Noob-proof Skill Trees; Gameplay Balance

[ciphernemo]

I want to share a little of my gaming style before I explain what I mean by "noob-proof" skill trees, skill allotment, etc.

I enjoy playing Diablo games without knowing what to expect. I like finding surprises (good ones, of course) in-game, discovering new combinations, and yes, even adventuring. Therefore I continually try to supress my urge to research these things. I've done well with this in respect to D1 and D2. I might not do this with D3, however, given the long wait for it.

Therefore, I'd really like to see noob-proof skill trees, where any player can dump points into any number of different skills and still have a fun, playable character. Give D3 some balance with respect to monster resistences, immunities, and of course, weaknesses. Each of these should be tweaked to allow characters with diverse point spreads to still function well. Of course I fully support certain combinations of skills that will function better overall so that players who like this sort of thing can still develop strategies and re-work characters (or restart them).

In other words, I really hate having nearly worthless skills thrown into a skill tree of chracters in D2. Those playing D3 for the first time will probably want to experiment a bit, trying out each skill. I don't want to see us get crippled characters as a result of that experimentation. Those experimenting have grown to accept that their character will not be as powerful as one focused on a specific combination or theme, but we do want our diverse characters to be playable.

So please, Blizzard, do not leak D3 specifics until Beta or a release candidate. Give us news of things that might be a little vague, but will keep us entertained while waiting for it. When the game is released, I hope that we'll be able to experiment without resulting in debuffed/neutered characters.

How does everyone else feel about this?

[Fleshvirus]

All i want is that the skills dont have any syenergy to eachothers and that they do not tie to eachothers.

And i want there to be books that either teaches you new skill or gives you the abillity of using them.

And yes i dont want any skill to suck (every skill got to have their own use)
Remember Inferno? WHAT A JOKE.

[Arbedark]

Making all skills balanced within a class does not equal noob proof skill trees.

A noob might put 2 points in every skill. Should they be able to kill anywhere near as fast as someone who has put 20 points into a main attacking skill? No, because if they do, why bother having skill ranks at all, when a level 2 skill can kill almost as fast as the same skill at level 20...

[5zigen]

WoW is an example of the only way to do "noob proof skill trees"

If you don't know, wow has no skill trees.

[NKlint]

WoW is also an example of how you can only have 3 variations of each class. I suppose that isn't a bad thing, but I hope that in order to survive in the competitive side of D3 we aren't forced to use cookie cutter builds.

[nicro tower]

How about each offensive skill is viable when maxed? Like for example, using d2 char skills, if you maxed thunder storm and put all the rest of your skill points in random stuff like warmth and es, your thunder storm will still be able to get you through hell. Maybe it gets more frequent the higher it's level is or something...

[sicilian]

While I think they should strive to make every skill viable, either by having a powerful enough effect, or by including some utility effect, the idea that you should be able to throw points into whatever you want and be able to complete the game at the highest level is a little naive.

One of two things are going to happen. Either they balance the game around every build being viable, meaning the people who find the well-planned builds are going to cruise through all difficulties with no challenge. Or, they balance it around the really well-planned "cookie-cutter" builds, and people with creative builds can only complete Normal or Nightmare.

I think it has to be the latter. That way, you can play however you want and still complete the story to find out what happens, but if you want to beat the ultimate challenge you can't be careless with your character. It's the fairest way to do things.

Also makes it very satisfying when you beat Hell using an unconventional build :)

[5zigen]

WoW is also an example of how you can only have 3 variations of each class. I suppose that isn't a bad thing, but I hope that in order to survive in the competitive side of D3 we aren't forced to use cookie cutter builds.

Well techincally WoW should have more than 3 viable builds. It should have something like 9, if it were balanced that is, vaible builds should be something like 41/20/0,41/0/20, 0/41/20, 20/41/0. 20/0/41, 0/20/41, 30/0/30, 0/30/30, 30/30/0....

But that wasn't so balanced because WoW is all about minimaxing in every sense of the word, and since respecs are so commonplace people can just easily gravitate toward the cookie cutters.

Anyhow if there's only 3 variations for each character that would be extremely boring, but really, in D2 the same was basically true.

[AlexanderM]

Give the fact that we've heard (can't recall from where, eek!) that respecialization (respec-ing) will be part of D3 in some way, it's my bet that we'll likely see skills that simply aren't work a full investment, but the ability to shift points around will keep every character from getting neutered. This jives with the idea that blizzard built into the synergies, you don't need to save all your skill points and dump them into a few level 24 and 30 skills, spending them along the way is encouraged, but in the end called for an even more careful distribution in the end. Also encouraged placement of points in skills that otherwise would never have gotten them (my avenger has 10 skill points in the resist fire aura, in pre-1.10, that wouldn't have made any sense at all).

[Arbedark]

Give the fact that we've heard (can't recall from where, eek!) that respecialization (respec-ing) will be part of D3 in some way, it's my bet that we'll likely see skills that simply aren't work a full investment, but the ability to shift points around will keep every character from getting neutered. This jives with the idea that blizzard built into the synergies, you don't need to save all your skill points and dump them into a few level 24 and 30 skills, spending them along the way is encouraged, but in the end called for an even more careful distribution in the end. Also encouraged placement of points in skills that otherwise would never have gotten them (my avenger has 10 skill points in the resist fire aura, in pre-1.10, that wouldn't have made any sense at all).

Pre-1.10 it wouldn't have mattered 1 jot since your avenger could also be a FoHer and a smiter or zealot and still have skill points left over..

[theBanger]

I personally liked the idea of synergies. I never had the chance however to try them as a total noob to a class. It seems like a good idea that I can put points into a bunch of different skills and still come out with an OK character in the end. Mind you that it also makes some builds "cookie-cutter", and made some things like hybrid characters more challenging to make, but I actually see that as a good thing.

[redrach]

I'm a keen DotA player, and 'synergy' is an important focus of the game there. When suggesting a new hero class, a lot of care is put into ensuring that his different skills synergize, without having 'forced synergy'.
The difference is important. What D2 calls 'synergy' is what we call 'forced synergy'.
Forced Synergy is when completely arbitary skills affect other skills simply because they are coded that way. (Such as how levelling up Vigor increases the damage of Blessed Hammers -_-)
Non-forced Synergy occurs naturally, simply because of how the skills work. The best example would be how Pierce and Frost Arrow (or Lightning Fury) synergize. Or using Tiger Strike to boost the damage of Dragon Tail. Or how Avengers use Conviction Aura to increase the effectiveness of Vengeance. In all these cases, the synergy makes sense and isn't simply 'hard-coded'.

