Diablo® III

Improving co-op in 1.08

100 Human Paladin
13560
Posts: 1,557
Lots of good comments here! Just a few quick points

1. As a point of clarification, "dropping less loot on the ground" is not slated for 1.0.8. It's part of our general philosophy for beyond the 1.0.8 timeframe.


Of course, it has to be this way. Picking up items is a chore to do on ps3 games. Don't mask it as anything other than that.


2. I really like the suggestions that don't make multiplayer feel mandatory. Suggestions along the lines of "I don't want to feel penalized for playing with my friends" or "provide a small bonus to overcome the logistical overhead" are in the scope of what we're thinking.


So we can play offline mode in ps3.


3. We totally see the appeal of having more than 4 players in a game, but it has its downsides, and the big one is that the screen becomes so crowded you can't tell what's going on. It's important that a player can discern important information from the game world and make tactical decisions based on this information. We know some of you may disagree and you'll always want 8 players, and I can respect that. This is something we've debated heavily though, and feel strongly about.


What? The D3 dev team thinks the warcraft Dev team get it wrong? There's 100's of people on the same screen in warcraft and 25 people in a raid on a single boss often times the size of King Leroic.

Does the D3 team think the SC2 team get it wrong? With all the troops you control in SC3? Certainly more than 4.

Please, again. Call it what it is. 4 people is the max for ps3 games.


4. We've discussed the "leecher" problem. Nothing to share yet but it's definitely rough when it happens.

Thanks for all the great discussion thus far!


Easy, fix the kick option. Stop putting stipulations on it. Just let people kick people without limits. In order to prevent "abuse of a mechanic" You're allowing leechers to abuse mechanics. Start allowing players to protect themselves instead of coddling them.
Edited by Lawbringer#1764 on 3/7/2013 5:00 AM PST
Reply Quote
100 Human Paladin
13560
Posts: 1,557
03/07/2013 03:59 AMPosted by Espinosa
Seriously where is the fun creating a game when nobody is coming? Ever did Anya, Ancients, Temple etc. at D2? It was impossible to find people, nobody came into your game.


13 years after the came came out, yes, sometimes people don't come into your game. When it was a new game, your game filled up in seconds.
Reply Quote
I've always hated d2's bnet games, you have to constantly refresh the names, and sometimes you get the "game is full" screen that lasts for a few mins. Don't even think about bringing it back.
Reply Quote
lol i love the fact that more then 4 people is considered clutter, on one hand your right it gets chaotic... but have you ever played with a meteor shower wiz? it only takes 1 person playing a perticular build before total chaos occours, even when i'm playing solo there is so much going on i can't see or react to anything because my wizard is going mental, i lag my brains out, my computer can't keep up, i have to wait till it's all over, then i collect and move on. more players won't change anything for me chaos wise lol.

also the inclusion of a lobby system does not negate the current system, its' simply a quick join system without the options not to. You can have a lobby for the nit pickers like me and more sit back socal trade whatever types in the lobby and you can have a quick join exactly the way it is now. options people, thats how you kill 2 birds with 1 stone.

but it's just my opinion and maybe i am old school, just another suggestion along with the millions of others.
Reply Quote
If the drop rate is lowered, how will we get the money to repair our items. Also I farm rares for tears, so would the tears be supplied by some other method.
Reply Quote
Lots of good comments here! Just a few quick points

1. As a point of clarification, "dropping less loot on the ground" is not slated for 1.0.8. It's part of our general philosophy for beyond the 1.0.8 timeframe.

2. I really like the suggestions that don't make multiplayer feel mandatory. Suggestions along the lines of "I don't want to feel penalized for playing with my friends" or "provide a small bonus to overcome the logistical overhead" are in the scope of what we're thinking.

3. We totally see the appeal of having more than 4 players in a game, but it has its downsides, and the big one is that the screen becomes so crowded you can't tell what's going on. It's important that a player can discern important information from the game world and make tactical decisions based on this information. We know some of you may disagree and you'll always want 8 players, and I can respect that. This is something we've debated heavily though, and feel strongly about.

