Posts: 4,063
Threads: 68
Joined: Feb 2003
Hi,
Quote:The stipulations . . . make it impossible for the vast majority of players to finish Nightmare unaided, let alone the whole game.
Exactly. Operative phrase, "the vast majority". If anybody can do it, then where's the challenge? That's where difficulty levels should come in. They should be a way for the less capable player to see all the content (playing at 'easiest') while still giving a good, experienced, player a challenge. Since the game companies no longer seem to care about the gamers that want more than mental masturbation, then those gamers have to figure out their own ways to enhance the challenge. And if the enhancement makes the game impossible, so much the better. That's what makes you think. That's what makes you devise new strategies and tactics. And that's what makes you a better player and the game a better game.
Quote:As for Minesweeper, there's an arguable case that it and games like it are genuinely rigged against the player - and that is the number one Bad Thing ™ in the world of video and computer games.
Rigged how?
But being the underdog is exactly where a player should be when playing against a machine. Look at chess, where even the world champion can no longer beat the machine. And yet, chess programs have difficulty settings that let even putzers have a chance.
--Pete
How big was the aquarium in Noah's ark?
Posts: 1,190
Threads: 39
Joined: Feb 2003
Quote:As for Minesweeper, there's an arguable case that it and games like it are genuinely rigged against the player - and that is the number one Bad Thing ™ in the world of video and computer games.
Mind sweeper isn't 'rigged' unless by rigged you mean there's a degree of chance included in the game. Mind sweepers a mix of (predominately) logical deductions and (minimally) chance. If the level of chance wasn't there the game would get boring pretty fast.
Now I'm sure there can be a case made about how there is always a degree of chance generated in every puzzle. This is hardly rigging the game though, no where does it promise that it's a purely logical game. It isn't Sudoku.
Cheers,
Munk
Posts: 182
Threads: 3
Joined: Jun 2006
Quote:Hi,
Exactly. Operative phrase, "the vast majority". If anybody can do it, then where's the challenge? That's where difficulty levels should come in. They should be a way for the less capable player to see all the content (playing at 'easiest') while still giving a good, experienced, player a challenge. Since the game companies no longer seem to care about the gamers that want more than mental masturbation, then those gamers have to figure out their own ways to enhance the challenge. And if the enhancement makes the game impossible, so much the better. That's what makes you think. That's what makes you devise new strategies and tactics. And that's what makes you a better player and the game a better game.
Precisely. This is exactly what is needed in most games. And if you take it in the form of a treasure-hunt dungeon-crawl, the ideal way to implement this "hardcore" mode, for lack of a better word, would be to elliminate all rewards, or at least scale them down to match the lower difficulties. That way you won't get the general public complaining about how they can't get the powerful stuff, and they'll leave us caffeine-addicted crotchety hermits to our self-mutilation.
Once again, I shall cite Guild Wars (Because I'm addicted, because I know it well, and because I'm becoming a walking advertisement), which has come closer to this than anything I know. Since items are largely irrelevant, and a perfect upgrade obtained on a shoddy sword can be put into whatever sword you desire, there really isn't any point besides cosmetics to go into the hard areas, especially if they contain no unique Elite-bearing bosses. So what you essentially have is people completing these areas because they CAN, no because they might get a Zod rune. None of these guys is ever complaining that he isn't getting anything out of it, because simply going there and surviving is enough. Now if only the cosmetic factor would go away as well...
--me
Posts: 1,063
Threads: 50
Joined: Apr 2003
>Precisely. This is exactly what is needed in most games. And if you take it in the form of a treasure-hunt dungeon-crawl, the ideal way to implement this "hardcore" mode, for lack of a better word, would be to elliminate all rewards, or at least scale them down to match the lower difficulties. That way you won't get the general public complaining about how they can't get the powerful stuff, and they'll leave us caffeine-addicted crotchety hermits to our self-mutilation.
You remember games like Doom 1&2 yes? They basically already done what you just described. I remember when there was a similar discussion some patch version past, the same basic idea was kicked around as well. Obviously Doom and Diablo is not in the same genre, but in terms of how to handle the difficulty levels Doom had some merits. (Ie: you won't find a better Shotgun that will only drop in Nightmare mode.) But it's done in context. Doom was built to satisfy many twitch factors, it probably wouldn't work as well if in order to play a higher difficulty setting, you -MUST- complete the easier one first.
