I heard that they were considering making it 5. Personally they should make it 8, leave the option there for the players! even if there is allot going on in the screen. Its great to know a player far away somewhere is doing something while your doing something else. I hope they wont make it so that when someone joins they automatically spawn next to you. This is not sonic the hatch hog or jack jazz rabbit. This is Diablo.
Any news on the PK system? will they allow in game betrayer ability? someone in your team betrays your team or has a counter quest to sabotage your teams performance to get rewards or even pk one of the players? Will they at least give us options? or will they force changes upon us like diablo 2?
Id hate to see some asianised fair play guildwars game.
Id hate to see some asianised fair play guildwars game.
You have to wonder what is wrong with society and people when "fairness" becomes an object of despicable taste. I can understand your worries about PvP development, whether or not the system will be improved. But please tell me how fairness would deteriorate a Dueling system? Unless you are some "poor bastard" who likes to take advantage of weaklings to compensate for your impotent dueling skills. (Which I'm not saying you are.) But if you weren't then what would fair game play take away from you?
How would ruining someone else's gaming and questing experience be fulfilling? And please give me one good (and hopefully logical) reason as to why Blizzard should reward delinquant behavior in their masterpiece of a game. Why would they choose to let people (maybe like you) run rampant and terrorize normal folks out of a good gaming experience when they created a plathora of Monsters to fill just that role?
If you wish to be the nemesis of all that walks and breathes, why don't you go and play an MMORPG?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]Diablo 3, Hottest shit to happen to 21st Century Entertainment since Georges "Rush" St-Pierre.______________ --------~~Mattheo's Quote of the day~~---------
----------Brought to you by Diablofans.com Forums -------- Originally Posted by mattheo_majik
I LOVE being a SEX TON!!!
How would ruining someone else's gaming and questing experience be fulfilling? And please give me one good (and hopefully logical) reason as to why Blizzard should reward delinquant behavior in their masterpiece of a game. Why would they choose to let people (maybe like you) run rampant and terrorize normal folks out of a good gaming experience when they created a plathora of Monsters to fill just that role?
Why should everyone have the same objective as to defeat evil? why? Being able to Pk gives the game a huge diversity, and allows more freedom for the individual who plays the role of his class. Why should players be confined to boundaries set by the game designer? all the great games allow players the freedom to play the game as they wish in their style. Why should we all be the good guy? And strive for the same goals?
If you give the server options then players can simply choose not to enter servers that have PK enabled. There problem solved everyone’s happy! No dramas no mess! It allows two distinctly different players to play the one game, allowing more of a market for the Diablo franchise. From a business standpoint its not hurting anyone, nor is it from a client standpoint or a developers standpoint either. Having options is the key, lack of them makes for repetitive game play.
Why should everyone have the same objective as to defeat evil?
No one said you had to have the same objective....That's why they invented open ended games such as (Oblivion...) that let your creative mind roam free. You should be playing an open ended, non linear sandbox game that features no imposing plot enabling you to do what you want.
It's not because Blizzard announced that they were making D3 more consequential to player action that it automatically makes it non linear. The game is still 100% driven by plot and story. You just get to have slight variations in minor game objectives. The game in it's core hasn't changed. If it did, it only became even more of what it was created to be; A fast pace action Hack n Slash with hints of RPG features along with great replayibility through limited randomness. Not even close to what your talking about.
Not saying your point isn't valid altogether, it's just not valid through this medium which is "Diablo".
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]Diablo 3, Hottest shit to happen to 21st Century Entertainment since Georges "Rush" St-Pierre.______________ --------~~Mattheo's Quote of the day~~---------
----------Brought to you by Diablofans.com Forums -------- Originally Posted by mattheo_majik
I LOVE being a SEX TON!!!
Having options is the key, lack of them makes for repetitive game play.
In other words, you think D3 should be an unfair game for a purpose? The only unfair thing about D2 is that when you make a game inviting people to quest, some moron comes and hostiles you forcing you to leave the game and restart wasting your precious time that you did not plan to spend that way. If you want an unfair and brutal PvP game, maybe you should try WoW. In that game you don't even hostile people to warn them, nor can they just 'leave the game' and escape combat. You can keep killing someone for hours on an end without a warning and its not even restricted by level. Diablo is not about that. There are no opposing factions. Take a look at what you said here:
Quote from "Dynaverse" »
Why should everyone have the same objective as to defeat evil? why? Being able to Pk gives the game a huge diversity, and allows more freedom for the individual who plays the role of his class.