4. We've discussed the "leecher" problem. Nothing to share yet but it's definitely rough when it happens.

Thanks for all the great discussion thus far!


5 Class options... 5 Man parties.. NUFF SAID! You want build diversity and class synergy... GIVE US 5 MAN PARTIES!!!!!!
Reply Quote
Lots of good comments here! Just a few quick points

1. As a point of clarification, "dropping less loot on the ground" is not slated for 1.0.8. It's part of our general philosophy for beyond the 1.0.8 timeframe.

2. I really like the suggestions that don't make multiplayer feel mandatory. Suggestions along the lines of "I don't want to feel penalized for playing with my friends" or "provide a small bonus to overcome the logistical overhead" are in the scope of what we're thinking.

3. We totally see the appeal of having more than 4 players in a game, but it has its downsides, and the big one is that the screen becomes so crowded you can't tell what's going on. It's important that a player can discern important information from the game world and make tactical decisions based on this information. We know some of you may disagree and you'll always want 8 players, and I can respect that. This is something we've debated heavily though, and feel strongly about.

4. We've discussed the "leecher" problem. Nothing to share yet but it's definitely rough when it happens.

Thanks for all the great discussion thus far!


3) ---> We debated for OFFLINE mode on release also and you felt also strongly about it but now we will get offline mode on consoles.

Diablo 2 is what you need to copy imho. You did it on a degree with UBER bosses and *paragon levels ( because level 60 design failed ) etc... So success is in Diablo 2 if you ask me. All your answers are in there.

Lets think for a moment , what made Diablo 2 stand so good thru the years and made parties so vital.

The answer is ---> BENEFITS BEING IN PARTY which to name a few

* Way faster EXP rate when you are in full party doing EXP runs ( baal runs )

* Way better CLASSES SYNERGY ( aka protection and safe EXPing ) than solo especially on Hardcore because if you die you losing a massive portion of hard earned exp/or stay dead for good.

* Making your OWN room / name room brings social diversity. Trade rooms/PVP rooms/chill out rooms ... doesnt matter. It just adds social aspects into the game where people with same interests can meet and have fun.

Those things missing from Diablo 3. It doesnt matter if you die , it doesnt matter exp wise if you party with someone or not , it doesnt matter if ALL CLASSES ARE THE SAME WITH EXACTLY THE SAME SPEC ON SAME ROOM.... Theres not a single reason i can think of why someone to prefer party than solo.

You need to sit down once more and just COPY/PASTE or TWEAK diablo 2s best social elements ( and not only that , itemization/skill diversity/class synergies/LADDER!! to name few others ) and bring them on Diablo 3.

Now the issue im thinking is that now with console port .... How youll consider such deep changes ? I guess you wont but at least you need to do something fast ... Keeping alive diablo 3 is not that hard ... But Diablo 3 needs more than that .. DEEP changes that not will just keeping it alive for another month or 2 but change it and make it as big ,or bigger , than previous games.

Current patches are like Painkillers. Like when someone is in pain and you giving him painkillers but you dont treat his wound. When the painkiller effect goes off... pain will start all over again. So if you need to stop this pain you need to heal the wound and make it sure it wont open again...
Current patches working the same way imho ... We need core or/and deep changes not just "painkillers".

Anyways. I hope for the best ... I still got some faith. You can do it.
Edited by Azatis#2345 on 3/7/2013 5:44 AM PST
Reply Quote
I would love to see some new armor/weapons that gain strength when you are in a multiplayer game. Drawing from what people have stated earlier in the topic, let this armor gain bonuses when there are more people in the party.

