Ugh... Blizzard brings me down yet again
The lack of LAN was bad enough, but now a player limit of 4 people?
Sure, the first diablo had a player limit of 4, but that was because they NEEDED a player limit of 4. PC's back then couldn't handle that much, and there were only 3 character classes, leading to shitloads of player overlap.
But 4 players with D3? Come on.
I personally loved chaotic 8 player games, with a bunch of friends it was one of the most enjoyable times in D2. It often devolved into a spam fest though, so once I had played D2 for a year or two, I migrated more towards smaller, tactical games.
The great thing about smaller games was that you actually had to think. Random skill spamming rarely worked. In 3-4 player games you needed to work together, and use some form of tactics to kill shit.
So while both sides have their pros and cons, I lean more to the side of increasing the limit, but NOT to 8. 6 will probably be as high as D3 will go, hopefully no higher.
Anywho, I hope the limit will be slightly increased, if not though, I'll still be happy :D.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Quote from "Sixen" »
"One in every 10 million people can potentially have a headache from this pill." God forbid she is the 0.000000001% of having a headache.
Who says it would strain your graphics card? That's the stupidest argument ever.
Bottom line is that with 8 people spamming everything they got, you won't see shit. You don't know what you are doing and what you are doing has no purpose.
Nothing that had any meaning in D2 was not played by more than 4-5 people.
Think about it this way: if you want to do a 'full' game on a boss for the maximum loot, you need to host a game and wait for SEVEN people to join. With a four-player limit, once you host a game, you are only three people away from a full game, and all the benefits that brings.
If you can't do the math: playing solo means having a 1/4 penalty, instead of the 1/8 penalty. Alright?
Also. The four player limit was for Blizzcon purposes only. They never said anything about making a decision so early in the development. The only thing they DID say repeatedly, is that the game currently works the best with five people. Five.
This thread makes me cringe on every level.
So you're saying the confirmed four player limit is a good idea. Dude what's wrong with you.
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
Lets let the limit of players play in one game be 8 but allow for only a party of say 4 max.
People complaining about not being able to see and what not is solved and players that want bigger games is solved.
The only problem is... its somewhat a weird idea for a diablo game.
Just throwing it out there though.
As another possability of a solution to the "only 4 person per game."
On a side note, would only 4 people per game cause alot more stress on bnet because there would be 2x the amount of games on b.net than there was in d2?
So you're saying the confirmed four player limit is a good idea. Dude what's wrong with you.
What's wrong with you? I was saying that it's NOT confirmed...
And at least I have a point in what I am saying. What I read in other people's posts is OMG MOAR GFIX MOAR PLAYERS MOAR EVERYTHING. But no argument as to why that would be good for anything whatsoever.
only 4 players really steals from the excitment of online play, wtf is the point of going on battle.net if your only allowed to have 3 other players join you.
blizzard better come out with certain game options like for questing/ leveling 4 max but for pvp, uhm, 24 max? sure playing with big groups can get hectic but at least you have people to talk to.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Even if one takes every reefer madness allegation of the prohibitionists at face value, marijuana prohibition has done far more harm to far more people than marijuana ever could
Every 8 player game of Diablo 2 that I've ever been in (whether I know the people or not) is just a giant spamfest. It's a race to kill that one last skeleton before anyone else can click it -- oops it just got shattered by 6 frozen orbs.
8-player games, for me, where just a pain when everyone was talking. Especially if everyone was talking about different things or not all in the same conversation. That with all the whispers, player join/leave notifications, 80 million hammers and blizzards all flashing around the screen at one time, tons of auras, 50 monsters on the screen, and barrage of sound effects didn't make the game any more fun or "immersive" for me. It just made it a pain to get what I wanted to get done done. It made talking with people a pain. Sure, there's squelching, as I'm sure someone wants to say, but when you have people joining and leaving so fast there's just really no point.
I think 6 would be a good number. Four is too low for me and eight is too high. Six would be my personal preference.