I hope Diablo 3 uses the better, more intuitive, kind of synergy.

[AlexanderM]

I'll agree that the Blessed Hammer and Vigor combo makes no sense, but for many of them the forced synergies make more sense. For a windy druid, being skilled in making twisters, would give him a benefit in causing tornadoes as he was already skilled in controlling weather.

I would like to see more synergies in the sense that there are two skills that work very well together, and ask a player to combine them in a skillful or creative way.

[ciphernemo]

I agree that just random points thrown anywhere shouldn't be as powerful as a character where someone planned ahead. Still, random choices shouldn't neuter a character's ability to survive at end-game. Skill tree planning should make the game easier (or a more enjoyable challenge), while putting points anywhere should make it playable, but more difficult.

I feel that D2 didn't have this balance even though I love D2 as many Diablo fans do. The problem with D2 is that there are limited character builds that are effective for end-game (ie: frenzy barb, whirlwind barb, etc.). I think the LoD expansion helped by providing a dynamic character such as the Assassin, but it's still not perfect.

I don't expect perfection from D3, but I'd like to see more flexibility to create truly dynamic and unique characters based upon skill point investment.

[5zigen]

A better skill system IMO would be one sort of like WoW's.

Where all the classes get all their skills, and the points act to buff whichvever skill they wish to buff. it should provide a good baseline ability for new players to learn and still add a lot of movement room for experts.

[sicilian]

Still, random choices shouldn't neuter a character's ability to survive at end-game.

But they DON'T. The first time I beat Normal in D2 classic I was a Paladin who used NO combat skills. I used primarily two auras: Concentrate and Prayer. When i got to Diablo, I used Concentrate and get hitting him until my life was too low, then i ran around the corner and switched to prayer until it was back up.

Point is, I was a TOTAL noob! :D Yet I was still able to eventually beat the game and see the end of the story with ZERO planning. You can do that now too, but why WHY should it have been possible for me to beat Hell with that build? It shouldn't, which is how it should be. If I wanted to go farther, I had to rethink, and I can't see any other way of doing it without making the choices meaningless.

[ciphernemo]

You mentioned beating Normal. Note that my reference is about end-game, and beating Normal is not end-game. I wonder how your Paly would do with points dumped in the most worthless skills when you get to Nightmare or Hell difficulty? Probably not so well, and certainly, not at all enjoyable. :p

Also, the skills may not affect your Pally or the way you played it, but they certainly do for other characters and the way people play them. Your one example does not trump all other examples.

So my point being is that D2 doesn't just let you dump points into any skills and have an enjoyable end-game, let alone gameplay getting to end-game.

[Blood_And_Iron]

I want to share a little of my gaming style before I explain what I mean by "noob-proof" skill trees, skill allotment, etc.

I enjoy playing Diablo games without knowing what to expect. I like finding surprises (good ones, of course) in-game, discovering new combinations, and yes, even adventuring. Therefore I continually try to supress my urge to research these things. I've done well with this in respect to D1 and D2. I might not do this with D3, however, given the long wait for it.

Therefore, I'd really like to see noob-proof skill trees, where any player can dump points into any number of different skills and still have a fun, playable character. Give D3 some balance with respect to monster resistences, immunities, and of course, weaknesses. Each of these should be tweaked to allow characters with diverse point spreads to still function well. Of course I fully support certain combinations of skills that will function better overall so that players who like this sort of thing can still develop strategies and re-work characters (or restart them).

In other words, I really hate having nearly worthless skills thrown into a skill tree of chracters in D2. Those playing D3 for the first time will probably want to experiment a bit, trying out each skill. I don't want to see us get crippled characters as a result of that experimentation. Those experimenting have grown to accept that their character will not be as powerful as one focused on a specific combination or theme, but we do want our diverse characters to be playable.

So please, Blizzard, do not leak D3 specifics until Beta or a release candidate. Give us news of things that might be a little vague, but will keep us entertained while waiting for it. When the game is released, I hope that we'll be able to experiment without resulting in debuffed/neutered characters.

How does everyone else feel about this?

Pardon me, but this post seems to come from the softcore corpse-rush Meph until he dies category?

Are you aware people have made Guardians using sub-standard skills like Inferno? They had fun doing it. The game is already diverse and playable. Just not as easy as Enigma Hammerdins for all builds.

[sicilian]

You mentioned beating Normal. Note that my reference is about end-game, and beating Normal is not end-game. I wonder how your Paly would do with points dumped in the most worthless skills when you get to Nightmare or Hell difficulty? Probably not so well, and certainly, not at all enjoyable. :p

Also, the skills may not affect your Pally or the way you played it, but they certainly do for other characters and the way people play them. Your one example does not trump all other examples.

So my point being is that D2 doesn't just let you dump points into any skills and have an enjoyable end-game, let alone gameplay getting to end-game.

But my point was that I SHOULDN'T be able toplay Nightmare and Hell with my terrible build. That honor should be reserved for people who actually pay attention to what they're doing and plan appropriately, not noobs like I was just throwing points into "whatever looks cool".

What happens to the uber builds when you make the end-game playable with any lesser build? They become absurdly easy, and the challenge of the game is GONE. Hope you like seeing the word "Patriarch", because everyone and their mother is going to have seven of them.

And by the way, there really is no "end-game" in D2. It's not an MMO like WoW, where there's a lot of content once you reach the end. Once you beat Normal, there's very little to discover in Nightmare and Hell, which is why the three difficulty system works. Play for fun, beat Normal and see what happens in the story. Play for challenge, you better be willing to think before you drop points in crap. Otherwise you do NOT deserve to be "viable" in Hell.

[Azymn]

One of two things are going to happen. Either they balance the game around every build being viable, meaning the people who find the well-planned builds are going to cruise through all difficulties with no challenge. Or, they balance it around the really well-planned "cookie-cutter" builds, and people with creative builds can only complete Normal or Nightmare.

