Diablo® III

because there are 5 classes...

what bs nerf skills moster hp already get a hp buff as for all classes in party feely mandatory cmon you couldn't be further from the truth consoles anyone

ps I thought this was about make your toon feel powerful and somehow that's a bad thing in a party of 5

sick of the way blizzard takes as all for fools with the we feel
Reply Quote
You guys need to stop thinking so much, it just makes things worse.

To be honest with you, the clutter on the screen right now is due to rubbish UI. You could reduce this by removing some of the excess like the minimap and quest log. The entire world is linear, there is no need for them to both be on the screen all the time, get rid of them and then you have opened up space for another player.

Plus, what is this trash about "We don't want players to feel they need one of every class". So your alternative is to make them feel like they all have to play Barbarian? Maybe if you guys actually allowed for players to play the game how they wanted rather than putting in so many walls you would have released a game that isn't being torn to part by the fanbase.

You guys are admitting always that there is room for improvement and maybe you are just not listening because you are American, but you are all really incompetent at actually listening or having fun.
Reply Quote
I get what you are saying Lylirra/Wyatt, but I think ultimately I prefer having more than 4 players in a game. It makes it feel more like a hangout I guess?

Consequently it would be nice to have 5+ player games AND named-games, since they kind of go hand in hand with the trading, pvp, and boss-running that Diablo 2 had. I'm not sure 8 player games would be that great given the current matchmaking...
Reply Quote
Why can't we play whatever we want ? possibility to set numer of players is always the best solution (1-6/8) only real problem i can see is buffs You mentioned but this can be handled like in d2, other are meaningless.
Reply Quote
Community Manager
Posts: 3,119
Also, console 4 player co-op = decision to limit to 4 players on PC


I know the "PC vs. Console" debate is its own sort of Eternal Conflict, and that it's super popular right now to blame every design decision you disagree with on the development of a PlayStation 3 version. In the end, if that's really what you want to believe in your (sin) heart of hearts, so be it. We may not totally understand why you believe that, but we can respect your opinion -- because, hey, you're a human being and you deserve it. <3

As I've said before, though, the PC experience defined the console experience, not vice-versa. The core of the console game is based on the PC game -- you get all the same content, systems, classes, skills, and runes on the console as you do on PC. Our goal when developing Diablo III for console was to deliver that same visceral gameplay you get with a mouse and keyboard, just on a different platform. We wanted the experience itself to be authentic, in as many ways as possible. (Quick FYI: the console version didn't actually go into full development until the game was released last May.)

That said, the console version is its own game, and we've made a variety of tweaks to the PlayStation version of Diablo III so it makes sense on that platform, including a complete re-design of the UI and character controls, as well as combat pacing and boss fights. I point this out because it means we have the latitude to make adjustments to the PC game for console as appropriate, and that our decision to go with four-player co-op on the PC (as opposed to 5-player or 8-player co-op) was based on our goals for what would make a great PC game. Not because it's what console co-op would need.

It's a disservice to game design -- as well as your feedback and healthy discussion in general -- to boil everything down to "well, you just did it because of console." Especially since you’re essentially ignoring everything we’re trying to talk to you about in the process. There were a number of different reasons that led us to decide on four players for multiplayer games in Diablo III, and none of them related to the development of console. You may agree with some of those reasons and disagree with others, or disagree with all of them -- and that's okay! Critiques are good, so long as they're relevant. Unfortunately, reducing all your arguments to glorified strawmen isn't very relevant. (Nor does it give us a lot of useful feedback on which to base further improvements.)
Edited by Lylirra on 3/29/2013 12:04 AM PDT
Reply Quote
Community Manager
Posts: 3,119
I find this to be a huge issue with your moderating skills on these forums. You allow people to get away with saying some crazy stuff, continually, and it does affect the community to a large degree.


Being incorrect or having an opinion that goes against the grain isn't a violation of any of our forum rules or guidelines.

