Diablo® III

because there are 5 classes...

Because one more player is really going to make that much of a difference...
Reply Quote
03/28/2013 12:32 PMPosted by Madrox
In D2 party size was 8 players and there were no issues with buffs.There were actually incentives to play together.Don't try to find false arguments Lylirra.


did you ever stop and think maybe those buffs where designed around 8 players in mind and in D3 the buffs where designed with 4 players in mind? different amount of players in games have stuff balenced around it. the skills arnt just balenced 1 vs monsters then add player amount for lols


So buffs can also be easily designed around 8 players in D3. This is not an argument to limit party size to 4.
Reply Quote
its all because monks have only 4 mantras and having 5 monks would be awkward aura-wise

remove monks, problem solved
Reply Quote
03/28/2013 12:44 PMPosted by Cylince
Because one more player is really going to make that much of a difference...


What is it with people always wanting more and more. Welcome to 'Murica. Sometimes less is more. If one more person is not going to make a difference then why go through all the trouble adding one slot? It only means Blizzard has to spend even more time balancing the game for coop.
Edited by Woah#2776 on 3/29/2013 12:50 PM PDT
Reply Quote
03/28/2013 01:07 PMPosted by dac
It still doesnt pass the smell test. 4 is an arbitrary number - why is it any better than 3 or 2? Because 4 potential party buffs are somehow optimal over 5 or 3? Evidence please?

It's all based on observation. You play test and you fiddle with numbers until you get something that feels right.

4 is better than 3 or 2 because you have more fun the more people you play with. The cool thing is that you CAN play with 2 or 3 people... or even alone! With 5+, they must've realize that it was doing the opposite effect. Kinda like the un-canny valley for artists, there's that sweet spot that no science can prove yet if you go outside that sweet spot you notice that it's really, really odd.
Reply Quote
100 Gnome Warlock
13845
Posts: 166
(did not read any posts except BLUE)

4 is a better number for console gaming. There are some consoles which are limited to 4 players.
Reply Quote
03/13/2013 01:20 PMPosted by mikeab7925
blizzard has ignored this on so many levels. they have absolutely no intent on this. it is BS. we should be allowed to play in parties larger than 4. yes even 5 would be good but 8 should be our max party limit.


It hasn't been ignored. They've actually explained several times why they chose 4 players.

There's a big difference between "ignoring" a point, and "not telling you what you want to hear". Get a clue.

03/28/2013 01:18 PMPosted by Kyplor
4 is a better number for console gaming. There are some consoles which are limited to 4 players.


Yeah, Super Nintendo.

Console games now a days hardly even support local multiplayer outside a few exceptions, so using this as an argument against Blizzard "designing D3 for consoles", is hilariously stupid. No really, I can count on 1 hand how many games in the last 5 years for a 360/PS3/Wii actually have local co-op. Multiplayer on modern consoles are done via online capabilities now. Some games can handle upwards of 24 players at once. What a terrible argument.

Blizzard chose 4 players because in their minds, it made the most sense, not because of some ridiculously far fetched (and down right incorrect) assumptions geared towards catering to consoles.
Edited by Seraphi#1863 on 3/28/2013 1:32 PM PDT
Reply Quote
03/28/2013 12:20 PMPosted by Lylirra
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.

And yet if that was true why didn't I ever feel this way when I played D2?

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 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)


When I played D2 they felt meaningful to me. It's hard to imagine that the same feeling is impossible in D3.

03/28/2013 12:20 PMPosted by Lylirra
Another factor we considered is that of player contributions. We like that you can really notice the contribution of each person at four players. Whenever you add another person to a group, though, 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.


I noticed a contribution of other players in D2. So obviously it is possible. I agree with your statement of when you add another player each players contribution is diminished. In my opinion this is just another example of poor balance where elites have sometimes 75 million life while a regular monster has only 600,000 life. The same as it is with lvl 60 weapons the range is simply too large. Most of the time people are complaining about others not pulling their weight and it's because of this giant range in health.

03/28/2013 12:20 PMPosted by Lylirra
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.


I still lose my character even with 4 players so if that is part of it I'd only give you a 6 out of 10 in that regard. It's funny though I never had that problem in D2. I understand you wanted more happening with spells and such so they looked larger graphically I just wouldn't have chosen giving up 4 players so that I could have some pretty graphics. It is also another reason why community is somewhat limited or in other words; more players equals more community.

Overall I have enjoyed playing D3. And it does have some cool stuff I like, such as when the grass moves as you run thru it in Oasis. But there are many minor limiting factors that make me say that D3 while good isn't really much more than a game like Dungeon Siege. None of them by themselves are game breaking but on the whole they detract from the experience of playing the game. I really do appreciate all that the design team put into making D3 and I see a lot of potential. Maybe with an expansion it will be even better. I just had such high hopes for D3 mostly due to my love of playing D2 and I know I am not the only one.
Edited by AxeLord#1992 on 3/28/2013 1:48 PM PDT
Reply Quote
I feel your reply and how you guys 'feel' about Diablo is off base. I have no trouble following what 4 players are doing - adding another wouldn't be hard. We kept track of 7 others in D2.

Why would all buffs have to be nerfed with the addition of a 5th person in a party? Buffs don't make or break the group - they are just nice little additions that make the run go a tiny bit faster. Adding 20% more buffs to a group would not break things.

Also, why is it so terrible that we be powerful in groups vs. monsters? It's a PvE game - we're supposed to be heroes destroying the heck out of monsters, not heroes struggling with their 3 companions against monsters. I don't understand or agree with your mindset of abilities being 'overpowered'. Every ability should be overpowered. It should be a struggle to pick between every ability because each one is so awesome you can't stand to lose it.
Reply Quote
Can we all just be honest please? There is a 4 player limit because it allows for 4 player split screen on consoles. This is the sole reason, and I don't understand why Blizzard has to constantly just spew BS.
Reply Quote
03/28/2013 01:42 PMPosted by Oxus
Can we all just be honest please? There is a 4 player limit because it allows for 4 player split screen on consoles. This is the sole reason, and I don't understand why Blizzard has to constantly just spew BS.

That is your belief founded in nothing other than your mind.

I'd argue they simply favored having huge graphics over having more players. A decision that is a mistake in my opinion. Unfortunately that road has been traveled so far down that I can't see anyway to change it.
Reply Quote
03/28/2013 01:50 PMPosted by AxeLord
Can we all just be honest please? There is a 4 player limit because it allows for 4 player split screen on consoles. This is the sole reason, and I don't understand why Blizzard has to constantly just spew BS.

That is your belief founded in nothing other than your mind.

I'd argue they simply favored having huge graphics over having more players. A decision that is a mistake in my opinion. Unfortunately that road has been traveled so far down that I can't see anyway to change it.


That is your belief founded in nothing other than YOUR mind.

It's called critical thinking. They've known since day one of D3 development that a console port was a major goal. There is a maximum of 4 player split screen available for consoles. I find it very hard to believe that the 4 player console limit played no part in the decision.
Reply Quote
I really appreciate the blue response. But is another "maybe" / "we should".

With all due respect, and again I appreciate all the efforts to make this game awesome; keep it up. But is 2013 and the technology is quite advanced by now.

I just feel that the reasons given as to why this game has a 4 player limit party are just unacceptable.

I'm sorry for the mini-rant, but I'm kinda lossing my faith :(
Reply Quote
blizzard has some down right stupid responses , enough said !
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]