What Mob Density Options Would You Like?

  • #1
    In a recent forum topic blizz have posted asking for mob density ideas

    [Blue Post] I know some people in this thread has linked to Wyatt Cheng's response on this topic already, but I will quote it again to make it more visible for those who haven't seen it yet:-)

    http://www.reddit.co...vw7gf?context=3
    except monster density....I'm so sick of act 3.

    Wyatt: Unfortunately increased monster density in Act 1 and 2 in Inferno difficulty did not make patch 1.0.7. It is absolutely something we would like to improve, and it is still on the list for the future. I spend most of personal play time in Act 3 as well: Keeps 1, Core, Tower, Bridge, Fields. It's a matter of degrees, it'll never all be balanced 100% equal in all zones everywhere you go - but they need to be comparable within a certain tolerance, and we're definitely outside that margin right now.

    [Blue Post] As you can maybe gather from this, we totally would like for people to feel that they are able to farm any Act they wish without being worried about efficiency, and we are looking into various ways to make this happen. We are not yet able to share any specifics in regards to what exactly is on the table though, but we will of course let you know as soon as we are able.

    Feel free to post your own thoughts the kind of "mob density options" you would like to have in the game, as such feedback would be helpful to us :-)

    http://eu.battle.net...page=6#new-post

    (sorry not sure how to link the quote)

    In my opinion having a Monster Density option like MP is the best option so far however I feel it needs more than just a number increase. Example if you currently farm mp 1 at your most efficient if you put MD on 10 and MP on 1 you will get many more drops but the difficulty for some builds will be nearly the same as now some (possibly barb) will be easier.
    Some how the MD needs to be an extra challenge as well as just more mobs, an option could be to add MD in with the current MP scaling up as the MP.

    Have you ideas on what the system could be?


    Off topic...Is it me or has there been a more positive feel and better announcements form blizz since JW posted he is moving, this post being one.
  • #2
    It would be great to see two different kind of monster powers: One is the current one, and another that buffs the mob density. In this different kind of MP ranged classes would shine.
  • #3
    Put more density in random dungeons?
    sto lavorando
  • #4
    First step for Blizzard should be to roughly equate the monster density through the Acts, so we can farm wherever we want, not just 3 locations in Act 3

    Then they should decide about introducing a Monster Density Level, just like Monster Power is implemented... but it isn't as easy as it looks.
    More monsters = more EXP and more drops.
    But if we have a simple monster multiplier, then everyone will start playing at maximum density, the time to get to Paragon 100 will be severely lower and the Auction House will get flooded by the insane amount of drops, resulting in further damage to the economy.

    So I guess that Blizzard will set their desired XP/loot amount per run on some level, and with each Monster Density level the XP and drop chance per monster will be lowered, so no matter what Monster Density we play at, we get roughly the same amount of XP/loot. If they don't implement it like this, then everyone will feel forced to play Monster Density as high as possible in order to "maximize efficiency".

    On the other side, the rewards could be bigger with each Monster Density level, but then Monster Density would have to increase the damage the mobs deal, so it will require very good gear to play at maximum Monster Density - like in Diablo 2, not everybody could run the Cow Level.
  • #5
    I think the solution could be rather simple. Implementing another MP system would be useless imho. Everyone would be running the highest option anyway, and new players would run probably the lower ones.

    I would leave it as it is when running MP0 or MP disabled. When selecting MP1 or higher, new density would trigger. It should be on par with current Act III, as I think it is currently allright. However, they should also increase the number of elites in other acts (especially Act IV). Problem also is inconsistency -> in the same act, say Act II, you have maps/regions with ok or super density (say Vault of the Assassin) and other regions are almost empty in comparison.If it would be averaged in all of the maps in a way that xp or loot per hour would be brought closer across all regions, that would be great and farming whole acts could be more fun and more effective.

