If (with an emphasis on if) there was a way to actually make it optional across the board, then sure, it should be implemented. But theres just not. So its not in the endgame.
And as for the number of people disappointed, there was an equally large crowd complaining that followers would be essential.
Because you still haven't provided a valid reason that I can see; all I see is you telling everyone else you don't care what they get because you want it your way. And that is pissing me off to be honest.
Consider other people please.
Did you even read my posts? I pointed out multiple different ways that followers would be almost impossible to balance in a way that makes them both useful and non-essential. If you can't see a valid reason in there its your own fault.
The questions is why would you want them in PvP to begin with? They are essentially worthless when compared to actual teammates because, not only will they just get picked off, but the classes have skills that can supersede any attack performed by a follower. They're pretty much target practice in the arena. You can't even control them, so I don't even see how, if you die, the tide of battle will somehow be turned over when your follower is left alone.
PvP will never have followers. Sorry. It's just not practical.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I hate the way you cling to ignorance and pass it off as innocence
If (with an emphasis on if) there was a way to actually make it optional across the board, then sure, it should be implemented. But theres just not. So its not in the endgame.
And as for the number of people disappointed, there was an equally large crowd complaining that followers would be essential.
Because you still haven't provided a valid reason that I can see; all I see is you telling everyone else you don't care what they get because you want it your way. And that is pissing me off to be honest.
Consider other people please.
Did you even read my posts? I pointed out multiple different ways that followers would be almost impossible to balance in a way that makes them both useful and non-essential. If you can't see a valid reason in there its your own fault.
Mercs were never essential even in d2 and they most certainly CAN be balanced. Who are you to tell blizzard what they can and can't do? Have you ever programmed a diablo game?
A good place for you to start in this debate would be saying something that is true.
And I dont really care if mercs or followers can be used in pvp, but again I'd prefer having the option. If they aren't balanced in pvp, don't use them in pvp.
If (with an emphasis on if) there was a way to actually make it optional across the board, then sure, it should be implemented. But theres just not. So its not in the endgame.
And as for the number of people disappointed, there was an equally large crowd complaining that followers would be essential.
Because you still haven't provided a valid reason that I can see; all I see is you telling everyone else you don't care what they get because you want it your way. And that is pissing me off to be honest.
Consider other people please.
Did you even read my posts? I pointed out multiple different ways that followers would be almost impossible to balance in a way that makes them both useful and non-essential. If you can't see a valid reason in there its your own fault.
Mercs were never essential even in d2 and they most certainly CAN be balanced. Who are you to tell blizzard what they can and can't do? Have you ever programmed a diablo game?
A good place for you to start in this debate would be saying something that is true.
And I dont really care if mercs or followers can be used in pvp, but again I'd prefer having the option. If they aren't balanced in pvp, don't use them in pvp.
So basically you like to have an option even if it doesn't matter to you, or if they are balanced for pvp? Why would blizzard even try to add an optional npc to help you fight in a PLAYER vs PLAYER match, that is unbalanced and outside the actual character's skills? The NPCs that are unbalanced would only make the pvpers who want them to fight in the ring with them call them horribly implemented due to many reasons I don't think I need to say. If blizzard worked hard to counter this right now and balance them, they'd be putting time into a system they wanted to limit, and only have as a hand holder for the "newbies." Mercs WERE a horrible system in D2, they made your "extremely powerful" character look like a pushover when a random computer with barely any looks to him could solo a whole act. Now people may enjoy this, but when an NPC can do things in a game you can't, especially when the focus of the game is to make you feel almighty taking out the greatest demons by yourself, it makes it seem like any average joe in sanctuary can beat up the biggest baddies around, if you give them armor and train them. That's how I kind of felt about the d2 merc system.
They "could" do all these things you said, but they've already decided they mostly want your character to fight alone, or with other players, and that's why the follower system will only go as far as it is now. If they do decide to take it further later on in expansions then I would not mind, as long as they do it smartly. Even if I did buy mercs all the time, I never really liked them or looking after them.
Mercs were never essential even in d2 and they most certainly CAN be balanced. Who are you to tell blizzard what they can and can't do? Have you ever programmed a diablo game?
A good place for you to start in this debate would be saying something that is true.
And I dont really care if mercs or followers can be used in pvp, but again I'd prefer having the option. If they aren't balanced in pvp, don't use them in pvp.
Well, for starters, I'm not telling Blizz to do anything. Their own playtesting and iterations led them to the current conclusion to the follower 'problem,' and I'm simply pointing out the reasoning behind it.