Example:

Companion's Vest

300 armor
100 base stat
50 VIT
30 AR
10% MF
3 socket

Additional Effect: Gain an additional 50% boost to stats for each additional member in group.
Set Effect: 20% MF, 20% GF, 7 PUR. 20% Bonus XP

w/ 3 players

750 armor
250 base stat
125 VIT
75 AR
25% MF
3 sockets

That armor would be ultimately worthless solo, but in a group it would be competitive to BIS. Have it be a craftable armor from mats only found in co-op play.
Reply Quote
Posts: 3,684
View profile
Most likely mentioned already but perhaps increase monster density instead of just increasing health for mobs and E's. This would given incentive for co-op and not really detract from single player.
Reply Quote
And something i had in mind but i forgot to mention....

Have you ever considered to ZOOM OUT default camera way more so there will be more space for at least +2 more players so we can easily have 6 players Co-op WITHOUT everything feel so chaotic ?

I think its a so easy fix that could easily work ... that is if the reason you giving us that more than 4p Co-op wont work because everything will be chaotic is true or just an excuse :P.
Edited by Azatis#2345 on 3/7/2013 5:55 AM PST
Reply Quote
Allow followers in Co-Op games.

Wow, that was hard.
Reply Quote
3. We totally see the appeal of having more than 4 players in a game, but it has its downsides, and the big one is that the screen becomes so crowded you can't tell what's going on. It's important that a player can discern important information from the game world and make tactical decisions based on this information. We know some of you may disagree and you'll always want 8 players, and I can respect that. This is something we've debated heavily though, and feel strongly about.


WHAT?!

How does the screen become crowded? That would only happen if all players were in the [nearly] exact same spot on the map. That rarely happens. Most of the time players spread out, just like it was in D2. Don't give us some bs about you feeling strong about it. The real reason is the console limitation. 8 players in one game worked perfectly fine in D2 for 10 years. And now all of a sudden it's too crowded? Load of bs.
Reply Quote
03/07/2013 01:54 AMPosted by ssanyesz
Then please make the viewable area larger, increase the distance between character and camera / max zoom out. Even when i'm solo, sometimes my view feels so limited.


This.

In addition, the excessive zoom-in is horrible for fast-movespeed builds, especially TR monk (24% base move, Temp rush, fleet footed, way of the falling star, fleet shrine = blow your mind fast).

I think this may be expansion material, however.

Any 'zoom out' will also need xp/leg radius increased.
Reply Quote
Allow followers in Co-Op games.

Wow, that was hard.


If the reason 8-player coop is being rejected is chaos, that may be the same reason 4 followers haven't been allowed.

Instead, I'd almost rather see the party leader's follower allowed (1 follower total) and everyone gain that follower's bonuses.

4 buriza scoundrels would also trivialize a lot of the game.
Reply Quote
3. We totally see the appeal of having more than 4 players in a game, but it has its downsides, and the big one is that the screen becomes so crowded you can't tell what's going on. It's important that a player can discern important information from the game world and make tactical decisions based on this information.


What if as the number of players in a game increases, the transparency of the spells increases.
Reply Quote
At this point, I think you need to buff multiplayer play significantly to make it close the gap as far as efficiency compared to singleplayer. Diablo 2 had huge bonuses to multiplayer loot drops, ye singleplayer farming didn't feel worthless in comparison (granted, D2 also had shared loot).

What happened to improving Life on Kill to make it worthwhile in multiplayer games? A small change like that would go a long way to helping multiplayer out.

The failure that is battle.net 2.0 is also largely why multiplayer is deemed less "efficient" - in the time it would take to find several like-minded people to farm with, I could have already done an entire Act 3 run. This is probably something you can't really improve on in the short term, but definitely should be a long term goal.
Reply Quote
03/06/2013 03:06 PMPosted by Wyatt Cheng
Yea I was thinking this same thing. I played with two others today and did my normal farming route, and my efficiency was cut in half. It wasn't even me carrying them they aren't bad players or poorly geared, it just slows everything down so much and doesn't really add any benefit. Co-op is the opposite of fine when it's bad in every way possible to add more people to the party


We are looking to improve co-op farming efficiency in 1.0.8. Co-op play in general is a big focus of the 1.0.8 patch and efficiency is definitely one component of that. Co-op is already more efficient for some players, but this is the exception rather than the norm. The degree of co-op efficiency depends heavily on the co-ordination of the party, skill builds, and the relative gear level of the teammates. Since launch we've made some modest changes to encourage co-op play but there's still room to go farther. At the same time, we don't want to go so far as to make multiplayer feel "mandatory" for those who prefer to play solo, but we still want to err on the side of being co-op favorable.

