What a DIABLO game needs to SUCCEED

General Discussion
Prev 1 7 8 9 Next
09/19/2018 10:43 PMPosted by Hackusations
I'm not going to respond to all your constant straw man arguments because you need to create some ridiculous position no one ever argued when you can't address the real point or the facts.

It is a fact that WoW had more people playing when it was less accessible, more punishing, and required bigger time investments to participate at the highest level of end-game. It's a fact that a couple of nerds starting in a garage in NZ embraced everything Blizzard avoided doing with D3 and the game continues to grow because of it.


Look it is real simple, you are saying that a game should have content that only about 1% or less would ever see. Because they play more hours a day than everyone else. That is wrong, a player who in time puts in the same amount of hours that the next guy did to reach that same spot should be able to see the content. I will give an example and you will see what I am saying.

Let's take a game that has 200 hours worth of story quests to complete the story and the game. To me you are saying that the only one that should see all 200 hours worth are the ones that play to complete the story in 20 days or less. Where I am saying that it shouldn't matter how many real days it takes to reach the 200 hours worth of story quests. If a player puts in that much time with one character to see the whole story then they should be able to. Locking someone out just because they don't do it in 20 days or less is insane.

You talk of PoE, do you know that the endgame of that game is maps. They are not gated behind keys like the raids in WoW were in vanilla and I do think that it went further than Burning Crusade IIRC. Just think if each raid in WoW was gated where you had to complete the previous raid tier. Even though all groups could crush the content easily. How many raid groups would love keep getting keys just to unlock access to those older raids just to get the new raiders up to speed? I know of no raiding guild that would be wanting to stop their progress for that.

That is saying that locking content behind getting a special key or series of quests is dumb and it wouldn't be sustainable in the long run. In time raiding guilds would die out as old raiders had to quit raiding for a variety of reasons.

Now are you saying that the devs of WoW were lying when they said that the talent trees of old were filled with a bunch of fluff talents. Talents that only newbie players took because they didn't know any better. I will take the devs word for it. They know their own game better than I do because I was never a serious player of WoW. Are you saying that the devs of WoW didn't have to bury the strongest talents that defined the spec deeper into the tree with each passing one to two expansion, when I know that they did have to do just that.

I know that you love the idea of having a bunch of skills that are totally useless. Ones that are newbie traps, that veterns would never use them for any situation other than early stages of leveling.

I know that I have had characters in PoE that have done maps. I know that the character that I am playing now in the delve league will be able to do maps when I reach the level to be able to map. When I find the gear needed then I just might be strong enough to go all the way, at the very least, to fighting Shaper and maybe even being able to win. The build that I am running in that game is my own build. It shows that there is no key that gates maps or special quests that you have to do in order to be able to get into each map.

Maping in PoE is just a build check, along with a skill check.
09/20/2018 06:16 AMPosted by Saidosha
MMOs have also consistently shot themselves in the feet with the whole "the game begins at endgame" mentality with their insidiously stupid focus on raids as THE endgame instead of facilitating world building and, dare I say it, role-playing (and I don't mean your character sits in the trinity).


Well said., That is the main reason that i never liked much MMO genre. IMHO the best multiplayer moments that i had in a rpg was playing nwn with few other people in a server, not playing an mmorpg.

And a lot of this mindset is present on D3... Diablo 2, i an at moment playing Path of Diablo. Is amazing how they fixed most problems of D2. Energy is wroth some investment(some skills syngergizes with energy) on PoD, enigma is nerfed, etc; And you can have 2 golems with the correct gear.

---------------------------

Diablo 2 is not a perfect game but is a very good game. Diablo 3, was developed with "the game should be plyable by teletubbies", most AAA companies tends to underestimate his playerbase. Not just Blizzard, EA was Concerned that FPS fans will not understand WW1(they think that FPS fans skip every history class and never heard about ww1...) and despite all critique towards BF 1, was the first bf who sold more than cod... ( https://www.gamespot.com/articles/battlefield-1-ea-was-concerned-kids-didnt-know-ww1/1100-6440385/ )

I never saw this mindset in another companies, i never saw an car industry executive assuming that his costumer doesn't know anything about cars... Lets hope that the "future" will change this mindset...
09/20/2018 08:36 AMPosted by ShadowAegis
Look it is real simple, you are saying that a game should have content that only about 1% or less would ever see. Because they play more hours a day than everyone else. That is wrong, a player who in time puts in the same amount of hours that the next guy did to reach that same spot should be able to see the content.