Because, incidentally, all characters DO have the same objective. Straying from that means straying from the lore. I play a WD and someone joins his Barbarian, the guy who killed Diablo 20 years ago, and WTF? He is trying to kill me?
Quote from "Dynaverse" »
4.... is shocking..
It must be shocking for a person who can't grasp the concept behind the word 'balance'. Let eight people spam all of their spells at the boss at the same time and it must make for a very 'tactical' experience. Also in D2 if you wanted to do a full 8p game you could wait for hours without having enough people join. If you get 5-6 people you're lucky. The other 5-6 people might not have enough patience for the 8th guy to join. D3 is not about waiting forever to start doing things - its about joining a game and doing things immediately. And I don't remember a single thing that REQUIRED more than 2-3 people in D2 to be done successfully. Now when you make a game and play solo, you are only 3 people away from a full game versus being 7 people away from a full game - meaning that you are rewarded for a 1/4 instead of 1/8 of the drop chance.
It must be shocking for a person who can't grasp the concept behind the word 'balance'. Let eight people spam all of their spells at the boss at the same time and it must make for a very 'tactical' experience. Also in D2 if you wanted to do a full 8p game you could wait for hours without having enough people join. If you get 5-6 people you're lucky. The other 5-6 people might not have enough patience for the 8th guy to join. D3 is not about waiting forever to start doing things - its about joining a game and doing things immediately. And I don't remember a single thing that REQUIRED more than 2-3 people in D2 to be done successfully. Now when you make a game and play solo, you are only 3 people away from a full game versus being 7 people away from a full game - meaning that you are rewarded for a 1/4 instead of 1/8 of the drop chance. __________________
Simply put I dont know anyone who will buy the game to play it online with 4 people. If your refering to balancing, look at guildwars, you can have massive PVP battles with alot larger groups than 4 people. Not to mention its highly diverse in the range of skills. Now I'm not saying that we should make guildwars the benchmark for Diablo III by all means NO! All I'm saying is that you can have equal balance with a larger group of players. The drop system doesn’t come into question! Nor does the fact that you can complete it with a grouop of 2 players or less. The only thing that comes to question is whether there is too much efx on the screen, so much so that you can't make out whats going on. I think at the very least allow the option! let the fans be the judge of it. You can jump on my back about balancing and what not but when the time comes and you have the option of 4 and 8 players, which will you choose?
In other words, you think D3 should be an unfair game for a purpos
The key word "option". Why do people have such a problem with it. If you give the option for the sever then I don't see how any of this comes into effect. You simply avoid PK servers, thats all, or filter it away on your search!
Because, incidentally, all characters DO have the same objective. Straying from that means straying from the lore. I play a WD and someone joins his Barbarian, the guy who killed Diablo 20 years ago, and WTF? He is trying to kill me?
Historical relevance has nothing to do with game options.
We still don't know. They were considering 4, but they said in an interview with IGN they're considering 8.
Simply put I dont know anyone who will buy the game to play it online with 4 people.
People bought D1 didn't they?
Quote from "Dynaverse" »
If your refering to balancing, look at guildwars, you can have massive PVP battles with alot larger groups than 4 people. Not to mention its highly diverse in the range of skills.
Guild wars is a 'turn-based' MMO (essentially - since you have global cooldowns after each spellcast). D3 is a game where you can split your player into four, while each of them casts chain lightnings, and your friend casts bouncing firebombs with AoE effects while his 5 minions wreck havoc spreading fire and disease all around. All of those spells in one screen, or one boss or one group of mobs. What happens when there is 8 people?