Iirc D2 difficulty levels was done the way it was mostly because a large number of the fans wants it handled the same way as D1. The 'general public' are the ones that butters bliz bread the most. The elite few ie: the people who have the technical skills to look under the hood of the game, the players who can solo 8 hard to use characters, players who devise and play challenging variations 24/7, are exactly that. Few. Bliz will most likely seriously pay attention to their issues only if it impacts the rest of the general users.
> None of these guys is ever complaining that he isn't getting anything out of it, because simply going there and surviving is enough. Now if only the cosmetic factor would go away as well...
Wishing the cosmetic factor to go away (especially if you're talking about commercially made video games), is like asking Vegas to remove all those Wayne Newton impersonators, the showgirls, and the neon. Because all that 'glamour' is taking away from the gambling.
Posts: 182
Threads: 3
Joined: Jun 2006
Quote: Wishing the cosmetic factor to go away (especially if you're talking about commercially made video games), is like asking Vegas to remove all those Wayne Newton impersonators, the showgirls, and the neon. Because all that 'glamour' is taking away from the gambling.
Not quite. The context here is that there are item skins which are not available anywhere else in the game. By all means, make them purdy, just don't make this the only outlet for them, so we don't get the whiny guy who feels he should own the blinged out (-looking) weapons there to mess up the experience.
--me
Posts: 1,063
Threads: 50
Joined: Apr 2003
>Not quite. The context here is that there are item skins which are not available anywhere else in the game. By all means, make them purdy, just don't make this the only outlet for them,
On that I very much agree, especially the 'only outlet' part.
Posts: 1,913
Threads: 47
Joined: Jun 2003
Quote:I tried the demo and got the feeling of completely pointless, rushed hack 'n slash. No skills in fighting necessary. Mindless clicking on every possible mob, onslaught of easy mobs.... basically just crap. Whereas in D2 for example you were much better off concentrating on 1 mob then next mob, etc.... in TQ you just click in the general area of the mobs and not even bother looking at what you're hitting. This takes any sort of skill completely out of the game for me. IMO, it was a complete POS. Luckily, I did not waste the $, or even more importantly the time to play it. And yes.... for all our bitching and moaning about how D2 was not as good as D1, D2 was still a hell of a game... especially compared to the alternatives. What can I say, Blizzard knows how to make games.
-A
My computer probably doesnot play titanquest...but apparantly I don't miss much. At the moment I play a bit of warcraft3 and still some D2.
A question I have is why do many of you find D1 better than D2? I played it once, and after I finished I never looked at it again. Much less playability, no life bars on the monsters, lot less options. Or am I missing something?. I know it is a matter of taste but what do you like about D1?
Posts: 168
Threads: 1
Joined: Sep 2004
Quote:Mind sweeper isn't 'rigged' unless by rigged you mean there's a degree of chance included in the game. Cheers,
Munk
The "degree of chance" is exactly what's rigged. Because there IS no "random chance" when it gets down to that guess as to which of those 2 squares has the mine, and there's no clues from surrounding squares. (If you've played the game at all, you know this happens a lot.) Whichever square you choose to clear, that's the mine - game over. If that isn't rigged, I don't know what is.
As to the whole "vast majority" bit: If you can't win, there's no point in playing. End of both the discussion and the popularity of the game in question.
Posts: 1,190
Threads: 39
Joined: Feb 2003
Quote:The "degree of chance" is exactly what's rigged. Because there IS no "random chance" when it gets down to that guess as to which of those 2 squares has the mine, and there's no clues from surrounding squares. (If you've played the game at all, you know this happens a lot.) Whichever square you choose to clear, that's the mine - game over. If that isn't rigged, I don't know what is.
Oh please. I've played thousands upon thousands of games of minesweeper, and this 'conspiracy theory' you're concocting is absolutely absurd. You can't honestly believe a simple little game applet is cheating you on purpose.
When most people are given the odds of an outcome, they disagree with the true odds once they start seeing the practical outcome. When you're on a winning streak you're getting lucky. When you start on a losing streak it's not just bad luck, it must be rigged. Go to a gambling establishment and you'll see this phenomena in spades. It's easy to concoct a conspiracy theory because when it comes to chance/odds, it's nearly impossible to prove it otherwise (other than a prolonged period of testing graphed out to show the probability).
As someone who has played a lot too, my opinion on your losing streak is it's a bunch of bad luck. It's something I haven't experienced, though I'm certain I would have if the game really was 'rigged'.
Cheers,
Munk
Posts: 4,063
Threads: 68
Joined: Feb 2003
Hi,
Quote:. . .
