Q u o t e:
I'm disappointing the UI doesn't account for the rune effects. If you wanted to know what a golden rule does to frost nova, for example, you either need to look the effect up online or find out through trial and error. If the runes still attune themselves to skills this could lead to much disappointment if it doesn't yield a desired effect, so I'm expecting much alt-tabbing.
I think they meant for the lowest level of rune to be so common that people won't feel bad about using them just to see what it does to the skill. Even if you look it up online, actually seeing it in game is still better, and from the low rune you can pretty much work out what a high level version would be like (same effect but better).
Q u o t e:
All of that existed in D2 (replace crafting with runewords) and can be lumped under equipment. By comparison, D3 has much less character customization than D2 had. Two naked classes of the same clvl are exactly the same in composition.
Except that your character is defined by skill and passive choices in D3.
Ok so in D2 you might have 2 sorcs, one of which specced meteorb and one of which specced lightning. In D3 you have one sorc who grabbed cold and fire spells/passives and one who grabbed lightning spells and passives. Now you're telling me D3 ruins it because you can switch the skills easier, rather than burning a respec token to accomplish the same thing?
It's not like we're talking about a huge variety of builds here, where every D2 player had their own unique build. D2 builds were cookie cutter with sometimes some points left to put in whatever you like the most. The only builds that weren't cookie cutter were the ones that were largely ineffective.|||How does putting 20 points into the same 4 talents for every class expand on character customization? .....
There wasn't runes in diablo 2 to alter the way your spells worked. Last I checked thats something Diablo 3 has.|||
Q u o t e:
It looks f**king gorgeous. Tooltips will show more information.
Kidding me? It looks amateur. Why aren't the names of the skills vertically centered on the right-hand side? The level req. for each skill along the right look terrible (and should also be vertically centered) - there's no context for the placement of that number. Why does the skill slots in the left pane have a totally different style than the for those on the right (with the embroirdering and such)? The wallet-looking background of the passive skills is equally ugly and out-of-place.
It's downright dreadful. It's a FAR, FAR cry from the elegant and consistent UI shown off with the runestone system here:
http://us.media.
Guess the UI team has gotten burned out designing a new interface every month due to the frequency of changes and just said, "##@* it".|||
Q u o t e:
Kidding me? It looks amateur. Why aren't the names of the skills vertically centered on the right-hand side?
Because it's a list, you read from the left to pan through. On the left there are only 7 skills and they're already picked, so them being aligned to the left is not as important. They're centered to give them more importance, considering they're the ones that are currently active. It's pretty simple.
Q u o t e:
The level req. for each skill along the right look terrible (and should also be vertically centered) - there's no context for the placement of that number.
I assume you mean the left. Yeah that's a bit off, hopefully it'll be changed.
Q u o t e:
Why does the skill slots in the left pane have a totally different style than the for those on the right (with the embroirdering and such)? The wallet-looking background of the passive skills is equally ugly and out-of-place.
As I mentioned before, the reason the left pane is different to the right is because they are symbolizing a more important list - the list of skills you have picked and that are currently active. They're purposefully more elegant and are given greater importance. If they were the same, it would be an inefficient UI setup.
No comments:
Post a Comment