I have to disagree with this. There is nothing wrong with having content set up that is optional that takes a bit more dedication/game knowledge/skill to play through. Raids/Mythic dungeons in WoW can be seen as the perfect example of this. Uber Bosses in D2 fit this bill. They were meant to be difficult content. The thing is, the gear in these raids is not needed to play the rest of the game. It's not mandatory to own raid gear for any part of WoW unless you're actually raiding. It makes things a bit easier, but it's not mandatory.

The problem comes up when they start making things feel mandatory to do that 'dedicated' content. WoW started doing this with the legendary quests that 'force' a player to do specific raids. Diablo 3 made this same mistake by making XP/drop rates so much higher in GR that many players do feel it's 'mandatory' to play that game mode and nearly nothing else.

Sometimes if you wanna see the special thing and do the special thing, you just have to do as Dark Souls says and 'git gud'. But they shouldn't make it so the dedicated content feels mandatory to enjoy the game.

09/20/2018 08:36 AMPosted by ShadowAegis
Let's take a game that has 200 hours worth of story quests to complete the story and the game. To me you are saying that the only one that should see all 200 hours worth are the ones that play to complete the story in 20 days or less.


I don't think this is quite what they meant.
09/20/2018 01:26 PMPosted by Zeddicuus
I don't think this is quite what they meant.


That's why we call those "straw arguments", you see? It doesn't even make sense to answer it, but question is pretty simple. I can see thread getting a huge derail soon, but it didn't really follow a good thought process to begin with anyway.

Thread started by someone who's pissed that he was not at the "target audience" and simply asked to repeat same formula as D2 in a thinly veiled notion. What he didn't realize is; most of the head developers and current developers see what has been done in D2 as mistakes and you can't change their mind. While they clearly made mistakes by themselves as well on the subject of investments and game's design direction.

For starters, Diablo and Warcraft series got pirated to the point of no return back in the day, because there was no DRM that can hold hackers for a long while in '90s. Community was bond by trade and powerful stuff was behind a paywall at their hands, that trio of elements created a layered itemization system supported by trading. It actually allowed third parties to sprout and rise in the game while not returning any revenue at the Blizzard's hands. On top of that it appears Vivendi were not consist of best head guys in the world.

As a result, headquarters asked Jay and Wyatt to follow a "different" design since their demographic now have to cater to the workers, cashwhales and hipsters instead of 16yo kids. All the design choices you see in the D3 are a result of trying to cater a larger audience.
Please lose all hope about changing their plans about D4 or at any new Diablo project either. Thinking that you can motive developers to change their player audience would be optimistic at best, because they want it as large as it can be. Catering to the tastes of a very wide array of people only leaves one option at gaming and it's making it superficial. Also let's remember big companies don't casually make games in a garage, they create 5-10 year plans ahead.
If you really wanna take their attention, go start a clan at D2 or D3 by playing their damn game. Gather a large clanbase of nerds who no-life the GRs and whine at them to whine at developers. Otherwise your chances won't go further than reaching developers at the social media accounts like everybody else. Go whine at twitter, reddit and facebook. Opening threads here just to ask a copycat D2 is frowned upon AND will be frowned upon. You have to realize things changed.

I don't mock your memory about how things were back then by being broad. I indeed believe D2 was a masterpiece, but its lifespan was planned to be way too long than Blizzard Irvine anticipated it. It even overshadowed the new installment and they were quite aware of that before D3's release. So they simply evaded the confrontation by catering to a different audience. They wanted to get a fresh start with a new players to see how things would turn out.

Actually D3 did really good, and none of you can deny that but it had no similar design points to D2, back in its vanilla times. Similar design came with RoS, and it was plastered all over it. It polished the game, but at the core it's still the same and presenting the same old problems.
In my opinion Blizzard takes note of their mistakes, because believe it or not they keep getting similar messages over at social media as well. Diablo 2's community grew wide and large, and a clash was inevitable.

