Diablo III Character classes: What do you think?

[Eclectic Dreck]

Personally, my favorite D2 class was the assassin. I'd like to see a similar class in D3, but I'll almost certainly play it regardless. D2 remains one of my favorite time sinks made thus far and may well be the game I've logged the most hours playing online.

 

[Enigmers]

they messed with the mechanics that were fine, they didn't evolve the gameplay,

The gameplay was the best part and, apart from destructible environments and Fury, it's the same as Diablo II - and it's fine. That's A: Not messing with the mechanics that were fine, and B: not evolving gameplay, so that we get the Diablo we know and love. There's only so much you can add to the gameplay before it changes too much from the original, and becomes too complex to be fun. What would you want, Race selection, character customization, dynamic character classes (i.e. no classes, choose which skills you want, go from there)? I'd love to hear how you would make Diablo III, apart from "Oh I would change the gameplay entirely just for the sake of changing it, and I would turn down the brightness and remove blues, greens, and any large source of bright vegetration or water, and I would make a large "not made by Blizzard" watermark in the corner and I would send very angry e-mails to everyone who works at Blizzard saying "Oh my gosh you people ruined my game how dare you ""

Calling Blizzard "Stupid money-mongering bastards" is not a point, since every company ever started has had the goal of making money at some point or another. I'm sorry if you don't like money but the vast majority of people do, and Blizzard consists mostly of people.

Thirdly, quoting everything I say against you and saying "Read what I wrote" "use the search bar" "you fail" etc. is not a good way to post.

And I didn't "Spam the quote button with no actual response" I said, quite clearly, "If you don't like the way Diablo II is headed, buy something else." Why you have some kind of problem with this logic is beyond me, because nobody is forcing you to buy Diablo III.

 

[Isaac Dodgson]

I was interested up until recently, but only interested. I dabbled in Diablo and Diablo II, but nothing extensive. It was decent and it was free to play online...but a subscription now? I understand sure, but I guess Blizzard will understand if I'm no longer so interested...

 

[preachersaul]

To be honest the Witch Doctor look amazing. I'm a necro player myself but i'm not surprised tha class won't be featured in D3. Still not sure about the barbarian, simply because i prefer a more in depth strategy than hit it with a stick until it dies, and most of his attacks are just variations along that theme.
I do however like the look of the wizard, that slow time spell looks awesome.

Alternatively how about a really novel concept? NO CHARACTER CLASSES!

Develop your character from one of several templates, spellcaster warrior or ranger, but then the choices you make as to stats and skills determines what further abilities open up to you as you progress.
Starting with a spellcaster template but putting points into strength and life would eventually produce a character with the ability to cast close range combat-based spells which assist with physical attacks.
Start with a ranger template but invest heavily in energy and dexterity to create a character with long-range nature-based spells and abilities.

In this way dozens of different character builds can be made that can cross over the usual class borders to create hybrids that despite not looking good on paper might produce some unexpected combos that work really well. It would certainly improve the replayability factor limitlessly and make it practically impossible to recreate another identical character.

I agree and disagree, mostly the latter. If you don't have character classes and everything is based on templates, then you need either a book find system similar to D1 to gain your skills or a very complicated skill tree system. I suppose you could combined the two systems to an extent, and the idea of town portal being class specific is an interesting thought for multi-player, but could you imagine single player with any other class?

 

[Emperor Inferno]

To be honest the Witch Doctor look amazing. I'm a necro player myself but i'm not surprised tha class won't be featured in D3. Still not sure about the barbarian, simply because i prefer a more in depth strategy than hit it with a stick until it dies, and most of his attacks are just variations along that theme.
I do however like the look of the wizard, that slow time spell looks awesome.

Alternatively how about a really novel concept? NO CHARACTER CLASSES!

Develop your character from one of several templates, spellcaster warrior or ranger, but then the choices you make as to stats and skills determines what further abilities open up to you as you progress.
Starting with a spellcaster template but putting points into strength and life would eventually produce a character with the ability to cast close range combat-based spells which assist with physical attacks.
Start with a ranger template but invest heavily in energy and dexterity to create a character with long-range nature-based spells and abilities.

In this way dozens of different character builds can be made that can cross over the usual class borders to create hybrids that despite not looking good on paper might produce some unexpected combos that work really well. It would certainly improve the replayability factor limitlessly and make it practically impossible to recreate another identical character.

I agree and disagree, mostly the latter. If you don't have character classes and everything is based on templates, then you need either a book find system similar to D1 to gain your skills or a very complicated skill tree system. I suppose you could combined the two systems to an extent, and the idea of town portal being class specific is an interesting thought for multi-player, but could you imagine single player with any other class?

Here's a different way that might just work. Choose a template, customize, then go into the game. With each level, you get one skill point, like in DII, but you get to choose which type of skill to invest it in, with no limitations based on character. This way, you could either have a great number of different types of skills, or concentrate on developing one or two certain types of skill. If there were several different skill trees to choose from, all available to all characters, this would be a great way to take character customization to the next level by creating thousand of skill combinations that would not be possible otherwise.

Another feature that would really enhance this would be to make it so that certain characters use certain skill trees better than others. This would add a lot more in depth strategy. Perhaps even a system by which the more you invest in a certain skill tree, and use it, the better all skills in that tree become.

 

[Bored Tomatoe]

I really want that game...I played D2 a little bit recently and I could only think about how awesome that game would be on a current gen engine.

 

[meatloaf231]

Alternatively how about a really novel concept? NO CHARACTER CLASSES!

Develop your character from one of several templates, spellcaster warrior or ranger, but then the choices you make as to stats and skills determines what further abilities open up to you as you progress.
Starting with a spellcaster template but putting points into strength and life would eventually produce a character with the ability to cast close range combat-based spells which assist with physical attacks.
Start with a ranger template but invest heavily in energy and dexterity to create a character with long-range nature-based spells and abilities.