Lets let the limit of players play in one game be 8 but allow for only a party of say 4 max.
People complaining about not being able to see and what not is solved and players that want bigger games is solved.
The only problem is... its somewhat a weird idea for a diablo game.
Just throwing it out there though.
As another possability of a solution to the "only 4 person per game."
On a side note, would only 4 people per game cause alot more stress on bnet because there would be 2x the amount of games on b.net than there was in d2?
that would split groups, they want to avoid this. If they won't play together, then there is no point..
Quote from "Magistrate" »
8-player games, for me, where just a pain when everyone was talking. Especially if everyone was talking about different things or not all in the same conversation. That with all the whispers, player join/leave notifications, 80 million hammers and blizzards all flashing around the screen at one time, tons of auras, 50 monsters on the screen, and barrage of sound effects didn't make the game any more fun or "immersive" for me. It just made it a pain to get what I wanted to get done done. It made talking with people a pain. Sure, there's squelching, as I'm sure someone wants to say, but when you have people joining and leaving so fast there's just really no point.
I think 6 would be a good number. Four is too low for me and eight is too high. Six would be my personal preference.
be happy they made the "n" button erase everything.. oo and you can't forget the spammers that enter and leave every 5 mins..
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Not Even Death Can Save You From Me" ~ Diablo (II)
Yes, I do hit n a lot. But no, that shouldn't be the "cure" for bad conversation implementation and parties too big for a non-MMO game. They should have thought of something of better convention on their side. The n button was a cop out. And don't double-post, silly
8-player games, for me, where just a pain when everyone was talking. Especially if everyone was talking about different things or not all in the same conversation. That with all the whispers, player join/leave notifications, 80 million hammers and blizzards all flashing around the screen at one time, tons of auras, 50 monsters on the screen, and barrage of sound effects didn't make the game any more fun or "immersive" for me. It just made it a pain to get what I wanted to get done done. It made talking with people a pain. Sure, there's squelching, as I'm sure someone wants to say, but when you have people joining and leaving so fast there's just really no point.
I think 6 would be a good number. Four is too low for me and eight is too high. Six would be my personal preference.
Damn it was too obvious
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
Well, last time I played D2 was a few months ago and I remember that having 8 people on one game was really annoying at times. Were was the challenge in doing a Baal run when you could finish the run in 5 mins? And that includes the pre-requisite mobs before Baal. I do think 4 ppl is too low and agree with the 6 player option. I know this is a dumb comparison but for anyone who has played wow. Dnt u just hate it when the team wipped cause of ONE person who did not pay attention? Having 4 max makes the players way too dependant on each other.
4 seems a little low to me, Baldur's Gate II worked well with 6. Even WOW works pretty well with 5. I don't need 8 people, esp if that 8th person is just some scum who is coming into my HC Baal run on Hell mode just to kill my character.
With the exception of a Baal run (and some of the other "runs"), I rarely found myself playing the game with more than 4 other people. It was more like 2-3 other people and me. Not sure if that is the trend but if that's the case, why do we need the extra player slots if they go unused? They seem kind wasted, would be almost better off not having them.
I would imagine it'ssomething like that that has influenced Blizzard's decision for smaller player numbers in the game.
Though if they could someow crank out some larger "raid" based content where you could "merge" games so to speak, and have more than one group of 4 people, maybe something in the realms of 10 or 20 man content. That would be cool.
That's how WOW works. You primarily move around in groups of five or less for most of the game, it is not till you hit endgame you can access content inwhich larger groups, 10, 25 or even 40 players strive towards the same goal. But like I said, that's not till endgame, for the most part it's you and up to 4 other people.
Not sure that will work with locked games, WOW has large servers, so it's very easier to do that.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
-Humankind cannot gain anything without first giving something in return. To obtain, something of equal value must be lost. That is alchemy's First Law of Equivalent Exchange. In those days, we really believed that to be the world's one, and only, truth.