And I'm honestly sick and tired of everyone saying 'I just want the option.' Of course you do. That doesn't mean that Blizzard should sacrifice quality just so that you have more options. We all know that its not a realistic solution to just have it be a checkmark. If it doesn't work or isn't balanced, it shouldn't be in the game. Period. There are plenty of other options in D3, we don't need more that don't meet Blizz's quality standards.
Mercs were never essential even in d2 and they most certainly CAN be balanced. Who are you to tell blizzard what they can and can't do? Have you ever programmed a diablo game?
A good place for you to start in this debate would be saying something that is true.
And I dont really care if mercs or followers can be used in pvp, but again I'd prefer having the option. If they aren't balanced in pvp, don't use them in pvp.
Well, for starters, I'm not telling Blizz to do anything. Their own playtesting and iterations led them to the current conclusion to the follower 'problem,' and I'm simply pointing out the reasoning behind it.
And I'm honestly sick and tired of everyone saying 'I just want the option.' Of course you do. That doesn't mean that Blizzard should sacrifice quality just so that you have more options. We all know that its not a realistic solution to just have it be a checkmark. If it doesn't work or isn't balanced, it shouldn't be in the game. Period. There are plenty of other options in D3, we don't need more that don't meet Blizz's quality standards.
It IS as simple as a checkbox. And there ISN'T a reason why bliz can't nerf/buff/modify until it is balanced and works if they wanted to take the time.
Mercs were never essential even in d2 and they most certainly CAN be balanced. Who are you to tell blizzard what they can and can't do? Have you ever programmed a diablo game?
A good place for you to start in this debate would be saying something that is true.
And I dont really care if mercs or followers can be used in pvp, but again I'd prefer having the option. If they aren't balanced in pvp, don't use them in pvp.
Well, for starters, I'm not telling Blizz to do anything. Their own playtesting and iterations led them to the current conclusion to the follower 'problem,' and I'm simply pointing out the reasoning behind it.
And I'm honestly sick and tired of everyone saying 'I just want the option.' Of course you do. That doesn't mean that Blizzard should sacrifice quality just so that you have more options. We all know that its not a realistic solution to just have it be a checkmark. If it doesn't work or isn't balanced, it shouldn't be in the game. Period. There are plenty of other options in D3, we don't need more that don't meet Blizz's quality standards.
It IS as simple as a checkbox. And there ISN'T a reason why bliz can't nerf/buff/modify until it is balanced and works if they wanted to take the time.
Until you accept this simple fact and talk some truth your entire argument is pointless.
Here's how most adults handle conflicting opinions:
Person A: My way is the best.
Person B: I disagree, I like my way better.
Both: OK, we'll come up with a compromise.
Here's you:
Jackzor: My way is the best.
Person B: I disagree, I like my way better.
Jackzor: NO! I want it MY way. You're just a big stupid-head.
What is wrong in this scenario?
You seem to be putting him down for not having "facts" as you put it, yet this statement is so groundless this almost sounds satirical if you weren't so critical. First of all there is truth in it. Blizzard CAN balance it to make it work in pvp, but what does this have to do with his argument? He's stating/justifying the reasons blizzard chose not to add PvP, so I don't see what the big deal is. I am still trying to figure out why this was typed..... When something is clearly "wrong" in it's context you don't need to compromise. In fact your're on a forum where what you do is DEBATE, and when people debate they aren't always compromising.
It IS as simple as a checkbox. And there ISN'T a reason why bliz can't nerf/buff/modify until it is balanced and works if they wanted to take the time.
Until you accept this simple fact and talk some truth your entire argument is pointless.
Here's how most adults handle conflicting opinions:
Person A: My way is the best.
Person B: I disagree, I like my way better.
Both: OK, we'll come up with a compromise.
Here's you:
Jackzor: My way is the best.
Person B: I disagree, I like my way better.
Jackzor: NO! I want it MY way. You're just a big stupid-head.
What is wrong in this scenario?
Now you're just being childish. I clearly laid out reasons why its considerably more complex than just a checkmark, and why no matter how much they balance it, followers will either end up being essential or useless based on the builds people find. You can go look at my previous posts. I'm not going to write all of that up again.