What he said.
I like minesweeper as a quick time waster and play a fair bit while waiting for water to boil, lunch to heat, etc.. Of the games that actually get off the ground (i.e., don't blow up while looking for a starting spot) I win about one in four or five. Of the ones that get down to that fifty-fifty last play, I actually win about half, but it feels worse than that;)
Rigged applets? I doubt it.
--Pete
How big was the aquarium in Noah's ark?
Posts: 182
Threads: 3
Joined: Jun 2006
11-09-2006, 01:36 AM
(This post was last modified: 11-09-2006, 01:36 AM by Merlinios.)
Quote:My computer probably doesnot play titanquest...but apparantly I don't miss much. At the moment I play a bit of warcraft3 and still some D2.
A question I have is why do many of you find D1 better than D2? I played it once, and after I finished I never looked at it again. Much less playability, no life bars on the monsters, lot less options. Or am I missing something?. I know it is a matter of taste but what do you like about D1?
There are numerous reasons, most of which are readily apparent if you look at the personality of the poster.
-The game presents a degree of strategy beyond "find good gear, put it on, and click on things", which is essentially what Diablo II boils down to. Diablo II is about slaughter. Diablo I is about survival, until you hit the high levels.
-Nostalgia. Can't argue with this one.
-Better soundtrack (arguable (but not really))
-More in common with other players--people who (still) play Diablo I tend to be older and calmer, not the adrenaline-pumped guys that you see ruining Diablo II. Now that it has lost popularity, there is less "griefing".
-The setting is infinitely better. Diablo I is eerie. You're in an abandoned church, alone in the dark, not sure whether you're the hunter or the hunted. Diablo II involves running around in broad daylight cracking saturday morning cartoons on the head with a stick. This is a tremendous draw to some people.
-The game isn't based exclusively on items. In fact, most of the variants played are about limiting items while still surviving, and are quite doable. This essentially translates to a good player still able to best a bad player, either head-to-head or in terms of killing monsters, without spending years of his life and gallons of coffee hunting for something useful. I'll take the naked mage over the blinged-out tank into my squad any day.
-Despite the 1996 graphics, the game still looks GOOD. And it doesn't look tacky the way just about everything Blizzard's done since Starcraft does.
-PLING!
Surely that is enough, but I'm willing to bet people will chime in with more if you want it. I'm also not sure where you get replayability out of Diablo II but can't even see that of Diablo I. Diablo II is essentially the same game, but with (in my opinion) several steps taken in the wrong direction.
Quote:The "degree of chance" is exactly what's rigged. Because there IS no "random chance" when it gets down to that guess as to which of those 2 squares has the mine, and there's no clues from surrounding squares. (If you've played the game at all, you know this happens a lot.) Whichever square you choose to clear, that's the mine - game over. If that isn't rigged, I don't know what is.
Ye gods! A game that I can't win every time!
Quote:As to the whole "vast majority" bit: If you can't win, there's no point in playing. End of both the discussion and the popularity of the game in question.
This is exactly what we, the power gamers, are after. You do whatever you want to the first three or four difficulties, or 90% of the explorable area, but you give us that zone, or Far Beyond Hell mode, or whatever you want, so long as it's there. We don't want the tacky, overpowered items, because those hurt both the principle of the area (being rigged against the player) and draw the kind of people we don't really want to be gaming with.
Diablo II is sharply lacking in this area, unless one feels the urge to create challenges out of nothing (See: Bonesnap Necromancer, Hardcore Ladder, season 1). Blizzard has attempted to add some areas that are "hard", but they don't represent a real challenge. Diablo II is ultimately about damage taken to life ratios. If you do more damage than your enemies have life before they can do the same to you, they win. Except it's stacked in your favor with large purple bottles. Check out some other games, where there's more than brute strength involved. It IS possible to use strategy to compensate for force in Diablo II, but the default is the fist. There is no real reason to flee, and if there is, it represents no real change in tactics, as you can outrun everything but Moon Lords.
So it wasn't designed that way, you say. It's not meant to be strategically appealing. That's fine, for the first 95% of the game, but I want my Uber Tristram, but for everything, with random spawns, mode. I'm convinced that the majority of Battle.net would not be able to defeat those three if they didn't spawn exactly the same way each time. You don't even have to go as far as rigging it for the monsters. Just don't stack it for the players. Maybe sometimes you should go down there and they have minions who do nothing but cast level 50 Meteors, or minions that all explode like Undead Stygian Dolls, or they have Might, Concentration, Fanaticism. Conviction may well be the best aura in the game, but it shouldn't be the only one.
