs that D3 has.

Body armor in CS isn't a gear slot. There's only 1 thing you can buy and it never changes. Slots by definition are interchangeable.


In Warface i can change my body armor and my shoes for ex, some offers different types of protections.


Irrelevant.

Yet again, all you asked for was elements of RPGs that D3 has. It doesn't matter whether other games have them, or whether other games use them to the same extent, or whether they do something else..

Hell, maybe the question we should be asking you is why you think BF1 isn't an RPG.


No, my point is not that bf1 is a rpg, is that SHOOTERS and survival games has more RPG into then than D3 despite not being close to an RPG.


Who cares? Your stated ultimatum wasn't "prove that D3 is more RPG than these games." Your ultimatum was "show me that D3 an RPG element."

Every time you say "yeah, but this other game does X" you are still tacitly acknowledging that D3 has the RPG element that I named.

The places you quote articles from and even the other posters who kind of agree with some of your points - like Shurgosa - have said that D3 is an RPG.

In other words, you've lost. But I fully expect you to post again, don't worry. Your ultimatum was a stupid thing to do anyway, especially since you never had any intention of honoring it.
05/15/2019 05:42 PMPosted by Orrion
So I've got a better idea. Why don't you tell me what kind of calculation you think does make logical sense in the Diablo realm? Because, honestly, I don't understand what the hell you're going for here.


Oh how about a calculation that takes the skill, character building , and items into consideration but uses an additive formula where any increase in damage comes from the combined progression and player customization of the 3 elements. Removing any one piece does not destroy the character. It would be a lot harder to power creep the game to death.

I have no problem with an additive weapon damage for skills that actually use the weapon but I believe that spells should have their own set of modifiers. The only logical argument made against this so far is the innate power argument and I feel that would be better placed as an affix or suffix. I’ve said why I disagree with it and all you can come up with is that I should just fool myself into believing that it makes sense.

Even though the genre is fantasy, most stuff is logical. I get a bonus to fire damage my fireball does more damage. I progress a minion skill and it levels up and I can summon additional more powerful minions. But to me, Diablo 3 is illogical in many ways that other rpg’s are not. Weapon damage multiplying into all skills is just one example.

Just one of many “solutions to a problem “ that resulted in this game being so shallow it needed a pathetic paragon system to trick the fools into believing the illusion is real.
05/15/2019 06:14 PMPosted by Orrion
Who cares? Your stated ultimatum wasn't "prove that D3 is more RPG than these games." Your ultimatum was "show me that D3 an RPG element."


No, i never said that D3 has no RPG elements. My point is that D3 has less RPG elements than most survival/shooter games that know and they are "weaker" on D3 and by this reason, the "arpg" is a misslabel.

And people are saying that since 2012 https://us.battle.net/forums/en/d3/topic/6016101670

http://pc.gamespy.com/pc/diablo-iii/1225243p1.html

And most people who say that is a arpg here for eg ( https://www.diabloii.net/blog/comments/is-diablo-iii-an-arpg-or-just-an-a ) mentions other games misslabed as RPG's, like this console adventure games where there are zero character building and less narrative building than visual novels.

Believe or not, i searched and found no arguments to consider d3 an rpg. In particular this thread from 2012 who received almost 600 upvotes nailet the question. In particular

"This game is just too dumbed down and too badly designed to have enough replayability to support it for the years to come in the same way D2 did. This isn't an action "RPG", this is an action beat-em-up - this is Gauntlet Legends online. And don't you dare think that any of these issues are because "an ARPG can't do well in modern times". It can. And it's a darn shame that it very well could have, had Blizzard not hired that clown of a director Jay Wilson who ran the series into the ground. I'm done with D3, and my respect for Blizzard has suffered a large blow. " https://us.battle.net/forums/en/d3/topic/5835775092
05/15/2019 06:14 PMPosted by Orrion
Who cares? Your stated ultimatum wasn't "prove that D3 is more RPG than these games." Your ultimatum was "show me that D3 an RPG element."


