because there are 5 classes...

General Discussion
Prev 1 19 20 21 Next


I'd describe Diablo 3 as a polished game, That's it.


and whats your opinion on McDonalds? Fine cuisine?


Fastfood

And I think you didn't get what i was saying..

Let me rephrase.

Diablo 3 has a smooth gameplay. Thats it.
Fastfood

And I think you didn't get what i was saying..

Let me rephrase.

Diablo 3 has a smooth gameplay. Thats it.

Let me rephrase again:

The D3 developement team delivered excellent handiwork.

The McDonalds team sometimes also delivers excellent handiwork. But mostly they're not paid enough to care....

Edith says, the difference is that Blizzard grows vegetables in its own garden, while McDonalds gets it's ressources from anywhere it can get, as cheap as it can get it.
Well you see, the top of its genre fun you have in D3 is at such a precise degree any deviation from the assigned path would just ruin everything.

Right?

Ahaha.

You could return from monocultural gardening back to integrated biological gardening to increase the quality of the food again and would spare yourself the need of 90% of fertilizers and pesticides (read advertisement and PR) on the way. But a decision once made cannot be wrong, can it?
04/02/2013 12:21 AMPosted by Philoi
Interesting tid bit. So it looks like if in some people's cases if they do want to pick up D3 for console, they may have to order it online.


I don't know if I am happy or sad to hear that. I hope that's not true. I think that would be too sad, even if I don't want the game going to console.. I'm sure some would.. and that's a sad comment of the state of this game.. I hope you're exaggerating or heard wrong..


I honestly hope the console sales are dismal. At least then they would be forced to sit up and take notice and be forced to admit to their mistakes. I got a decent amount of hours out of the game, but man, it fell off fast after a certain point. Most of what I saw on the forums from the developers and community managers was them defending the game claiming that while some of us may not like it, they think overall it's doing well and they still have millions of players, etc. They haven't done enough in my opinion to show they really care about improving the game (especially considering the complete cancellation and no further mentioning of the PvP modes) and maybe the only thing that will reach them is their profits taking a hit.
04/02/2013 07:01 AMPosted by pavi
Most of what I saw on the forums from the developers and community managers was them defending the game claiming that while some of us may not like it, they think overall it's doing well and they still have millions of players, etc.

Do you mean the proclaimed number of 3 million unique players monthly here?

The number of A million unique players daily seems statistically valid to me. But I haven't stumbled across enough data on how the 3 millions number came to pass to rule out that it's not simply an average across the 10 months since release, so the statistical validity of the number is quite insecure. The real fluctuation may already be around .2 to .5 million players the month. And that sounds not quite as pleasing, even from a corporate structure motivational point of view.

But I can't honestly say that it is so. Blizzard could, but it may cost them dearly to admit how deeply the mistakes they've made are rooted, without knowing the root exactly and how to amend things. (There's not only the players base to consider there, where the interest in Blizzard, as a developer!, is great and the repercussions of admittance would restore trust, instead of loosing it.)
My question is are the characters from the pc going to be able to transfer to console? and vice versa
04/02/2013 12:10 PMPosted by ELSHADDAI
My question is are the characters from the pc going to be able to transfer to console? and vice versa

I don't see how that would be a good idea. Could you perhaps explain your motivations behind your question?
04/02/2013 07:53 AMPosted by Silverfang
But I can't honestly say that it is so. Blizzard could, but it may cost them dearly to admit how deeply the mistakes they've made are rooted, without knowing the root exactly and how to amend things. (There's not only the players base to consider there, where the interest in Blizzard, as a developer!, is great and the repercussions of admittance would restore trust, instead of loosing it.)


I think that I have a fun idea that would improve the game and entertain us long enough to give Blizzard time to actually make more content and deeper improvements to the game. I'm shamelessly linking my idea until people start reading it. Agree, disagree, either way please read and comment on my runic items idea:

http://us.battle.net/d3/en/forum/topic/8517692764?page=1#0

Thanks so much.

~Philoi.
03/29/2013 02:41 PMPosted by Lylirra
Imagine you have 6 friends and they all wanna play in party with you, and you can only play with 5 of them :(


It doesn't stop there. Why not 9 instead of 8? Why not 10 instead of 9? There comes a point where designers need to make a call on that sort of thing, and it's usually not an easy one to make. You have to weigh what different players say they want along with what's best for the health of the game you've designed.
More players in the game makes the whole multiplayer part much easier and smooth. In D2 you almost always had a few slackers/leechers in your baal runs og cow runs, but it didnt matter as you could be upto 8 people in the group and 2 or 3 well geared players could carry the rest of the group. You dont have that advantage in D3 because you only have 4 players. Even 1 or 2 slackers really hurt the whole group and makes the run very inefficient, and thats a big downside in D3 compared to D2.