Quote from "Dynaverse" »
You can jump on my back about balancing and what not but when the time comes and you have the option of 4 and 8 players, which will you choose
I will choose 4. With so many things on screen I wouldn't even have the satisfaction of knowing that my spells are even visible or that they have any significant effect. After 2 or 3 players it stops making any difference from what I can see. And I also believe that the difficulty of a full game should be scaled so that every player in the game must participate to the fullest. That is what makes things tactical. What is tactical about 50 damaging skills and effects dancing on screen at any time. I would also choose 4 because I know that more than 3 or 4 players was overkill for doing ANYTHING even in D2, and I do not want to be penalized with 1/8 drops for playing solo and I do not want to wait forever for a full game if there ever is a need for one. D3 is not going to be an uber-popular game FOREVER and they better start thinking ahead. Look at what happened of D2 now? Poor ballance killed the game.
Quote from "Dynaverse" »
Nonsence. I'm saying it should not be overbalanced. A highly balanced game is a highly boring game!
You better keep that opinion to yourself until we are sucked into a dimension where Blizzard is actually aiming to build unfair and unbalanced games. Because fairness and balance are simply - boring!
Anyways, 4 isn't really that surprising. Could you even imagine what it would be like having 8 wizards in a game shooting off twisters and magic missiles with multistrike runes or whatever else is in them? Nobody would know what was even going on. It becomes more difficult to balance when you increase the number of players because there it is easier to cover each others weakness, not to mention the sheer amount of damage that would be on the screen at any time. System requirements would also shoot up dramatically as you multiply the amount of physics interactions that need to be processed. This drops everyone with a lower end PC out of large parties completely and further penalizes them because now they only get 4/8 or 5/8 or x/8 max experience. It isn't conducive to party play, it isn't conducive to the community, it isn't that surprising of a decision.
Some people are worried about things like trading and dueling, but we haven't seen what features Battle.net 2 may hold to assist with trading (ie item linking) and special arrangements can be made to support games for duels that are small, don't have many physics interactions, and support more players.
Actually, no. More players = higher difficulty = more monsters = more XP for the group = just as much XP for each individual player.
So in a 8 players game, there might be 4 times more monsters which give 2 times more XP, so 2x4 = 8 times more XP, but divided by 8 players : 8/8 = 1.
And for physics, actually, no. If you increase the number of physics interactions, it won't slow down. It'll slow down if you increase the number of physic objects.
More players doesn't necessarily lead to a higher difficulty if every monster is being obliterated by the mass of spells that would be spammed on the screen bypassing any monster weaknesses because there would just be so much shit going on. Higher difficulty doesn't necessarily mean more monsters, this is a design choice (and has implications on system requirements). If the XP is equal, this does nothing for group play then. There is no reason to join a large group because the XP would remain the same. You need to increase the amount of XP for each individual in the group, but doing this has repercussions because an individual who can't join a large party due to system requirements or a desire to know what is going on is losing out on bonus XP. With a smaller max party sizes (eg 4), players can still know what is going on, have a wider arrangement of players to party with due to lower system requirements (keeping in mind aesthetics is still important to many players), and even if they only want to play with a small group of players they don't lose out on as much XP as they would with larger max party sizes. Smaller max party sizes also allows for easier understanding of player interactions during scripted and boss events (which becoming increasingly chaotic with more players).
Your second paragraph doesn't make sense to me. The load on the CPU is determined (amongst other things) by the number of calculations per [time] it needs to process and the number that it actually can process. If you "increase the number of physics interactions" (ie the number of calculations) this leads to a higher CPU load. The "number of physics interactions" also increases with an increased number of monsters in play, which is something YOU suggested.
Actually, no. More players = higher difficulty = more monsters = more XP for the group = just as much XP for each individual player.
So in a 8 players game, there might be 4 times more monsters which give 2 times more XP, so 2x4 = 8 times more XP, but divided by 8 players : 8/8 = 1.
1/8 is less then 1/4, genius. If the player cap was 100, that wouldn't mean 100x more exp/drops, it would only mean that you get 1/100 of exp/drops when you play solo etc (the curve is actually even more brutal than that because one additional player scaled for 1/2). Also, in D2 more players meant LESS difficulty. You really don't know what you are talking about.
You better keep that opinion to yourself until we are sucked into a dimension where Blizzard is actually aiming to build unfair and unbalanced games. Because fairness and balance are simply - boring!
