I see that they are making an effort to make D3 be more interactive cooperatively.
I'm wondering on how they plan on making that work for high levels.
In D2, to get to high levels you had to go solo. If you need to kill Baal on hell mode 1,000+ times to get a level up, the way I found to be most efficient would be to create game saying "Hell Ball Run 340...", teleport to Baal, kill him, quit, and restart. In the 3 minutes that it took me to kill baal a few other people would usually wander in and stumble around in the first level while I killed Baal and quit.
Basically the problem is that, since there are no areas actually suited to high level players, you end up having to do the last-hardest-thing thousands of times over...and that doesnt suit itself to cooperative play
The hardest thing to work out here is a ballance between encouraging cooperative play, but not penalizing the single player. If there was a way in which the game's difficaulty and experience payout changed depending on the number of players playing together, like: If a player was alone, a monster might have 100,000 hit points and reward the player with 1,000,000 experience, but if you were in a group of 4, it would have 400,000 hit points and reward 4,000,000 experience (1,000,000 each), something like that could solve the problem.
Unlesss you want the cooperative play to give more experience and better items than single player?
That does not even solve the problem, because in the time it takes you to get a game with 4 players going I could have already killed Baal 10 times on my own. Thus, it does not benefit players who are strong enough to do everything on their own...which is the high level players, which is what I'm talking about. The only players that are benefited by that strategy are the weaklings who need to leech XP off of others.
I have the following ideas for making coop practical for high levels:
1) Make the ending parts of the game too difficult for any one class to take on by himself, so that you actually NEED to cooperate to get things done. Like Guild Wars.
2) Simply, more game content...longer storyline. This allows you to gain experience at a reasonable pace without having to re-do part of the story over and over and over again just to level. This is done in WoW (I believe), I think it has a really long main storyline that makes this possible.
3) Have high level quests that can only be unlocked by parties of certain size requirements
The more I think about it, the more surprising it is how successful the Diablo has been so far, given all the horrible design flaws that have been in the last 2 games. It's not that they were bad games, but they certainly weren't anywhere close to being overall well designed or put together. Many games that don't get much notice have much better designs. I think the reason for success iis due to giving the gaming society what they need in a genre that is lacking more than anything else, which makes me wonder if D3 will have the same kind of success: will it still satisfy the community needs, or have gamers matured and moved on? Probably not
That does not even solve the problem, because in the time it takes you to get a game with 4 players going I could have already killed Baal 10 times on my own. Thus, it does not benefit players who are strong enough to do everything on their own...which is the high level players, which is what I'm talking about. The only players that are benefited by that strategy are the weaklings who need to leech XP off of others.
I have the following ideas for making coop practical for high levels:
1) Make the ending parts of the game too difficult for any one class to take on by himself, so that you actually NEED to cooperate to get things done. Like Guild Wars.
2) Simply, more game content...longer storyline. This allows you to gain experience at a reasonable pace without having to re-do part of the story over and over and over again just to level. This is done in WoW (I believe), I think it has a really long main storyline that makes this possible.
3) Have high level quests that can only be unlocked by parties of certain size requirements
Suggestion 1 is a terrible idea. Perhaps the best thing about Diablo 2 was freedom. Freedom to kill whoever you chose, and play however you chose. Personally, I think most other players are terrible, and I don't want to be forced to group with them at any time, and for any reason.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
zsfh-maz of UsWest, 95 BvB king
"Because "half-assed" is not a "style"." - DragoonWraith, champion of character customization and legimitate art direction in D3
if they implement a similar system for single player where you can set the difficulty via /players 1-8 ill be satisfied. im playind diablo 2 now with several chars all just barely into hell mode at lvl 80 because of players 8. its a really fun way to replay the game. much tougher for casters but very rewarding
Okay first everyone complained about how d3 is too influenced by WoW, and now you want to make it like WoW where you NEED a whole team to complete something? BOLLOCKS!
I don't like the idea of not being able to solo honestly, most the time spent playing the series even online I'd spend by myself out loot hunting, as long as they work out a system that balances to campaign again to the player base then it should work out.