If you want D4 or another D3 expansion to exceed your expectations with imminent depth just pray that Blizzard is willing to open the wallet on the project or allow a revenue stream like cash shop or a competitive scene. Otherwise, even the best aRPG developers in the world would be stumped on it when you have to rent game servers from another company annually. What you're asking here is also telling them to take a risk by keeping the target audience smaller which I bet they won't oblige.
I wouldn't say it's entirely off the mark, though. If you miss the new content rush, trying to do it later is more difficult. There's nothing you can do when you're a month behind and time gating is involved. Most games don't "save" those lost attempts, or put another way, allow currency cap rollover. It only gets worse if your play time is inconsistent like having shiftwork or, in my case, need to randomly care for some elderly family members and have to drop everything mid-run. Randos don't like that stuff.
You're wasting your time here TOPCommander.

People don't want a complex ARPG system, they want to run through easy content and hoard mountains of useless loot.

They want the least amount of decisions taken by themselves and want to be herded by padronized gameplay.

Let's just hope GGG makes Path of Exile 2 with a decent engine so it can truly leave Blizzard in the dust within this genre (which already does, but with an arguable margin).
09/15/2018 03:20 PMPosted by L0rdV1ct0r
, Diablo 2 wouldn't survive for long because there are so many AAA games and so many ARPGs and so many RPGS in general that it would just die out substantially quicker
(...)

owever, gaming has evolved and so have the players to the point that D2 released with modern graphics wouldn't be successful for long.


Lets look to actual DATA, not opinions.

What is the most popular isometric aRPG on steam? Path of Exile. A relative small budget crowd-funded game managed to be the 9th most played game on steam, far above HUNDREDS of AAA games ( https://steamcharts.com/app/238960 ), Diablo 2 still have 20k people playing only on battle net. Almost 2 decades later. Not mention the Path of Diablo and other mods, offline playing, TCP/IP playing, etc

And what game on steam have the most similar system to D3? Mu Legends. Mu legends have only 42% of positive reviews. Everything on Mu Legends was homogenized into "combat power" just like D3 have everything homogenized into "weapon damage".

Diablo 3 receive less content than HoS and HoS isn't that popular game. I don't know how much people are playing D3 but is not that popular.



I actually used PoE as an example of a successful game because it was able to churn out content due to microtransactions. Diablo 3 is the 3rd highest selling PC video game of all time but didn't maintain it's user base because it was unable to produce new content regularly due to no continuing income (it attempted to do this via the RMAH).

My argument was that Diablo 4 will need continuous content to be competitive long term. You literally proved my point for me.
09/20/2018 06:31 PMPosted by Kendis
actually used PoE as an example of a successful game because it was able to churn out content due to microtransactions. Diablo 3 is the 3rd highest selling PC video game of all time but didn't maintain it's user base because it was unable to produce new content regularly due to no continuing income (it attempted to do this via the RMAH).

My argument was that Diablo 4 will need continuous content to be competitive long term. You literally proved my point for me.


Bundles, F2P items on China, etc; how this 30m is calculated? And if D3 is that good why not retain an userbase? Why Blizzard don't put an microtransaction cosmetic shop? Probably because so little people play D3 that doesn't worth this little effort, they rather spend his hours/work to do more skins for Overwatch...
09/20/2018 02:02 PMPosted by Hex
You're wasting your time here TOPCommander.

People don't want a complex ARPG system, they want to run through easy content and hoard mountains of useless loot.

They want the least amount of decisions taken by themselves and want to be herded by padronized gameplay.

Let's just hope GGG makes Path of Exile 2 with a decent engine so it can truly leave Blizzard in the dust within this genre (which already does, but with an arguable margin).


Stupidity.

Complexity is fine.

“Let’s take D2 and update it” isn’t complexity.
D3 is one of the best selling games of all time, and you're here posting about Diablo 6 years later. I think they're doing just fine.

Also, you can't really compare D2 and D3 in terms of content. D2 was in a gaming generation where DLC and new content largely did not exist for most games outside of major expansions. Things have changed, and you can't continue to use that status quo. Get off your rocking chair, pops! :)
09/20/2018 11:04 PMPosted by Savage
D3 is one of the best selling games of all time, and you're here posting about Diablo 6 years later. I think they're doing just fine.