If random skill distributions are effective, this is what would happen. So you're basically deciding whether to make the game really easy for planners, or really hard for non-planners. It's hard to land somewhere in between.

[sicilian]

If random skill distributions are effective, this is what would happen. So you're basically deciding whether to make the game really easy for planners, or really hard for non-planners. It's hard to land somewhere in between.

That's exactly my point, and I'm fine with that reality. If you want to beat Hell, you have to specialize.

Now, that being said, I would like to see them make an effort to eliminate the useless/placeholder skills, such as Arctic Blast, etc. Every skill should be useful if enough points are put in it and it's used in conjunction with appropriate complimentary skills.

[Nimbostratus]

I doubt that the OP meant that a "3 points in everything" or "no damaging skill" build should be viable in hell. What should be viable is if somebody decided to go with Ice Blast or Blaze instead of Blizzard or Fire Ball. If a skill stops being useful as soon as you get the next one, why the heck did you even put it in the game? Give me a good reason that low level skills are required to be useless past level 18.

That said, I hope they keep synergies, but greatly reduce their importance. In D2, too many skills require you to put 20 or 40 points into synergies for a single skill to be strong enough in Hell. Just look at Fireball. The skill maxed by itself does only about 240 damage. But once you max fire bolt with it and put a point in mastery, hey, it's up to a 800. Why can't fireball on its own get up to 700, with a synergy getting it to 800? Synergies should just be there to boost skills you decide to dedicate your character to, not to waste dozens of points in skills you never use.

But what about skills being too strong in low levels? Simple, just give them a pseudo-synergy that relies on strength, dexterity, energy, or even character level.

One other thing I see people constantly bringing up: "characters only need to beat normal." True, you see the story with normal alone, but to me (and many others, I'm sure), it doesn't feel complete unless the character has gone all the way through hell. In other games, a difficulty level is a choice from the start and is the entire game in itself; in D2, all the difficulties go in sequence and thus feel like one "journey" for the character.

[stillman]

I think the whole concept of skill trees is flawed, with some problems already pointed out by Nimbostratus above.

The skill tree idea is good at making sense, but it works out terribly for a long term RPGs like Diablo2. It makes sense that your sroc starts off with firebolt, then gets better and can do fireball, then lastly meteor. The problem is, you use firebolt for less than .001 percent of your playing time. The only other reason I see firebolt being there is to make fireball seem so much better, which it is. So the tree system is all about looks. It's just too much of a no-brainer that were supposed to use lev 24-30 skills and ignore the rest of the tree.

Then, Blizzard brought in the synergy idea to d2 to make their skill tree system actaully get used more elaborately. But that just caused more problems. We still have no reason to use firebolt, even after dumping 20 points into it.

So I kind of wish everyone would not even consider skill trees as being an acceptable system for Diablo 3. They're inately disasterous. It would just lead to patch nerfing the top skills, followed by patch boosting the lower ones, followed by a change or addition of a synergy system, followed by hammerdins or something.

[sicilian]

I doubt that the OP meant that a "3 points in everything" or "no damaging skill" build should be viable in hell. What should be viable is if somebody decided to go with Ice Blast or Blaze instead of Blizzard or Fire Ball. If a skill stops being useful as soon as you get the next one, why the heck did you even put it in the game? Give me a good reason that low level skills are required to be useless past level 18.

If that's the case then I agree. Every skill should be useful to some degree. Of course, that's easier said than done, as there will always be skills that get favored. Not necessarily due to more damage, but ease of use, utility effects, makeup of monsters, etc.

That said, I hope they keep synergies, but greatly reduce their importance. In D2, too many skills require you to put 20 or 40 points into synergies for a single skill to be strong enough in Hell. Just look at Fireball. The skill maxed by itself does only about 240 damage. But once you max fire bolt with it and put a point in mastery, hey, it's up to a 800. Why can't fireball on its own get up to 700, with a synergy getting it to 800? Synergies should just be there to boost skills you decide to dedicate your character to, not to waste dozens of points in skills you never use.

I agree, and would even take it a step further. Don't allow synergies to increase damage. Give them a secondary effect. Maybe having points in both Fireball and Lightning would give each of them a small bit of the other's effect. Fireball would gain a small stun ability while Lightning would maybe gain a small AoE effect. Then you could tie a damage bonus to Energy like you suggested for those who need a little more punch.

One other thing I see people constantly bringing up: "characters only need to beat normal." True, you see the story with normal alone, but to me (and many others, I'm sure), it doesn't feel complete unless the character has gone all the way through hell. In other games, a difficulty level is a choice from the start and is the entire game in itself; in D2, all the difficulties go in sequence and thus feel like one "journey" for the character.

And here's where we disagree. For a long time I considered myself done with Diablo because I had seen the story. It wasn't until a few years after I started playing that I took pride in completing the whole thing on Hell. That being said, if they make all of the skills useful, then that cuts down on the number of "useless" builds, and at least gives everyone a shot if they focus on a particular strategy. I'll always believe though, that if you don't plan your points, you shouldn't be viable in Hell.

To Stillman:

The solution (though I'm hesitant to suggest it) might be a WoW-like system where everyone of a particular class has access to every one of that class' skills, then you use a Talent Tree to customize your specialties or add certain specialized skills.

[Dwovar]

I suggested this on a similar thread and considered copy/pasting, but decided to redo it all. Apologies to anyone that read it there as well.


I think it would be possible to have skill trees without useless skills, that did not make the game too easy for hardcore planners nor too hard for first time n00bz0Rz.

My idea (for the sorc this time around) involves 3 trees (which I doubt will be the defining mechanic of D3 anyways): Utility, Spell, and Element.

Here's a rundown before going in depth.
Summation: Spell Tree gives you generic damage spells. Element Tree improves elemental versions of said spells. Utility tree gives you odd ball non-damage spells.

In Depth (Stop now or accept that it is long and ugly).

ELEMENT TREE: This tree grants access to different elements, effects, and admixtures. In reality this is an almost entirely passive tree. However, it controls your broader spell access. Once you have a point in fire, any spell skill you pick grants you a fire version. If you only put one point in fire it will be weaker than an element you put many points into. But you have the option, do I max a spell and put cursory points into each element? Or do I max this element and put cursory points into each spell. The differents is one very strong spell with lots of elements, or a lot of strong spells with one element. While a particular element skill raises damage faster than the spell skill, the spell skill increases various functions of the spell, such as the frequency of DoT "tics", mana cost, duration, size, and speed.