And, for the record, this current system is a compromise. If you've been paying any attention to the controversy surrounding the followers, you would know that when the video was leaked, everyone (or a large, loud group) was outraged that they would be essential for MFing, or other purposes, in the endgame. Once it was announced that they're only usable in Normal, everyone (as in an equally large, loud group) has since been pissed off that they're apparently useless. So Blizzard chose something of an in between scenario where they are available in Normal for anyone who wants to have a follower, and to promote online play.
The thing is, as any person whose had to make compromises before knows, nobody ends up happy in a compromise. So now we have the current scenario.
Also, the reason Blizz isn't nerfing/buffing/modifying the system until it works is because the game's design mentality doesn't fit well with a follower. The idea is for you to feel as powerful as possible, and if you're allowed to use a follower to fill in the blanks of your build that doesn't correspond to you feeling powerful.
Not to mention that its not just a matter of buffing/nerfing it. Because of the insane amounts of builds in the game (97 billion), it would be impossible to take into account all the possibilities. Which means that they could come up with a system that works perfectly in internal testing, only to have it fall apart on Day 3 of the beta because someone discovered an insane build that compliments followers. It would be something they would have to constantly worry about, for a system that not everyone even wants.
Unless you have something to say that actually applies to the followers system (ie something thats not just a troll/personal attack), don't post here again. Take note of all the other people who want followers that I've had legitimate conversations with about the reasons for and against followers, and learn from them.
Well again jack you can't post without lying. There is no scenario where where an OPTION is somehow essential.
I'll say it again; there is NO REASON this can't be balanced. There is no reason any feature can't be balanced and again I'm not even going to start discussing options until you stop lying and ironically start calling everyone else childish.
There's honestly no reason to read the rest of your essay because I read the first few lines and saw BS.
Well again jack you can't post without lying. There is no scenario where where an OPTION is somehow essential.
Sure, there's no scenario like that. But theres also no scenario where an option is both non-essential AND useful. Either way theres going to be people who are mad that its essential, or mad that its useless. Thats my point, if you actually bothered reading. Which you didn't.
I'll say it again; there is NO REASON this can't be balanced. There is no reason any feature can't be balanced and again I'm not even going to start discussing options until you stop lying and ironically start calling everyone else childish.
Again, I never said this was the case. I only said it would be EXTREMELY hard work for a balance that could be destroyed the moment someone finds a build that works really well with followers. And theres 97 billion builds, so chances are one would tip the scales in that kind of way.
For the last time, either start reading posts and intelligently contributing to conversations, or leave. Those are your options. Stop being a troll.
Everyone, please respect the opinions of others and try not to start a flame war. Thank you.
@Critter- I could be wrong but I assumed that the pun was intended. If not, quite a coincidence.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"I want to say something but I'll keep it to myself I guess and leave this useless post behind to make you aware that there WAS something... "
-Equinox
"We're like the downtown of the Diablo related internet lol"
-Winged
They are not intended to be, and we will take whatever steps are necessary to ensure they cannot be.
Music to my ears.. hated the overpowered hirelings in d2:lod
I'm kind of there with you. I can't keep my mercs alive in Hell anyways. But you would think they would put something in place to keep them from being too overpowered and still stay with you throughout. Would what kind of steps they will "take to ensure" you can't take them any further than Norm?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Recruiting for East Realm Also recruiting for Sc2 on both EU and NA servers
Apparenty blatantly lying is ok on this forum but pointing it out is not.
So I'll just finish this conversation with you jackzor by informing you that d4 is coming out next week so this debate is irrelevant, d3 mercs have been declared better than the current follower system and that your posts are all about rift online and not actually about d3. I'm glad we all had this conversation with the unbiased moderators allowing blatant lying and abusing moderator privileges when people merely point out obvious BS.
You seem to be putting him down for not having "facts" as you put it, yet this statement is so groundless this almost sounds satirical if you weren't so critical. First of all there is truth in it. Blizzard CAN balance it to make it work in pvp, but what does this have to do with his argument? He's stating/justifying the reasons blizzard chose not to add PvP, so I don't see what the big deal is.
... no matter how much they balance it, followers will either end up being essential or useless based on the builds people find.
Thanks, I'm glad you made that easy for me.
Now that we've settled that, there is no reason followers can't be made to be optional via checkbox. There is no scenario in which an OPTIONAL feature is somehow essential.
Again, until this basic fact is acknowledged this debate simply can't move forward.
As for "personal attacks", there are no personal attacks here, there's only people spreading obvious misinformation and me having a hard time correcting all the lies. If people had been telling the truth to begin with this debate would have been rather straight forward.