Diablo is the most influential aRPG franchise. That is why i an here...
09/20/2018 06:31 PMPosted by Kendis

I actually used PoE as an example of a successful game because it was able to churn out content due to microtransactions. Diablo 3 is the 3rd highest selling PC video game of all time but didn't maintain it's user base because it was unable to produce new content regularly due to no continuing income (it attempted to do this via the RMAH).

My argument was that Diablo 4 will need continuous content to be competitive long term. You literally proved my point for me.
It will need to be designed very well to be competitive long term - like Diablo 2, it won't need "continuous content"... keep that !@#$ in PoE.
09/20/2018 12:39 PMPosted by L0rdV1ct0r
Diablo 2 is not a perfect game but is a very good game. Diablo 3, was developed with "the game should be plyable by teletubbies", most AAA companies tends to underestimate his playerbase. Not just Blizzard, EA was Concerned that FPS fans will not understand WW1(they think that FPS fans skip every history class and never heard about ww1...) and despite all critique towards BF 1, was the first bf who sold more than cod... ( https://www.gamespot.com/articles/battlefield-1-ea-was-concerned-kids-didnt-know-ww1/1100-6440385/ )


The whole design philosophy of Blizz is that it is easy to learn but hard to master. D3 didn't properly deliver on the hard to master, not even in vanilla had the hard to master.

I have to disagree with this. There is nothing wrong with having content set up that is optional that takes a bit more dedication/game knowledge/skill to play through. Raids/Mythic dungeons in WoW can be seen as the perfect example of this. Uber Bosses in D2 fit this bill. They were meant to be difficult content. The thing is, the gear in these raids is not needed to play the rest of the game. It's not mandatory to own raid gear for any part of WoW unless you're actually raiding. It makes things a bit easier, but it's not mandatory.


If casual rading guilds can eventually handle the same content as world first guilds then everyone that enters those raids should be able to see all of the content (story). The only difference in mythic content is it is a harder version of the same dungeon. Now if it is a different story then there is something wrong. Gating a story behind a hard dungeon isn't a good idea. That means that only a very small percent of the player base gets to see the entire story and that is not good at all.

The problem comes up when they start making things feel mandatory to do that 'dedicated' content. WoW started doing this with the legendary quests that 'force' a player to do specific raids. Diablo 3 made this same mistake by making XP/drop rates so much higher in GR that many players do feel it's 'mandatory' to play that game mode and nearly nothing else.


IIRC the raid dungeons were part of the story of WoW. It wasn't just a side bonus that had no lore connected to WoW. Raids are not like Cow Portals or Phony Land.

09/20/2018 01:48 PMPosted by naksiloth
That's why we call those "straw arguments", you see? It doesn't even make sense to answer it, but question is pretty simple. I can see thread getting a huge derail soon, but it didn't really followed a good thought process to begin with anyway.


Look I am saying something real simple here. There is an attitude that I don't like at all. An attitude that how dare anyone outside of a small percentage of the player base ever dare to want to see the entire story unless they join that small percentage of the player base. Why even the normal raids would be out of the question as far as casual guilds goes.

That would be like a movie where certain parts of the movie that wouldn't kill the overall story of what the movie is about is taken out and the only ones that ever get to see it are the ones that pay a special fee. The parts that are removed leave some holes that would've explained some of the things in the movie and helped some with the development of some of the characters. But since you could enjoy the movie it is okay for those parts to be removed to only be added for those elite few that pay the extra fee.

09/20/2018 01:48 PMPosted by naksiloth
As a result, headquarters asked Jay and Wyatt to follow a "different" design since their demographic now have to cater to the workers, cashwhales and hipsters instead of 16yo kids. All the design choices you see in the D3 are a result of trying to cater a larger audience.


I know that you don't like casuals. But like I said before, this game didn't do a good job of hard to master. Easy to learn is done right. Now we need hard to master.

Further the target audience was no doubt Blizz irvine fans. Whereas D4 (or whatever it is eventually called) needs to target both Blizz Irvine and Blizz North fans.

09/20/2018 01:48 PMPosted by naksiloth
Please lose all hope about changing their plans about D4 or at any new Diablo project either. Thinking that you can motive developers to change their player audience would be optimistic at best, because they want it as large as it can be. Catering to the tastes of a very wide array of people only leaves one option at gaming and it's making it superficial. Also let's remember big companies don't casually make games in a garage, they create 5-10 year plans ahead.


