It should be possible to go above 4 in PvP games.
1. They don't have tons of enemies.
2. The map can be small and simple.
The only time when it could be laggy is if spells affects too many caracters at once and creates too many effects, but I doubt that is going to happen if it is going ot be 4v4.
4v4 would = an 8 player game
but
wow arena is all about the 3's now so I could see a 3v3
but I'm thinking a DotA style pvp should appear, for awesomeness
8=too much
7=too much
6= hard on low end comps
5= pushing the low end comps
4= the average at low settings fine maxed will push low end comps
3,2,1=fine
.
Considering we know how the game looks you should know 6 or 5 players would not be pushing low end comps unless low end to you is crap from 2000 with a 32 meg vid card lol.
4 wouldn't be awful, but 5 or 6 would be ideal (for me at least). I know at least 5 of my friends are going to be getting this game and we're going to, well wanting to, all play together. I'm pretty sure blizzard knows about these types of situations and they'll probably come up with a good number. D3 isn't going to be out until at least 2011 so they have time.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"No one gets to heaven 'til they've lived awhile in hell and even then it's rare that you'll be going there."
Judging by the size of the areas / aesthetic 'sizes' of things on-screen in general, it looks to me like 4 is the direction they're going toward. 8 would seem to be 'too much', 'too busy' etc., -- it has nothing to do with lag or what peoples' machines can handle or not.
And I know many people dig 8-player games, it's what we're used to, but I've played games like Phantasy Star Online and others with a 4-player multiplayer mindset and honestly I think it's a better approach all around -- each player has more responsibility, it's generally easier to keep track of what's going on, who's doing what, and so on. I always preferred smaller D2 games even, though it was designed with a max of 8 in mind.
Even in D2 8 players often feels too 'busy' to me. I like to have a more detailed and in-depth 'feel' for what the other players are doing. I've also found it generally creates an atmosphere that is socially more apt to create strong feelings of camaraderie, lasting gameplay friendships, etc...
the problem with having a max larger than 4 is that the game just starts to get muddled. they want d3 gameplay to feel a little bit more streamlined and less of a spamfest.
having 8 people in a game would not only be visual soup, but would be a hard encounter to balance. remember, d3 is going a *slightly* more coordinated and thoughtful approach at combat, with the changes to pots, health orbs, etc.
I think their thoughts are "there are going to be LESS characters doing more complicated things, rather than MORE characters flying around spamming pots and their best ability"
so the net amount of shit going on will be about the same.
the problem with having a max larger than 4 is that the game just starts to get muddled. they want d3 gameplay to feel a little bit more streamlined and less of a spamfest.
having 8 people in a game would not only be visual soup, but would be a hard encounter to balance. remember, d3 is going a *slightly* more coordinated and thoughtful approach at combat, with the changes to pots, health orbs, etc.
I think their thoughts are "there are going to be LESS characters doing more complicated things, rather than MORE characters flying around spamming pots and their best ability"
so the net amount of shit going on will be about the same.
Im pretty sure you can have a coordinated and thoughtful approach to a boss encounter or dungeon or something like that with 8 players just as well as 4
I don't think anyone disagrees with that necessarily, the point is this: when you've got 8 people attacking a boss or even clearing a level, they don't -really- have to know what they're doing past 1)drink pots and 2)spam skill of choice.
With 4 players there's a bit more challenge involved; it's harder for someone to not pull their weight. You will always have a better idea not only of what you're doing but of what everyone else is doing. It's not that this isn't possible with 8 players, but it's harder, there is 'soup' and even if you're good at reading the 'soup' it gets old and boring really fast.
i did read one of the developers saying 8 people is possible but not pretty.
to me its just like cod4, i have a party of 4(me included) that play constantly.
we would play groundwar which is like 20players. we noticed the quality
of the game for us is alot better with less players.
more elbow space
you create a bond
the team flatters each other properly
most of all it becomes much more intimate because you know your team.
well, thats what ive expirienced. so my magic number is 4. id say 5
because id like to see what all the classes look like.
thats why id like to start a party in anticipation:cool:
Considering we know how the game looks you should know 6 or 5 players would not be pushing low end comps unless low end to you is crap from 2000 with a 32 meg vid card lol.