With all of the random seeds in Diablo II, they're not used where it really counts.
I'm so bad with the rambling of late. Especially on this topic.
--me
Edit: I suck at life...I mean the quote function.
Posts: 373
Threads: 13
Joined: Jun 2003
Quote:what do you like about D1?
"Ah! Fresh meat!"
Prophecy of Deimos
âThe world doesnât end with water, fire, or cold. Iâve divined the coming apocalypse. It ends with tentacles!â
Posts: 1,063
Threads: 50
Joined: Apr 2003
> I know it is a matter of taste but what do you like about D1?
Well for me 1 and 2 has different characteristics, but overall I do like D1 more.
But not having autoclick dates it horribly, it kills mouse buttons and puts unnecessary strains on fingers. Things like (permanent) Black Death and Fascinating\Ornate\Sacred shrines penalties belongs in another era of videogame practice imo. Those who say it just adds to the game and makes you a 'better' player probably needs to adjust the tint on their rose coloured glasses.
Having said that, here's what I like about it.
- General atmosphere. D1 would be a haunted house built by Tim Burton. D2 is a bigger, louder, and brighter sequel directed by Joel Schumacher.
- Access to difficulty levels are based on character level. Only 1 or 2 mandatory quests, the rest are optional.
- What D1 lacks in the scope of level areas (4 main area in Classic, 6 in Hellfire iirc), it makes up in concentration.
- Control. It is a bit of a pain to walk in town, but otherwise the control feels more responsive for me. To me D1 is sport tuned Austin Mini that has a tight turning radius, the dials and gauges (interface and layout) isn't flashy but functional, annoying manual gear box (1 click=1 swing). D2 can seat 8, has an automatic gear box, can go all terrain (sort of), nice layout of dials, but doesn't exactly turn or stop on a dime. It's not a genuine LandRover, but it sorta feels like a very sincere copy of one.
- Less item dependence, relatively speaking. Sorcerors can get away with little to no gear, however Rogues and Warriors do need some kind of gear (bow\melee). D2\LoD does have more character builds that relies more on Skill points, but in general I find D2 to be more gear dependent. Not by a ridiculously large margin, but it is noticeable at least for me.
- Slightly less item and affix inflation and dilution.
The last one is more of a personal preference:
- Nothing is immune to steel (or arrows).
Posts: 168
Threads: 1
Joined: Sep 2004
I have yet to see anything I like better about D1 than D2, even after playing both for over half a decade. D2, for me, simply outdid its predecessor in every possible category.
D1 isn't item-dependant? PUH-LEASE. Ten minutes after starting my first Bnet character, I was virtually invincible thanks to the omnipresent dupers. At level TWO, only the mightiest enemies in Normal could even slow me down. And every spell comes from a book or scroll that you have to find or buy. I'd say D1 is just as item-centric, if not more so.
Posts: 1,063
Threads: 50
Joined: Apr 2003
>D1 isn't item-dependant? PUH-LEASE. Ten minutes after starting my first Bnet character, I was virtually invincible thanks to the omnipresent dupers. At level TWO, only the mightiest enemies in Normal could even slow me down.
Isn't this like saying D2 is innately unbalanced because of duped runes? (Personally I approach it from a mostly game-play\design point of view, leaving out factors like technical issues and cheaters for the time being. Of course b.net has tons of cheaters, but that says something about the cheaters and maybe the game code, but not necessarily the game itself. Otherwise I might as well say no game of poker is worth playing, because someone can and will cheat, therefore poker as a game is flawed. )
And seriously, since when does d00pers have anything worthwhile to add or say in terms of gameplay? According to ones that I've encountered Hell\Hell is impossible to do unless you have a 255 apoc stick, Demonspike Coat is the absolute best armor in the game, and a KsoH only shines in the hands of a Tank Mage.
>And every spell comes from a book or scroll that you have to find or buy.
Yes, that's the way it was built. It has it's own pro's and cons, much like D2 skill tree system. I never have to worry whether or not I can find that book of Conviction, but it sure feels like 'hurry up and wait!' sometimes waiting for that clvl 30 skill tab to open.
Posts: 182
Threads: 3
Joined: Jun 2006
Quote:I have yet to see anything I like better about D1 than D2, even after playing both for over half a decade. D2, for me, simply outdid its predecessor in every possible category.