Having said that, though, if you feel moderation could be improved, feel free to hit up forum@blizzard.com. Moderation is ultimately handled by a separate team, but we'll make sure your feedback gets to the right place.
Reply Quote
Lylirra .. but what about the new rolls/dives classes have. We dont have it on pc...
Reply Quote
It's only 4 because of Consoles, i just don't see why we can't have more players on PC
BF3 has 64 players on PC & 24 on Consoles


03/28/2013 03:56 PMPosted by Deadlysynz
Cant have a party of 5 when there are only 4 controllers.


PS3 supports up to 7 controllers.
Reply Quote
Community Manager
Posts: 3,119
03/28/2013 05:44 PMPosted by CKTheBoss
Lylirra .. but what about the new rolls/dives classes have. We dont have it on pc...


We added Evade to the console version of the game for two main reasons:

The first is because, fundamentally, the way you move your character around on the console vs the way you move your character around on the PC is pretty different. With a keyboard and mouse in a game like Diablo III, not only can you see a bit farther (because of how we've positioned the camera), but you can also literally point to a spot on the map, click it, and your character will move there on its own. Since the console version uses direct control with the joystick, your movement feels more visceral and gutsy, but it has its own limitations. You don't have that same sort of omniscience over where your character is going to go. To get from point A to point B on a map, for example, you have to manually direct your character to that spot, navigating all the obstacles individually along the way. It's super fun, and with Evade, we're just giving some additional mobility to console players to balance out not being able to point-and-click.

The second reason is that the Evade ability just feels super (and forgive my eloquence here) console-y. We want the game to feel natural when using a controller, and being able to dodge and roll around really plays up that fantasy. It's one of those elements that just "fits" on the console version super well, but doesn't necessarily make sense for PC.

Here's a pretty good interview to check out if you'd like to learn more: http://www.ign.com/videos/2013/03/22/10-minutes-of-diablo-3-on-ps3-pax-east-2013
Edited by Lylirra on 3/29/2013 12:06 AM PDT
Reply Quote
6 hotkeys only, no potion management, 4 players only, auto pick up & health globes, Diablo 3 was clearly designed for consoles, even Gamespot wrote an article about it a while ago, the guy who wrote it played the beta & defiantly thought it was "consolized"
Edited by Gohan#1323 on 3/28/2013 6:14 PM PDT
Reply Quote
03/28/2013 05:34 PMPosted by Lylirra
That said, the console version is its own game


Ok, accepting your position about the console not affecting the past development of the PC version at face value, how about future development?

If a feature or NPC that would be wildly popular and beneficial to the game (pick a hypothetical, random example) was doable on PC, but just not technically feasible on console, would that preclude it from ever being implemented on the PC because it would cause the games to diverge too much?

Are the platforms tied together as far as Expansions are concerned or is the console version really its own game. My concern is that the console will hold back the PC expansion's release and content.
Reply Quote


We added Evade to the console version of the game for two main reasons:
http://www.ign.com/videos/2013/03/22/10-minutes-of-diablo-3-on-ps3-pax-east-2013


In that video (around 7:14) a monster drops a "buff globe" that increases exp greatly for about 10 seconds. I have seen no official world on this mechanic, will this come to PCs also?
Edited by Anuiran#1336 on 3/28/2013 7:10 PM PDT
Reply Quote
03/28/2013 06:15 PMPosted by Zuzax
That said, the console version is its own game


Ok, accepting your position about the console not affecting the past development of the PC version at face value, how about future development?

If a feature or NPC that would be wildly popular and beneficial to the game (pick a hypothetical, random example) was doable on PC, but just not technically feasible on console, would that preclude it from ever being implemented on the PC because it would cause the games to diverge too much?

Are the platforms tied together as far as Expansions are concerned or is the console version really its own game. My concern is that the console will hold back the PC expansion's release and content.


Pretty sure Sony demand parity, meaning the PC version can't have more than the console version, that's why Aliens Colonial Marines was so gutted compared to the original trailer, they had to bring down the PC version to the level of consoles, or else console gamers wouldn't buy it because the PC version would be that much better
Reply Quote
Hey guys! I chatted with Wyatt about this topic on your behalf and, while he's currently at GDC giving a sweet talk about refining game systems in Diablo III (including health recovery, combat controls, and character skills), he shared some information with me that I wanted to pass on.

we should be able to at least have parties of 5 instead of 4

that would at least be a good thing....


