Diablo® III

Monster melee attack range



DONT WORRY GUYS ITS COOL, WE LIKE THIS, THIS IS HOW THE GAME SHOULD BE PLAYED

http://imgur.com/J5L3y
http://imgur.com/4UcaS
http://imgur.com/r7jMZ
http://imgur.com/6dPzS

(yes the zombie way off to the right is the one hitting me)


Stop teasing those zombies! It's cruel. Seriously, who does this anyway? Yeah I had the same initial reaction to this. It feels silly to be hit by a zombie from a screen away, but I got over it. I don't try to dodge anymore, I just load skills that let me dodge while staying in melee range, doing more overall dps than your dodge strategy anyway. If anything, the game taught me how to play more effectively. Even if you COULD dodge like you want, it wouldn't be an effective way to play given the skill design.


i tried every patch to see if they fixed what i thought was a bug, what SHOULD be a bug
Do you know where the money they are being paid comes from?
Well, I'll tell you: consumers.

That's it.


Yes, a free market is a phenomenal thing, isn't it?

Disagree with their decisions? Don't buy it. But people throwing fits because this or that doesn't fit their minds-eye vision of what this game should be is ridiculous, and it's getting out of hand across the board when it comes to creative media.


DONT WORRY GUYS ITS COOL, WE LIKE THIS, THIS IS HOW THE GAME SHOULD BE PLAYED

http://imgur.com/J5L3y
http://imgur.com/4UcaS
http://imgur.com/r7jMZ
http://imgur.com/6dPzS

(yes the zombie way off to the right is the one hitting me)


Because you were in melee range of it when the hit was registered.


it needs to be more limited like it was in diablo 2, at least... (even diablo 2s, however, is lacking... but considering these devs think that this is the best way it should be played, d2 would be much more acceptable)

ill tell you this blizzard. the sole reason why guild wars 2 looks so nice to so many people, is because of their take on this philosophy (the exact opposite of yours)
Do you know where the money they are being paid comes from?
Well, I'll tell you: consumers.

That's it.


Yes, a free market is a phenomenal thing, isn't it?

Disagree with their decisions? Don't buy it. But people throwing fits because this or that doesn't fit their minds-eye vision of what this game should be is ridiculous, and it's getting out of hand across the board when it comes to creative media.


Will you defend their art style next please?
100 Draenei Mage
8755
it needs to be more limited like it was in diablo 2, at least... (even diablo 2s, however, is lacking... but considering these devs think that this is the best way it should be played, d2 would be much more acceptable)

ill tell you this blizzard. the sole reason why guild wars 2 looks so nice to so many people, is because of their take on this philosophy (the exact opposite of yours)


I would agree with this if you were comparing it to WoW, but this is a totally different genre. Similar, but completely different at the same time.

As to the issue of the varying degrees...I do agree that it should give you more slack, like D2 did.
04/11/2012 03:25 PMPosted by rhamutap
Will you defend their art style next please?


I have no personal qualms with the art style, take that as a defense if you will. I think people crying foul over the "WoW Graphics" and that it doesn't look like a Diablo game are not being entirely objective, so I suppose that's a defense of sorts.
04/11/2012 03:28 PMPosted by D3BETA
Will you defend their art style next please?


I have no personal qualms with the art style, take that as a defense if you will. I think people crying foul over the "WoW Graphics" and that it doesn't look like a Diablo game are not being entirely objective, so I suppose that's a defense of sorts.


And for the coup-de-grace, now defend the new UI please.
It's intentional. We don't want a game where the most effective way to play is to dodge in and out of enemy attacks. It's not that difficult to do, and it's just not a very fun way to play. "Most effective" and "not fun" just can't be in the same sentence when describing part of the game. We want combat to be based on use of abilities, putting thought into builds, building up offensive and defensive stats, etc. Skill is absolutely a part of all of the systems you'll use, and kiting can be too, but it'd be ridiculous if you could avoid all of the systems that make the game the game because you can time dodges of enemy attacks and negate every other factor.

Also think about just running past enemies to rush through an area and never being hit. Anyone looking to rush would love it! Which is why it's not a good idea from a design perspective. :) It's not something we'll be changing.


Dodging attacks is sort of one of the mainstays of videogames. We've been conditioned and trained to dodge attacks through 2+ decades of action games and action RPGs from the NES through today's PC setting. I really feel like removing the ability to dodge is going against what the medium is all about - fast reflexes and player skill.

I think this is a horrible idea but I'd like to thank you for at least addressing the issue.

Transparency is nice, and its good to know something is working as intended even if I think it's a bad idea. Thanks and I hope in the future you guys are more forthcoming with answers to questions even if you know they will have negative feedback.
it needs to be more limited like it was in diablo 2, at least... (even diablo 2s, however, is lacking... but considering these devs think that this is the best way it should be played, d2 would be much more acceptable)

ill tell you this blizzard. the sole reason why guild wars 2 looks so nice to so many people, is because of their take on this philosophy (the exact opposite of yours)


I would agree with this if you were comparing it to WoW, but this is a totally different genre. Similar, but completely different at the same time.

As to the issue of the varying degrees...I do agree that it should give you more slack, like D2 did.


the philosophy fits just fine comparing the two, the only real difference between the games is the view, and one being an mmo

guild wars 2 took the more action approach, diablo 3 took the more rng approach
Edited by D3BETA on 4/11/2012 3:36 PM PDT
Want to dodge? Use skills.

Want to not get hit? Don't get in melee range.