The easiest way to achieve balance is by keeping everything under powered. Its much more difficult to achieve balance with chaotic levels of power...but thats where the fun really begins. I would say D2 had some pretty insane levels of power that made it fun, and it was relatively balanced in that every class had the ability to be pretty awesome in its own way...although it certainly wasn't even. T1 Mtg is the only example I can think of for a game that manages to consistently achieve incredible balance alongside chaotic power.
I think that when people think balance, they automatically think of the default way to achieve balance which is just to keep everything underpowered.
Option to make completely pointless, unbalanced, spell-cluttered games filled with mindless noobs? If you offer people an option to do that, it will become a common efficient practice and games with a moderate number of players would no longer be an 'option'. This can be observed in D2 and HGL. People have an 'option' to instantly obtain godly character levels and what happened? No one chooses the slow and painful 'option'.
It would be like saying: "Hacks are bad, but make them an OPTION. OPTIONS DON'T HURT". Well they do in this instance. People don't want this to be dumbed down where it doesn't need any more dumbing down. The general gameplay style is already as simplistic as possible, and for people who see and appreciate beyond the visual stimuli of this or that art style, there has to be some substance, tactical and intellectual challenge - call it what you want.
I think you have mistaken "hack" for "scalable / dynamic difficulty".
I think you have mistaken "scalable / dynamic difficulty" with "let's give this boss another 500000 HP to make it fair". Its not about reducing the damage of the spells or increasing the HP of the mobs. The thing is when you have 8 people with completely different types of spells spamming them together all at once, there's no sense of tactic or cooperation. The game should not be about summarizing the damage of all players into a number that will be enough to kill a boss. It is about having a variety where the spells of one class complement the spells of another class to ultimately make for a successful battle. Its something that you can't grasp at this moment but one day you may.
EDIT: Also, imagine for instance, though unlikely but quite possible, 8 Wizards in a single game splitting into five. 40 Wizards on one screen each with a variety of devastating spells and effects? How do you 'scale' that down? The only alternative would be to strip Diablo of all the interesting spells and leave it with boring, uninspired spells which all look alike and essentially do the same thing - ala Guild Wars. If that is your idea of scaling the game for many players than no thanks.
Any other circumstance (requirements, gfx options, spam, balance multipliers, difficulty levels, loot etc) canbe fixed, some of them require more effort, but there is always a workaround.
The only thing that can not be fixed ist lag, net code can only be optimized so far.
But other games, even FPS games, where ping is way more vital, support 8 players (and often more), mostly without problems.
There is no reason not to offer it at least.
When creating a game you should be able to set:
Number of max players up to 8,
Hostility on/off.
That’s it. OPTION.
Totally Agree. Everyone who has a problem with the option should go jump of a cliff. Stop defending such a simple thing as giving people a choice. I don’t know what type of generation gamers alot of you are, but Ive been playing the original Diablo series since it was out. I believe allot of you cant second that! I love this series and I love to have options in this game. Options to play it the way i want to with the amount of players id like to. Options don’t hurt anyone, and if your so hard headed to see that then, I do truly feel sorry for you. Stop flaming the concept of "free will!".
This statement is nonsense. Balance is KEY. That was why D2 pvp was so satisfying, minus enigma and guided arrow zones prior to 1.10.
Balance is good to a extent. Your statement is nonsense, probably incurred from a lack of gaming experience. Play several games then come back and make a comment. Overbalancing hurts everyone. A great example is the nerfed barb diablo 2 whirlwind skill. You spend ages working to get it good and they cut it in half as far as damage goes. Total bs.
Finally if blizzard is reading this, i have one key word of the day, OPTIONS, options, options, options options, give people options.
Balance is good to a extent. Your statement is nonsense, probably incurred from a lack of gaming experience. Play several games then come back and make a comment. Overbalancing hurts everyone. A great example is the nerfed barb diablo 2 whirlwind skill. You spend ages working to get it good and they cut it in half as far as damage goes. Total bs.
Finally if blizzard is reading this, i have one key word of the day, OPTIONS, options, options, options options, give people options.
Using words like incurred doesn't make your argument any stronger if you don't use them properly. It is amusing though. I played diablo 2 since release for about six years, starcraft and warcraft 2 before that, super nintendo and nearly every worthwhile game on it before that. So don't lecture me--with deliciously unwarranted self-importance--about how I need more gaming experience.