D1 isn't item-dependant? PUH-LEASE. Ten minutes after starting my first Bnet character, I was virtually invincible thanks to the omnipresent dupers. At level TWO, only the mightiest enemies in Normal could even slow me down. And every spell comes from a book or scroll that you have to find or buy. I'd say D1 is just as item-centric, if not more so.
Cheating aside, this is only because you're using equipment that you will not even be able to find until Hell if it exists at all. Diablo II solved this by imposing level restrictions so a few well-placed rings of Atlas wouldn't bust the sucker wide open. But it wasn't originally like that. Back before 1.07 and Lord of Destruction, unique items had no level requirement. Many were the level 4's wielding Steeldriver, Silks of the Victor, and whatever other ridiculousness could be obtained through some strength additives. And yes, it was every bit as stupid as Godly Plate of the Whale and a King's Sword of Haste in the church.
That, my friend, is not a function of item-dependence; it is rather a function of non-linearity and what people will do to interfere with it. Diablo has no item dependence (though having good items makes the game a hell of a lot easier). You want to take that naked Sorceress through Hell in Diablo II? Good luck. Only the best of the best of the best can even think about it. What if you restrict her to only clvl 6 required spells? Firebolt and Lightning could get ya through hell in the original if you played smart.
Any game that has any kind of role-playing element will be absolutely destroyed in terms of balance if you start importing stuff from the end into the beginning. Even common stuff. If a level 3 Amazon could used a non-magical Hydra Bow, I'm pretty sure she could clear out Act 1 without even picking up more arrows.
But the scaling in Diablo I does NOT go the other way. Hence all of the naked and low-armor characters you see. SNOBs were popular as well. How far would a SNOB-esque character make it in Diablo II? Andariel, maybe? If they're lucky. To play any sort of variant on Diablo II, I typically have to item hunt, browse trades, and save pennies for weeks until I have the proper setup if I plan on taking said handicapable character through hell without mooching off a party, depending on how crippling the restrictions are, and just how goofy I wanna get. Compare that to the Hardcore Naked Mage I made a little while ago.
Diablo II made improvements in the following areas:
Graphics (goes without saying, can't refute, and I really don't think it should be listed in the positives)
Run, not Walk (genius)
Character classes (there are more to choose from)
(level restrictions--but these were not originally implemented, so I hesitate to add them)
-A ladder
Here are some other changes that I feel do not really elevate Diablo II, but are worth mention
-More items (most of which are garbage, compared to that Strange Short sword of Speed which you can still use in Hell Mode)
-Party system (has its ups and downs)
-Mercenaries (neat at first, but are now little more than walking aurae)
-Scaling factors are all higher, more numerous (speed/haste/quickness, thousands of damage late game vs. maybe a few hundread)
-Longer game (but most people only care about two or three map zones anyway--Diablo I just didn't have the filler)
-Skills vs. Spells (Could write a novel on this one, so I won't try to summarize)
There's probably a bunch I've forgotten, but what do you guys feel are the plusses for the sequel? Aside from looking sexier, there isn't that much I feel is superior. If you look at the original selling points, how many are still valid? Still get excited about set items? Have a character that even WEARS them, beyond maybe the occasional Sigon's? What about the seperate acts? Most people just get rushed right through them. Class division? Unlimited attribute points per class? Energy Barbarians aren't seeing a hell of a lot of play.
--me
Posts: 168
Threads: 1
Joined: Sep 2004
And NOT playing with dupes in D1 gets YOU destroyed if you're not lucky with finding gear (and spellbooks for that matter). That hasn't changed from one to the other. A warrior or rogue will bounce right off the tougher enemies if they don't have a VERY good weapon, and if a sorcerer's spells aren't up to snuff, he may as well forget it at the same point. And without strong armor, you're dead no matter what you do.
Strategy in D1? Where? I have yet to see a 'threat' monster that your character can even come close to outrunning, so the 'attack-and-retreat' plan is worthless. Other than advancing slowly until you wake up a group of monsters, and having the firepower ready to deal with them, there IS no strategy in D1 - and the second part of that has as much to do with luck as with good planning.
Energy Barbarian? Don't be ludicrous. Try playing any of D1's 3 classes outside of their intended niche, and you'll get your head handed to you. In D2 a sorceress can go melee and a barb can fight from afar, if you play them right.
Posts: 1,063
Threads: 50
Joined: Apr 2003
Unless I severely misread you, it seems like the criteria includes cheating as a -natural- part of the game then. Allright, so let's apply that to D2.
