• These forum archives have been curated by the community bringing two decades of Diablo 2 knowledge to new players. They are purely for reference and cannot be posted in. Use the main PureDiablo forums for all new conversation.

Unlearn talent / Clean and rebuild

Phesto

Member
Aug 2, 2005
528
0
165
omgwtfbbqpwned said:
Yeah, it sucks, I know. If D3 ever comes out, the programmers should really add a NPC who resets Skills and Stats for $$$.

I don't like that at all. Even in the context of a fantasy game it's nonsensical and crude. It also gives players one more reason to think less by assuring them they can do no wrong. Too much cushioning, I believe.
 
Phesto said:
I don't like that at all. Even in the context of a fantasy game it's nonsensical and crude. It also gives players one more reason to think less by assuring them they can do no wrong. Too much cushioning, I believe.

A lot of MMORPGs utilize some sort of skill-resetting feature. Especially the p2p ones.

Yes, it does cushion the better players who know what they're doing (skill reset abuse allows them to probably scale through the game faster), but it's also a life-saver for the poor newbs that don't know what they're doing at first.

Plus, it gives gold in Diablo some use. :p
 

Phesto

Member
Aug 2, 2005
528
0
165
omgwtfbbqpwned said:
A lot of MMORPGs utilize some sort of skill-resetting feature. Especially the p2p ones.

Yes, it does cushion the better players who know what they're doing (skill reset abuse allows them to probably scale through the game faster), but it's also a life-saver for the poor newbs that don't know what they're doing at first.

Plus, it gives gold in Diablo some use. :p

Yes, better players can abuse it, but better players became better by learning. They learned by playing reasonable games, or by playing games reasonably.

My point was that newbs, or worse players, have not learned, so by assuring them that a bad build doesn't matter because they can simply reset their skills, and keep everything else, you're removing yet another incentive to play well and with intelligence. You're removing the balance that is risk and reward.

Having such a feature is fine if the vast majority of players are so young as to be lacking general competence, but such is not the case. The vast majority of MMORPG players aren't younger than fifteen, and that is plenty old enough to understand risk and reward.

Pushing mistakes aside instead of fully understanding them only serves to further dilute the learning process. I don't want to spend countless hours doing something that is ultimately worthless, only to learn next to nothing.
 

Evrae Altana

Member
Aug 13, 2005
15,337
22
168
Rubby Ducky
Imo, not being able to reset your skills provides a great learning opportunity. New players will start a char, screw up and start another one, but in the process, they learn what works and what doesn't. Everyone goes through it a few times before. My first ever paladin had maxed prayer, concentration, vigor, and might :rolleyes: , but after that, I learned.
 
Evrae Altana said:
Imo, not being able to reset your skills provides a great learning opportunity. New players will start a char, screw up and start another one, but in the process, they learn what works and what doesn't. Everyone goes through it a few times before. My first ever paladin had maxed prayer, concentration, vigor, and might , but after that, I learned.

Actually, most new players will try out a build, realize it is not very efficient, and learn that their build doesn't work. They then usually find online cookie-cutter builds to follow. It's hard to realize that you must concentrate into several skills when the characters of Diablo all offer such a diverse variety of skills, each with scumptious descriptions.

Phesto said:
Yes, better players can abuse it, but better players became better by learning. They learned by playing reasonable games, or by playing games reasonably.

Yup. Or online cookie cutter builds.

Phesto said:
My point was that newbs, or worse players, have not learned, so by assuring them that a bad build doesn't matter because they can simply reset their skills, and keep everything else, you're removing yet another incentive to play well and with intelligence. You're removing the balance that is risk and reward.

Risk and reward? What about time and effort? They do learn something though - their build sucks, and needs tweaking. The only way they'll find out anyway is either through rebuilding, or online help. If they aren't seeking online help and keep rebuilding, they'll learn something eventually.

Phesto said:
Having such a feature is fine if the vast majority of players are so young as to be lacking general competence, but such is not the case. The vast majority of MMORPG players aren't younger than fifteen, and that is plenty old enough to understand risk and reward.

Most MMORPGs do not resemble the mechanics of D2, with the exception of the private/'free' ones that set experience gaining to 1000x normal. It takes a really long time to level. Level 90 D2 = Level ~50-70 Standard MMORPG. It's really hard to just throw away your build and just remake.

Phesto said:
Pushing mistakes aside instead of fully understanding them only serves to further dilute the learning process. I don't want to spend countless hours doing something that is ultimately worthless, only to learn next to nothing.

Eh.

Actually, I agree with you guys a bit more than I agree with myself, I just replied for the sake of being argumentative. :D

D2 offers a wide selection of builds with a variety of characters and skills, and it would suck if you could just reset a class to play another build rather than building a new one, especially since it's so easy to level in D2. ie - I'm bored of my Hammerdin --> reset --> click click --> Smitedin = bogged dueling.

So yeah. Boo on reset idea. Which idiot came up with that? =(
 
Every build, when played solo has easy-to-play areas and hard-to-play ones. Players need to plan several kinds of attack to make sure they can be viable through the whole game.
Allow people to freely reassign their skills - people will make the best configuration for the area they're currently going to. There'll be no point in balancing the character in all aspects.
The game will become much dumber and less strategic, in my opinion.
 

kingwillie

Member
Jul 28, 2004
89
0
33
NJ
xspeak.net
The game is already very un-strategic and dumb already

Lol jk

But I think they should put one in with some restrictions such as, maybe only one per character you make or under a certain level
 
Bullet-Tooth Tony said:
Every build, when played solo has easy-to-play areas and hard-to-play ones. Players need to plan several kinds of attack to make sure they can be viable through the whole game.
Allow people to freely reassign their skills - people will make the best configuration for the area they're currently going to. There'll be no point in balancing the character in all aspects.
The game will become much dumber and less strategic, in my opinion.