Absolute balance is key in any and every game. Would you have preferred that the terrans emerge as the undisputed best race in starcraft? Really, if this is something that even Dimebog and I agree on, it's rather fundamental. And getting something this fundamental so incredibly, hilariously wrong says alot about your gaming experience and intellect.
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
Using words like incurred doesn't make your argument any stronger if you don't use them properly. It is amusing though. I played diablo 2 since release for about six years, starcraft and warcraft 2 before that, super nintendo and nearly every worthwhile game on it before that. So don't lecture me--with deliciously unwarranted self-importance--about how I need more gaming experience.
Absolute balance is key in any and every game. Would you have preferred that the terrans emerge as the undisputed best race in starcraft? Really, if this is something that even Dimebog and I agree on, it's rather fundamental. And getting something this fundamental so incredibly, hilariously wrong says alot about your gaming experience and intellect.
He used the word properly. I agree with what you're saying, but can you say it without attacking petty things like grammar?
He used the word properly. I agree with what you're saying, but can you say it without attacking petty things like grammar?
Attacking grammar isn't petty when the person using advanced vocabulary to make themselves seem more intelligent is using it wrong. Statements are not incurred. Expenses, damage, etc are.
A petty attack would be calling someone out for saying your instead of you're.
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
Attacking grammar isn't petty when the person using advanced vocabulary to make themselves seem more intelligent is using it wrong. Statements are not incurred. Expenses, damage, etc are.
A petty attack would be calling someone out for saying your instead of you're.
You've been on this forum too long bud.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Any news on the PK system? will they allow in game betrayer ability? someone in your team betrays your team or has a counter quest to sabotage your teams performance to get rewards or even pk one of the players? Will they at least give us options? or will they force changes upon us like diablo 2?
Id hate to see some asianised fair play guildwars game.
You have to wonder what is wrong with society and people when "fairness" becomes an object of despicable taste. I can understand your worries about PvP development, whether or not the system will be improved. But please tell me how fairness would deteriorate a Dueling system? Unless you are some "poor bastard" who likes to take advantage of weaklings to compensate for your impotent dueling skills. (Which I'm not saying you are.) But if you weren't then what would fair game play take away from you?
How would ruining someone else's gaming and questing experience be fulfilling? And please give me one good (and hopefully logical) reason as to why Blizzard should reward delinquant behavior in their masterpiece of a game. Why would they choose to let people (maybe like you) run rampant and terrorize normal folks out of a good gaming experience when they created a plathora of Monsters to fill just that role?
If you wish to be the nemesis of all that walks and breathes, why don't you go and play an MMORPG?
--------~~Mattheo's Quote of the day~~---------
----------Brought to you by Diablofans.com Forums --------
Originally Posted by mattheo_majik
I LOVE being a SEX TON!!!
Why should everyone have the same objective as to defeat evil? why? Being able to Pk gives the game a huge diversity, and allows more freedom for the individual who plays the role of his class. Why should players be confined to boundaries set by the game designer? all the great games allow players the freedom to play the game as they wish in their style. Why should we all be the good guy? And strive for the same goals?
If you give the server options then players can simply choose not to enter servers that have PK enabled. There problem solved everyone’s happy! No dramas no mess! It allows two distinctly different players to play the one game, allowing more of a market for the Diablo franchise. From a business standpoint its not hurting anyone, nor is it from a client standpoint or a developers standpoint either.
Having options is the key, lack of them makes for repetitive game play.
No one said you had to have the same objective....That's why they invented open ended games such as (Oblivion...) that let your creative mind roam free. You should be playing an open ended, non linear sandbox game that features no imposing plot enabling you to do what you want.
It's not because Blizzard announced that they were making D3 more consequential to player action that it automatically makes it non linear. The game is still 100% driven by plot and story. You just get to have slight variations in minor game objectives. The game in it's core hasn't changed. If it did, it only became even more of what it was created to be; A fast pace action Hack n Slash with hints of RPG features along with great replayibility through limited randomness. Not even close to what your talking about.
Not saying your point isn't valid altogether, it's just not valid through this medium which is "Diablo".
--------~~Mattheo's Quote of the day~~---------
----------Brought to you by Diablofans.com Forums --------
Originally Posted by mattheo_majik
I LOVE being a SEX TON!!!