Not able to get out of melee range? You wanted the game to be hard. Well this makes the game hard.
to the rushing argument: jay wilson said himself about rushing "if you want to rush and skip the game thats fine"

besides, we arent just doing boss runs anymore, there is no reason to skip fighting anything in hell/inferno, xept your first play through it... to ruin combat over the first week of play is very disapointing
04/11/2012 03:31 PMPosted by rhamutap
And for the coup-de-grace, now defend the new UI please.


By UI I'm assuming you mean the skill UI and not the taskbar or anything of the sort, since there's largely no difference there between games. Skill UI has some overly cumbersome bits to it, and it could use a better explanation of how to activate elective mode and what exactly that does. Beyond that it's functional enough, and I imagine it's design in part is to prevent people from being able to easily hot-swap skills in the middle of a firefight.

But regardless of making you feel superior because I have the audacity to state that I don't see significant issues with the design philosophy of the game, your baiting seems tangential to the original discussion.
04/11/2012 03:35 PMPosted by D3BETA
You wanted the game to be hard. Well this makes the game hard.


thats like saying, "oh, you want to have a challenge in this race?"

*breaks your legs*

"there, have at it"

this fits perfectly with this design
Edited by D3BETA on 4/11/2012 3:42 PM PDT
04/11/2012 03:40 PMPosted by D3BETA
And for the coup-de-grace, now defend the new UI please.


By UI I'm assuming you mean the skill UI and not the taskbar or anything of the sort, since there's largely no difference there between games. Skill UI has some overly cumbersome bits to it, and it could use a better explanation of how to activate elective mode and what exactly that does. Beyond that it's functional enough, and I imagine it's design in part is to prevent people from being able to easily hot-swap skills in the middle of a firefight.

But regardless of making you feel superior because I have the audacity to state that I don't see significant issues with the design philosophy of the game, your baiting seems tangential to the original discussion.


Just curious is all. Thank you.
I just watched the video.

I have no problem with the design.

You enter range, creature swings, creature hits.

Creature is slow, needs to look slow, animation looks slow.

This is always going to be a problem where you have fast players and slow creatures.

They could either take all slow creatures out of the game, or make player speed slow.

I would rather they keep the current system.
You wanted the game to be hard. Well this makes the game hard.


thats like saying, "oh, you want to have a challenge in this race?"

*breaks your legs*

"there, have at it"

this fits perfectly with this design


So melee heroes should inherently have a complete disadvantage compared to ranged because they have no choice in getting hit by melee, while ranged can never be hit?

1 hit will not cripple a character. Having low health doesn't kill a character. Doesn't prevent them from moving or using skills. Don't use such a stupid analogy.

If you get hit you get hit. If you died you probably ran into the pack instead of playing smart.
Edited by D3BETA on 4/11/2012 3:45 PM PDT
This is what happens when developers over-design, over-think, and "over-balance". They start forcing what they believe should be experienced by a player on the gameplay via code fudging. It's a fine line, but I almost always disagree with the cheatie solutions imposed.

Once, not so long ago when I was working on a racing game, it was proposed that code made it impossible for a player to win the first time in a race. AI cars would be automatically sped up at the end of the race to just overtake the player if they were winning. That way players would artificially be forced into an "overcoming" experience, and "gain more satisfaction" when they were eventually allowed to win. I was flabbergasted and argued vehemently against it. And yet cheatie code mechanics of a similar nature are employed constantly in many games - as you are witnessing here.

There are always better design solutions than code fudging. Always. It just takes a design team with the balls to find and fight for them.
This is what happens when developers over-design, over-think, and "over-balance". They start forcing what they believe should be experienced by a player on the gameplay via code fudging. It's a fine line, but I almost always disagree with the cheatie solutions imposed.

Once, not so long ago when I was working on a racing game, it was proposed that code made it impossible for a player to win the first time in a race. AI cars would be automatically sped up at the end of the race to just overtake the player if they were winning. That way players would artificially be forced into an "overcoming" experience, and "gain more satisfaction" when they were eventually allowed to win. I was flabbergasted and argued vehemently against it. And yet cheatie code mechanics of a similar nature are employed constantly in many games - as you are witnessing here.

There are always better design solutions than code fudging. Always. It just takes a design team with the balls to find and fight for them.


You're right. Ranged characters should inherently have the advantage over melee. Melee should never be able to hit ranged.
thats like saying, "oh, you want to have a challenge in this race?"

*breaks your legs*

"there, have at it"

this fits perfectly with this design


Hyperbole aside, I don't see this as being them kneecapping the player, it's establishing a uniform playing field to allow for balancing.

If juking melee attacks is possible, which is clearly something that was on the table at some point based on Bashiok's response, then that adds another layer of complexity into how challenging/punitive they have to make encounters.

A player with negligbile latency and incredible reflexes could theoretically complete an encounter, juke every melee attack, and come out the other side while taking no damage. In this kind of a model, you're left with two options; either you balance around people who actively dodge everything so if you take one or two hits you die, or you balance around people taking hits which means the dodger never has a challenge in the entire game.

Based on the videos posted, it doesn't look like the hit detection is buggy, it seems to follow pretty strict rules. If a zombie is on the edge of the screen and you're away, it doesn't hit you. If you run into melee range, it will hit you. The answer, of course, is to play to your strengths; ranged stay out of melee, melee do what they can to prevent the damage.
This topic has reached its post limit. You may no longer post or reply to posts for this topic.

Please report any Code of Conduct violations, including:

Threats of violence. We take these seriously and will alert the proper authorities.

Posts containing personal information about other players. This includes physical addresses, e-mail addresses, phone numbers, and inappropriate photos and/or videos.

Harassing or discriminatory language. This will not be tolerated.

Forums Code of Conduct

Report Post # written by

Reason
Explain (256 characters max)
Submit Cancel

Reported!

[Close]