We know some players will always prefer to have more than 4 people in a group, and we respect that completely. Even so, while a larger party size may seem appealing in concept (and even in practice for other games), there are a number of factors which contributed to belief that four players is the ideal party size for Diablo III.

First off, the four-player limit isn't in any way related to the number of classes you can play. One reason we actually preferred the idea of four-player co-op as opposed to five was that we felt if the number was five, then players might feel as if it was mandatory to have one of each class in their party. This couldn't be further from the truth. We want players to feel like they can charge through Sanctuary with their friends regardless of whether they have four different classes represented or (for example) a group with two Barbarians and two Witch Doctors.

We also wanted group buffs (like auras and shouts) to feel meaningful in both solo and group play. Right now, you buff yourself and others by the same amount. We like that shouts are good and auras are strong, and that my contribution to the group via my buffs feels significant. But as group sizes get larger, the best player buffs would potentially need to be nerfed either by:

  • Making them to be weaker, and subsequently tuned around multiplayer (which is a similar approach to what World of Warcraft uses)
  • Or reducing the effect buffs have on other players (which is what Diablo II wound up having to do later)

We don't like the idea of these sorts of nerfs and want to avoid them as much as possible, which is part of the combined reason why we aren't eager to increase the maximum size of groups.

Another factor we considered is that of player contributions. We like that you can really notice the contribution of each person at four players. No matter what size group you have, whenever you add another person to a group, each player’s personal contribution is diminished. This has some bad side effects. For example, if you swing at a monster, it feels good when you're doing enough damage to see its health bar move. At four players, it’s already possible to be punching a monster and not feel like you're doing any damage because the bar is moving slowly. This stigma would get worse as you add more people to a group.

Other factors we considered were that of screen noise and the number of players you can follow. At four players, we felt that you were still able to easily keep track of your party-members, but that beyond this size it became more and more difficult to monitor everything on screen. Additionally, the screen noise and spell effects generated by five players simply felt too overwhelming (this is something we tested quite extensively).

In summation, we’re pretty happy about the size of four-player groups. HOWEVER, we know that the multiplayer aspect of Diablo III needs improvement and are already looking into ways that we can further incentivize [url="http://us.battle.net/d3/en/forum/topic/8088199933#5"]co-op farming and efficiency in patch 1.0.8[/url]. Wyatt is currently working on a developer journal about this very topic, so we hope to share even more information soon. :)


And its easier to "port" to console.

The difference in group buffing is negligible. Thats like saying every party must have a Monk in order to play. You dont keep track of your allies with the screen. You just play as if you are alone.
Reply Quote
03/28/2013 06:20 PMPosted by Gohan


Ok, accepting your position about the console not affecting the past development of the PC version at face value, how about future development?

If a feature or NPC that would be wildly popular and beneficial to the game (pick a hypothetical, random example) was doable on PC, but just not technically feasible on console, would that preclude it from ever being implemented on the PC because it would cause the games to diverge too much?

Are the platforms tied together as far as Expansions are concerned or is the console version really its own game. My concern is that the console will hold back the PC expansion's release and content.


Pretty sure Sony demand parity, meaning the PC version can't have more than the console version, that's why Aliens Colonial Marines was so gutted compared to the original trailer, they had to bring down the PC version to the level of consoles, or else console gamers wouldn't buy it because the PC version would be that much better


Pretty sure that's one of the silliest things I've ever heard.
Reply Quote
Hey guys! I chatted with Wyatt about this topic on your behalf and, while he's currently at GDC giving a sweet talk about refining game systems in Diablo III (including health recovery, combat controls, and character skills), he shared some information with me that I wanted to pass on.

we should be able to at least have parties of 5 instead of 4

that would at least be a good thing....


We know some players will always prefer to have more than 4 people in a group, and we respect that completely. Even so, while a larger party size may seem appealing in concept (and even in practice for other games), there are a number of factors which contributed to belief that four players is the ideal party size for Diablo III.