This is a horizontal version of the tree (because verticle is hard to do).

1 6 12 18 24 30
Fire------->Burn------F/Phys---->Ignite---->F/Mag

Ice-------->Chill-----I/Phys---->Freeze---->I/Mag Mag/Phys

Lightning-->Daze------L/Phys---->Stun------>L/Mag


Burn: This fire effect applies to any Fire spell unless noted otherwise in the spell description. The target takes both the initial fire damage and a moderate DoT. More points increases the damage per tic' and the number of tic's.

Ignite: This fire effect applies to any Fire spell unless noted otherwise in the spell description. The target takes the initial fire damage, burn damage, and emits an short AoE DoT with half damage and duration. More points increases the amount of burn damage dealt to enemys and radius of the AoE.

Daze:[/i] This lightning effect applies to any Lightning Spell unless noted otherwise in the spell description. The target takes the initial fire damage and has their AR, Defense, and Resistances reduced for a small period of time. More points increases the reduction and the duration. (Option 1: Multiple castings do not stack but reset duration with a naturally high reduction. Option 2: Multiple castings stack but do not reset duration with a naturally low reduction.)

Stun: Stun will have a short duration, as do all current stun abilities.

Chill and Freeze:[/i] Although chill seems inherently better than Freeze, Freeze will have a very small duration (maxing between 2 and 4 seconds) while Chill will begin with a 5 second duration and increase both duration and slow% from there.

[u].../Phys: These are featured optional element admixtures. Damage dealt with a .../Phys spell deals 50% Element and 50% Physical Damage. The element 50% does not gain the benefits of the Element Skill. The .../Phys skills all have a small knockback and benefit from 50% of the element effect.

Ex: A sorceress has 5 points of Fire, 5 Points in Burn, and 5 Points in Fire/Physical. The Fire/Physical version of the spell deals 50% fire damage and 50% physical damage, with a Burn dealing 50% damage for half the normal duration.

.../Mag: These featured element admixtures deal 50% element damage and 50% magic damage (the element featured in the blessed hammer or bone spear class skills). Like the .../Physical skills, they gain 50% of the element effect power.

Phys/Mag: This featured admixture deals 50% Physical and 50% Magical Damage. Spells using this admixture always have a form of knockback, that increases with points spent.


[u]SPELL TREE
This tree gives the sorceress access to different direct damage spells. Without any points in the element tree, the sorceress would cast spectral spells (which would give her the ability to avoid the element tree entirely, if she was willing to gamble on damage type. This wouldn't be a set spectral rotation, but a random rotation). Each spell she picks up here is designed for a specific purpose, not to be better or worse than another. Bolt only hits one target, but does a lot of damage and is quick and cheap. You can machine-gun bolt. You can't machine gun Ball as well, it casts slower but explodes into an AoE at the target, like Fireball and Glacial Spike did. Although there are requisites, they don't make one spell inferior to another. Instead moves from simple spells to complex spells. Starting with the simplest spell known. Bolt.

1 6 12 18 24 30
Field------->Wall-------<---------->Guardian
\
Bolt------->Ball------------------------------>Wave
/----------->Pillar---------------->Annihilation
Wind----<
\Lance
Wander--------------------------->Chain


Bolt: Bolt is cheap, fast, and hits one target really hard.

Ball: Ball is quick (but not fast) and explodes after hitting the target.

Wave: A wall that moves forwards, destroying things in its path. Wave costs a fair bit of mana, casts a little slowly, but leave a lot of destruction in its wake.

Wander: Tosses out a couple distinct 'orbs' that float around like charged bolt or twister or firestorm. It's more expensive and slower than bolt, but not by much. More points increases the number of 'orbs' in addition to damage.

Chain: Chain strikes one target and bounces from there. It's speed and cast rate are average, and so is it's damage. More points also increase number if jumps in addition to damage.

Wind: Think 'a burning wind' or 'inferno'. This is a sustained spell that creates a cone of damage so long as you sustain it. Points not only increase damage, but reach of the cone as well. Wind doesn't inflict the 18th level element effects, but it does use the 6th level ones.

Lance: Lance is like bone spear, it shoots straight out and penetrates any enemies it hits. Lance costs a moderate amount of mana, and deals a lot of damage. It doesn't inflict any of the element effects though (levels 6 or 18). Unlike bone spear, lance is nearly instant. It travels, but takes roughly 1/3 of the time bone spear took to cross the screen.

Pillar: A traditional Pillar of Flame! Like Wind, this is a sustained spell. However it is sustained on a single enemy, at any visible range. It has a very small AoE effect, so adjacent enemies are damaged and effected too. Although it inflicts 6th level effects constantly, it only inflicts 18th level element effects on the first 'tic'. It's slow to cast initially, but after that only needs maintaining.

Annihilation: This is where things like Meteor go. Casts slow, costs a lot, and the spell takes a moment to deliver. It's damage is massive and has a moderate sized short term sustained AoE. Meteors, Comets, and the much debated mythical Ball Lightning would go here. Although it seems to be better than everything else, it's exorbitant costs and casting time level the playing field.

Field: This creates an abnormally massive circular AoE. Although it deals only 1 damage per point, it inflicts 6th level element effects on any that enter. It also inflicts 18th level effects at random. So a Ice Queen sorceress could create a huge field where everyone was chilled and froze at random. A field sorceress could be really dangerous.

Wall: A standing line (or if possible, a single line drawn by the sorceress's cursor) that damages all who pass through. 18th level elemental effects have their duration 1/2'd and tic' less frequently. The wall doesn't physically block anything (physical admixtures do their knock back only once/creature). Increased points increase wall dimensions as well as damage.

Guardian: An unusual three-headed creature stands guard in the location, assailing any who enter with powerful Bolts. Although the bolts are powerful, the creature can only target three enemies at a time. More points increases not only damage, but the guardian's range and the number of guardians that can be summoned at a one time.