I'm not trying to personally attack people or intentionally make them look bad, but when somebody posts something that clearly isn't true and I have to clarify, well, they end up looking bad.
I think the main problem thats going on is it will unbalance the online economy, which means true single player is dead, which is kind of sad. Not to say you can't do hell without a follower but I know how everyone feels, it's not the same. Fortunately on any character I go passed... normal, maybe nightmare with I'll probably be playing with friends so I won't miss my follower much. Then when I AM soloing I'll probably still find some way to have fun, crafting or something. Working towards a goal.
Ok fine, lets go back 5 pages to discuss why Blizzard shouldn't include options for the sake of options. Sorry that I thought you were actually talking about what I was referring to, but thats fine, you can just apply it to something I wasn't even talking about.
Why should they include something thats entirely unbalanced? Even though the option obviously makes it non-essential, it would still lead to a scenario where some people have builds that rely on them, and therefore would only be able to play in games where that checkmark is checked.
They're not going to include something, even as a checkmark, unless its well balanced. And its simply nearly impossible to balance for reasons I've explained before, and as evidenced by the fact that Blizzard decided it wasn't worth it even though there were probably iterations where followers were available in co-op and higher difficulties.
And on a separate note, you can't honestly accuse me of misinformation. Not only is it impossible for my opinion to even be misleading, seeing as it is, after all, an opinion and not fact, but nearly everything I've said is based on something from Bashiok's posts after the followers were announced. I'm simply presenting what I interpret as Blizzard's reasoning behind the limited follower system because some people seem to have not even read what Bashiok said in direct response to questions like theirs. And lets not forget that you're the only one claiming I'm being misleading, and clearly it hasn't convinced you, so obviously its not a problem either way.
And as for the number of people disappointed, there was an equally large crowd complaining that followers would be essential.
Did you even read my posts? I pointed out multiple different ways that followers would be almost impossible to balance in a way that makes them both useful and non-essential. If you can't see a valid reason in there its your own fault.
Find any Diablo news? Contact me or anyone else on the news team.
DiabloFans: Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, Live Chat
PvP will never have followers. Sorry. It's just not practical.
I hate the way you cling to ignorance and pass it off as innocence
A good place for you to start in this debate would be saying something that is true.
And I dont really care if mercs or followers can be used in pvp, but again I'd prefer having the option. If they aren't balanced in pvp, don't use them in pvp.
So basically you like to have an option even if it doesn't matter to you, or if they are balanced for pvp? Why would blizzard even try to add an optional npc to help you fight in a PLAYER vs PLAYER match, that is unbalanced and outside the actual character's skills? The NPCs that are unbalanced would only make the pvpers who want them to fight in the ring with them call them horribly implemented due to many reasons I don't think I need to say. If blizzard worked hard to counter this right now and balance them, they'd be putting time into a system they wanted to limit, and only have as a hand holder for the "newbies." Mercs WERE a horrible system in D2, they made your "extremely powerful" character look like a pushover when a random computer with barely any looks to him could solo a whole act. Now people may enjoy this, but when an NPC can do things in a game you can't, especially when the focus of the game is to make you feel almighty taking out the greatest demons by yourself, it makes it seem like any average joe in sanctuary can beat up the biggest baddies around, if you give them armor and train them. That's how I kind of felt about the d2 merc system.
They "could" do all these things you said, but they've already decided they mostly want your character to fight alone, or with other players, and that's why the follower system will only go as far as it is now. If they do decide to take it further later on in expansions then I would not mind, as long as they do it smartly. Even if I did buy mercs all the time, I never really liked them or looking after them.
And I'm honestly sick and tired of everyone saying 'I just want the option.' Of course you do. That doesn't mean that Blizzard should sacrifice quality just so that you have more options. We all know that its not a realistic solution to just have it be a checkmark. If it doesn't work or isn't balanced, it shouldn't be in the game. Period. There are plenty of other options in D3, we don't need more that don't meet Blizz's quality standards.
Find any Diablo news? Contact me or anyone else on the news team.
DiabloFans: Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, Live Chat
Edited for PG-13ness.
I am still trying to figure out why this was typed..... When something is clearly "wrong" in it's context you don't need to compromise. In fact your're on a forum where what you do is DEBATE, and when people debate they aren't always compromising.
