This thread can't have a title because of PhoneLobster.

[K]

Ok, so Diablo III came out and people are playing it.

Several things came to my attention:

1. Everyone has an option for combat control, defense, healing, AoE attacks, single target. Everyone can solo things.

2. Everything uses a mana-like resource that is specific to the class and some attacks add to the pool and some take away. Sadly, they also have timers for some things.

3. Everyone in a class gets all the abilities of that class on a level schedule, but they also get "runes" on a level schedule where you can modify each ability (only one rune active per ability). This makes even two members of the same class often very different since they chose different versions of the same ability.

4. Up to three passive runes that give passive abilities, also from a list that expands as you level.

5. A philosophy that everything should be easy and there should be no wrong choices.

[Dominicius]

I actually noticed that too.

They even said at one point that they want to think less about balance and more about giving people cool options. That is impossible however since the game is always online and they will be forced to balance it even for PvE to prevent one class from gaining an advantage in the Real Money Auction House race

[NineInchNall]

K, the five things you describe are fine ideas. There's only one problem.

Diablo III fails at each of them. 1) Some classes solo things like champs (barbs & monks); some fail at life (everything else). The dynamic changes in multiplayer and on higher difficulties, of course, but then it just switches to ranged = win and melee = fail. 2) Half the classes don't actually use their mana resource for shit. Barbs & monks, for instance, hardly ever drop below 75% resource, because everything that's not shit doesn't use furt/spirit. And the fact that something is not shit has nothing at all to do with whether it uses fury/spirit. 3) Everyone chooses the same rune for each ability, because at any given point there's a best rune. Frenzy on a Barb, for instance, is always the shoot-an-axe rune until you get the stun-your-target rune. The Witch Doctor always uses the increased-slow rune for Grasp. Why? Because all the other options suck ass. 4) Bull shit. You use three runes, and they're always the same passives, because there are like 3 passives that keep you on the RNG and 15 shit passives that are just shit. 5) Nothing is easy past normal. Every got-dammed thing 1-shots you even when you have 15000 hp and 50% damage reduction and 25% dodge.

Fap no more to Blizzard, please.

While the ideas are sound, the implementation is a piece of diseased feces.

[K]

You'll note that I didn't actually talk about the actual runes or abilities.

I mean, it's a computer game. The actual number of meaningful abilities is always going to be small because programing real abilities instead of number manipulation is a larger investment of programming resources for little pay-off. The plot is fixed so the game has to revolve around loot greed and that means that the combat system only lets certain options work with maxed equipment (which is not happening two weeks after launch).

I'm only actually interested in the overall model they used to hand out abilities.

[Desdan_Mervolam]

5. A philosophy that everything should be easy and there should be no wrong choices.

Is the idea that options should be balanced against each other all that profound? How many games get made where the developers knowingly seed choice traps? How many of those games were made after ~1990/1995ish?

[hogarth]

5. A philosophy that everything should be easy and there should be no wrong choices.

This is essentially a tautology. E.g. my perfect system involves a system that's perfect.

Next up: my defense of communism as a great form of government. Step 1 -- assume that your communist state is a utopian paradise. Step 2 -- there is no step 2.

[ishy]

I still think it is really weird that if I wear a (non-magical) two-handed ax in D3, my frostbolts do more damage than if I wear a (non-magical) dagger.

I also dislike that their solution to their should be no wrong choices is to greatly reduce the choices you can make.

[DragonChild]

Is the idea that options should be balanced against each other all that profound? How many games get made where the developers knowingly seed choice traps? How many of those games were made after ~1990/1995ish?

This is essentially a tautology. E.g. my perfect system involves a system that's perfect.

Except for the fact that the most popular tabletop RPG right now has knowingly included terrible options that are "supposed to suck". So at least applied to TT RPGs, it's not all that weird.

[K]

Is the idea that options should be balanced against each other all that profound? How many games get made where the developers knowingly seed choice traps? How many of those games were made after ~1990/1995ish?

This is essentially a tautology. E.g. my perfect system involves a system that's perfect.

Except for the fact that the most popular tabletop RPG right now has knowingly included terrible options that are "supposed to suck". So at least applied to TT RPGs, it's not all that weird.

Yeh, in the tabletop RPG industry having trap options is a feature that designers brag about.

[ModelCitizen]

Yeh, in the tabletop RPG industry having trap options is a feature that designers brag about.

Yeah, but that's just excuse-making after the fact. I don't know of anyone who takes "Ivory Tower Game Design" seriously, at least not as applied to TTRPGs. Even if someone did believe trap options were a good thing, it would take some serious arrogance to believe the only way your game will have them is if you add them on purpose.

[DragonChild]

More importantly I think worth noting is - letting people have some semblance of a respec options prevents complete character planning at creation.