As long as the team making it can still make the game easy to learn hard to master then we could get a much different experience than this game. But we need to know who is developing it and we need to see some of their initial work on it before we can render any judgements with certainty.
09/20/2018 01:48 PMPosted by naksiloth
Opening threads here just to ask a copycat D2 is frowned upon AND will be frowned upon. You have to realize things changed.


People have to realize that players want an improvement on D2 and D3's best features. Not a glorified clone of D2, if I wanted to relive the D2 experience then I would just play that game.

09/20/2018 06:31 PMPosted by Kendis
I actually used PoE as an example of a successful game because it was able to churn out content due to microtransactions. Diablo 3 is the 3rd highest selling PC video game of all time but didn't maintain it's user base because it was unable to produce new content regularly due to no continuing income (it attempted to do this via the RMAH).

My argument was that Diablo 4 will need continuous content to be competitive long term. You literally proved my point for me.


GGG is setup differently and PoE is setup of differently as well. That is why it does receive content regularly outside of a cash shop. I wouldn't doubt that there are other games out there that do have cash shops but are in maintenance mode.

This means that having a cash shop doesn't automatically guarantee a steady stream of new content. You must add the desire of the devs to keep adding new content to the game.

09/20/2018 07:09 PMPosted by L0rdV1ct0r
Bundles, F2P items on China, etc; how this 30m is calculated? And if D3 is that good why not retain an userbase? Why Blizzard don't put an microtransaction cosmetic shop? Probably because so little people play D3 that doesn't worth this little effort, they rather spend his hours/work to do more skins for Overwatch...


NA along with the other regions other than China don't have cash shops because it wouldn't be accepted by the majority of the player base.
The whole design philosophy of Blizz is that it is easy to learn but hard to master. D3 didn't properly deliver on the hard to master, not even in vanilla had the hard to master.


I agree. I think that even people who enjoy a lot D3 agrees with that. Also, many critiques that i had against D3 applies to D2...
If casual rading guilds can eventually handle the same content as world first guilds then everyone that enters those raids should be able to see all of the content (story). The only difference in mythic content is it is a harder version of the same dungeon. Now if it is a different story then there is something wrong. Gating a story behind a hard dungeon isn't a good idea. That means that only a very small percent of the player base gets to see the entire story and that is not good at all.


That's what LFR in WoW is for, for those that want to see the story. Heroic and Mythic of the same dungeon/raid is entirely optional, as they should be. I see I didn't post that clarification in there, my bad. Early raids were indeed as you described, ShadowAegis. Players didn't like not being able to see the story, which is why they brought in LFR on a lowered difficulty. That way the masses can experience the rest the story, and the higher raiding/dungeon difficulties can be entirely optional and left for those that desired more difficulty. This is how they've set up raids in WoW since Cataclysm back in 2010. Well, if I remember right, some quests for optional stuff like new looks for the artifact weapons in Legion were tied to more difficult raids, but those were not exactly mandatory things to finish and should not be treated as such.

Not everyone should be able to beat the more difficult version unless they put the effort in for it.
09/20/2018 08:36 AMPosted by ShadowAegis
09/19/2018 10:43 PMPosted by Hackusations
I'm not going to respond to all your constant straw man arguments because you need to create some ridiculous position no one ever argued when you can't address the real point or the facts.

It is a fact that WoW had more people playing when it was less accessible, more punishing, and required bigger time investments to participate at the highest level of end-game. It's a fact that a couple of nerds starting in a garage in NZ embraced everything Blizzard avoided doing with D3 and the game continues to grow because of it.


Look it is real simple, you are saying that a game should have content that only about 1% or less would ever see. Because they play more hours a day than everyone else. That is wrong, a player who in time puts in the same amount of hours that the next guy did to reach that same spot should be able to see the content. I will give an example and you will see what I am saying.

Let's take a game that has 200 hours worth of story quests to complete the story and the game. To me you are saying that the only one that should see all 200 hours worth are the ones that play to complete the story in 20 days or less. Where I am saying that it shouldn't matter how many real days it takes to reach the 200 hours worth of story quests. If a player puts in that much time with one character to see the whole story then they should be able to. Locking someone out just because they don't do it in 20 days or less is insane.