It's very easy to fix that - just set the cost of resetting to an extremely high price. Too bad bnet sports a lot of dupers. =\
 

Phesto

Member
Aug 2, 2005
528
0
165
omgwtfbbqpwned said:
Actually, most new players will try out a build, realize it is not very efficient, and learn that their build doesn't work. They then usually find online cookie-cutter builds to follow. It's hard to realize that you must concentrate into several skills when the characters of Diablo all offer such a diverse variety of skills, each with scumptious descriptions.

Do you honestly believe that a new player's usual response to an unsuccessful build is to immediately scrounge the Internet looking for a successful one? I believe that player is a little too busy enjoying their new game, you know?

Since there are a variety of skills, each with "scrumptious" descriptions, how is it hard to realize that you must utilize several of them? I smell contradiction.

Yup. Or online cookie cutter builds.

My comment was regarding players who have earned what they have through reasonable play, knowledge, and experience. That's my simple definition of a "better player," which I think is pretty self-explanatory, so it seems you're implying that simply because someone has a level 80 Hammerdin, they are a "better player," but it's difficult to say because your reply is vague. Most D2 players didn't earn their characters because they aren't "better players," so there goes that argument.

Risk and reward? What about time and effort? They do learn something though - their build sucks, and needs tweaking. The only way they'll find out anyway is either through rebuilding, or online help. If they aren't seeking online help and keep rebuilding, they'll learn something eventually.

You said it! Their build sucks, and needs tweaking. That means it's time to start over.

Risk is of course part of your time and effort, and you should be rewarded accordingly. How can someone disagree with this? If your build fails, you should have to start anew. In the world of video games what better incentive is there to use your brain than the possibility of failure?

My first character was a Barbarian. I reached the Halls of the Dead in Act II. Somewhere inside there was a group of those monsters that throw javelins, but they were at least Extra Strong (I didn't have time to look closely). Being a poorly built melee character I couldn't fight them without dying very quickly, and they literally chased me back to the entrance. I briefly went to town and then returned to the Halls, but the group was of course standing right against the inside of the entrance, so it was like jumping into a blender. I could've attempted to level elsewhere, and give it another try, but fighting the infamous beetles with a bad melee character was not a realistic alternative. Seeing that preparation for the Halls would've been an extremely tedious process, I quit.

Shortly afterward I began reading much more about the Barbarian and fully understood why I got owned, and what I could've done to prevent it. My inspiration was wanting to avoid wasting relatively large amounts of time, and instead be successful by using my brain, not by having someone hold my hand.

Features like the one in Warcraft are not entirely bad. The problem is that they tend to promote laziness and stupidity by removing incentives. This is very debatable, but I'm certainly not going to change my mind.

Most MMORPGs do not resemble the mechanics of D2, with the exception of the private/'free' ones that set experience gaining to 1000x normal. It takes a really long time to level. Level 90 D2 = Level ~50-70 Standard MMORPG. It's really hard to just throw away your build and just remake.

If you're level 90 you're extremely successful and have obviously beaten the game on all three difficulties. If you have not, you can. A level 90 character is more than success. I don't understand your point.

The first few acts of Normal are enough to tell any player whether any build is viable, so in failure you're not losing much. Even a moron will know if their character is bad because they'll die, die, and die some more. Realizing you can't kill Diablo is no reason to start looking for hand-holders.

I replied for the sake of being argumentative.
 
Hm. Why not. =D

Phesto said:
Do you honestly believe that a new player's usual response to an unsuccessful build is to immediately scrounge the Internet looking for a successful one? I believe that player is a little too busy enjoying their new game, you know?

I believe that's usually their first response. I don't even think most people build something before referring to the net these days.

Phesto said:
Since there are a variety of skills, each with "scrumptious" descriptions, how is it hard to realize that you must utilize several of them? I smell contradiction.

Contradiction? Where? You must utilize several of them, usually a foundation in one tree with support points from another tree. Most newbies (who are without online guidance) will have an equal distribution over all three trees in an attempt to get the best out of everything and to experiment. They'll end up with low damage and low effectiveness in each of their many skills. :lol:

Phesto said:
My comment was regarding players who have earned what they have through reasonable play, knowledge, and experience. That's my simple definition of a "better player," which I think is pretty self-explanatory, so it seems you're implying that simply because someone has a level 80 Hammerdin, they are a "better player," but it's difficult to say because your reply is vague. Most D2 players didn't earn their characters because they aren't "better players," so there goes that argument.

I don't understand your point? :scratch: I am simply saying a better player in Diablo knows to equip and distribute the skills for the class(es) and the build(s) they use, and know how to effectively to play their build(s) in game.

Phesto said:
You said it! Their build sucks, and needs tweaking. That means it's time to start over.

Yup. Gogogo internet. =P

Phesto said:
Risk is of course part of your time and effort, and you should be rewarded accordingly. How can someone disagree with this? If your build fails, you should have to start anew. In the world of video games what better incentive is there to use your brain than the possibility of failure?

Incentive? If you fail too much, I think the first thing that will come to mind is boredom. In the world of video games, there live many video games. Many people will switch to another video game if they keep failing. And you really don't have to use your brain too much in D2 to succeed, you just click, kill, level, and pick-up items.

