Webnet	Post #1 Posted: March, 30th 9:08 PM 2009
I am Second Posts: 1,655	http://www.diablo-source.com/index.php?cmd=media&sec=screenshot&act=view&id=268 I'm quite disturbed by this to be quite honest. I'm not looking for a remake of WoW. I can't believe they would even show such a screenshot, or perhaps it's their way of testing the waters. --------------------------- Watch the video to find out why "I Am Second" Have you voted yet? Vote now!

MrJack	Post #2 Posted: March, 30th 10:34 PM 2009 | Modified: March, 30th 10:38 PM 2009
The Aesthete Posts: 465	I don't know, it might be similar to the way WoW's got it set up but it's also a lot closer to the way the skills were set out and selected in D2 as well—the only difference is the different style of icons—and from what I've read while there's some negative comments there's also a lot of people are mostly pleased with this change... I have to say overall I'm really liking the ui and everything at the moment, and while I think there's still a way to go with the equipped items section of the inventory I'm damn happy with the way they're dividing the backpack up into three tabs. ---------------------------

joeorange	Post #3 Posted: March, 31st 8:46 AM 2009
Posts: 1,128	Two threads same really theme? Either way I'll copy and paste what I posted in the other one :D Yeah it is hard to tell without knowing really how the older version worked. This looks very similar to WoW for sure, but the WoW talent system was taken from the Skill Tree of Diablo II wasn't it? Personally I liked how the old system was. You had your main spells on the left and passive abilities on the right. Some of the Wizard's tier one passives were amazing, and you could use the tier one to climb up to higher levels. With the WoW-ish system that is no longer a possibility. It kind of forces you to get abilities and spells you may not otherwise place points into. My opinion is that the spells and abilities should be able to stand on their own and shouldn't be forced upon a player just to get another spell that they want. That is just me though. --------------------------- http://www.youtube.com/joeorangesc Highest Rank in Platinum 1v1 48 Highest Rank in Platinum RT 10

TempestBeauty	Post #4 Posted: March, 31st 12:07 PM 2009
Aloof Posts: 34	I agree... I hate having to waste points into a skill that I don't think is worth while just to get one that I want. I hated having to budget my points into a build. ><

Webnet	Post #5 Posted: March, 31st 5:03 PM 2009
I am Second Posts: 1,655	Perhaps I got a little excited to express my opinion on this topic. --------------------------- Watch the video to find out why "I Am Second" Have you voted yet? Vote now!

MrJack	Post #6 Posted: March, 31st 7:25 PM 2009
The Aesthete Posts: 465	From the look of it I don't actually think it changes that much anyway, gameplay-wise—I don't think they've actually removed any of the passive skills (there are a lot of skills there without a rune slot) and since you always needed to get at least a certain number of points in each tree before going up a tier (as opposed to only level-based constraints) quite a lot of the time you'd've been adding points to a lot of your skills anyway. AND From the looks of it there are actually only 3 skills in that tree that actually have pre-reqs, so I don't think constraints in that respect are going to be too much of an issue. ---------------------------

SquidKnight	Post #7 Posted: April, 1st 6:05 PM 2009
Posts: 6	all that's changing really is how it looks. i don't think it's bad that diablo iii is similar to WoW. when you really think about it, WoW stole a lot from diablo and made it better and more appropriate for an mmo. now it's diablo's turn to steal it right back and make it better and more appropriate for a non-mmo.

Lord_Legion	Post #8 Posted: April, 2nd 4:25 AM 2009 | Modified: April, 2nd 4:30 AM 2009
Progenitor Posts: 68	It doesnt look too bad...at least until I encounter a skill that will raise my attack rating by 1 percent every skill point and ten points are needed to get to the next spell. One other thing I just realized...the skill limit on that one selected is 5. How usefull will that be in nightmare or hell difficulty? --------------------------- We may be nothing in the eyes of the universe, but...well...that's all I got.

joeorange	Post #9 Posted: April, 2nd 2:50 PM 2009
Posts: 1,128	Good eye there Lord_Legion :D Here is an example of my biggest issue with this type of system. Lets say that I really want a great ability like Temperal Armor (for the Wizard) just for a little defensive bonus for my wizard. In this example let us say this particular spell has a Fan of Blades as a pre-requisite (a Mele spell). I would like to build my Wizard as a ranged frost spell caster, but now in order to get this defensive spell I have to spend points in an ability I will never use. Lord_Legion brought up a good point with his 5 point limit. For a lot of these spells to maximize their potential they need to be maxed out. Knowing that the Fan of blades spell that I have in our example will be completely useless in higher difficulties because it will only have one point in it to unlock Temperal Armor. So in this example if I want to have a Ranged frost wizard with Temperal Armor my Temperal Armor spell will cost one extra skill point than a Mele Wizard. This is the problem that I have with pre-requisites. Note: Yes at blizzCon you could totally make a Mele Wizard and "she" was awesome! --------------------------- http://www.youtube.com/joeorangesc Highest Rank in Platinum 1v1 48 Highest Rank in Platinum RT 10

