Diablo® III

because there are 5 classes...

03/28/2013 12:20 PMPosted by Lylirra
While a larger party size may sound appealing in concept (and even in practice for other games), there are a number of factors which contributed to our belief that four players is really the ideal party size for Diablo III.


Or, how about you make it our choice? Huh? We should be able to create our own games and choose to limit (or not) the number of players allowed in game and whether or not followers should be allowed or not and whether or not trading should be allowed or not in the game. The only thing that should limit any of these sorts of considerations should be the technical aspect. So, can your servers just not handle 8 or 16 player games? Too busy screen? Why not add zoom in and zoom out and damage or accuracy nerf to ranges beyond the normal* screen size? I mean I could easily shoot down all the supposed arguments in favor of limiting it to 4 only.. but I don't want to waste my time, I doubt that you or the developers will listen.

In summary, I'm not buying your post. All the problems discussed could be worked out and some of them are debatable as to whether or not they're even issues at all.

You're babying this game down so much.. removing so much freedom from us players.. Why did we go down from 8 players per game max to 4 with technology improvements both on your end and on ours? It makes little to no sense technologically and that's honestly the best excuse I would give you guys to making such a move. Again, I totally disagree with your **let's decide what is fun for players instead of letting them decide for themselves** philosophy. In fact, I am offended by it and am sure many other players are too. Instead of deciding what is or isn't fun for us, why don't you let us the players try various things out...

Do you wish for me to more constructively respond to every one of your points? I will if I am promised that someone in Blizzard will actually take it to heart and test it out...otherwise, why should I waste my time?

I'll give you a quick example of your flawed thinking though:

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)


So why? That's my question? Why nerf them at all? Why not continue, as you said earlier, to allow the contribution to the team to feel significant? Would it make the game too easy? Have the game auto adjust 1 MP level higher for every N players that joins the game. N could 1 or 2 or anything.. you could only start increasing MP past 4 players or start anything past 1 player. Point is.. there are ways to balance it all out. And then you say this will make the game less exciting because you'll only be chipping away at monster health? I think players understand this concept and if they don't like how that feels.. they'll create games limited to 3 or 4 players only.

I mean really there is an answer to every single one of those points that you or I should say Wyatt made...

Why not allow us to choose when creating our games the max players allowed and even allow us to change this number higher (not lower, that would cause issues) during game? Why not allow a better social interface and ability for people to join games types they want to or games with players they wish to play with.. like now but much more easily.. ? Why not allow a ton of things you removed from Diablo 2 just to gain more control over things rather than make them more fun for us? Why not allow us to decide whether or not we want every class represented in our games or not? Heck, the max should be at least 8 if not 16 or 20 so as to allow for more space for expansion introduced classes too..

I mean, really, where is the intelligence behind the current design philosophies of Blizzard in Diablo 3? I really am not trying to be insulting here, I really cannot see the merit in being so restrictive and dumbing things down so much when you could just let us decide for ourselves. If your servers are just lame and cannot handle it .. just confess.. you'll get a lot of hate but we'll forgive that so long as you're willing to remedy it in the future.. but we cannot forgive you trying to decide for us what is fun..
Edited by Philoi#1655 on 3/28/2013 2:08 PM PDT
Reply Quote
they love to decode what is fun , when whats fun is own'age not nerf'age !
Reply Quote
Four is fine. With all the times people go back to sell items etc. 8 players would be a nightmare. It is fine as is and thanks for the reply Lylirra.
Reply Quote
Why not 8 as minimum? Not only was that like the old Diablo, but future classes could be in the game as well. As I am sure the expansion will give us either 1 or even 2 new classes.
Reply Quote
03/28/2013 12:25 PMPosted by Lylirra
Plus it was stated before that too many players would clutter the screen.


Yup! (That's actually called out a little later in my reply, too.)


I normally play with 2 other buddies of mine, just having 3 people, and there is soooo many things happening at once that I get lost.
Reply Quote
1 is too lonely.

2-3 is the sweet spot IMO.

4 is a crowd, 5 will be chaotic!!!
Edited by Fireblade#1295 on 3/28/2013 2:25 PM PDT
Reply Quote
It's because the more people join in one game the laggier it gets and the way this game is made.
Reply Quote
(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.


PS3 supports up to 7 controllers.
Edited by Araxom on 3/28/2013 3:01 PM PDT
Reply Quote
Posts: 1,063
View profile
Blizzard, learn form your mistakes... let people do what THEY think is fun... put the option in there but don't make it mandatory... also... how to fix multi...