This is something I've been claiming for some time for TT RPGs, and diablo 3 shows it perfectly. In diablo 3, you can switch your skills around any time, but doing so puts them on a bit of a cooldown, so you never do it inside of combat. (at max level you get rewarded for NOT switching, but that isn't important). In diablo 2, when you spent a skill point, boom, bam, done, it was locked into place FOREVER. Diablo 3 has a lot less "look a build up on the internet", a lot more trying new things, a lot more fun. Diablo 2 also had skill prerequisite trees and Diablo 3 doesn't. In short, removing prerequisites and letting people take back bad choices (even if you don't let them freely swap as this IS a roleplaying game, letting people change stuff that doesn't work out the way they expected helps), will help prevent the idea of "builds" with every tiny detail of the character planned out at level 1, like D&D suffers from.

Also - the skill system if diablo3 is VERY similar to some stuff Frank has been talking about. It starts by going "Pick one offensive skill from these four choices, one movement from these three choices, one emergency button from these three choices, etc", but if you wanted, you could just have all offensive skills, or all movement and long cooldown. It just groups stuff into suggestions, and lets you swap it all around if you want.

[Murtak]

I still think it is really weird that if I wear a (non-magical) two-handed ax in D3, my frostbolts do more damage than if I wear a (non-magical) dagger.

Weird, and not actually required in a game like Diablo, but essential if you want your game to allow multiclassing. If the wizard can get more fireball and ice field damage with his staff and the barbarian more cleave and charge damage with his greatsword, then the barbarian/wizard will suck, no matter which skills he picks. If any level-appropriate weapon pushes his damage output to acceptable with all abilities, multiclassing becomes feasible.

[Voss]

More importantly I think worth noting is - letting people have some semblance of a respec options prevents complete character planning at creation.

Not mandatory is not the same thing as prevents.
Not that I even vaguely understand why you'd want to prevent planning and forethought in the first place.

The d3 system strikes me as uniquely horrible, especially for tabletop games. You have access to everything (so there are no choices and no consequences), and anything that isn't explicitly given to you is forbidden, either in the sense of your class can't do that (forever) or in the sense of 'you need to be so tall to ride' (you get it later).

Its also worth noting that a large portion of the options in d3 are total shit that anyone sensible would never touch. Optimizing is hardly out.


Now d2's system had its own problems (particularly in the form of meaningless incremental bonuses), but d3 isn't an improvement. It is just a reflection of blizzard's current game design theory: players can make stupid choices, so don't give them any room to choose.

[K]

More importantly I think worth noting is - letting people have some semblance of a respec options prevents complete character planning at creation.

Not mandatory is not the same thing as prevents.
Not that I even vaguely understand why you'd want to prevent planning and forethought in the first place.

The d3 system strikes me as uniquely horrible, especially for tabletop games. You have access to everything (so there are no choices and no consequences), and anything that isn't explicitly given to you is forbidden, either in the sense of your class can't do that (forever) or in the sense of 'you need to be so tall to ride' (you get it later).

Wait, what?

So you don't like level-based systems where more options are gained over levels and you don't like a class system where classes do different things?

And you want people to be forced to make a new character every time they want to try out new options?

[DragonChild]

You're right. I should have said "prevents players from NEEDING to completely plan their characters". Now, as I said, you obviously don't want to let people respec everything whenever in a tabletop RPG. But SOME amount of "Ok, I screwed up there" is needed. 4e does it, and some D&D classes have it built in, like the wizard.

[Username17]

Agree with K here: everything Voss just said is completely insane.

Class differentiation is good. Advancement opening new options is good. And the ability to respec without making a whole new character is also good. Anyone who says different on any of those points is basically a crazy person.

-Username17

[TheFlatline]

K, the five things you describe are fine ideas. There's only one problem.

Diablo III fails at each of them. 1) Some classes solo things like champs (barbs & monks); some fail at life (everything else). The dynamic changes in multiplayer and on higher difficulties, of course, but then it just switches to ranged = win and melee = fail.

This needs to be emphasized. In Inferno right now, if you are hit once, you die. Melee fighters are almost unsustainable in Inferno right now.

And as the difficulty increases, the number of viable builds drops down to almost nothing, leading to not just dead end options (granted, options you can change), but the sucker punch of "surprise! The way you've been playing for the last 60 hours is useless now. Have fun!"

Diablo 3 isn't a great game. It's not a good design philosophy in practice. If you want that kind of experience, go back and play the original inspiration for the first game, Nethack.

[PhoneLobster]

The ONE thing I like about Diablo 3 is their claimed intentions about skill respecting/advancement.

But it is not in anyway innovative or new, nor in the actual game remotely good.

Having a somehow limited selection of main skills with a somehow limited selection of sub skills that modify them is old hat. Oooh they called sub skills "Runes" I don't give an ass it isn't new.

Being able respec your ability selections with relative freedom outside of combat time, is also not new, especially in computer games, and again is old hat I don't give an ass.

And being able to respec is nearly fucking meaningless when there are so few skills and runes that are actually any fucking good.

In the end Diablo 3's claims about their "innovative" skill system are largely a pile of ass. They were promising before we saw the implementation, but the result is SO bad I can't help but think they deliberately undermined the freedom and diversity the simple old hat mechanics should have generated.

I think the Witch Doctor's Giant Frog is the perfect example of everything wrong with their actual practical results and their actual unstated design philosphies.