Because, incidentally, all characters DO have the same objective. Straying from that means straying from the lore. I play a WD and someone joins his Barbarian, the guy who killed Diablo 20 years ago, and WTF? He is trying to kill me?
It must be shocking for a person who can't grasp the concept behind the word 'balance'. Let eight people spam all of their spells at the boss at the same time and it must make for a very 'tactical' experience. Also in D2 if you wanted to do a full 8p game you could wait for hours without having enough people join. If you get 5-6 people you're lucky. The other 5-6 people might not have enough patience for the 8th guy to join. D3 is not about waiting forever to start doing things - its about joining a game and doing things immediately. And I don't remember a single thing that REQUIRED more than 2-3 people in D2 to be done successfully. Now when you make a game and play solo, you are only 3 people away from a full game versus being 7 people away from a full game - meaning that you are rewarded for a 1/4 instead of 1/8 of the drop chance.
The key word "option". Why do people have such a problem with it. If you give the option for the sever then I don't see how any of this comes into effect. You simply avoid PK servers, thats all, or filter it away on your search!
Historical relevance has nothing to do with game options.
Fingers crossed!
Guild wars is a 'turn-based' MMO (essentially - since you have global cooldowns after each spellcast). D3 is a game where you can split your player into four, while each of them casts chain lightnings, and your friend casts bouncing firebombs with AoE effects while his 5 minions wreck havoc spreading fire and disease all around. All of those spells in one screen, or one boss or one group of mobs. What happens when there is 8 people?
I will choose 4. With so many things on screen I wouldn't even have the satisfaction of knowing that my spells are even visible or that they have any significant effect. After 2 or 3 players it stops making any difference from what I can see. And I also believe that the difficulty of a full game should be scaled so that every player in the game must participate to the fullest. That is what makes things tactical. What is tactical about 50 damaging skills and effects dancing on screen at any time. I would also choose 4 because I know that more than 3 or 4 players was overkill for doing ANYTHING even in D2, and I do not want to be penalized with 1/8 drops for playing solo and I do not want to wait forever for a full game if there ever is a need for one. D3 is not going to be an uber-popular game FOREVER and they better start thinking ahead. Look at what happened of D2 now? Poor ballance killed the game.
You better keep that opinion to yourself until we are sucked into a dimension where Blizzard is actually aiming to build unfair and unbalanced games. Because fairness and balance are simply - boring!
Anyways, 4 isn't really that surprising. Could you even imagine what it would be like having 8 wizards in a game shooting off twisters and magic missiles with multistrike runes or whatever else is in them? Nobody would know what was even going on. It becomes more difficult to balance when you increase the number of players because there it is easier to cover each others weakness, not to mention the sheer amount of damage that would be on the screen at any time. System requirements would also shoot up dramatically as you multiply the amount of physics interactions that need to be processed. This drops everyone with a lower end PC out of large parties completely and further penalizes them because now they only get 4/8 or 5/8 or x/8 max experience. It isn't conducive to party play, it isn't conducive to the community, it isn't that surprising of a decision.
Some people are worried about things like trading and dueling, but we haven't seen what features Battle.net 2 may hold to assist with trading (ie item linking) and special arrangements can be made to support games for duels that are small, don't have many physics interactions, and support more players.
More players doesn't necessarily lead to a higher difficulty if every monster is being obliterated by the mass of spells that would be spammed on the screen bypassing any monster weaknesses because there would just be so much shit going on. Higher difficulty doesn't necessarily mean more monsters, this is a design choice (and has implications on system requirements). If the XP is equal, this does nothing for group play then. There is no reason to join a large group because the XP would remain the same. You need to increase the amount of XP for each individual in the group, but doing this has repercussions because an individual who can't join a large party due to system requirements or a desire to know what is going on is losing out on bonus XP. With a smaller max party sizes (eg 4), players can still know what is going on, have a wider arrangement of players to party with due to lower system requirements (keeping in mind aesthetics is still important to many players), and even if they only want to play with a small group of players they don't lose out on as much XP as they would with larger max party sizes. Smaller max party sizes also allows for easier understanding of player interactions during scripted and boss events (which becoming increasingly chaotic with more players).