No, i never said that D3 has no RPG elements. My point is that D3 has less RPG elements than most survival/shooter games that know and they are "weaker" on D3 and by this reason, the "arpg" is a mislabel


But, again, that wasn’t your ultimatum. Your ultimatum was to give you 1 reason to consider D3 an RPG. I’ve given you that. It’s not my fault your ultimatum was dumb - that’s your fault.

It has many RPG elements. Again, it’s irrelevant whether or not some other game takes an element in question further. D3 still has them whether you like it or not.

Also, everyone else considers it one, even sources you’ve gotten information from and posters who agree with some of your points.

And hey, at least that guy from 2012 said he was done with D3 and meant it. He didn’t come back and rail on it with the same tired arguments for the next 7 years.
And how is casters worrying about weapon damage LESS depth than ignoring it completely?


05/15/2019 08:19 AMPosted by Gr8Hornytoad
Because it condensed all the possible variables that should have existed if the developers knew what the hell they were doing down to one.


No, that's the developers attaching almost all the scaling to weapon damage. That's an entirely different question than whether or not casters should worry about it in the first place.


Then why would you immediately cite that concept of casters worrying about weapons far less than a warrior as a "problem that was then solved" by developers attaching almost all scaling to weapon damage, the moment the D3 idiocy of "attaching almost all the scaling to weapon damage" was criticized in this thread as being a shallow and stupid idea???

And then why, when I articulated why the idea is stupid, because the fundamentally different interests of the character classes is something that any competent dev will enhance, and explore, and not strive to erase.....did you continually assert that "they went to far in their class-weapon-damage homogenization...?

What you did was, the moment weapon damage was pointed out as being dumb, almost immediately, you pointed out a problem with D2, that D3 solved with their weapon damage consolidation idiocy.....

Then when that idiocy was explained to you in its fundamental terms, you repeat that you figured that they went to far with it....?

if you believe that they went to far with it in D3, and I think you do, seeing as you mentioned it preemptively....

Then why on earth would you defend the concept from the charge that "it made casters actually care about their weapons, when you so clearly admit that what was ushered in...was so flawed?

Why would you assert that mages not caring about weapons was a favorable position ANY D3 critic held in the face of the D3 idiots making wizards care about their weapon damage in the most boring way possible.....?

Can you not see that the people around you want wizards and other classes to have a TEN TIMES more varied stack of layers and points of interest in regards to skill empowerment, related to weapons and other items and other layers of character composition, than was even present in D2 or will ever be present D3?

Instead of some silly black & white binary the likes of which you yourself have criticized as having gone to far that exists, and will arguably FOREVER exist in D3?
05/16/2019 10:48 AMPosted by Shurgosa
Then why would you immediately cite that concept of casters worrying about weapons far less than a warrior as a "problem that was then solved" by developers attaching almost all scaling to weapon damage, the moment the D3 idiocy of "attaching almost all the scaling to weapon damage" was criticized in this thread as being a shallow and stupid idea???

And then why, when I articulated why the idea is stupid, because the fundamentally different interests of the character classes is something that any competent dev will enhance, and explore, and not strive to erase.....did you continually assert that "they went to far in their class-weapon-damage homogenization...?

I can not speak for Orrion directly, but his statements are not mutually exclusive. You can simultaneously say that it sucked that casters in D2 did not have to worry about their weapon too much, while also saying that in D3 they went too far with making a skills damage depend a 100% on the weapon.

I have mentioned this concept a few times before, but one part of a skills total damage could be innate to the skill itself, so that even if you do not have a weapon equipped, your Fireball could deal like 8.000 fire damage on its own and then another portion of the skills damage could be based on the weapon, like that it deals an additional 200% weapon damage as fire.

https://imgur.com/mfd7fzi
https://imgur.com/6ZTR6Fp


Maybe he is referring to something similar, dunno...

05/16/2019 10:48 AMPosted by Shurgosa
Can you not see that the people around you want wizards and other classes to have a TEN TIMES more varied stack of layers and points of interest in regards to skill empowerment, related to weapons and other items and other layers of character composition, than was even present in D2 or will ever be present D3?

At least I agree that there should be more layers of customization...

https://imgur.com/jhYruyE
https://imgur.com/fX2oGcD

https://imgur.com/l3yyPVN
https://imgur.com/BAzcCAh


... and still a certain amount of a skills total damage can come from the weapon, while another portion can come from the skill itself.