MrJack	Post #10 Posted: April, 2nd 7:05 PM 2009 | Modified: April, 2nd 7:07 PM 2009
The Aesthete Posts: 465	I can see that that might be a problem, yes, but that's only assuming that they do something like that—make an entirely irrelevant spell or passive a pre-requisite for something—which is entirely hypothetical—and I'll point out again that only 3 of the skills in the tree actually have pre-reqs so the likelihood of being forced into a particular skill is not terribly high—and massively less than it was in D2. So really it's only a problem if they end up with badly-thought-out skill trees. (Which will be a legitimate reason for complaint). And keep in mind that when we played at BlizzCon all the active skills had a maximum of 1 point in them, so that's still up to change, I think (if I remember rightly I think Bash said that skills would mostly have a max of 15 points, though no doubt it's all up to balance). ---------------------------

joeorange	Post #11 Posted: April, 3rd 10:35 AM 2009
Posts: 1,128	With any pre-requisites the game developer's are taking away from the player's options. They are dangling a carrot on a stick. The spell that has the pre-requisite is the carrot, and the other (normally lesser spell) is the path you have to do down. Yes the tree we are looking at here only has three, but the number of spells like this isn't my point. It is a way for developers to put in a spell sink (for lack of a better term) to try to balance the "lesser" spells / abilities with the more desirable ones. In my opinion this is a bad thing. I would rather the spells / abilities stand on their own, and not have to be important by association with another spell. This is why I prefer the option we saw at BlizzCon. In essence it was a similar concept, but instead of one choice of pre-requite we have three (or sometimes more the higher up the tree you go). And keep in mind that when we played at BlizzCon all the active skills had a maximum of 1 point in them, so that's still up to change, I think (if I remember rightly I think Bash said that skills would mostly have a max of 15 points, though no doubt it's all up to balance). Yeah the only reason I brought this up is because in the screen shot shown above the highlighted skill is an active spell and it has a max of 5 points. So looks like they may be changing the way their spells work also :/ I probably should have mentioned why it was such a good find on Lord_Legion's part. My bad :( Also I wouldn't say that pre-requites that people don't want are a result of a badly thought out tree, more so a way to sink skill points without increasing the character's abilities too much. The reason I worry so much about this, is that every class in WoW has this issue. They have abilities that not only require you to take lesser spells you really don't want to use in order to get to that lovely carrot. The path is long and treacherous and the carrot is without ranch :( --------------------------- http://www.youtube.com/joeorangesc Highest Rank in Platinum 1v1 48 Highest Rank in Platinum RT 10

RedPriest	Post #12 Posted: April, 3rd 11:18 AM 2009
Posts: 40	Does anyone know if they're going to keep the synergy thing going that they had in D2? If you're not familiar with it, it was a settup they had in their "talents". For example I'll use the druid cause its the last thing I played. But in the caster tree, if you put points in the summons, it buffed some of the shapeshifter spells. Like I think it was the poison vine, that made your wolf form stronger. I really liked this system, and it added a lot of viriaty to all kinds of different specs. And it made you think twice about what armor/weapons to pick up. Atleast the ones that add to skill points.

joeorange	Post #13 Posted: April, 3rd 11:34 AM 2009
Posts: 1,128	So far the answer to this is no. This was at BlizzCon though (a year ago now) and the reason for it was because there were only a few spells per class. With this the rest of the abilities in the tree were passive and basically made up for the need of Synergy. So you would put one point (and one point max) into an ability and then use the other 12 passive abilities to augment your spells. Cool concept. And since the change to the WoW / D2 template they may be bring that back. Who knows; may be a good question to bring up at BlizzCon or to Bashiok. --------------------------- http://www.youtube.com/joeorangesc Highest Rank in Platinum 1v1 48 Highest Rank in Platinum RT 10

RedPriest	Post #14 Posted: April, 3rd 12:48 PM 2009
Posts: 40	This is the reason I think they went with the pre-reqs on some talents to get others... to make it easier Talent A is linked to C talent A is in tier 3, and C is in tier 4 Talent B is also in tier 3, but not linked They want you to waste points on Talent A to get C, because getting both C and B would be overpowered without spending even more points and in doing so you couldn't get down to D in tier 5, which is even more powerful, but you can't get it cause you wasted too many points on the other 3... I hope that makes sense ;D

MrJack	Post #15 Posted: April, 4th 12:52 AM 2009
The Aesthete Posts: 465	Yeah, joe's basically got the answer there; passive skills replace the need for synergies by doing the same thing but not requiring you to put skills in something that you were never going to use anyway. It's a good point on having fewer points available for active skills as well, since I still get torn in early game between putting skill points in the actual skills or into the others that provide synergies. And again, with a well designed skill tree it's not going to be a problem. Avoiding hypothetical bad examples and looking at what we've actually been shown, the first two 'linked' skills are both quite obviously dual-wield specialisation skills, in which case while being 'forced' to put skills in one to get to the next is arguably removing some choice from the player, if you are going for a dual-wielding build then I can't see any reason why you wouldn't want both anyway—and if you're not going for that then you can avoid both entirely and never need put a point into either. If they put in irrelevant links then I'll start getting worried, but I can't say I'm unhappy with it as it stands. ---------------------------