In this way dozens of different character builds can be made that can cross over the usual class borders to create hybrids that despite not looking good on paper might produce some unexpected combos that work really well. It would certainly improve the replayability factor limitlessly and make it practically impossible to recreate another identical character.

Dungeon Siege II did almost exactly that.

 

[preachersaul]

Here's a different way that might just work. Choose a template, customize, then go into the game. With each level, you get one skill point, like in DII, but you get to choose which type of skill to invest it in, with no limitations based on character. This way, you could either have a great number of different types of skills, or concentrate on developing one or two certain types of skill. If there were several different skill trees to choose from, all available to all characters, this would be a great way to take character customization to the next level by creating thousand of skill combinations that would not be possible otherwise.

Another feature that would really enhance this would be to make it so that certain characters use certain skill trees better than others. This would add a lot more in depth strategy. Perhaps even a system by which the more you invest in a certain skill tree, and use it, the better all skills in that tree become.

I can see where you are coming from, but if you invest more points in a skill tree and it becomes more powerful, why invest more than a few points in another tree. Sure, some of the low level skills may be of use. To take a D2 example, the sorceress skill warmth would be great for the necromancer, and some of the paladin auras would be great for everyone.
I think what I'm trying to say is that if the system you are proposing came to be, then players would quickly figure out the best combinations and you would rarely see much variation from those combos. This of course would then defeat the point of having no classes as people have basically made classes themselves, by not diversifying from the most powerful skills and synergies.
At least if the developer designs classes that are flexible, you can have balance, and it'll probably stop the chosen few skills being nerfed into uselessness.

 

[rossatdi]

Why do you refuse to read shyt before posting? I explained this a THOUSAND times.

And Blizzard don't make "games" anymore, they make money. That's it.

I remember the day when games companies were like charities, giving freely to one and all, always willing to scrape and bow to the consume for a single penny. Oh wait.

 

[bue519]

Well, I gotta agree with those points. Subscription does indeed suck, and the mechanics were fine. But, they've done well in the past, so I hold out hope that they can make it work. The key word there, of course, is hope.

The real deciding factor will be Wrath of the Lich(e) King I think. Not at release, but rather 1 year after, so we know weather or not people feel like it was as much a waste as Burning Crusade. WoW had been Blizzard's crowning achievement at release, but since they went for the money-mongering, quality has gone down big time. It just shows how much they don't care anymore. Blizzard has only been good in my eyes at making RTS. Diablo wasn't even made by them, they just bought the IP and let the creators of Diablo at it until now. They just suck at RPG's. Even WoW at origin was from the Diablo+RTS crews.

Don't forget they made Blackthorne. That was a pretty scrolling shooter.

 

[rossatdi]

Why do you refuse to read shyt before posting? I explained this a THOUSAND times.

And Blizzard don't make "games" anymore, they make money. That's it.

I remember the day when games companies were like charities, giving freely to one and all, always willing to scrape and bow to the consume for a single penny. Oh wait.

Nice sarcasm there. Do you really honestly think people would be so passionate about video games if it were only for money?

Why do you think so many people make freeware mods, etc?

I'm really sick of people defending blizzard. FFS they haven't released a game since WoW, and how terribly awful BC was should make some people skeptical about the crap theyre trying to market.

I never like anything they put out in the Warcraft franchise since the first one (goddamn that game kicked some DOS ass). Obviously when you have a single game that's making obscene quantities of cash you're going to focus on that.

Now it's settled down a bit they've gone back to their other franchises and they're looking pretty good.

I don't believe people would be passionate about games if it was only for the money but I think you're looking back at the past with rose tinted glasses if you think they weren't at least partially motivated by either keeping their jobs or making profit for their endeavours. We're not talking about bedroom coders here.

 

[Abedeus]

Diablo 3 won't have a sub fee.

Battle.net 2 will have some OPTIONS for $, like extra security key generator (like the ones for WoW), more character slots...

Besides, that would be shooting themselves in the feet. Many people, including me, are still playing Diablo 2 because it's an awesome game you can play online for free.

And why would they get another subscription-based game, if they have another MMO in development?

 

[rossatdi]

Diablo 3 won't have a sub fee.

Battle.net 2 will have some OPTIONS for $, like extra security key generator (like the ones for WoW), more character slots...

Besides, that would be shooting themselves in the feet. Many people, including me, are still playing Diablo 2 because it's an awesome game you can play online for free.

And why would they get another subscription-based game, if they have another MMO in development?

This sounds most awesome. Is this be sourced or just something you'd be hoping? Although I certainly understand your logic.

 

[Abedeus]

Diablo 3 won't have a sub fee.

Battle.net 2 will have some OPTIONS for $, like extra security key generator (like the ones for WoW), more character slots...

Besides, that would be shooting themselves in the feet. Many people, including me, are still playing Diablo 2 because it's an awesome game you can play online for free.

And why would they get another subscription-based game, if they have another MMO in development?

This sounds most awesome. Is this be sourced or just something you'd be hoping? Although I certainly understand your logic.

I think I've seen it somewhere.

Yeah, it was an interview from October 14th during the Blizzcon 2008. I'm afraid, however, I do not have an English version of it. But Rob Pardo said they don't plan on turning Diablo into a sub-based game, explaining that the game is not a MMO and that would make little sense to charge additionally for it. He did however said that there might be some elements on B.Net that won't, however, give any advantage in-game, like special items or instant levelups.

It's more like - you want to change character name or server? Pay. You don't have to do it, but if you want to, you can. Won't give you any advantage over non-paying people.