You're right, it does surpass the predecessor in every way in that sense. D2\LoD has maphack, therefore the game is at fault for the level design. D2 has duped items\runes so it's the game's fault that item balance and trade economy suxx00rs. D2 has bots so it's the game's fault that Ladder competition isn't really worth anything. D1 once had TownKill, D2 once had drop hacks. And let's not forget multiplayer Battlenet. D1 is teeming with the unwashed masses, yearning to dupe and cheat and free to pursue that Godly Plate of Whale. D2 apparently has no such cads and bounders.
Yep, D2 is definitely better in every way. Unless you meant to apply that standard only to D1 and not to D2. Because obviously D2 has no cheats and cheaters, unlike D1 apparently.
>And NOT playing with dupes in D1 gets YOU destroyed if you're not lucky with finding gear (and spellbooks for that matter). That hasn't changed from one to the other.
I've played all 3 classes in Classic D1, unrestricted but no twink no trade, and all from scratch. And at least from my own experiences, the chances of finding useable gear and books is not as dire as you make it out to be. Even without the help of d00page or d3wprz.
>A warrior or rogue will bounce right off the tougher enemies if they don't have a VERY good weapon, and if a sorcerer's spells aren't up to snuff, he may as well forget it at the same point. And without strong armor, you're dead no matter what you do.
Out of the above, only the Warrior and Sorceror even comes close to your description. But even then Hell\Hell can be done without a KsoH. The Sorceror does need some high level spells, but from my own experiences at least, getting enough Fireball and CLightning books is easier than shopping\hunting for that super sword. The Rogue benefits from +damage bows at younger levels, but iirc as soon as she hits clvl 40 pretty much any bow will do. Even a regular non magical grade.
Then again maybe your experience is different. I personally don't care how long you or anyone has played D1, what's relevant here is how you played it. And something like d00ping imo is as much a part of the natural game as a typo in a Trivial Pursuit card. But hey, maybe it really was the 'Moops' who invaded Spain in the 8th century and not the 'Moors'. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bubble_Bo...infeld_episode)
> if you play them right.
Yet your examples for D1 uses such sources as d00pers bl00pers for gameplay? Shouldn't you use the same standard for D2 then? Like how it's impossible for any melee builds in D2 to 'do anything' without a BotD or a LastWish?
Posts: 182
Threads: 3
Joined: Jun 2006
Quote:And NOT playing with dupes in D1 gets YOU destroyed if you're not lucky with finding gear (and spellbooks for that matter). That hasn't changed from one to the other. A warrior or rogue will bounce right off the tougher enemies if they don't have a VERY good weapon, and if a sorcerer's spells aren't up to snuff, he may as well forget it at the same point. And without strong armor, you're dead no matter what you do.
Harhar. Tell it to the naked mages, the live-off-the-landers, and the Ironmen out there. Ever see anyone play Diablo II Ironman? Not really, unless they find something like a Bonesnap by the end of act 3.
Quote:Strategy in D1? Where? I have yet to see a 'threat' monster that your character can even come close to outrunning,
Blood Knights, Azure Drakes, Lava Maws, and all casters can be avoided via "happy feet".
Quote:Energy Barbarian? Don't be ludicrous. Try playing any of D1's 3 classes outside of their intended niche, and you'll get your head handed to you. In D2 a sorceress can go melee and a barb can fight from afar, if you play them right.
You mean like a Muscle Mage? Perhaps a caster Warrior? I've done both. The Warrior was a bit weak in hell, but he plugged along, siphoning off money for mana potions along the way.
Things that are overpowered in Diablo 1
Stone Curse
Teleport
Chain Lightning
Fireball
Mana Shield
Arguably, Awesome Plate (of the Suffix)
Things that are overpowered in Diablo 2
60% of the Rune Words. A good bit of the elite uniques. Holy Shield. Blessed Hammer. Teleport. Telekinesis (was fixed). Conviction. Lightning Fury. Charged Strike. War Cry. Dim Vision. Decripify. Smite.
I could go on for pages.
--me
Posts: 170
Threads: 5
Joined: Jan 2004
Quote:Harhar. Tell it to the naked mages, the live-off-the-landers, and the Ironmen out there. Ever see anyone play Diablo II Ironman? Not really, unless they find something like a Bonesnap by the end of act 3.
I don't know how to compare the numbers or percentages, but there are a fair amount of ironman variant loonies playing D2 as well.
|