Phesto said:
My first character was a Barbarian. I reached the Halls of the Dead in Act II. Somewhere inside there was a group of those monsters that throw javelins, but they were at least Extra Strong (I didn't have time to look closely). Being a poorly built melee character I couldn't fight them without dying very quickly, and they literally chased me back to the entrance. I briefly went to town and then returned to the Halls, but the group was of course standing right against the inside of the entrance, so it was like jumping into a blender. I could've attempted to level elsewhere, and give it another try, but fighting the infamous beetles with a bad melee character was not a realistic alternative. Seeing that preparation for the Halls would've been an extremely tedious process, I quit.

Shortly afterward I began reading much more about the Barbarian and fully understood why I got owned, and what I could've done to prevent it. My inspiration was wanting to avoid wasting relatively large amounts of time, and instead be successful by using my brain, not by having someone hold my hand.

By 'reading' someone else's work, someone else technically did hold your hand. =P

Phesto said:
Features like the one in Warcraft are not entirely bad. The problem is that they tend to promote laziness and stupidity by removing incentives. This is very debatable, but I'm certainly not going to change my mind.

Do you mean WoW, or Warcraft? If it's WC3, just fyi, most heroes last only for the duration of the game (which is short), so it is there for simply for convenience.

Do you not think that 90% of the characters in D2 simply follow one of the standard builds in their class? 90% of Barbs will be WW'ers, Concentrators, Zerkers and perhaps Leapers.

I can understand laziness, but how would the option to reset skills promote stupidity?

Phesto said:
If you're level 90 you're extremely successful and have obviously beaten the game on all three difficulties. If you have not, you can. A level 90 character is more than success. I don't understand your point.

That wasn't a point - that was a comparison of game mechanics. :p

Phesto said:
The first few acts of Normal are enough to tell any player whether any build is viable, so in failure you're not losing much. Even a moron will know if their character is bad because they'll die, die, and die some more. Realizing you can't kill Diablo is no reason to start looking for hand-holders.

No, the first few acts of Normal are NOT enough to tell any player whether any build is viable or not. A Druid's Ravens and Poison Creeper will do significant damage in Normal, whereas a Windy will simply suck. Un-synergized damage skills do great damage in Normal. Heck, Golems are awesome in Normal (I practically let Gumby clear Andy for me). I've gone through Normal with lowly Magic and Rare items. If you die in Normal on a consistent basis due to Normal monsters (I can understand deaths from Uniques and Bosses and some of the annoying creeps), then yes, the individual is a moron. You normally won't find out if a 'test' build is viable or not until late Nightmare or Hell.

Phesto said:
I replied for the sake of being argumentative.

Ditto. :)

IMHO, I don't really understand why this feature would ruin too much incentive to play D2, provided levelling becomes harder and that the cost of such a feature is high.
 

Phesto

Member
Aug 2, 2005
528
0
165
omgwtfbbqpwned said:
I don't even think most people build something before referring to the net these days.

Do you honestly believe this to be true? What you are saying is most persons look for information about their brand new game on the Internet before they even play it for the first time. I cannot, for the life of me, picture this happening. At all. "I just got home with my new game. Before I play it I'm going to spend 30 minutes reading about it on the Internet." Please, that is so unrealistic.

Contradiction? Where?

Actually, most new players will try out a build, realize it is not very efficient, and learn that their build doesn't work. They then usually find online cookie-cutter builds to follow. It's hard to realize that you must concentrate into several skills when the characters of Diablo all offer such a diverse variety of skills, each with scumptious descriptions.

You're right, there is none. I misread it. Particularly the beginning of the third sentence.

I don't understand your point? I am simply saying a better player in Diablo knows to equip and distribute the skills for the class(es) and the build(s) they use, and know how to effectively to play their build(s) in game.

'Yes, better players can abuse it, but better players became better by learning. They learned by playing reasonable games, or by playing games reasonably.'

Yup. Or online cookie cutter builds.

Because this reply was so vague, all I could do was attempt to interpret it "correctly." This is how I see it: "I agree, as well as cookie cutter builds." Now, let's bring this into context. I had just given a very general description of what I think a good player is, and in your response you lumped cookie cutter builds in with my definition of a good player. While CC builds are not necessarily indicative of a bad player, they don't say much about a player's ability to use their brain. (For the sake of clarity, let's say a CC build is only the infamous CC build when the player has made a conscious effort to copy an already popularized build.) And finally, not using the brain goes against what I believe a good player is, which is something I believe I've been very clear about. A player who feels the need to copy a popularized build is looking for something to hold their hand, instead of using their brain and doing it the hard way. The way that rewards more generously.

In my terribly confusing reply I mentioned something about you implying that a level 80 Hammerdin is indicative of what I think a good player is. The mentioning of a level 80 Hammerdin was used as rhetoric and for simplicity. The topic was CC builds and as everyone knows Hammerdin builds are consciously copied quite often, so instead of saying 'That's my simple definition of a "better player," which I think is pretty self-explanatory, so it seems you're implying that simply because someone has a character that is consciously copied quite often, they are a "better player," but it's difficult to say because your reply is vague.' I used 'level 80 Hammerdin.'

You may have had a valid point in your head, but if you did it did not come out well.

If you still do not understand my point you are beyond the kind of help that can be found on the Internet.

Incentive? If you fail too much, I think the first thing that will come to mind is boredom. In the world of video games, there live many video games. Many people will switch to another video game if they keep failing. And you really don't have to use your brain too much in D2 to succeed, you just click, kill, level, and pick-up items.