It certainly sounds fun, it looks kinda cool, but is utterly useless in practice and gimped with limitations so enormous that they could not possibly have failed to realized they were deliberately creating an utter and total non-option when they created it.

And there is so much crap like this in the game. I mean I hate Blizzard and was expecting something rather bad despite the Diablo series being the only part of their back catalogue I ever enjoyed. And despite that the game has failed to meet my expectations to the point that I am actually somewhat shocked at how bad it is.

We should hold Diablo 3 up only as a paragon of how single minded and especially cynical obsession with increasing player markets for an as yet unreleased real money auction house can totally and utterly destroy a game in multiple areas of game design.

[Lokathor]

Look I can put up with a lot of crazy things being said and just pass them on by... but Diablo was not inspired by Nethack.

It was inspired by Angband. They're very different.

Nethack is about using expert knowledge of the game world around you and how to exploit everything you come across to turn it into a resource for your advancement. It's a complex game to learn, but simple game to play once you have learned it.

Angband is about delving deeper and deeper into the ground over and over, then returning to town each time and selling the bad loot, putting on the good loot, and buying more consumables. Until your numbers are big enough to beat everything.

[K]

K, the five things you describe are fine ideas. There's only one problem.

Diablo III fails at each of them. 1) Some classes solo things like champs (barbs & monks); some fail at life (everything else). The dynamic changes in multiplayer and on higher difficulties, of course, but then it just switches to ranged = win and melee = fail.

This needs to be emphasized. In Inferno right now, if you are hit once, you die. Melee fighters are almost unsustainable in Inferno right now.

Inferno difficulty doesn't invalidate the design philosophy since it was designed to be crazy hard and unattainable by everyone but the players with the best gear.

That being said, you can go on youtube right now and see lots of melee classes like barbarians farming Inferno for hours on end solo and in groups and not getting one-shotted because they have great gear and use defensive abilities.

I'm not really worried about the currently limited builds for Inferno. The game's been out for two weeks and people don't really know what's possible yet, generally just jumping on the bandwagon after someone popularizes a build that works with substandard equipment. Wait a few months and people to come out with videos showing how lots of different builds can be used and what equipment is needed.

I mean, it's a game about getting equipment. Why would anyone expect that 60 hours is enough time to get all the best equipment needed to play at the very highest difficulty?

[PhoneLobster]

Wait a few months

People already waited years. I fortunately wasn't waiting, but I'm sure as heck not waiting "a few months" especially since the main thing they need to do for me, provide an server in the same hemisphere, will not be done.

And I don't give a crap about your excuses. Giant Frog in it's current form will NOT be the part of ANY build except for joke ones. And Giant Frog is far from alone.

Now if you are saying in a couple of months they will reverse obvious choices to deliberately make the significant numbers of runes basically completely useless then... WTF? Why would they do that then? Why didn't they do that already? Why did the giant frog go to release like it is? Why did witch doctor cooldown reduction passives and runes go to release not working? Why did they choose the incredibly bad design choices they did in regards to elite and legendary mobs? Why did they make the horrid item design choices they made? Why did the game rate so low in user ratings on meta critic? Why did they not put a server in Australia when offered decidedly beneficial terms? Why did they fail so badly to provide a service on release? Why are so many people asking "why can't I play my single player game without online lag and prime time 'server maintenance?'" Why are so many people asking for their money back? Why is Blizzard under investigation in South Korea for failing to give refunds which Blizzard itself guarantees?

NONE of these things have "wait a few months" as a viable excuse as to why they could possibly be bad right now. These things were all results deliberate choices blizzard made, the only thing that will change them will be Blizzard changing it's mind over the next few months.

I don't see that happening.

[K]

Wait a few months

People already waited years. I fortunately wasn't waiting, but I'm sure as heck not waiting "a few months" especially since the main thing they need to do for me, provide an server in the same hemisphere, will not be done.

And I don't give a crap about your excuses. Giant Frog in it's current form will NOT be the part of ANY build except for joke ones. And Giant Frog is far from alone.

Be as mad as you want about Blizzard as a company, but people are sounding like whiny bitches when they say "Oh noes! I can't just use terrible equipment in this equipment-centric game and then pick skills randomly and succeed in the very highest difficulty like I was in the beginner difficulty! It's almost like they want me to play this game longer than two weeks!"

The game literally hasn't been out long enough to try every combination of equipment and skill runes and play-throughs on youtube show people using lots of different builds quite successfully.

Claims like "melee characters can't survive Inferno" are easily proved wrong with seconds of research, so it really makes it hard to take the whiners seriously.

[Desdan_Mervolam]

Okay, I'll bite: How does respecing fit into tabletop gaming going forward? How do you radically change your character's skillset without totally destroying world verisimilitude in the process?

[OgreBattle]

I really enjoyed Phantasy Star Online

[Username17]

Okay, I'll bite: How does respecing fit into tabletop gaming going forward? How do you radically change your character's skillset without totally destroying world verisimilitude in the process?

-Username17