I can not speak for Orrion directly, but his statements are not mutually exclusive. You can simultaneously say that it sucked that casters in D2 did not have to worry about their weapon too much, while also saying that in D3 they went too far with making a skills damage depend a 100% on the weapon.

I have mentioned this concept a few times before, but one part of a skills total damage could be innate to the skill itself, so that even if you do not have a weapon equipped, your Fireball could deal like 8.000 fire damage on its own and then another portion of the skills damage could be based on the weapon, like that it deals an additional 200% weapon damage as fire.

... and still a certain amount of a skills total damage can come from the weapon, while another portion can come from the skill itself.
I agree that D2 was way harder as a physical based character because to get a good weapon you had role elite quality base item, good enhanced damage, plain attack rating and/or combo ED AR and then attack speed, min or max damage, bonus to strength if you can get it. For a caster, FCR and a relevant skill bonus (which can be a "white" affix).

But giving every skill half and half still doesn't seem like a good solution. To paraphrase lord victor, fireball would still get better with a large two handed axe. I definitely support attack skills having a flat damage component to reduce the influence weapon damage (as well as reducing the insane layers needed to make good weapon damage). I don't think everything needs weapon damage component.
04/28/2019 02:05 AMPosted by Steve
You can say that for every RPG, all of them you are playing a character
even your D1 and D2 you aren't role playing you are playing a character, even back in the beginning with D&D you are still playing a character
RPG's are generally defined as a character that you go questing with


There are those that don't consider themselves playing a character. They look at it as playing a build (spec), instead of playing a character with their own personality and the rest.

04/28/2019 02:05 AMPosted by Steve
Not all characters are generic clones, otherwise most of the equipment is pointless and all barbarians would all have the same abilities and no changes can be made
If they were all clones they would all have the same abilities and wouldn't be able to change anything and we all know that you can build a WW barb/ zDPS barbs/ charging barb/ or a condemn crusader/ thorns crusader/ akkans crusader.
If they were all clones you wouldn't be able to have them because you don't get a choice in what skills you use and by extention what equipment they use because they are all identical to one another and there would be no need to unlock skills because we are all clones so we all use the same skills and no need for multiple choice in what skills to use


Everyone is well aware that you can make a lot of choices as far as what spec or build to play. But without gear each wizard is the same. Each wizard opens up the skills the same way while leveling. This is what they are talking about when they say that the character is just a generic paper doll to dress up with gear.
We tried to warn them early but they didn't listen, back when you had to have a WoW account to post. The OP identifies one reason this game is a B- to B game and won't get any better since its not really possible based on the foundation laid by Jay Wilson & Co.

Its very different from Diablo 1 and Diablo 2 and much more simplistic.
05/16/2019 12:18 PMPosted by UngivenFame

I can not speak for Orrion directly, but his statements are not mutually exclusive. You can simultaneously say that it sucked that casters in D2 did not have to worry about their weapon too much, while also saying that in D3 they went too far with making a skills damage depend a 100% on the weapon.

I have mentioned this concept a few times before, but one part of a skills total damage could be innate to the skill itself, so that even if you do not have a weapon equipped, your Fireball could deal like 8.000 fire damage on its own and then another portion of the skills damage could be based on the weapon, like that it deals an additional 200% weapon damage as fire.

... and still a certain amount of a skills total damage can come from the weapon, while another portion can come from the skill itself.
I agree that D2 was way harder as a physical based character because to get a good weapon you had role elite quality base item, good enhanced damage, plain attack rating and/or combo ED AR and then attack speed, min or max damage, bonus to strength if you can get it. For a caster, FCR and a relevant skill bonus (which can be a "white" affix).

But giving every skill half and half still doesn't seem like a good solution. To paraphrase lord victor, fireball would still get better with a large two handed axe. I definitely support attack skills having a flat damage component to reduce the influence weapon damage (as well as reducing the insane layers needed to make good weapon damage). I don't think everything needs weapon damage component.