There is a word for becoming bored simply because you've failed, it's LAZINESS. Failure should incite more intrigue than boredom, but nowadays almost everyone is accustomed to being lazy. When you fail, you should want to understand why, and how to not fail, so you can be successful.

By 'reading' someone else's work, someone else technically did hold your hand.

Unfortunately you've involuntarily taken that comment of mine out of context, but of course you could have been more careful and perhaps made a few inferences with that brain of yours. You see, reading basic skill and character attributes at the official website for D2 has nothing to do with something holding my hand because that particular information is available in the game (we can see what each skill does before they're even available), whereas nowhere on the official website or in the game does it tell you how to place skill points to make a common CC build. Things such as those are the difference.

If you're wondering why I'd bother going to the website to see this information instead of simply viewing it during the game, it's because I don't want to run my game and sit, idle, for extended periods of time if my only intention is to READ. It's much more sensible to go to a website for that, rather than spin a disc for 30-60 minutes and do almost nothing with it.

Do you mean WoW, or Warcraft? If it's WC3, just fyi, most heroes last only for the duration of the game (which is short), so it is there for simply for convenience.

Nobody talks about WC3. Why? Because it's bad. You want RTS? Play Starcraft.

Do you not think that 90% of the characters in D2 simply follow one of the standard builds in their class?

No.

I can understand laziness, but how would the option to reset skills promote stupidity?

"Wow, Rhetorical Meat Slapper looks like a cool skill. I think I'll pump it and see if I can finish the game with it since I can just reset my skills if it doesn't work."

In this quotation we see that Timmy is going to pump the Meat because it visually appeals to him and he knows he can simply reset his skills if it doesn't work. During play, Timmy is not learning much about his character's skills because he is doing nothing but pumping Meat. In other words, Timmy is being stupid.

I hope that helped.

That wasn't a point - that was a comparison of game mechanics.

I don't understand what you're talking about. Here's what you said: "Most MMORPGs do not resemble the mechanics of D2, with the exception of the private/'free' ones that set experience gaining to 1000x normal. It takes a really long time to level. Level 90 D2 = Level ~50-70 Standard MMORPG. It's really hard to just throw away your build and just remake."

You state that it takes a really long time to level, which is of course true for D2. In the very next line you mention it being hard to just throw away a build and make a new one, so because the line right after the one in which you mentioned D2's tedious leveling and a level 90 character you mention throwing away a character and rebuilding, the only conclusion I could draw was that you were talking about throwing away a very high level character, which makes no sense because you've already beaten the game every which way possible. The last line further reinforces this idea by using the word "hard," as in "difficult," in reference to deleting/abandoning a character, as to imply that a large mental investment had been made.

No, the first few acts of Normal are NOT enough to tell any player whether any build is viable or not. A Druid's Ravens and Poison Creeper will do significant damage in Normal, whereas a Windy will simply suck.

You're right, it takes completing Normal to know whether your build is viable. Please forgive me. Now, since you'd probably disagree with this yet again, here is a simple explanation as to why Normal is all it takes: If my build fails, I will die a lot, or a pattern of struggle will constantly emerge, and my failure will be obvious. If it does not fail, I will reach and beat every boss of every difficulty by doing the same thing I did in the other difficulties.

Everything in the game is relative. There's a reason why monster stats are boosted in Nightmare and Hell, and it's because you're way stronger than when you began the game, but this doesn't mean that you have to play differently than you did in Normal, only faster. You're using the same skills, only now they're much stronger.

Implying that you can get through Normal by way of Ravens and PC is totally unreasonable. PC versus act bosses...have fun.

IMHO, I don't really understand why this feature would ruin too much incentive to play D2, provided levelling becomes harder and that the cost of such a feature is high.

I haven't said it would ruin incentive to play a game. I've said it's very possible that it makes players even worse by removing more incentives to play intelligently.

Please shorten your posts by removing areas of my replies that you're not actually replying to. Even though I do, this is funny because this post is about 100 miles long, regardless.
 

jiansonz

Member
Jun 22, 2003
7,940
836
323
Malmö, Sweden
Visit site
What I would like to see is a feature that lets you cancel an invested stat/skill point during the first minute after it´s assigned. That way you don´t have to worry about misclicks (yes, I´ve made my share of those :rolleyes: ).
 
Phesto said:
Do you honestly believe this to be true?

Yes, I honestly believe that. Anything that is not staight-forward will be looked into first.

Phesto said:
Because this reply was so vague, all I could do was attempt to interpret it "correctly." This is how I see it: "I agree, as well as cookie cutter builds." Now, let's bring this into context. I had just given a very general description of what I think a good player is, and in your response you lumped cookie cutter builds in with my definition of a good player. While CC builds are not necessarily indicative of a bad player, they don't say much about a player's ability to use their brain. (For the sake of clarity, let's say a CC build is only the infamous CC build when the player has made a conscious effort to copy an already popularized build.) And finally, not using the brain goes against what I believe a good player is, which is something I believe I've been very clear about. A player who feels the need to copy a popularized build is looking for something to hold their hand, instead of using their brain and doing it the hard way. The way that rewards more generously.

So according to your definition of a good player, you are basically implying that a good player is someone who does not refer to any guides and builds a successful character solely out of his on whims? That's about 100 people of the xxx,000 population on B.Net. The remaining population based their characters on the 100 people, with very slight tweaking or none.

Go browse through the Class forums here and at B.Net. The majority of people just copy someone else's build.