If someone invested a point in each element and admixture and had the Bolt spell (to be seen) They would have access to a Fire Bolt, Frost Bolt, Lightning Bolt, Exploding Bolt (F/P), Shard Bolt (I/P), Thunder Bolt (L/P), Magefire Bolt (F/M), Magefrost Bolt (F/M), Mageshock Bolt (L/P), and a Mana Bolt (P/M). The nice thing about these is that they would require only 4 visuals! A darkening filter and a lightening filter would cover the Physical and Magical admixtures. The mana bolt could be anything at all, even invisible!

Now granted, including all the spells means making 12x5 animations (60). Approximately double those of D2. Still, with new technology and media, it shouldn't be a hard thing to include.

UTILITY TREE
These are the odd man out spells. Ones not designed to fit into the elemental or multi-elemental role. A lot of them were forced into the Lightning Tree in D2. Mana Shield, Teleport, Telekensis. Other good spells might be Hover, Fly, Mass Telekensis, Fade, Barrier, Shield, and Sanctuary.

1 6 12 18 24 30
Barrier-->Shield--->Mana Shield------------------------->Sanctuary

Hover------------------->Fly

Telekensis-------------------->Mass Telekensis\
\
Fade------------------>Teleport


Barrier: The old Necromancer "Bone Armor" spell. Absorbs a certain amount of physical damage and disappears. Absorbs more per point than Sanctuary.

Shield: The old Druid "Cyclone Armor" spell. Absorbs a certain amount of elemental damage and disappears. Absorbs more per point that Sanctuary.

Mana Shield: Reduces damage taken and deals damage to mana instead of health. An old favorite.

Sanctuary: An immobile circle that absorbs physical and elemental damage and prevents creatures from passing through it. It absorbs less than either Barrier or Shield, but each point increases the amount absorbed and the size of the circle. An 8 person party could fit in a 20th level Sanctuary if they squeezed in. The creator and their allies can enter and exit the sanctuary at will.

Hover: Increased move speed for little no stamina.

Fly: Reduces chances getting hit in melee, like dodge, and increases move speed slightly.

Telekensis: The old favorite. Deals no damage but has a much more powerful knockback effect now. In addition to pick ups, opens, and ranged 'clicks'

Mass Telekensis: A small AoE telekensis, 'clicks' everything in range and uses a moderate knockback.

Fade: A weak invisibility, reduces chance to be seen by monsters (and inobservant players).

Teleport: Now you see me, now you see me farther away! Increased points increase Range (yes, range now) and reduce mana costs.




Thats pretty much 'how' I'd like to see it done. It doesn't have to be the same. I'd just like to see it done in a similar manner that makes each ability functional in it's own way. Instead of going weak-to-strong it should go from simple-to-complex.

I always thought the barbarian trees could have become a good example of this. If Bash had been really strong and gotten a farther and farther knockback, double swing had something over frenzy (which it might), and leap were more useful (perhaps longer range than leap attack with that nice knockback effect). Then it could have been done right. Each skill different and defined, but not weaker or stronger than the other.


But (as I said in the other post) this might not be a very Diablo idea.

[vendrox]

I love above post :)

[sevencreature]

I smell the stench of Dungeon Siege 2 from the aforementioned post...

In that case, since DS2 -> TQ refinement was already processed, all that remains is TQ -> D3. I think those few minior novelties which appeared in DS2 and were refined in TQ, and those that appeared in TQ hardly came unnoticed by Blizzard .-)

[Dwovar]

I smell the stench of Dungeon Siege 2 from the aforementioned post...

I think I see where you're coming from. However I think that what I'd written was sufficiently different to not be attributable to Dungeon Siege 2 (which I liked very much).

After all, in DS2 you just found spells and could use your points to improve them.

This is wildly different in that you spend points to create effectively different spells. It's not "mana reduction" or "increased crit chance" unless mana reduction or increased crit chance are built into the spell-type itself. Rather, it's mixing a spell-type with and element or admixture, to create a new and different spell.

These aren't passive boosts to random spells. It's actively building a spell list.

[stillman]

Dwovar,

I like the general idea. So after glazing over it all, I figgure it goes something like: you choose a geometric shape or style of firing your spells, and then you also choose an elemetal damage form to fill in that geometric shape/pattern on the screen. So you customize your own spells instead of getting dreadfully bored of seeing boring old meteor a million times. If you get dreadfully bored of the spell you designed, well it is your own fault since you made it that way. The "spectral" alternative to elemental investment idea is nice for those respec-lovers who are afraid of ruining their builds. Personally, I'd like to see "magic" damage (necro bone spells, berserk, etc) called "spectral" instead because "magic damage" is, well, a pretty unthoughtful name for a damage type that Blizzard came up with. What were they thinking? I'll bet every last one of us didn't quite understand what was truely meant by "magic damage" in our early days of d2 playing. All they had to do was call it something else like "spectral" damage or "phantom" damage.

One thing I don't get though is for your example of something like 50% fire damage and 50% magic damage, how does this get interpreted on the screen? It would have to make sense. I guess a meteor style spell could have 50% fire and 50% physical damages (since the rock from space hits for physical damage too) but the designers would be hard pressed to come up with sensible manifestations for combinations of damage types.


I may as well add an idea I had on a post long ago while were at it. It's a facet design.
You click on your skill page to open it and you see a big gem-shaped thing on your screen. This one is called "lightning". There are at least 6 facets on the gem which represent different aspects of the lightning spell. So one facet is for raw lit damage. You can pump alot (or all) of your points into it and all it does is increase damage for the lightning spell. Another facet is "number of chains". Putting skill points into this one increases the number of bolts so your lightning now resembles chain lightning. There is also an "intelegence" facet. You can invest skill points in this facet to make your lightning go around corners and bend around trees to seek enemies. There would be a facet that affects how much zig-zagging the bolt(s) do. More points in this facet amounts to bolts with greater wide area so you have lets say a 2.2 foot path of lightning bolt instead of the skinny little line we see in d2.

There could be more facets like charged bolt release on hits and so on. Range will be a facet on many spells.

Now, you can't have it all. You can be extremist and put all 100 skill points into the damage facet, but this would leave you with a boring and straightforward bolt with no intelegence (you have to aim it yourrself), no wide area, no chains, etc. Or, maybe you want to make the most intelegent possible bolt that travels all over the screen so all you have to do is click and let the bolt find it's own targets. Or maybe you want to drop 10 points into everything, or just have one zig-zaging bolt that covers a straight line 5 foot wide path as it extends from your staff.