And, for the record, this current system is a compromise. If you've been paying any attention to the controversy surrounding the followers, you would know that when the video was leaked, everyone (or a large, loud group) was outraged that they would be essential for MFing, or other purposes, in the endgame. Once it was announced that they're only usable in Normal, everyone (as in an equally large, loud group) has since been pissed off that they're apparently useless. So Blizzard chose something of an in between scenario where they are available in Normal for anyone who wants to have a follower, and to promote online play.
The thing is, as any person whose had to make compromises before knows, nobody ends up happy in a compromise. So now we have the current scenario.
Also, the reason Blizz isn't nerfing/buffing/modifying the system until it works is because the game's design mentality doesn't fit well with a follower. The idea is for you to feel as powerful as possible, and if you're allowed to use a follower to fill in the blanks of your build that doesn't correspond to you feeling powerful.
Not to mention that its not just a matter of buffing/nerfing it. Because of the insane amounts of builds in the game (97 billion), it would be impossible to take into account all the possibilities. Which means that they could come up with a system that works perfectly in internal testing, only to have it fall apart on Day 3 of the beta because someone discovered an insane build that compliments followers. It would be something they would have to constantly worry about, for a system that not everyone even wants.
Unless you have something to say that actually applies to the followers system (ie something thats not just a troll/personal attack), don't post here again. Take note of all the other people who want followers that I've had legitimate conversations with about the reasons for and against followers, and learn from them.
Find any Diablo news? Contact me or anyone else on the news team.
DiabloFans: Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, Live Chat
I'll say it again; there is NO REASON this can't be balanced. There is no reason any feature can't be balanced and again I'm not even going to start discussing options until you stop lying and ironically start calling everyone else childish.
There's honestly no reason to read the rest of your essay because I read the first few lines and saw BS.
Again, I never said this was the case. I only said it would be EXTREMELY hard work for a balance that could be destroyed the moment someone finds a build that works really well with followers. And theres 97 billion builds, so chances are one would tip the scales in that kind of way.
For the last time, either start reading posts and intelligently contributing to conversations, or leave. Those are your options. Stop being a troll.
Find any Diablo news? Contact me or anyone else on the news team.
DiabloFans: Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, Live Chat
@Critter- I could be wrong but I assumed that the pun was intended. If not, quite a coincidence.
-Equinox
"We're like the downtown of the Diablo related internet lol"
-Winged
Recruiting for East Realm
Also recruiting for Sc2 on both EU and NA servers
Bod home Page
So I'll just finish this conversation with you jackzor by informing you that d4 is coming out next week so this debate is irrelevant, d3 mercs have been declared better than the current follower system and that your posts are all about rift online and not actually about d3. I'm glad we all had this conversation with the unbiased moderators allowing blatant lying and abusing moderator privileges when people merely point out obvious BS.
Thanks, I'm glad you made that easy for me.
Now that we've settled that, there is no reason followers can't be made to be optional via checkbox. There is no scenario in which an OPTIONAL feature is somehow essential.
Again, until this basic fact is acknowledged this debate simply can't move forward.
As for "personal attacks", there are no personal attacks here, there's only people spreading obvious misinformation and me having a hard time correcting all the lies. If people had been telling the truth to begin with this debate would have been rather straight forward.
I'm not trying to personally attack people or intentionally make them look bad, but when somebody posts something that clearly isn't true and I have to clarify, well, they end up looking bad.
Why should they include something thats entirely unbalanced? Even though the option obviously makes it non-essential, it would still lead to a scenario where some people have builds that rely on them, and therefore would only be able to play in games where that checkmark is checked.
They're not going to include something, even as a checkmark, unless its well balanced. And its simply nearly impossible to balance for reasons I've explained before, and as evidenced by the fact that Blizzard decided it wasn't worth it even though there were probably iterations where followers were available in co-op and higher difficulties.
And on a separate note, you can't honestly accuse me of misinformation. Not only is it impossible for my opinion to even be misleading, seeing as it is, after all, an opinion and not fact, but nearly everything I've said is based on something from Bashiok's posts after the followers were announced. I'm simply presenting what I interpret as Blizzard's reasoning behind the limited follower system because some people seem to have not even read what Bashiok said in direct response to questions like theirs. And lets not forget that you're the only one claiming I'm being misleading, and clearly it hasn't convinced you, so obviously its not a problem either way.
Find any Diablo news? Contact me or anyone else on the news team.
DiabloFans: Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, Live Chat
Diablo III Analyst
SC2Mapster
Recruiting for East Realm
Also recruiting for Sc2 on both EU and NA servers
Bod home Page
Nah just kidding buddy I chuckled.