Phesto said:
In my terribly confusing reply I mentioned something about you implying that a level 80 Hammerdin is indicative of what I think a good player is. The mentioning of a level 80 Hammerdin was used as rhetoric and for simplicity. The topic was CC builds and as everyone knows Hammerdin builds are consciously copied quite often, so instead of saying 'That's my simple definition of a "better player," which I think is pretty self-explanatory, so it seems you're implying that simply because someone has a character that is consciously copied quite often, they are a "better player," but it's difficult to say because your reply is vague.' I used 'level 80 Hammerdin.'

And I don't understand why you don't understand my point - I clearly defined what I meant by a good player:

I am simply saying a better player in Diablo knows to equip and distribute the skills for the class(es) and the build(s) they use, and know how to effectively to play their build(s) in game.

Summarized (my definition of a good player):
- Can equip their character properly
- Knows standard skill distribution for their build
- Can get through the game

And from your point:

"While CC builds are not necessarily indicative of a bad player, they don't say much about a player's ability to use their brain. And finally, not using the brain goes against what I believe a good player is, which is something I believe I've been very clear about."

Summarized (your definition of a good player):
- Does not copy a build
- Makes a successful build out of own abilities

Phesto said:
There is a word for becoming bored simply because you've failed, it's LAZINESS. Failure should incite more intrigue than boredom, but nowadays almost everyone is accustomed to being lazy. When you fail, you should want to understand why, and how to not fail, so you can be successful.

Yeah, unfortunately, the whole world is lazy nowadays. You won't believe how many introduction threads at the SP forum I've read that go something like this:

"I started playing back in 200x, right when the game came out. I took one character to Nightmare, couldn't get pass [Insert Boss], and quit. Now that I've found guidance on the internet, I'm playing again!"

Phesto said:
Unfortunately you've involuntarily taken that comment of mine out of context, but of course you could have been more careful and perhaps made a few inferences with that brain of yours. You see, reading basic skill and character attributes at the official website for D2 has nothing to do with something holding my hand because that particular information is available in the game (we can see what each skill does before they're even available), whereas nowhere on the official website or in the game does it tell you how to place skill points to make a common CC build. Things such as those are the difference.

So... you went online to read up on skills and character attributes only? Tell me, how is your Barb set up now? I am curious to how you managed.

Phesto said:
If you're wondering why I'd bother going to the website to see this information instead of simply viewing it during the game, it's because I don't want to run my game and sit, idle, for extended periods of time if my only intention is to READ. It's much more sensible to go to a website for that, rather than spin a disc for 30-60 minutes and do almost nothing with it.

I would have thought you would go online to read up on skills to see damage and skill progression. Does this point even have merit? You went to a website to read because you didn't want to run a program and read? lol?

Phesto said:
Nobody talks about WC3. Why? Because it's bad. You want RTS? Play Starcraft.

You brought it up.

But while we're on the matter, Starcraft is a game with very little micro, less budgeting and more massing, and the winner is usually the person who religiously memorized his or her hot keys.

Since you prefer to use your brain more, I don't see why Starcraft would be the preference.

Phesto said:
"Wow, Rhetorical Meat Slapper looks like a cool skill. I think I'll pump it and see if I can finish the game with it since I can just reset my skills if it doesn't work."

In this quotation we see that Timmy is going to pump the Meat because it visually appeals to him and he knows he can simply reset his skills if it doesn't work. During play, Timmy is not learning much about his character's skills because he is doing nothing but pumping Meat. In other words, Timmy is being stupid.

I hope that helped.

Why is that stupid? According to your definition of a good player, the player should use his brain. And to use your brain, you have to test things out to bring out failure.

And secondly... Timmy is somewhat on the right track. You're supposed to pump one skill.

As I said, the reset feature can easily be made less harmful if the cost was high, or if restrictions were placed.

Phesto said:
I don't understand what you're talking about. Here's what you said: "Most MMORPGs do not resemble the mechanics of D2, with the exception of the private/'free' ones that set experience gaining to 1000x normal. It takes a really long time to level. Level 90 D2 = Level ~50-70 Standard MMORPG. It's really hard to just throw away your build and just remake."

You state that it takes a really long time to level, which is of course true for D2. In the very next line you mention it being hard to just throw away a build and make a new one, so because the line right after the one in which you mentioned D2's tedious leveling and a level 90 character you mention throwing away a character and rebuilding, the only conclusion I could draw was that you were talking about throwing away a very high level character, which makes no sense because you've already beaten the game every which way possible. The last line further reinforces this idea by using the word "hard," as in "difficult," in reference to deleting/abandoning a character, as to imply that a large mental investment had been made.

I state that it takes a really long time to level in MMORPGs. It is relatively easy to level characters in D2 until level 87ish in comparison to MMORPGs. My 'throwing' away comment was in reference to MMORPGs. I even mentionned this earlier: "especially since it's so easy to level in D2." I was just making a point that skill-resetting is essential in some online games for the sake of not throwing a high-level character due to some mishaps, because like you said, a large mental investment had been made.

In reference to D2, yes, it relatively takes less time to level up. But the time is still time. Remember the poorly built Windy I mentionned on the first page? He's now level 92, with leet geet. However, because I screwed up in stats, he has about 600 life lower than the average Windy. Because I screwed up in skill placement, his Wind tree is not synergized fully. Can he go through Hell? Yes. Can he run bosses effectively? No. Can he PvP? No. Is he a successful build even though he is high level and has made it through all difficulties? No. Would I like to reset him? Very much so.