But whatever you invest in is the death of other possibilities. If you want 100 chain lightnings hitting stuff then your stuck with poor damage and poor everything else.

So each spell would have one of these facet designes. With fireball, you can invest in the radius of the explosion, the sheer heat (damage), the fire duration, debris for some physical damage added, and so on. For a mana shield spell you can invest in whatever forms of elemental damage you want it to absorb. The WD could have poisons and your facets would be for better poison damage for animal, demon, or undead.

You would basically design each spell the exact way you want it. You wouldn't be stuck with a meteor that always has the same radius and the same fire patten. In d2, all you controll is the damage and it's kind of a no brainer: you're supposed to put points into it to get the most damage possible.

So to recap, with the facet design, every single skill point in the game is passive. I'm not sure how I'd like to do the following part...but I was thinking you have access to ALL of the spells at level one, but they do petty, miserable, useless damge. You basically toy around with them in the first area of the game and decide which one you think you will like the most. Keep in mind that at level one, you have zero skill points invested in the facets. So your level one guy/girl will be shooting a single, straight line, no AI, skinny lightning bolt that only travels to about half the screen length. The facets are all clearly labeled so you can play with all the spells in the game (for that chr) and envision what it would be like using that same bolt with great a damage and chain combo (50 skill points in damage and 50 points in chain lightning affect, for example). You would play with the meteor at it's base no-facet-investment tiny damage level and the rest of the spells too. This would help those respec advocates. They can clearly see the basic form of every spell in the game available for their chr at lev 1.

[moxon]

Personally, I would like it if all skills would be viable in hell if you had the right synergies to make them work. Case in point charged bolt is a level 1 skill and combined with lightning (it's synergy) and lightning mastery, it was viable for hell difficulty. However, fire bolt and ice bolt are not viable even with their synergies. What is the use of having a skill if there is no way to make it viable for hell difficulty? While the addition of synergies somewhat legitimized putting points in lower level skills, if the only use of a skill is as a synergy for a more powerful skill, then the number of viable builds will be greatly limited. Additionally if the only use for a skill is to put one point in it because it is a prerequisite, then I feel that it is a wasted skill slot (can we say psychic hammer). While cookie-cutter builds are great for blasting thru the game at breakneck speed, I also found it satisfying to come up with off the wall builds. By making all skills viable thru hell with the use of synergies, you open up a wider variety of builds which in turn would lead to greater replayability.

[Kaeros]

While I think they should strive to make every skill viable, either by having a powerful enough effect, or by including some utility effect, the idea that you should be able to throw points into whatever you want and be able to complete the game at the highest level is a little naive.

One of two things are going to happen. Either they balance the game around every build being viable, meaning the people who find the well-planned builds are going to cruise through all difficulties with no challenge. Or, they balance it around the really well-planned "cookie-cutter" builds, and people with creative builds can only complete Normal or Nightmare.

I think it has to be the latter. That way, you can play however you want and still complete the story to find out what happens, but if you want to beat the ultimate challenge you can't be careless with your character. It's the fairest way to do things.

Also makes it very satisfying when you beat Hell using an unconventional build :)

This ..

It's pretty unreasonable to expect Blizzard to balance every combination of builds to be viable through Hell, but not grossly overpowered at any point in the game, including PvP.

Sure would be super, though..

[RawBanana]

Stillman,

Your facet skill tree got me thinking. Its so flexible I think it gives too much flexibility to the players and will overwhelm a lot of people in its complexity...

For example, ways to differentiate each skill:
1. Initial spell damage
2. Area of effect (width, number of bolt, piercing)
3. Casting time
4. Mana cost
5. Special effects (freezing, cold, ignite, knockback, bleed, stun)
6. Physical damage element
7. Range of spell

But also there are so many types of lighting spells that are useful like chaing lighting (D1 and d2 style), Lighting fury (bouncing lightning bolts off the walls), thunderstorm, and lightning nova. That is 5 effects to add onto 7 basic skill differentiations per skill… Too much choice is not good.

My suggestion to improve ur facet skill system is to use synergies to modify your skill. I kind of put that into my 5+2 full skill sets already but your facet system makes it simpler.

Synergies when designed properly, promote the use of many skills to improve a single skill. It would be so boring if D3 just gave us the ability to put all your points into Frozen Orb and no one put any points into anything else. It would be boring to play but effective from a dps point of view. Synergies say that instead of putting 100 points into FO, you can achieve the same power on your FO by putting 20 into FO, 20 into Blizzard, 20 into Ice bolt and 20 into frost bolt. All other skills in your cold tree would also be totally viable and full powered as well. No more need for 1 skill 1 trip ponies.

Using your facet system, synergies could work by having each skill add a facet.
1. Cold bolt – synergies gives +5% per level extra damage to all cold spells
2. Freezing bolt – synergy gives +2% per level for all cold spells to freeze enemies for .5seconds
3. frozen armor – synergy gives +2% cold resistance per level
4. Frost nova – synergy gives all cold spells additional explosive range +.5yards per level
5. blizzard – synergy gives all cold/freezing effects to last +.2seconds longer per level
6. frozen orb – synergy gives all cold spells a chance +5% per level to fast-double-cast and shoot twice for each casting
7. glacial spike – synergy gives all cold spells additional physical damage +2% per level
8. Cold mastery - synergy gives all cold spells lower mana cost and cold piercing

The only problem will this tree is I can imagine a frozen orb would look very messy with lots of exploding cold effects and frozen enemies totally kills everything not cold immune at higher levels… Perhaps synergies would only work with certain spells.

But in any case it makes skills usuable low level and much more powerful and scalable at high level without making skills useless.

Battlemage
On another note, I always had a vision of a battlemage that kind of felt like Akira (cartoon). A character with lots of magic self buffs (energy shield, Enchant) and short range magic attacks like nova. An Akira type shockwave nova that knocks back all opponents would be so cool. Their charge attack would charge like the barbarian into a crowd and nova everything. At high level they would look like a regular sized warrior rippling with magic buffs and elemental energy.

