Monster density: Let's be honest

General Discussion
1 2 3 18 Next
I keep reading about how many players want to have an option of "mob density" just like "monster power". Now, IMHO, this is highly self-serving, and simply a way to maximize the farming efficiency. I want you to think: Why would I NOT want more monsters in the screen? It is not just more LULZ, or more epic, or even more loot. Most of the times, it is MUCH easier to advance if there are more monsters, for many reasons:

- More resource generation.
- More lifestealing.
- Enemies just get in the way of each others. It is quite amusing how a few highly mobile mobs in act 2 can get you in trouble, but the hordes appearing in act 3 simply don't have enough space to move and simply get slaughtered.
- In the case of wizard at least, shorter CD (Crit Mass), and more Archon uptime.

On top of that, of course, more monster mean more gold, experience, gems, and a better chance to get a legendary (though it will suck anyway...). So, tell me: What mob density would you choose? If you tell me anything that is not "as much as my PC can handle!", you are a bad player, a terrible layer, or both.
Its not about mob density in general, i think you've misread the posts about this.

Its more about getting the mob density in a1/a2 to the same level it is in a3. Making a1/a2 viable options for farming
people would appreciate higher mob density simply for the sake of their being more action on the screen.
There are many places in the game where there simply aren't enough monsters, AT ALL. you can walk entire lengths of space and see NOTHING or VERY LITTLE. It needs to be comparable to act three but a little cleaner in terms of monsters not being able to get past one another.
It would force players to choose between acts and even between areas within acts, which is something Blizzard is usually keen on in almost any game they develop.
They really just need to stock all the acts as highly with monsters as act 3 so we aren't stuck farming the same thing over and over. That's all.
Its not about mob density in general, i think you've misread the posts about this.

Its more about getting the mob density in a1/a2 to the same level it is in a3. Making a1/a2 viable options for farming


one could also down the mob density of a3 to match a1/a2... lols
I agree with the previous posters. Yes, a side effect of buffing density is that more loot would drop, but that's not the main reason people are asking for it. Even in the juiciest spots of A3, you spend as much time running as you do actually fighting. In most of A1/A2, the ratio is much worse. Most people didn't get into ARPGs because they wanted to create a character that can run around quickly and do barely any fighting; They want to roflstomp monsters. The monster density of 95% of D3 doesn't allow for that.
Agreed on the points of A1/2/4 needing a higher density, walking around the desert seeing absolutely nothing sucks. But even then, I think there is more to balance if we want all acts to be farmed equally. The monsters in acts 2 and 4, for instance, are a PITA, specially the lame phasechanging snakes, while those in acts 1 and 3 are generally clumsy, slow, and don't do much besides waddling around taking damage...
Agreed. the monsters themselves in acts one and three need to be more interesting in terms of speed, utilities and damage. and even then, the ones in acts two and four need to be toned down a little as well.
01/23/2013 02:30 AMPosted by Nightowl
Its more about getting the mob density in a1/a2 to the same level it is in a3. Making a1/a2 viable options for farming

obvious +1 is obvious
01/23/2013 02:23 AMPosted by Miguelitro
Most of the times, it is MUCH easier to advance if there are more monsters

So nerf Act3 for being much more fun =P
There are places in Act1&2 that are fine but, some places are lacking(cathedral & halls of agony) or have a boring&barely random layout(sewers and caves). Mostly these complaints are by WW barbs who want to farm 50+ mobs at once to just grind paragon levels like mindless zombies so they can then brag about their players icon or w/e.

If the game's focus is more on objectives(like ubers or events/resplendent chests) then people wouldn't be so worried about this.
I don't think that many players care about challenge in D3. The series has always been about mass slaughtering of monsters and collecting loot. Just look at the later years of D2. It was basically ez mode farming of Baal and Pindleskin. No one complained about that, they just wanted an easy way to get loot. The days of hard more inferno are well past us, and I doubt we'll ever see it again.
01/23/2013 03:00 AMPosted by liljuicy
Agreed. the monsters themselves in acts one and three need to be more interesting in terms of speed, utilities and damage. and even then, the ones in acts two and four need to be toned down a little as well.


I guess, but your suggested homogeneity of monsters would make this game so much more B O R I N G
See, that's exactly what I'm telling to avoid. Again, tell me that you would NOT play max density, with whatever MP you can handle, and I will call you a bad player or a terrible liar, without fear of being wrong.
people would appreciate higher mob density simply for the sake of their being more action on the screen.
There are many places in the game where there simply aren't enough monsters, AT ALL. you can walk entire lengths of space and see NOTHING or VERY LITTLE. It needs to be comparable to act three but a little cleaner in terms of monsters not being able to get past one another.
It would force players to choose between acts and even between areas within acts, which is something Blizzard is usually keen on in almost any game they develop.


I think this hits the nail on the head for me. great post.
A2 would need very little to change to match A3 in monster density. Most of the zones are just as dense. A1 would need quite a bit of change.

Join the Conversation

Return to Forum