They need to give people the choice on weather they want to play in a team or by themselves throughout the whole campaign otherwise there's no point, freedom was the series best feature and they need to keep it that way.
Forcing the player into doing something they otherwise don't want to do will just make people not want to play, sure some will adjust but otherwise will just outright give up and move on.
Okay first everyone complained about how d3 is too influenced by WoW, and now you want to make it like WoW where you NEED a whole team to complete something? BOLLOCKS!
Actually, all the people who are suggesting required grouping are those driving diablo 3 towards WoW. People who hate WoW and have been vocal about drawing a line between diablo and warcraft (like myself) are utterly opposed to the idea of forced grouping.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
zsfh-maz of UsWest, 95 BvB king
"Because "half-assed" is not a "style"." - DragoonWraith, champion of character customization and legimitate art direction in D3
Actually, all the people who are suggesting required grouping are those driving diablo 3 towards WoW. People who hate WoW and have been vocal about drawing a line between diablo and warcraft (like myself) are utterly opposed to the idea of forced grouping.
Well now you can STOP BEING VOCAL since it is 100% confirmed that everything in the game will be soloable sooner or later. Just like how you had a few people help you with a Hell boss in D2 until you became powerful enough to take him on by yourself.
I'm wondering on how they plan on making that work for high levels.
In D2, to get to high levels you had to go solo. If you need to kill Baal on hell mode 1,000+ times to get a level up, the way I found to be most efficient would be to create game saying "Hell Ball Run 340...", teleport to Baal, kill him, quit, and restart. In the 3 minutes that it took me to kill baal a few other people would usually wander in and stumble around in the first level while I killed Baal and quit.
Basically the problem is that, since there are no areas actually suited to high level players, you end up having to do the last-hardest-thing thousands of times over...and that doesnt suit itself to cooperative play
That does not even solve the problem, because in the time it takes you to get a game with 4 players going I could have already killed Baal 10 times on my own. Thus, it does not benefit players who are strong enough to do everything on their own...which is the high level players, which is what I'm talking about. The only players that are benefited by that strategy are the weaklings who need to leech XP off of others.
I have the following ideas for making coop practical for high levels:
1) Make the ending parts of the game too difficult for any one class to take on by himself, so that you actually NEED to cooperate to get things done. Like Guild Wars.
2) Simply, more game content...longer storyline. This allows you to gain experience at a reasonable pace without having to re-do part of the story over and over and over again just to level. This is done in WoW (I believe), I think it has a really long main storyline that makes this possible.
3) Have high level quests that can only be unlocked by parties of certain size requirements
The more I think about it, the more surprising it is how successful the Diablo has been so far, given all the horrible design flaws that have been in the last 2 games. It's not that they were bad games, but they certainly weren't anywhere close to being overall well designed or put together. Many games that don't get much notice have much better designs. I think the reason for success iis due to giving the gaming society what they need in a genre that is lacking more than anything else, which makes me wonder if D3 will have the same kind of success: will it still satisfy the community needs, or have gamers matured and moved on? Probably not
Suggestion 1 is a terrible idea. Perhaps the best thing about Diablo 2 was freedom. Freedom to kill whoever you chose, and play however you chose. Personally, I think most other players are terrible, and I don't want to be forced to group with them at any time, and for any reason.
"Because "half-assed" is not a "style"." - DragoonWraith, champion of character customization and legimitate art direction in D3
They need to give people the choice on weather they want to play in a team or by themselves throughout the whole campaign otherwise there's no point, freedom was the series best feature and they need to keep it that way.
Forcing the player into doing something they otherwise don't want to do will just make people not want to play, sure some will adjust but otherwise will just outright give up and move on.
Actually, all the people who are suggesting required grouping are those driving diablo 3 towards WoW. People who hate WoW and have been vocal about drawing a line between diablo and warcraft (like myself) are utterly opposed to the idea of forced grouping.
"Because "half-assed" is not a "style"." - DragoonWraith, champion of character customization and legimitate art direction in D3