No one would do raid content unless the rewards were better than solo mf. This would make raid content compulsory for anyone interested in excelling, a la WoW, which goes completely and utterly against the spirit of diablo.
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
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
The lack of LAN was bad enough, but now a player limit of 4 people?
Sure, the first diablo had a player limit of 4, but that was because they NEEDED a player limit of 4. PC's back then couldn't handle that much, and there were only 3 character classes, leading to shitloads of player overlap.
But 4 players with D3? Come on.
I personally loved chaotic 8 player games, with a bunch of friends it was one of the most enjoyable times in D2. It often devolved into a spam fest though, so once I had played D2 for a year or two, I migrated more towards smaller, tactical games.
The great thing about smaller games was that you actually had to think. Random skill spamming rarely worked. In 3-4 player games you needed to work together, and use some form of tactics to kill shit.
So while both sides have their pros and cons, I lean more to the side of increasing the limit, but NOT to 8. 6 will probably be as high as D3 will go, hopefully no higher.
Anywho, I hope the limit will be slightly increased, if not though, I'll still be happy :D.
So you're saying the confirmed four player limit is a good idea. Dude what's wrong with you.
"Because "half-assed" is not a "style"." - DragoonWraith, champion of character customization and legimitate art direction in D3
Lets let the limit of players play in one game be 8 but allow for only a party of say 4 max.
People complaining about not being able to see and what not is solved and players that want bigger games is solved.
The only problem is... its somewhat a weird idea for a diablo game.
Just throwing it out there though.
As another possability of a solution to the "only 4 person per game."
On a side note, would only 4 people per game cause alot more stress on bnet because there would be 2x the amount of games on b.net than there was in d2?
And at least I have a point in what I am saying. What I read in other people's posts is OMG MOAR GFIX MOAR PLAYERS MOAR EVERYTHING. But no argument as to why that would be good for anything whatsoever.
blizzard better come out with certain game options like for questing/ leveling 4 max but for pvp, uhm, 24 max? sure playing with big groups can get hectic but at least you have people to talk to.
Not every game type has to be 16 player. Game types can range from 4 player pvp, to 8, to 16.
Every 8 player game of Diablo 2 that I've ever been in (whether I know the people or not) is just a giant spamfest. It's a race to kill that one last skeleton before anyone else can click it -- oops it just got shattered by 6 frozen orbs.
I think 6 would be a good number. Four is too low for me and eight is too high. Six would be my personal preference.
that would split groups, they want to avoid this. If they won't play together, then there is no point..
be happy they made the "n" button erase everything.. oo and you can't forget the spammers that enter and leave every 5 mins..
Damn it was too obvious
"Because "half-assed" is not a "style"." - DragoonWraith, champion of character customization and legimitate art direction in D3
My LOD CD exploded the day before the nocd patch, and took my DVD drive with it....
Gone will be the days of a Sorc and Pala spamming their spells and pwning everything while 6 other people stand in the corner and pick their ass.
With the exception of a Baal run (and some of the other "runs"), I rarely found myself playing the game with more than 4 other people. It was more like 2-3 other people and me. Not sure if that is the trend but if that's the case, why do we need the extra player slots if they go unused? They seem kind wasted, would be almost better off not having them.
I would imagine it'ssomething like that that has influenced Blizzard's decision for smaller player numbers in the game.
Though if they could someow crank out some larger "raid" based content where you could "merge" games so to speak, and have more than one group of 4 people, maybe something in the realms of 10 or 20 man content. That would be cool.
That's how WOW works. You primarily move around in groups of five or less for most of the game, it is not till you hit endgame you can access content inwhich larger groups, 10, 25 or even 40 players strive towards the same goal. But like I said, that's not till endgame, for the most part it's you and up to 4 other people.
Not sure that will work with locked games, WOW has large servers, so it's very easier to do that.
"Because "half-assed" is not a "style"." - DragoonWraith, champion of character customization and legimitate art direction in D3