Phesto said:
You're right, it takes completing Normal to know whether your build is viable. Please forgive me. Now, since you'd probably disagree with this yet again, here is a simple explanation as to why Normal is all it takes: If my build fails, I will die a lot, or a pattern of struggle will constantly emerge, and my failure will be obvious. If it does not fail, I will reach and beat every boss of every difficulty by doing the same thing I did in the other difficulties.

No test build is considered viable until it finishes Hell.

Phesto said:
Implying that you can get through Normal by way of Ravens and PC is totally unreasonable. PC versus act bosses...have fun.

I did not imply that a PC will kill Act Bosses in any way, or get you through Normal. :lol: I simply said they do significant damage since monsters have lower life in Normal. And that is why survival in the Normal difficulty cannot be justifiable grounds to claiming a build is viable.

Phesto said:
I haven't said it would ruin incentive to play a game. I've said it's very possible that it makes players even worse by removing more incentives to play intelligently.

And once again - if they do incorporate such a feature, they should make it have high costs/restrictions. This will remove the possibility of ignorant carelessness when building a character.

Phesto said:
Please shorten your posts by removing areas of my replies that you're not actually replying to. Even though I do, this is funny because this post is about 100 miles long, regardless.

Yeah. But you know how lazy I am.
 

Luca Rescigno

Member
Jul 27, 2005
657
0
165
Minnesota
I'm a newcomer to LoD as well. I played a couple years ago for a while, creating a Barbarian without any focused abilities or stats. I don't remember much about what I had back then, but in the last two months or so I've picked up the game again. I started a Druid and built him up with very little outside advice and no outside equipment. I found that while he was very powerful in Normal and early Nightmare, I ran into problems in mid-late Nightmare and had a hard time continuing. This is with a pretty focused distribution of skills - basically Werewolf, Lycanthropy, Feral Rage, and Fury.

I could definitely have put a few more points into Vitality and fewer into Energy (though I only wasted about a dozen there). But overall it was a good build. What killed it? Equipment. I was using the sorts of things you put on really low-level characters pretty much throughout Normal, only later finding better items to use. I swear I used the same Biggin's Bonnet, Hand of Broc, and Dimoak's Hew for almost all of Normal mode. They were fine at first but obviously I wanted better stuff. Problem was I couldn't find much of anything better. Finally I happened upon Hwanin's Justice in Act II NM, and that made things a LOT easier, but by the time I got to Act V it again wasn't enough. I got completely stuck at the Ancients and even after I managed to get someone to run me past them and defeat Baal, I wasn't able to survive very long in the second half of Act V NM.

Well, a friend of mine (who has been playing Diablo II for a really long time and has a zillion items) just stepped in a couple days ago and gave me a new weapon, armor, and helm (for the curious, he made me a Chains Of Honor [Ancient Armor], a Hand Of Justice [Ancient Axe], and gave me a Stealskull). That's all it took for me to be able to tackle Baal on Nightmare and begin Hell mode. Now my Druid's really fun to play again.

I think that while Blizzard has certainly made D2 a challenge for seasoned veterans, they've possibly made it too hard for new players, or just players who don't have endless hordes of equipment. I kind of agree with them because it's really something special when you find that elite unique you've been hunting for for days or weeks. Still, I think it's extremely difficult to get through even Nightmare mode unless you have a very focused character build, incredibly good equipment, or both. Newbies are not likely to have either.

While the druid was stuck, I made a couple other characters, some of which used cookiecutter builds. I think that's the perfect intermediate step for D2 players - you start just dicking around and putting points wherever you like, and then when you get stuck and frustrated because that didn't work, you start checking out what other people are doing. As you develop your cookie cutter characters (mine's a Meteorb sorceress), you start to learn how the different abilities work together and why stat point allocation is important, and all the while you're collecting items you might be able to use on future characters as well. Eventually you should be able to create your own original character builds that are just as effective as the premade ones. But it can take a while to get there.
 

Phesto

Member
Aug 2, 2005
528
0
165
omgwtfbbqpwned said:
Yes, I honestly believe that. Anything that is not staight-forward will be looked into first.

When someone has just bought a new game and plays it for the first time, they don't immediately stop playing it to look for related things on the Internet. This is because they are enjoying their new game.

And I don't understand why you don't understand my point - I clearly defined what I meant by a good player:

What I don't understand is that tiny, vague post I had tried to decipher, which is what this area of the debate is BASED ON. In this reply of yours you should be commenting on the reply you quoted, either refuting it or not, OR, in this case, simply stating whether you now understand an earlier post of mine, which had been clarified in the reply you had "replied" to in the above quotation. Instead, you do the following:

1. completely ignore the content of what you quoted, and take it completely out of context
2. shoot off on a tangent by making unrelated statements to give the appearance that you're correct, or making a shred of sense, which is either because you don't know how to debate (which seems obvious), or that you're at a loss for relevant words
3. make an already obvious claim regarding one of your earlier comments that has nothing to do with the content of the reply you quoted, which is the clarification I had provided for an earlier post, which is the content of what you quoted, which is what you should be commenting on, which can only possibly consist of you either stating whether you now understand that earlier post of mine, in which I had mentioned a level 80 Hammerdin
4. yet it does not
5. learn how to debate
6. comment on what you quote, not on something that led to what you quoted
7. do it for the sake of time and good debating

So... you went online to read up on skills and character attributes only? Tell me, how is your Barb set up now? I am curious to how you managed.

I would have thought you would go online to read up on skills to see damage and skill progression. Does this point even have merit? You went to a website to read because you didn't want to run a program and read? lol?

