Don't worry guys, we Mormons are right so there's no need to fret.
You're all going to burn in hell anyways. . . South Park says so!
You can't make a good ending through extensive plot holes. Don't take this the wrong way, but anytime I see someone claiming the ending "wasn't that bad," I strongly believe they simply aren't aware of how widespread and massive said plot holes are.
I encourage you to look up Angry Joe's . It covers most of the big points and makes it virtually impossible to be okay with the ending. There isn't anything deep to the ending unless you're talking about the sizes of the holes in the plot.
I will say, however, that the music is amazing. It's the only thing holding me over until BioWare decides what to do with the ending.
Quote from Neonsz: Go
Every man is entitled to his own opionion. I just got to playing the beta in the last betakey-wave, and I think it's perfectly fine atm. But I didn't experience the beta in it's early stages though.
I've found that to be a fairly common remark. Anyone who played the early beta is typically not happy with the current form, while late arrivals find it satisfactory. D3 isn't a horrible game as is, it's simply that we've seen a version that is superior to what we have now and many are left wondering "why didn't you keep it that way?"
Quote from VoidPotato: Go
Do you mean just the artwork or underlying skill system? Using random item drops that limit how you learn the different variations on abilities was kind of terrible, especially with auction houses. If it was obtained through quest/ story progression or from vendors it would have been better. While I haven't played the beta, I like the newer system.
Both. The artwork for the previous runes were much better looking than the new runes. As a result of drastically changing the system, the art quality diminished. This can be seen in many other areas where they had a solid system that they changed for one reason or another resulting it a brand new interface that wasn't as visually polished as older elements.
I feel that given the considerable amount of changes they rolled out recently, it's too early to be trying to release a polished game. They're going to drop the ball somewhere and have to fix it later anyways. I'd have preferred they take the time to get it right the first time is all.
The concept of white items as being "loot confetti"
The awkward UI (has become progressively worse)
The change of runes from well polished orbs to tacky looking marble-esque stones (that you can see the white cutout borders of)
The change of the entire skill system from one that was compact and intuitive to a mess of tabs
The change of stat and weapon based abilities to pure weapon based abilities (2-Handed weapons on Wizards. . .huh?)
The removal of auto-attack as a viable alternative (why have auto-attack at all if they don't want us to use it?
The odd decision to not use normal maps on models (player models look like D2 and GW models)
There are numerous issues like this that, while not inherently bad on their own, haven't been given enough focus to iron out the drawback of the decision.
To me, the best version of D3 was released at the start of the Beta and they have diminished the quality of the product since then. They had a very solid product early on (with exception to the awkwardness with class resources) that should have been refined rather than revamped wholesale.
Having played the D3 beta since the beginning, I've gotta say the game really isn't ready for release based on what they've shown us. There is a distinct lack of polish across all aspects of the game. The only exception being the environments which outshine the player/monster models. A telling sign being that they spent more time removing innovative features than they did refining the remaining features.
While I will inevitably receive D3 due to the annual pass, I honestly think Torchlight 2 is going to be more enjoyable to play than D3.
I would have preferred if they took another half a year getting it right than releasing it to a horde of careless, rabid fans. This is a time where "until it's finished" really would do the game a service.
If I understand you correctly, you are using a Missile instead of a Beam? Or are you actually using a Beam, but just called it a Missile?
This affects how I recommend fixing the problem.
Quote from EternalWraith: Go
Yes. zenx1 knows more than foolish Blizzard of course. He should be in charge of designing future systems for every company in the world.
No, wait, Zenx1 is just a silly kid that suffers from nostalgia and a critical lack of understanding.
I`ll finish this conversation tomorrow.
Wc3 and its b.net 1.0 was good back then, but now its thrash. Failsky is probably being a drama queen as usual(nothing better to do) and exaggerating the situation(Haven`t see the vid yet).
WC3's interface and functionality on B-Net 1.0 feels more modern than SC2. That's the root of the problem. Many features were removed for the sake of "visually pleasing" aesthetics. So while 2.0 might look pretty, it has less functionality than its predecessor making it feel antiquated.
Your argument is needlessly hostile without any real reason to be. If you haven't watched the video, you really shouldn't be posting at all. You are horribly misinformed:
Your argument makes it very clear that you don't understand how B-Net 1.0 or 2.0 works. I strongly advise you sit down and look them over more thoroughly before posting in here again. You have contradicted yourself every post in this thread and you admit to not taking the time to view the subject matter.
zenx1 may have a negative perspective, but at least he has taken the time to do his research.
You might want to detail how many abilities you have. .
A lot could mean 10 to infinity. You're more likely to gather interest if people have a better idea idea of the amount of work you're asking for.
Glad you liked ;)
I've created catalogs similar to this for many other parts of the Data Editor that I'll be releasing in the near future when I have time to do so in an organized fashion. I've also expanded this catalog to include every actor (in the updated version on my computer) that I'll post at the same time :)
What is the exact error you are getting? Is "Link Invalid" all that shows up?
Until I post new test maps, videos and tutorials many of my older tutorials like this one aren't going to work exactly as detailed. My time is currently being focused elsewhere, but once I have a week to sit down and organize things, I'll be able to provide accurate updates.
As I pointed out when zzPop first brought this up, you need to use separate Modify Unit effects in order to have the height change happen WITHIN the duration of the Behavior rather than outside of it. The shockwave would be triggered while you were in the air (before impacting the ground) and detract from the realism of the spell. By using a pair of Modify Unit effects you gain more accurate control over the motions at the expense of a little extra work.
A little birdy told me that you need to do the following:
General - If (Conditions) then do (Actions) else do (Actions) If (Killing unit) != No Unit Then General - If (Conditions) then do (Actions) else do (Actions) If (Owner of (Killing unit)) != (Owner of (Triggering unit)) Then // YOUR CODE GOES HERE // Variable - Modify Score[(Owner of (Killing unit))]: + 1 Leaderboard - Set Leaderboard item text at column 2 and row (Owner of (Killing unit)) to (Text(Score[(Owner of (Killing unit))])) Else Else
Pay special attention to the operator != (not equal)