Thats exactly what i mean with low end comps >.> im talking about the shittiest of the shitty, no offense to those who have them most don't most hasve an update 2005 2006 computer still i know i have one from 07 a crappy macbook and im looking to get a 1.4k gming comp with a at radeon HD 4870x2 which is extremely fast pretty sure itll be able to run D3 on maxed setting with at least 30 fps maybe evenn more but back to my point they're catering to everyone with a computer withing the last ten years. maybe even the past two decades. People do still use those. Just they need to cater to those low end comps so that you can play with everyone completely fine. But i dont even thin they are 4 players max gotta be 6 cuz a 2v2 pvp is just not good enough 3v3 is okay and 4v4 is perfect butt i think 8 will start to strain some graphics card, aka such as the onboard graphics from a computer in 03 or something. they just simply arent enough for the massive skills and effect that would go on in a 4v4.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Not even Death will save you from Diablo Bunny's Cuteness!
Thats exactly what i mean with low end comps >.> im talking about the shittiest of the shitty, no offense to those who have them most don't most hasve an update 2005 2006 computer still i know i have one from 07 a crappy macbook and im looking to get a 1.4k gming comp with a at radeon HD 4870x2 which is extremely fast pretty sure itll be able to run D3 on maxed setting with at least 30 fps maybe evenn more but back to my point they're catering to everyone with a computer withing the last ten years. maybe even the past two decades. People do still use those. Just they need to cater to those low end comps so that you can play with everyone completely fine. But i dont even thin they are 4 players max gotta be 6 cuz a 2v2 pvp is just not good enough 3v3 is okay and 4v4 is perfect butt i think 8 will start to strain some graphics card, aka such as the onboard graphics from a computer in 03 or something. they just simply arent enough for the massive skills and effect that would go on in a 4v4.
10 YEARS? Even 5 years in the world of technology is eternity. 5 years ago they were JUST switching to DDR2, and dual core technology wasn't even on the market. I understand designing for LOWER BUDGET technology, but designing for OLD technology holds back programmers from making truly amazing games.
As far as TWO decades ago, Diablo 1 wasn't even out. DOOM wasn't out. THE INTERNET ITSELF WAS NOT PUBLICLY USED 2 decades ago.
If you expect to be able to play the latest and greatest games, you should atleast have a budget computer appropriate to the era. (Meaning 2-3 year old medium end computer at the least!)
if an old 1998 computer can run windows 7 and d2 it cna sure as hell run d3 on the lowest possible setting. they still do have to cater to many people. i wouldn't be surprised if those people had trouble getting their computers to work with such a game as d3 but it might very well be possible. and maybe i am stretching it and in that case their "low-end" would be anything 2005 + because 2005 computers could run d3 fine on low settings. Now my 1.4k gaming comp would jjust run it maxed But they still cater to booth me and them.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Not even Death will save you from Diablo Bunny's Cuteness!
I highly doubt the game will be playable on a legendary pc such as that. Its possible, but even then on the lowest setting it probably wouldn't be any fun to play considering performance and visual.
I would expect them to cater the game to mid systems more so. Nothing extreme, but a computer running at least 2gb of ram, videocard within the past couple years, and at least a 2.0 ghz processor.
yeah i could even see them getting away with 1.0Ghz but def need an upgrade to a video card. Ram yeah im guessing these 3d graphics will take more ram maybe 1Gb of virtual memory and 2GB physical to actually play the game. i gess your right considering the 2d graphics it might be hard for those comps to play d3. again something lik my 1.4k gaming comp will be a breeze to play this game with 2gb of GDDR5 ram on the videocard an ati radeon 4870x2, a 3.40 GHz processor AMD Phenom II X4 965 black edition, and 8 gigs of DDR3 ram running at 1333MHz. Im pretty sure i won't need an upgrade for a little while. and i do plan on OC to 4 GHz and maybe if i liguid cool 5GHz. NoSSD Though =[ way to expensive 360 for 120 gigs hopefully soon they will lower the price and i can literally play the game as soon as it instals lol
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Not even Death will save you from Diablo Bunny's Cuteness!
Also keep in mind, the game isnt going to be out for what? Atleast 2 years? We're looking at budget quad/8 core processors? 64 bit OSes with RAM 30 bucks a gig? DDR4-5 on video cards and ddr3-4 RAM?