There are various solutions to this issue:
* don't allow Wizards to wear 2handed axes etc.
* categorize certain weapons as different types, like magic weapon, ranged weapon, melee weapon, so that only melee skills would benefit from the weapon damage of a hammer, so it would be useless for a Wizard.
* and eventually a few more, this are just the ones that came to my mind atm
05/16/2019 09:32 AMPosted by Orrion
Your ultimatum was to give you 1 reason to consider D3 an RPG. I’ve given you that. It’s not my fault your ultimatum was dumb - that’s your fault.


No, you ignored that the reason should't be something "dumb" that can inlcude almost all survival games and shooters too. things like "you play a role" is so ridiculous that you can include 99,9% of games, except candy crush. And all reasons that you give, applies to other genres.

Why FNV and VtMB are RPG's and CoD is not? Both games has guns, but the focus on the RPG games is the world and character building.

They look at it as playing a build (spec), instead of playing a character with their own personality and the rest.


I disagree. using that logic, bayonetta/god of war/spiderman is a rpg(you play an char with her own personality) but baldur's gate where you create and can be anything, from an dark sorcerer reanimating hordes of skeletons to an paladin., will not be considered an rpg. VtmR will be a rpg but VtmB not.... Despite both games operating in the same universe, with the same "rules"...
05/16/2019 01:10 PMPosted by clueso
There are various solutions to this issue:
* don't allow Wizards to wear 2handed axes etc.
* categorize certain weapons as different types, like magic weapon, ranged weapon, melee weapon, so that only melee skills would benefit from the weapon damage of a hammer, so it would be useless for a Wizard.
* and eventually a few more, this are just the ones that came to my mind atm


What about someone that wanted to make a battle mage. A fighting wizard that is good with melee weapons. I had something like that in D1 but I had to use the warrior to do it. It was a Flame Sword Warrior where I used fireball that I took as high as I could with points and gear. Then I would use the fireball to soften the enemies up and finish the job with the sword.

There are those that will see wizards as more than just Harry Potter with wands.

05/16/2019 02:08 PMPosted by L0rdV1ct0r
I disagree. using that logic, bayonetta/god of war/spiderman is a rpg(you play an char with her own personality) but baldur's gate where you create and can be anything, from an dark sorcerer reanimating hordes of skeletons to an paladin., will not be considered an rpg. VtmR will be a rpg but VtmB not.... Despite both games operating in the same universe, with the same "rules"...


To me true roleplaying goes beyond playing build that you make. You are making a character that is more than just a collection of skills and gear. If you want that fantasy to come to life then you have to see that character as a living breathing person with their own personality that you envisioned. Where if you were actually playing that character in a roleplaying setting (i.e. roleplaying server of online games) you would speak as you would think that the character would speak.

I have played online games where I have seen that happen. And those people have brought their characters to life. At that time I almost started to act like the character that I envisioned instead of playing a mere build. Sure that character had a personality that I envisioned but I never felt the need to act it out. I almost did a few times.

A person makes a homage character to Tarzan. Then when in game he would talk as you would expect Tarzan to talk. Would talk about the things that Tarzan would normally talk about. This is true roleplaying at its best to me.
@ShadowAegis
05/16/2019 01:10 PMPosted by clueso
There are various solutions to this issue:
* don't allow Wizards to wear 2handed axes etc.
* categorize certain weapons as different types, like magic weapon, ranged weapon, melee weapon, so that only melee skills would benefit from the weapon damage of a hammer, so it would be useless for a Wizard.
* and eventually a few more, this are just the ones that came to my mind atm


What about someone that wanted to make a battle mage. A fighting wizard that is good with melee weapons. I had something like that in D1 but I had to use the warrior to do it. It was a Flame Sword Warrior where I used fireball that I took as high as I could with points and gear. Then I would use the fireball to soften the enemies up and finish the job with the sword.

There are those that will see wizards as more than just Harry Potter with wands.

I didn't elaborate on that earlier because there was no need to, but I think that Wizards should be able to wear wands, two-handed staves, but also one handed swords (but no one or two handed axes, hammers etc). Or you simply create a new type of sword that only can be worn by Wizards, which can be used by this class both in melee as well as to amplify spells.

Join the Conversation

Return to Forum