There's also a number of hurdles to co-op play beyond raw efficiency, so we'll be looking to alleviate/solve some of those hurdles too. The Identify All feature in 1.0.8 is an example of this. Sometimes the trip back to town to sort through a bag of gear is enough of a hurdle to make somebody feel playing co-op isn't worth it. Nobody wants to be in the dungeon fighting monsters while your teammate is off in town identifying a full inventory.

Can you make it so we still get followers bonus in co op? Right now it is way less efficient especially if you follower is wearing a hellfire and lernonics?
Reply Quote
3. We totally see the appeal of having more than 4 players in a game, but it has its downsides, and the big one is that the screen becomes so crowded you can't tell what's going on. It's important that a player can discern important information from the game world and make tactical decisions based on this information. We know some of you may disagree and you'll always want 8 players, and I can respect that. This is something we've debated heavily though, and feel strongly about.


but it has its downsides, and that's that we coded this game to be a console game first and screw you PC gamers!
Reply Quote
03/07/2013 05:04 AMPosted by fathom
I've always hated d2's bnet games, you have to constantly refresh the names, and sometimes you get the "game is full" screen that lasts for a few mins. Don't even think about bringing it back.


Why are you so negative about an awesome feature...

And why such feature should look like Diablo 2.

If thats your problem i doubt you would need constantly refreshing let alone see only 8-10 games per page.

Oh and something last ... Stop being selfish. This will be optional along with current system . If you dont like it dont use it . Wont make any difference , just more options for people that like it. Geeez some people...
Edited by Azatis#2345 on 3/7/2013 6:47 AM PST
Reply Quote
Posts: 206
03/06/2013 03:06 PMPosted by Wyatt Cheng
Yea I was thinking this same thing. I played with two others today and did my normal farming route, and my efficiency was cut in half. It wasn't even me carrying them they aren't bad players or poorly geared, it just slows everything down so much and doesn't really add any benefit. Co-op is the opposite of fine when it's bad in every way possible to add more people to the party


We are looking to improve co-op farming efficiency in 1.0.8. Co-op play in general is a big focus of the 1.0.8 patch and efficiency is definitely one component of that. Co-op is already more efficient for some players, but this is the exception rather than the norm. The degree of co-op efficiency depends heavily on the co-ordination of the party, skill builds, and the relative gear level of the teammates. Since launch we've made some modest changes to encourage co-op play but there's still room to go farther. At the same time, we don't want to go so far as to make multiplayer feel "mandatory" for those who prefer to play solo, but we still want to err on the side of being co-op favorable.

There's also a number of hurdles to co-op play beyond raw efficiency, so we'll be looking to alleviate/solve some of those hurdles too. The Identify All feature in 1.0.8 is an example of this. Sometimes the trip back to town to sort through a bag of gear is enough of a hurdle to make somebody feel playing co-op isn't worth it. Nobody wants to be in the dungeon fighting monsters while your teammate is off in town identifying a full inventory.


What do you mean "we don't want to go so far as to make multiplayer feel 'mandatory' for those who prefer to play solo"?
The devil advocate inside me wants to say : "Dude, this is 2013... WAKE UP! Have you heard of internet, Facebook and the other Social media, etc."
Of course this is too "hard" comment, but I feel, using some of your latest example, 5-15% bonus for group play over solo play. Probably more in the 15-25% bonus is better considering that it takes extra effort to optimize group play VS optimize solo play. Mercenaries in group play can be a nice start.
Reply Quote

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)

Reported!

[Close]