I have a minimum wage job with bills aplenty to pay. If I can set aside a few bucks a week (By a few I mean like $5) to keep my computer up to par, no one should seriously EXPECT to play state of the art games with a computer 2-3 years behind par.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
4v4 would = an 8 player game
but
wow arena is all about the 3's now so I could see a 3v3
but I'm thinking a DotA style pvp should appear, for awesomeness
Considering we know how the game looks you should know 6 or 5 players would not be pushing low end comps unless low end to you is crap from 2000 with a 32 meg vid card lol.
Judging by the size of the areas / aesthetic 'sizes' of things on-screen in general, it looks to me like 4 is the direction they're going toward. 8 would seem to be 'too much', 'too busy' etc., -- it has nothing to do with lag or what peoples' machines can handle or not.
And I know many people dig 8-player games, it's what we're used to, but I've played games like Phantasy Star Online and others with a 4-player multiplayer mindset and honestly I think it's a better approach all around -- each player has more responsibility, it's generally easier to keep track of what's going on, who's doing what, and so on. I always preferred smaller D2 games even, though it was designed with a max of 8 in mind.
Even in D2 8 players often feels too 'busy' to me. I like to have a more detailed and in-depth 'feel' for what the other players are doing. I've also found it generally creates an atmosphere that is socially more apt to create strong feelings of camaraderie, lasting gameplay friendships, etc...
wow arena is the place you can signup with a team to battle other teams in an arena.
having 8 people in a game would not only be visual soup, but would be a hard encounter to balance. remember, d3 is going a *slightly* more coordinated and thoughtful approach at combat, with the changes to pots, health orbs, etc.
I think their thoughts are "there are going to be LESS characters doing more complicated things, rather than MORE characters flying around spamming pots and their best ability"
so the net amount of shit going on will be about the same.
Im pretty sure you can have a coordinated and thoughtful approach to a boss encounter or dungeon or something like that with 8 players just as well as 4
With 4 players there's a bit more challenge involved; it's harder for someone to not pull their weight. You will always have a better idea not only of what you're doing but of what everyone else is doing. It's not that this isn't possible with 8 players, but it's harder, there is 'soup' and even if you're good at reading the 'soup' it gets old and boring really fast.
Because D3 is still about mass pots drinking, right?
In D3 it'd be even worse, as if you're keeping up with the party you essentially don't even need to worry about drinking pots.
I preferred 40 man raids. Part of the reason I quit was the implementation of 10/25 man versions of the same raid, and on top of that easy/hard modes.
That's another discussion all together though.
4 doesn't feel like true online multiplayer to me. I have more friends over on a nightly basis to LAN different games.
moot discussion anyway, they do what they do, and we all know we are going to play regardless. I just hope it's atleast 6 people.
to me its just like cod4, i have a party of 4(me included) that play constantly.
we would play groundwar which is like 20players. we noticed the quality
of the game for us is alot better with less players.
more elbow space
you create a bond
the team flatters each other properly
most of all it becomes much more intimate because you know your team.
well, thats what ive expirienced. so my magic number is 4. id say 5
because id like to see what all the classes look like.
thats why id like to start a party in anticipation:cool:
10 YEARS? Even 5 years in the world of technology is eternity. 5 years ago they were JUST switching to DDR2, and dual core technology wasn't even on the market. I understand designing for LOWER BUDGET technology, but designing for OLD technology holds back programmers from making truly amazing games.
As far as TWO decades ago, Diablo 1 wasn't even out. DOOM wasn't out. THE INTERNET ITSELF WAS NOT PUBLICLY USED 2 decades ago.
If you expect to be able to play the latest and greatest games, you should atleast have a budget computer appropriate to the era. (Meaning 2-3 year old medium end computer at the least!)
I would expect them to cater the game to mid systems more so. Nothing extreme, but a computer running at least 2gb of ram, videocard within the past couple years, and at least a 2.0 ghz processor.
I have a minimum wage job with bills aplenty to pay. If I can set aside a few bucks a week (By a few I mean like $5) to keep my computer up to par, no one should seriously EXPECT to play state of the art games with a computer 2-3 years behind par.