I kind of designed my Deathknight/Blackguard character like that…　
http://forums.diii.net/showthread.php?t=679899

[stillman]

Your system is a great improvement over the d2 synergies which (nearly) all amount to added damage only. It allows for good variation and custumization. Since it is similar to the d2 trees, it is a familiar get-up-and-go design that would take minimal time to get into.

My facet design is indeed complex, so it runs the risk of having lev 1 players spend 2 hours looking at all the spells and possibilities. In d2, the player of a sorc had to be a thinker (not much of one, albeit). A barb would just move in and hit stuff while a sorc had to dual-specialize (prior to infinity taking over), approach monsters differently if they were immune, maybe do some teleing to avoid monsters immune to her main punch spell, kill the stuff with her main punch, then switch to her lesser punch in a different element to kill the immunes. Likewise, I wanted my design to force mage players to use their visionary skills, that is, to be a thinker if you want to paly a mage.

But one way my system reduces the complexity is by only having a small and limited number of facets for each spell. For example, you mention that lightning bolts can bounce of the walls and have other effects which contribute to too much choice for the player. However; each spell will only have a maximum of 6 "effects". So here are the possible effects of the "lightning" spell:

-Lightning damage
-Number of chains
-Intelegence (i.e. tracking/target-seeking ability)
-Jaggedness (= thickness of each bolt)
-Number of charged bolts released on each strike which have a stun effect to stun nearby unfortunates.

A second example is the "meteor" spell. You get to manipulate:

-fire damage
-radius of impact explosion
-% physical damage from debris
-fire duration after the initial blast
-mana cost reduction

And for Freeze Ray:

-Cold damage
-Number of bounces off walls before dissapating
-Enemy resist piercing
-Freeze length in seconds
-Chance to shatter body if life < 0
-Chance to pass through a target instead of getting absorbed

So in your example, let's say you want your attacks to bounce off of walls like the old zon's bolts. Well, you'll have to with Freeze Ray. Lightning spell does not have that ability, and it never will. You only get the facets that you see labeled on the gem design when you look at your spell page. Just like fireball in d2 doesn't have the expand effect of nova. Each spell in my design only allows 6 facets with each facet representing an "effect" that you can put points into.

I don't think the 2 ideas could be combined, since your idea involves passive synergies affecting numerous spells (all of them in a tree, actually), wheras my idea is ALL passive and no spell ever affects another. So with your idea, for example if someone wants to use frozen orb as their main attack, they may want to put points into cold bolt (a different skill) so their FO damage will be higher. With my idea, if someone wants to use FO as a main, they never put a single point into any other spell. All other cold spells like frost nova, blizzard, etc. get ignored. The player just goes to the FO gem picture (in spellbook) and puts points into the facet that affects "damage" for FO. If they want a better range effect so the FO travels way off the screen to kill things ahead, then again they ignore all other spells and put points into the FO "range" facet. If they want more little bolts spraying out of the orb, then they drop points into FO's "bolt" facet. Putting all these points into FO facets has no effect whatsoever on any other spells, not even cold spells.

I think the complexity problem would really sit in the hands of Blizzard who would have to come up with 6 facet effects tied to each spell. So just to match the number of spells on the d2 sorc, they would need 30 spells for the d3 mage. Then each spell would have 6 facets that 20 points can be dropped into. Each facet is a passive effect, so essentially, Blizzard has to come up with 6 effects for all 30 spells which is 6X30= 180 effects. The good news is overlap; most spells are offensive so "damage" will be a facet on nearly ever spell. Also, "range" and "mana cost reduction" could be facets used for many spells regardless of their geometric shape on the screen.

But Blizzard had many wasted "spells" For example, the cold tree had 3 cold armor-type spells that looked much the same, they couldn't be used as your main attack, and a mastery which doesn't have any representation on the screen (so it hardly counts as a spell). Ice bolt is impractical to use as a main, so we may as well cross that one off. That means there are 5 cold spells in d2. Not much to do there. So it wouldn't really take 30 spells to match the d2 sorc.

Just to elaborate a bit more, there would be a spellbook that you pop up same as your d2 skill tree would. You'd see a big gem picture there with 6 facets facing you. They are clearly labeled with their effects like "damage", "range", "mana cost", etc. The gem is titled "Lightning". You click an arrow icon and this flips a page in your spellbook and we are now looking at another big gem picture titled "Metoer" and the facets are now labeled "damage", "debris", "fire duration", etc. You can go throught the whole spellbook and see all the spells, their facets and what they do to affect each spell. But the facets are "hard", just like a gem is hard. Each facet for meteor is strongly attached to meteor only and no points put into any meteor facet will ever affect any other spell.

There is no "fire mastery"; you have to increase the damage of each individual fire spell you wish to use by sacrificing points into the damage facet of each spell gem.

Instead of 3 tabs for fire, cold and lit, the spellbook has 30 tabs (or however many spells there are) and you flip through them. Each spell has the 6 facets that describe a manipulation of the spell in detail. This would allow enough space to learn everything you need to know about the nature of the spell. So you are only looking at one spell at a time instead of 10 spells on one tab. If you choose to use ONLY fireball, then you never have to flip through to look at the other spells ever. Of cousre, you're in deep trouble if you can't find a way to deal with fire immunes.

[CaptainDingo]

There's nothing noobish about wanting to build your character in a way that isn't tired, boring, and cookie-cutter. Just a minor gripe about the word choice.

But it's true, I actually once made a Necromancer that could not progress through the game. It wasn't possible (on Normal difficulty!). Believe it or not. I never, ever want that to happen again in another Diablo game for the rest of my life. :P It's ridiculous that it can even occur.

[Zerosugar]

I want to share a little of my gaming style before I explain what I mean by "noob-proof" skill trees, skill allotment, etc.

I enjoy playing Diablo games without knowing what to expect. I like finding surprises (good ones, of course) in-game, discovering new combinations, and yes, even adventuring. Therefore I continually try to supress my urge to research these things. I've done well with this in respect to D1 and D2. I might not do this with D3, however, given the long wait for it.

Therefore, I'd really like to see noob-proof skill trees, where any player can dump points into any number of different skills and still have a fun, playable character. Give D3 some balance with respect to monster resistences, immunities, and of course, weaknesses. Each of these should be tweaked to allow characters with diverse point spreads to still function well. Of course I fully support certain combinations of skills that will function better overall so that players who like this sort of thing can still develop strategies and re-work characters (or restart them).