Instead of looking at PIECES of information in the game, some of which can only be observed over time, I instead chose to use the official website because it's there that one can view COMPLETE sections of information at a time, and therefor make better and more time efficient decisions. Oh, and then there's that part about not wanting to run a game if my ONLY intention is to READ.

In taking time and reading, a newb can discover many subtleties that they simply hadn't noticed before. When I was a newb, I didn't care about the significant amount of life that Barbarians receive per point, only that I added a point to vitality once in a while because it is a logical thing to do. Did this happen to be one of the problems when I reached the Halls? You bet, and I'm glad I stopped playing to chill and read for a little while.

But while we're on the matter, Starcraft is a game with very little micro, less budgeting and more massing, and the winner is usually the person who religiously memorized his or her hot keys.

This comment is one of the most ridiculous things I've ever read in my entire life. This is the most laughable thing I have ever seen. It shows nothing but pure ignorance and a complete and utter lack of knowledge and experience. I feel very sad for you because you happened to say this to someone who has spent many years playing SC consistently and diligently and has accumulated over at least 5500 games which have averaged about 15 minutes a piece. I'd wager that your combined time of playing Starcraft hovers between 0 seconds and 1 week. Also, before you delve into money maps, I suggest getting a nice foundation via some limited maps, so that your views based on what little experience you do have aren't distorted more than Diablo's rectum.

Please take that comment that I've quoted and highlighted and post it on any popular Starcraft message board, gather some replies, and post them in this thread.

Starcraft is a RTS game, therefor it is inherently micro-based. RTSs contain aspects which can easily be compared to RL battles. RPGs are not micro-based. Does it take a lot of micro to PVP in a RPG? You bet. Does that mean RPGs are micro-based? Nope. (I'd like to add that I can't tell whether you're comparing D2 to SC or WC3 to SC, in either case you're wrong, but if it's the latter, simply ignore the part about RTSs compared to RPGs.)

Since you prefer to use your brain more, I don't see why Starcraft would be the preference.

I compared SC to WC3. They are both RTSs. You made a totally bogus and ignorant claim that SC is less about micro than D2 (seemingly implying that D2, a RPG, is more about micro). If that was about WC3, I will say that no reasonable and honest person is going to make claims that one RTS is more difficult or complicated than the other, unless they are an expert in both, which you clearly ARE NOT.

Why is that stupid? According to your definition of a good player, the player should use his brain. And to use your brain, you have to test things out to bring out failure.

And secondly... Timmy is somewhat on the right track. You're supposed to pump one skill.

It's STUPID because Timmy CLEARLY STATES that he's going to pump ONE SKILL with the intention of beating the ENTIRE GAME with that one, pumped, skill. Everyone knows this is a very bad idea.

As I said, the reset feature can easily be made less harmful if the cost was high, or if restrictions were placed.

And once again - if they do incorporate such a feature, they should make it have high costs/restrictions. This will remove the possibility of ignorant carelessness when building a character.

Placing a high cost on this would do absolutely nothing because everyone and their brother plays together and would simply give their unthinking friend the proper amount of money upon his meager request. "Please hold my hand."

I state that it takes a really long time to level in MMORPGs. It is relatively easy to level characters in D2 until level 87ish in comparison to MMORPGs. My 'throwing' away comment was in reference to MMORPGs. I even mentionned this earlier: "especially since it's so easy to level in D2." I was just making a point that skill-resetting is essential in some online games for the sake of not throwing a high-level character due to some mishaps, because like you said, a large mental investment had been made.

Again, you are taking the reply you were replying to here and savagely ripping it out of context. I pointed out the blatantly obvious errors in what you had posted before, yet you acknowledge none of that in this reply, and instead shoot off on some tangent that has nothing to do with the ACTUAL claims I made in that post, which WERE regarding the content of your post. Please exercise the same decency.

Is he a successful build even though he is high level and has made it through all difficulties? No. Would I like to reset him? Very much so.

In the above statement you claim that your Wind Druid is not a successful build even though it can beat all three difficulties. Then observe how you provide absolutely no reason for why you think this. This is a perfect example of poor debating: offer opinions that are literally backed by nothing, and in doing so, make it nearly impossible for anyone to form a proper reply. I must say that leaving it in the hands of the recipient to interpret your posts is a very bad idea as it's massive time-waster for both parties, among about a thousand other reasons.

I ultimately base success in D2 on whether my character can beat the game. I may set a little goal he or there like everyone else does, but other than that, when I play a game, I consider myself successful when I've beaten it. After all, that is really the main objective. It's in fighting and defeating the act bosses that you're truly tested, because they are the strongest monsters, so it's only logical that a build's success should be based on these things.

No test build is considered viable until it finishes Hell.

Notice how your explanation regarding this topic is one sentence with no elaboration? Notice how mine which regarded the very same issue was full of content and elaborations? Refer to my last statement. Learn how to debate.

I did not imply that a PC will kill Act Bosses in any way, or get you through Normal. I simply said they do significant damage since monsters have lower life in Normal. And that is why survival in the Normal difficulty cannot be justifiable grounds to claiming a build is viable.

A Druid's Ravens and Poison Creeper will do significant damage in Normal, whereas a Windy will simply suck.

Saying that the Druid's Ravens and PC will do significant amounts of damage in Normal leads me to believe that you'd be pumping them because both of these skills at low levels quickly become insignificant even in the ease that is Normal, and in pumping them you leave yourself with few points to invest in other skills, which will be what actually has a chance of getting you through Normal. In short, simply stating that "A Druid's Ravens and Poison Creeper will do significant damage in Normal" is wrong. If you still don't get it, feel free to elaborate.