Your second paragraph doesn't make sense to me. The load on the CPU is determined (amongst other things) by the number of calculations per [time] it needs to process and the number that it actually can process. If you "increase the number of physics interactions" (ie the number of calculations) this leads to a higher CPU load. The "number of physics interactions" also increases with an increased number of monsters in play, which is something YOU suggested.
EDIT: Also, 'more monsters'? Wtf?
The easiest way to achieve balance is by keeping everything under powered. Its much more difficult to achieve balance with chaotic levels of power...but thats where the fun really begins. I would say D2 had some pretty insane levels of power that made it fun, and it was relatively balanced in that every class had the ability to be pretty awesome in its own way...although it certainly wasn't even. T1 Mtg is the only example I can think of for a game that manages to consistently achieve incredible balance alongside chaotic power.
I think that when people think balance, they automatically think of the default way to achieve balance which is just to keep everything underpowered.
also about this "4" "no no i want 8!" bullshit, cut it out alright.
with 4 players you'll have:
It would be like saying: "Hacks are bad, but make them an OPTION. OPTIONS DON'T HURT". Well they do in this instance. People don't want this to be dumbed down where it doesn't need any more dumbing down. The general gameplay style is already as simplistic as possible, and for people who see and appreciate beyond the visual stimuli of this or that art style, there has to be some substance, tactical and intellectual challenge - call it what you want.
Your argument is unreasonable and sentimental.
Because cooperation is required in an mmorpg. Hence the inherent idiocy of the game type.
edit:
This statement is nonsense. Balance is KEY. That was why D2 pvp was so satisfying, minus enigma and guided arrow zons prior to 1.10.
"Because "half-assed" is not a "style"." - DragoonWraith, champion of character customization and legimitate art direction in D3
EDIT: Also, imagine for instance, though unlikely but quite possible, 8 Wizards in a single game splitting into five. 40 Wizards on one screen each with a variety of devastating spells and effects? How do you 'scale' that down? The only alternative would be to strip Diablo of all the interesting spells and leave it with boring, uninspired spells which all look alike and essentially do the same thing - ala Guild Wars. If that is your idea of scaling the game for many players than no thanks.
Totally Agree. Everyone who has a problem with the option should go jump of a cliff. Stop defending such a simple thing as giving people a choice. I don’t know what type of generation gamers alot of you are, but Ive been playing the original Diablo series since it was out. I believe allot of you cant second that! I love this series and I love to have options in this game. Options to play it the way i want to with the amount of players id like to. Options don’t hurt anyone, and if your so hard headed to see that then, I do truly feel sorry for you. Stop flaming the concept of "free will!".
Balance is good to a extent. Your statement is nonsense, probably incurred from a lack of gaming experience. Play several games then come back and make a comment. Overbalancing hurts everyone. A great example is the nerfed barb diablo 2 whirlwind skill. You spend ages working to get it good and they cut it in half as far as damage goes. Total bs.
Finally if blizzard is reading this, i have one key word of the day, OPTIONS, options, options, options options, give people options.
Using words like incurred doesn't make your argument any stronger if you don't use them properly. It is amusing though. I played diablo 2 since release for about six years, starcraft and warcraft 2 before that, super nintendo and nearly every worthwhile game on it before that. So don't lecture me--with deliciously unwarranted self-importance--about how I need more gaming experience.
Absolute balance is key in any and every game. Would you have preferred that the terrans emerge as the undisputed best race in starcraft? Really, if this is something that even Dimebog and I agree on, it's rather fundamental. And getting something this fundamental so incredibly, hilariously wrong says alot about your gaming experience and intellect.
"Because "half-assed" is not a "style"." - DragoonWraith, champion of character customization and legimitate art direction in D3
He used the word properly. I agree with what you're saying, but can you say it without attacking petty things like grammar?
Attacking grammar isn't petty when the person using advanced vocabulary to make themselves seem more intelligent is using it wrong. Statements are not incurred. Expenses, damage, etc are.
A petty attack would be calling someone out for saying your instead of you're.
"Because "half-assed" is not a "style"." - DragoonWraith, champion of character customization and legimitate art direction in D3
You've been on this forum too long bud.