In other words, I really hate having nearly worthless skills thrown into a skill tree of chracters in D2. Those playing D3 for the first time will probably want to experiment a bit, trying out each skill. I don't want to see us get crippled characters as a result of that experimentation. Those experimenting have grown to accept that their character will not be as powerful as one focused on a specific combination or theme, but we do want our diverse characters to be playable.

So please, Blizzard, do not leak D3 specifics until Beta or a release candidate. Give us news of things that might be a little vague, but will keep us entertained while waiting for it. When the game is released, I hope that we'll be able to experiment without resulting in debuffed/neutered characters.

How does everyone else feel about this?

I hate this new WoW mentality that everything has to be dumbed down where your hands are held through these types of games.

No not every build should be viable and every skill as useful as the next. Character planning and figuring out what works and what doesn't adds as much to content and replayability as everything else. If every build and skill worked equally effective then the game would have lost its challenge and lost a lot of what people like myself love to do.

Knowing that everything isn't perfect and there is a danger in gimping yourself makes you cautious and makes you get into things and take an interest in planning your character and how things function. Otherwise why have skills at all? there should be a door open for mistakes just for the sake of taking an interest.

Why does everything has to be easy and simple? when did that become a good thing in games.

[Dwovar]

No not every build should be viable and every skill as useful as the next.

Why not? Whats the point of putting a skill in there if it isn't viable? It'd be better to just leave it out and only put the useful skills in.

Character planning and figuring out what works and what doesn't adds as much to content and replayability as everything else. If every build and skill worked equally effective then the game would have lost its challenge and lost a lot of what people like myself love to do.

I disagree. Just because min/maxing is possible does not mean not min/maxing should be the only option. It's fine if a skill is still viable while using difficult tactics. But to be completely and entirely non-viable, regardless of tactics and mixed applications? Why, it's like having a place holder skill to force you waste points and trick you into using it. I don't mind much if a game tricks me into going somewhere or doing something I'd prefer not to do, but I'm always irritated when I'm fooled into being incapable of completing the game. I'm not interested in sinking 15 hours into a game only to have to start over because I "fell for it".

Knowing that everything isn't perfect and there is a danger in gimping yourself makes you cautious and makes you get into things and take an interest in planning your character and how things function. Otherwise why have skills at all? there should be a door open for mistakes just for the sake of taking an interest.

Sure, an open door to mistakes is fine, you end up with a character thats a little weaker than an optimally built character. Those mistakes should not, however, cripple the character you've been working on for however-many of your precious few free hours, into being entirely incompentent. What, really, is the point of sub-par skills other than as a trap to lure players into wasting their time? Unless the skills are identicle and irrelevant, people will always look for a way to get the most out of their skills. A game does not require throwaway skills in order to make you pay attention to your placement.

Rather than throwaway and 'uber' skills, each should be useful with a different tactical solution. Not everyone is good at every tactic, but using certain tricks your throwaway skill becomes useful, instead of being useless in all given situations.

Why does everything has to be easy and simple? when did that become a good thing in games.

Having a full tree of skills that are useful when using decidedly different tactics does not make the game easy. The point isn't to slowly train the player to use one of 2 builds for each class. The point is to provide an environment where you can be challenged without being pidgeon-holed.

[Zerosugar]

I disagree. Just because min/maxing is possible does not mean not min/maxing should be the only option. It's fine if a skill is still viable while using difficult tactics. But to be completely and entirely non-viable, regardless of tactics and mixed applications? Why, it's like having a place holder skill to force you waste points and trick you into using it. I don't mind much if a game tricks me into going somewhere or doing something I'd prefer not to do, but I'm always irritated when I'm fooled into being incapable of completing the game. I'm not interested in sinking 15 hours into a game only to have to start over because I "fell for it".

You can have gimped skills without them being pre-requirements for any other skills..in fact i detest the whole idea that you need to pick one skill to have access to the next. this is simply where we will never agree. I like skill trees where something doesn't work or doesn't work for most..other things middle and others great. making everything viable and you suddenly stop caring where you place your points. Its an aspect of the game a player should also focus on.


Sure, an open door to mistakes is fine, you end up with a character thats a little weaker than an optimally built character. Those mistakes should not, however, cripple the character you've been working on for however-many of your precious few free hours, into being entirely incompentent. What, really, is the point of sub-par skills other than as a trap to lure players into wasting their time? Unless the skills are identicle and irrelevant, people will always look for a way to get the most out of their skills. A game does not require throwaway skills in order to make you pay attention to your placement.

Plenty of games that has been very successful with skill trees has had useless skills. It motivated players into do research and actually test builds. build testing becomes less interesting if everything works. Look at how many D2 builds that has been tested here http://www.battle.net/forums/thread.aspx?fn=d2-general&t=1310442&p=1&#post1310442 ..people had fun doing it and D2 is one of the very few games if any game that has spawned so much interest in a sequel. Games are designed around being time consuming ..if spare time and gaming is low on your list that doesn't mean that games should conform to that..that's what games like tetris is for. There really wouldn't be a door open for mistakes if everything works now would there?

Having a full tree of skills that are useful when using decidedly different tactics does not make the game easy. The point isn't to slowly train the player to use one of 2 builds for each class. The point is to provide an environment where you can be challenged without being pidgeon-holed.


I don't know where you get the idea of only 2 builds being viable from what i said. You can still have many workable builds while having builds that isn't
Again we will have to disagree. You want the gameplay itself to be the only challenge. I want the game and the character building to be a challenge..to me it adds replayability and gives a lot of players room for testing...testing builds is the love of many players as you can see in the thousands of threads spread over many of these types of games. If everything works you remove the need and wanting to test. A few peoples lazyness to do research and make posts about skills and their effectiveness should not effect how D3 develops.

I think this is one of those subconcious things people don't know is important until its completely missing..it becomes one of those things that makes the game more boring without you being able to point the finger on what. The idea that something useless can be useful and have its place is hard to grasp for some. It wouldn't be the first time fans has screamed for something the developers gave to them, was part of what ruined a game. Nerfs and overpowered characters comes to mind