Invited to Alpha Test

This is why I didn't like TQ

-: Slow combat. Say it isn't I don't really care. Still felt really slow to me.

-: I like d2s system. Maby thats why I hate TQs because d2s is bad. I like bad systems.

-: the spells were 0% exciting. Not to mention they all looked the same."oh but that ones a green glowy mushy particle ball instead of red one!"

-: cooldowns in a ARPG? zzz.

-: pets didnt appear to scale at all from what I played.

-: the animations looked like the guy was hitting with 0 effort.Making combat even more drab

-:far too many passives instead of active skills.

I played TQ about 2 years ago so maby they patched out the boring. Thats all the things I remember though.

even i know TQ's whole item system including your invent sucked big time, just about every review ive seen mentions how poor it was lol

since when did this become about TQ and not POE though? :-P

Dunno xD I was actually interested to know the good sides to TQ.

ahh... I can't wait to play this great game.. just watching videos and reading the forum till I get some beta invitation or smthing xD

:P

Off the original topic, but on par with half the discussion. I have a +1 for TQ. It may have some bugs, but it is a fun game. It's defiantly more visually appealing then any of the Diablo games not to mention the similar gameplay. I liked both Diablo games and TQ.

If you need something to hold you over till POE and are tired of the really dated D2. I recommend TQ too.

The main draw of TQ (for me) is the ability to mix and max different archetypes as you see fit. Sure, a lot of the builds aren't viable at higher difficulties, but it allowed for a sense of "ownership" to your particular character that I never felt in D2. In my opinion, D2 is the king and TQ is the prince of ARPG's... and to carry on that way of thinking... TL is the duke and Sacred 2 is a piece of shit.

@Rusty: I think your hatred of passives is why you didn't like TQ and why I did, I love passives... the more the better. I want to kill stuff, not worry about hitting numbers (but thats me), that's also why I hate most RTS games, because I can't be bothered to remember to use the skills of so many units lol.

Passives in games should be relegated to the most powerful tiers, since they require no interaction or input...

If you don't want to actually interact with the game I have the perfect game for you:

http://progressquest.com/

"

zeto wrote:

Passives in games should be relegated to the most powerful tiers, since they require no interaction or input...

If you don't want to actually interact with the game I have the perfect game for you:

http://progressquest.com/

Zeto, Just because I like something you don't doesn't mean you have to make a post about it, or ridicule my opinion. Also, please read what someone says before posting in the future. I didn't say I didn't want to interact with the game, I just specified HOW I want to interact, namely, through killing monsters and collecting loot and not micro-managing my cool down meters on my click-skills. I also didn't say that I HATED click skills, just that I like passives.

Also, you just stated with no justification a view on how passives should be implemented. How about this, passives should be used early on so that the player can get used to the mechanics of the game, introducing click-skills slowly and progressively so that the nuances of each skill can be fully understood before a new skill is introduced.

I agree with Zeto. Active skills = fun because they require player interaction, passives = not.

I agree with myself. Actives and passives are both fun. Continually casting a long-term buff on myself is repetitive and boring. Weak defensive skills should be passive while stronger ones should be active. Offensive skills should generally be active.

The game includes armor and evasion ratings. These are technically passive skills. Imagine if you had to dodge/block every attack against you manually. That would be a shitty arpg.