No, I'm saying that there should be pinnacle content that hundreds of hours to fully complete regardless of the pace those hours played are accumulated and that the early-mid game progression needs to be more fleshed out in content and scope so that it is a bigger part of the game, which by itself was good enough to be a standalone game experience.

09/20/2018 08:36 AMPosted by ShadowAegis
You talk of PoE, do you know that the endgame of that game is maps. They are not gated behind keys like the raids in WoW were in vanilla and I do think that it went further than Burning Crusade IIRC. Just think if each raid in WoW was gated where you had to complete the previous raid tier. Even though all groups could crush the content easily. How many raid groups would love keep getting keys just to unlock access to those older raids just to get the new raiders up to speed? I know of no raiding guild that would be wanting to stop their progress for that.


And you should know that statistically most people who have played PoE never reached maps. Many of those people were just casual players that after the 30 to 50 hours it took them to do the 10 acts simply moved on rather than continuing into the end-game. Hence why the end-game systems are designed for the 500+ hour player and not the 50 hour player or to quote the man himself, ''When players reach the atlas, we basically own their soul'' -Chris Wilson.

Also, the Atlas itself is by nature a gated system especially for Shaper, Uber Elder, Uber Atziri, etc... which require fragment sets to access making them effectively "keys". Accessing them without trade or as SSF takes quite a bit of time and even with the aid of trade the cost isn't trivial either. That's ignoring that these fights are extremely hard, mechanically challenging, and require strong builds/gear to defeat. I want to say that less than 1% of PoE's population has killed Shaper and less have killed Uber Elder. GGG explicitly designed it this way because they wanted it to be pinnacle content made for the most dedicated players to strive for.

09/20/2018 08:36 AMPosted by ShadowAegis
Now are you saying that the devs of WoW were lying when they said that the talent trees of old were filled with a bunch of fluff talents. Talents that only newbie players took because they didn't know any better. I will take the devs word for it. They know their own game better than I do because I was never a serious player of WoW. Are you saying that the devs of WoW didn't have to bury the strongest talents that defined the spec deeper into the tree with each passing one to two expansion, when I know that they did have to do just that.


Never said anything remotely close to this nor did I infer it. However, the trees were definitely full of fluff talents, but they only used that as a masking justification for standardizing specs so there were no hybrids, everything was more homogenizing, and balancing was much simpler. For the people who were theorycrafters, solvers, or basically anyone looking for an edge or niche it was blatantly about taking away options Blizzard never foresaw and didn't intend.

09/20/2018 08:36 AMPosted by ShadowAegis
I know that I have had characters in PoE that have done maps. I know that the character that I am playing now in the delve league will be able to do maps when I reach the level to be able to map. When I find the gear needed then I just might be strong enough to go all the way, at the very least, to fighting Shaper and maybe even being able to win. The build that I am running in that game is my own build. It shows that there is no key that gates maps or special quests that you have to do in order to be able to get into each map.

Maping in PoE is just a build check, along with a skill check.


You know it is ironic that you are basically detailing exactly what I'm talking about. You're playing PoE in the early-mid game at a casual pace and enjoying yourself. You understand that you aren't entitled to see every piece of content right away and that reaching the deeper content takes time and you can eventually get there if you are motivated. You have hundreds of hours of content you haven't even experienced yet and that's a good thing not a bad thing.
And then we'll have a bridge from here to China made of straws...
Times do indeed change. The business model of selling copies of games for $XX and then expansions for $XX dollars every X months/years is outdated. Blizzard would be wise to realize this. The future of gaming is free titles supported by micro-transactions. This maximizes new player potential while still allowing for good profit margins. I do not consider loot boxes as a good micro-transaction strategy. Court cases across the globe are already making them dangerous for gaming companies to implement. Blizzard needs to move away from them.
09/17/2018 11:20 AMPosted by Kendis
I even said as much. My point was that skill trees require you to blow points on skills that you don't want just to get to skills that you do.


Not if each skill has its own skill tree that you spend points into. Then it could have both the functionality of both a skill tree and the core idea of the D3 rune system. That way you can customize your skills to work like you want to along with buffing its damage. Then the gear can boost it in more ways than just looking for +skills affix.



Love this Idea. I don't know of any system that works like this but I think it could be really interesting! This is what I have meant by innovative ideas that could really make D4 better.

Join the Conversation

Return to Forum