Scale the difficulty up as it should be by a factor = to who is in the game... keep all buffs at 100% for all players etc

This means more HP and Damage from monsters....

On top of this, increase the XP,MF,GF for all players proportionally to how many players are in the game...

It's just so simple... make it a challenge to deter it from being the ONLY choice, but put some serious reward in if people do want to take on said challenge... this would make 4 player MP10 the most lucrative (albeit) difficult level to play at... in essence, THE END GAME!
Reply Quote
Posts: 1,063
View profile
Again, the numbers for HEALTH and DAMAGE that would be applied to monsters is your call blizzard.. but it HAS to be a challenge... this will balance out the hefty reward if you choose to play this way.... Stop saying you can't and make solutions that allow people to choose their own path.

You won't ever have it perfect... there is no such thing... just make it close.
Reply Quote
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.


I agree this might have originally been the reason but currently as it stands, do you realize Blizzard suggests they're going with a camera change/zoom out option as you move through maps or increase the player count? No split screens.. so you point is only valid if the 4 player limit was an old old idea that Blizzard just stubbornly refuses to get rid of. I think that there is more to it than just thoughts about console. I think that is part of it but also factors like server capacity or ability for people to play (maybe Blizzard thinks we still all have 1990's computers?)...I think those play a huge role too.
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
Reply Quote
You know that's a reason I never considered.

Imagine how strong a team of 4 monks + a barbarian would be with combined Mantras and Warcry lol.

If it was eight players you would have all those +x% damage abilities combined with the other classes like slow time ontop of that.
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


Have you even played the game with 4 people?

BF3 is a COMPLETELY different game too, you can't use it as a example to D3.
Reply Quote
5 is in no way "too" much for people to handle. Why can't they make it to where the maker of the "game" can select party amount kind of like the MP lvl, 2-5????
Reply Quote
So many deleted posts! Makes me giggle.

They could increase it to 5, but then when they add classes people will again be disappointed with not having all the classes in one game.
Reply Quote
Cant have a party of 5 when there are only 4 controllers.
Reply Quote
There was a mention in early development of giving the game a more Gauntlet-esque feel to coop, possibly where 4 player coop came from. Wish there were more, and like the D2 8pp games, but there are too many effects at once to see what's going on in melee range.

Also:

Jay Wilson quoted from the game's debut press conference, June 2008.
Though the team hasn't decided how many people will be in a group, Wilson said to expect four to five players.

Rob Pardo, October 2008:
We’re a little bit worried that if you go up to too many players that you’re not really going to be playing together anymore. We want to make sure it’s a great co-op experience where you really play with the people you’re with, so we’ve just got to experiment and figure out what the optimal number is.

Jay Wilson, October 2008:
Is four people multiplayer games set in stone?

Jay Wilson: It grows more and more set all the time. In Diablo 2, eight player games are very uncommon, and they wouldn’t be in the same party or the like and we have just found that it’s not as fun as with four people. We have the ability to set any number we want, but four seems to work out very well.

Kevin Martens and Julian Love, August 2009:
Kevin Martens: For the maximum number of players in a game, we're going with 4 now. That's how many you can have on the games on the show floor. That's not final, and we'll keep looking at it during development. On PvP, we're going to do more on that, but we're not really showing any of our ideas yet. We're more focused on co-op at this point, and we want to make people play together more. The loot drop is one example. Now when loot drops the first pass on items is all for you, and only if you pick things up and put them in your inventory, then drop them, can your friends see them or pick them up. Also on multiplayer, the code's very good already and very smooth, and we will keep it that way all through development. The multiplayer is very fun and we're going to keep it at the highest possible polish.

Julian Love: The important part about how many people can play together is not technical limitations. It's about how many is fun. How many effects are going off, how much chaos is on the screen. Our testing is trying to find the sweet spot for those considerations. We have fantastic programmers, and technology has come a long way since Diablo 2, so we're not limited on that front.
Reply Quote
Posts: 15,451
View profile
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.


I have much different memories of D2. In D2 I would go off on my own because I'd get more exp. People wouldn't keep up. Didn't matter I could still kill things.
Reply Quote
03/28/2013 12:20 PMPosted by Lylirra
we know that the multiplayer aspect of Diablo III needs improvement


Please keep in mind that any improvements you make may give people who run ISBoxer an even greater advantage.
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]