Btw thank you for taking the time replying so actively in this thread which i find very relevant to the game. Multiplayer can really benefit D3 a whole lot more than what we see today. :)
I think that I have a fun idea that would improve the game and entertain us long enough to give Blizzard time to actually make more content and deeper improvements to the game. I'm shamelessly linking my idea until people start reading it. Agree, disagree, either way please read and comment on my runic items idea:

This is a far better advertisement than the previous one in this thread. :)

I'll do so, but ain't in the mood to do so today. On the other hand, my personal growth in the recent weeks just took over, reducing my previous ideas to it's essential core, restructurising them and then adding some, in it's wake. (Easy to find, as presenting my ideas was nearly my only activity on this board up to this thread.) Thus I may be able to present my own version of a roadmap of how to turn around further developement of D3 in the forseeable future, to let the game then finally fill the footsteps of it's predecessor. I sure hope you'll look forward to it and take your part in criticising my views and solutions when it's finally time.
@ mikeab7925: Exactly my thoughts. It would be a cool feature to have from a player perspective. But the door for exploits, cheating and other hacks would be widely open, which makes it a very bad design decision and would kill off the fun in playing real fast if implemented.

edit: But ELSHADDAI may see something I'm missing, already compensating for the negative effects. Thus I still hope that he returns to the discussion and elaborates on the question.
the fact of starting from scratch is basicly my only reason for asking that question. Dont get me wrong i love the game and even at lvl 60 paragon lvl 8 i have returned to the normal mode with maxed out monster strength and am now running from beginning to end through all acts and difficulties at MP10.

Now the fact of restarting from scratch is inevitable due to the new designs for the game itself, but to allow the characters to transfer (lvls only). gear can be bought or found later. but i would assume that most of the gear will be the same just Console based, but i have been wrong before.

I just feel for the people that have put countless hours into the game either by lvling or farming just to have to restart with nothing, myself included.

But i sincerely believe that if this isnt addressed by blizzard it will definately decrease their potential sales of the game for that system. people will just continue to play it on pc so they get to keep their stuff.

Now back in the D2 days i found maphacks and various hacks for the game and my account was banned, why cant blizzard implement this same feature on the console? it would be about 25 hours of coding to make it possible.
@ ELSHADDAI:

You're right that transfering only the naked character, with neither gold nor items, would limit the possibilities of exploits to an acceptable degree. But it would also be a roadblock in itself, as you would have to aquire new items first then, which would only be fun for a rather limited group of players. (Defeating some Bosses naked is just an achievement for a reason.) [edit:] And it could be experienced by other types of players as being a necessity. [/edit]

It could also turn out to be a thorn in the eyes of the players, who have to start from scratch anyway, as they either don't have already dabbled with the PC version, or don't have the availability to do so anyway. (This would be no problem, if the game was singleplayer to begin with. The multiplayer part stands in the way here. And taking that part out would hurt the game more, than it could benefit from the idea.)

All in all it's starting to sound like an idea that couldn't hurt. It needs careful implementation, though, thus is still in need of developing a working concept with it at it's core. Nice trail of thought, by the way :)

edit2: Further thinking about it, transfering the characters from BNet to console [edit:] and back[/edit] could indeed be the one service acceptable for Blizzard to take money from us players, thus establishing a constant cashflow easily. (And it's not unreasonable to take a fee for a service provided.) This could make it quite enticing from a corporate structure motivational viewpoint and thus is a good selling point for the idea.

edit3: If it's done as a cut&paste-implementation, and not just a copy-implementation, it would add the additional benefit of being able to make room on one version for new characters to play, without having to delete a character beforehand. On the other hand: As this is only possible with both PC and console version at hand, other players without this opportunity might feel discriminated again.

Final edit: Although I don't own a console myself and don't plan on owning one in the future, I'm inclined to add weight to the question. So please answer, Bluesies: Will it be possible to transfer characters from PC to console version (and vice versa)?
04/02/2013 01:26 PMPosted by Ackbarspiff
More players in the game makes the whole multiplayer part much easier and smooth. In D2 you almost always had a few slackers/leechers in your baal runs og cow runs, but it didnt matter as you could be upto 8 people in the group and 2 or 3 well geared players could carry the rest of the group. You dont have that advantage in D3 because you only have 4 players. Even 1 or 2 slackers really hurt the whole group and makes the run very inefficient, and thats a big downside in D3 compared to D2.

You may not like it, but that's one of the reasons they chose 4 players max. Lylirra even said so in her post:
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. No matter what size group you have, whenever you add another person to a group, each player’s personal contribution is diminished.

The fewer players there are, the more important each player is to the outcome. They didn't want to make another faceroll game, they wanted something more challenging. Allowing more players would make the game easier, and people would feel compelled to play that way, whether they wanted to or not, if it were more efficient. With personal loot, it definitely increases the loot to effort ratio, further saturating the economy.
04/04/2013 04:37 AMPosted by DashLektrik
The fewer players there are, the more important each player is to the outcome. They didn't want to make another faceroll game, they wanted something more challenging. Allowing more players would make the game easier, and people would feel compelled to play that way, whether they wanted to or not, if it were more efficient.

On the other hand, a four player party makes it difficult for the group to split up organically, when the going gets tough. This is especially a factor considering the high density of mobs in open space areas, that 1.08 may bring in.

Having eight players at hand in a party allows for splitting up as needed, to adress different fronts of mobs aggrevated by the players. It would also be the limit, where this would work organically without preplanning on the playerside. (Anything more, and this would be a game suited for Guildplay only [edit:] , as the subgroups to split up to would need to be preplanned simply not to cause any confusion. [/edit]) This would result in a far less static gameplay, feeling much more visceral.
04/04/2013 06:52 AMPosted by Damian0216
Why does it matter how many players. Most people just run solo anyway.

This is an effect. Not an excuse not to do better. :)

Join the Conversation

Return to Forum