First off, the four-player limit isn't in any way related to the number of classes you can play. One reason we actually preferred the idea of four-player co-op as opposed to five was that we felt if the number was five, then players might feel as if it was mandatory to have one of each class in their party. This couldn't be further from the truth. We want players to feel like they can charge through Sanctuary with their friends regardless of whether they have four different classes represented or (for example) a group with two Barbarians and two Witch Doctors.

We also wanted group buffs (like auras and shouts) to feel meaningful in both solo and group play. Right now, you buff yourself and others by the same amount. We like that shouts are good and auras are strong, and that my contribution to the group via my buffs feels significant. But as group sizes get larger, the best player buffs would potentially need to be nerfed either by:

  • Making them to be weaker, and subsequently tuned around multiplayer (which is a similar approach to what World of Warcraft uses)
  • Or reducing the effect buffs have on other players (which is what Diablo II wound up having to do later)

We don't like the idea of these sorts of nerfs and want to avoid them as much as possible, which is part of the combined reason why we aren't eager to increase the maximum size of groups.

Another factor we considered is that of player contributions. We like that you can really notice the contribution of each person at four players. No matter what size group you have, whenever you add another person to a group, each player’s personal contribution is diminished. This has some bad side effects. For example, if you swing at a monster, it feels good when you're doing enough damage to see its health bar move. At four players, it’s already possible to be punching a monster and not feel like you're doing any damage because the bar is moving slowly. This stigma would get worse as you add more people to a group.

Other factors we considered were that of screen noise and the number of players you can follow. At four players, we felt that you were still able to easily keep track of your party-members, but that beyond this size it became more and more difficult to monitor everything on screen. Additionally, the screen noise and spell effects generated by five players simply felt too overwhelming (this is something we tested quite extensively).

In summation, we’re pretty happy about the size of four-player groups. HOWEVER, we know that the multiplayer aspect of Diablo III needs improvement and are already looking into ways that we can further incentivize [url="http://us.battle.net/d3/en/forum/topic/8088199933#5"]co-op farming and efficiency in patch 1.0.8[/url]. Wyatt is currently working on a developer journal about this very topic, so we hope to share even more information soon. :)


All the factors you use as excuse are just game flaws, I'm not among those who constantly whine about Diablo 3, I really like the game, but I'll never understand or accept the fact that so many years later, a new game instead of have a improvement in relation of its predecessor went backyards. It's ridiculous and everyone in the game design team should feel ashamed of it.
Reply Quote
100 Troll Warrior
12420
Posts: 898
Ugh why is d3 so bad compared to d2 and why are blues not even getting their facts straight.

You talk about buffs in d3 and multiplayer balance (then mention WoW a big no no for one as the community wants diablo to feel like d2, truthfully. look at why poe is so popular now) saying that in d2 buffs were weaker for your allies... excuse me? what! Fanaticism was yes but just fanaticism none else. Battle Orders and Might were same no matter who had it the Barbarian or Paladin/Mercenary (or rune word). Then you say oooh! its disheartening that hitting a mob does little damage in more players and you sad face ); well ya duh! in d2 was the same but on say 8 players u got a metric tonne more exp and loot so no complaint and then there was the awesome of Conviction, Might, Meditation, Fanaticism, Battle Orders, Shout, Oak Spirit, Concentration, War Cry, and Cuses (omg curses sooo good!) etc.. making the damage you do become more than it was, and it was/is AWSOME!. In all truth I am slowly loosing faith in the D3 dev team now that D2 on ps3/4 is all hyped up. I mean D3 is incomplete... it needs work... and they now want to port to consoles o.O... Fix d3 first, make it more like d2 for one, you want ppl to have fun let us do what we want give players 8 again with exp and loot bonus ffs. make the game have depth and awesomeness, give us reasons to re roll give us the "option" to play on a fresh server with fresh economy ( everything ladder did " the race ment crap all it was about having your drops not all be garbage"). Make Diablo a game that makes you look back and say that was wicked not.. "Ok I do 200k dps face roll mobs like they chumps, and its been like this for months now I wanna just quit game until next patch. man I wish inferno was hard still and not just tedious..."
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]