Yeah. But you know how lazy I am.

Yes, we already knew that though, because I've already either said it or implied it, and you've proven it in previous posts. There's no need to beat yourself up over it.

I'd like to again politely request that you edit my replies down to the parts that you're actually replying to for the sake of coherent debating and reasonable message board etiquette. Also, I imagine that for readers who are interested in these lengthy posts it would be nice to not have to read a lot of extra text that ends up being confusing and irrelevant. I believe it's known as being considerate, as opposed to blatantly obnoxious.

If you decide not to change your ways I will consider you to have conceded on the basis of being an ignorant troll, and cease replying to your posts in this thread, as well as add you to my ignore list (if we have the option), in order to save my time as well as the rest of the D2 community's.
 
omgwtfbbqpwned said:
Yes, I honestly believe that. Anything that is not staight-forward will be looked into first.
Just like Phesto, I beleive this to be a rather weak argument. When people just get their hands on the game, they just start plaing and play it for rather long time. Why do they need to read articles? Short descriptions of skills and listed damage is enough to make the decisions in the beginning. Normal is quite playable with what a newcomer has in the game itself. It's much later, when critical errors in his decisions begin to show up.
omgwtfbbqpwned said:
So according to your definition of a good player, you are basically implying that a good player is someone who does not refer to any guides and builds a successful character solely out of his on whims? That's about 100 people of the xxx,000 population on B.Net. The remaining population based their characters on the 100 people, with very slight tweaking or none.
I beleive, It's much more simple. Phesto's "better players" can read guides, can copy other people's builds and they do it. The difference is that they know game mechanics, they have huge gameplay experience, and different gameplay experience (not only Meph/Baal runs, but the whole game). Yes, they read guides, but they DO UNDERSTAND what the author wrote exactly. They're taking into consideration other people's ideas, rather than blindly following them.

Summarized (my definition of a good player):
- Can equip their character properly
- Knows standard skill distribution for their build
- Can get through the game


Look closely at the last point of Phesto's definition. How many cookie-cutters that are baalrunning with you now, do you think, really "can make throgh the game"? Especially, talking about Hardcore? Not that many, I beleive. "Can" means that they actually did it many times and they know (from practical experience, not in theory) how to deal with any kind of threat in the game.
"Can equip their character properly" - this also doesn't mean "got all the uber gear". This refers to the ability to tell important gear from unimportant and get by with the minimum necessary equipment.

omgwtfbbqpwned said:
Yeah, unfortunately, the whole world is lazy nowadays. You won't believe how many introduction threads at the SP forum I've read that go something like this:

"I started playing back in 200x, right when the game came out. I took one character to Nightmare, couldn't get pass [Insert Boss], and quit. Now that I've found guidance on the internet, I'm playing again!"
Yes, omgwtfbbqpwned, there are many posts like this. But they're not those "better players" Phesto has been talking about. :)

omgwtfbbqpwned said:
So... you went online to read up on skills and character attributes only? Tell me, how is your Barb set up now? I am curious to how you managed.
...
I would have thought you would go online to read up on skills to see damage and skill progression. Does this point even have merit? You went to a website to read because you didn't want to run a program and read? lol?
Once again, nobody said, that a good player shouldn't and haven't read anything in the internet. "Using the brain" means the ability to use your knowledge to make hundreds of little but important decisions while playing and building your character up.
omgwtfbbqpwned said:
As I said, the reset feature can easily be made less harmful if the cost was high, or if restrictions were placed.
You've said, that the reset feature is first of all useful for newcomers, but if the costs are very high, it won't be available to them. Experienced players have either earned some wealth already or at least know how to get it quickly. But they don't this feature anyway, or it becomes a superrior weapon in their hands. If this is balanced via restrictions it's not gonig to change much for newcomers - because of lack of knowlege they'll probably use their limited resets before it's really necessary - and come to what they've got now - need of rebuild.
omgwtfbbqpwned said:
Remember the poorly built Windy I mentionned on the first page? He's now level 92, with leet geet. However, because I screwed up in stats, he has about 600 life lower than the average Windy. Because I screwed up in skill placement, his Wind tree is not synergized fully. Can he go through Hell? Yes. Can he run bosses effectively? No. Can he PvP? No. Is he a successful build even though he is high level and has made it through all difficulties? No. Would I like to reset him? Very much so.
If he finished Hell, he can be considered successful. What purposes have you built him for? For quick MF baal/meph/<insert name> runs? I don't think so. There's a very limited set of most effective characters for theese. I beleive, you've made him for fun - just to play the game with it. Did you play and enjoy the time? Probably, you did. So why is it unsuccessful?
Why do you think people were bulding bowazons (before Faith/Fortitude were introduced), Ranger palas, melee sorcs, warcry barbs, etc? They definitely weren't the quickest MF'ers, and not greatest PvPers either. So, they're "not effective" in your definition? But people enjoyed them and didn't complain, that they had to play them from scratch and couldn't just appear on Hell and distribute stats/skills the way they wanted.
And there's another reason why I'm totally aginst reset feature:
omgwtfbbqpwned said:
No test build is considered viable until it finishes Hell.
Well, also no build can be considered viable, if it suddenly appears on Hell with level 85+, all quests done and all stats/skills already in place. But if you have played with THIS particular build from Act 1 Normal, beating all threats on your way, slowly developing his stats/skills - then this build is complete.