    Also "buffing" random dungeons would be awesome. Now usually the only benefit is occasional goblin and somewhat guaranteed resplendant chest. Make chests appear only at the end of random dungeons and make them drop more valuable treasure (higher chance for legendary perhaps?). They already buffed events which was a great move.

    I would also make Act IV a bit more special. Make it less trash mobs and more elites/champions. The elites density should be almost ridiculous (but not overpowered). Sou you could have a choice, less xp but a little bit more loot in Act IV, or more XP in other acts. It also makes sense, Act IV is onslaught and invasion of demons. They probably brought the strongest liutenants of hell there.

    If the made it very well balanced, we would noe have more options. Ofcourse there would still be places that are more efficient then others, but if they brought it closer together, so that the difference would be at most around 10%, the problem would be solved. Now Act III alkaizer's route is 2 times or more efficient as anything else, basically. Both XP and loot.

    It's no easy task but would make it much better and enjoyable game.
  • #6

    Put more density in random dungeons?

    I like this one.
    But maybe have it randomize all maps? All maps and quests are kind of random, so why not the mob density?
    And maybe let increased MP also affect mob density?
    MP1 is ?% harder and gives ?% more xp and the same % more mobs?
  • #7
    Mob density in act 1, 2 and 4 should be on par with act 3. There are a few zones ( oasis and desert in act 2) where you can run for two or three screens without a mobs. A crying shame.

    But as for introducing a Monster Density slider... it depends.

    In a precedent patch, they buffed trash mobs HP and lowered the power of elites. If trash mobs were to be a bit buffed as to really become a challenge when you bump up monster density... or if it were to increase the density of the thoughest monsters... that could be good.
  • #8
    They should just put your toon on a conveyer belt that makes mobs move past you. Each one you kill drops loot you can pick up later. This whole "moving around" thing has gotten tedious. Having areas with different numbers of mobs is silly, too. Just like in life, no matter where you go, population density is the same.
  • #9
    1. Monster Density should be fairly the same across all Acts.
    2. In case this seems unreasonable (who wants to fight a pack of 60 Act 2 wasps all at once, just for the density?), there is 2.

    1a. If Monster Density is the same across all Acts, then no issue with Monster Density exists.

    2a. If Monster Density is not the same across all Acts, then it is possible that on Inferno MP1-10, the monsters from Acts 1,2, and 4 can get a modifier (hidden, not an in-game mechanic) to their loot rolls, to augment the fact that less of them exist compared to Act 3. In other words, you kill 20 monsters in Act 1, and get the same 'amount' of loot as you would from killing 40 monsters in Act 3. The net result of this is that people who want to fight bigger battles would still do Act 3, while people who do not care for the battle size would feel okay doing other Acts. Each Act would be as farmable, providing the character can kill 40 monsters as efficiently as they can kill 20.

    2b. In the event that a loot roll modifier is implemented, and experience modifier is also implemented, so that killing 20 monsters in Act 1,2,and 4 yields a similar amount of experience to killing 40 monsters in Act 3.

    2c. The net result is that Act 3 will be considered "only good" for those who choose more monsters over less monsters. And it will make act 3 "only bad" for those who would rather kill tiny packs of monsters, leading to player choice being the determining factor between which Act to play in.

    1b. In the event that option 2 and its proponents fails to work properly, we just have to choose our poisons. If 4 wasps spawn in Act 2 now, and they increase the density of wasps, (let's say they "double it"), then for every single wasp that would normally spawn, 4 will spawn instead. Then, instead of facing 1-4 wasps, you face 4-16 wasps, or lacunis, etc. - or from Act 1, 4-16 poison trees, [insert annoying monster here] - in Act 4, 4-16 corrupted angels, or [insert annoying monster here].

    1c. Of course, the logic in 1b has some examples in Act 3. For instance, we don't actually get 4-16 succubi, or 4-16 Fallen Maniacs. But we do get large packs of skeletons, and other "fodder" monsters, which is probably what would increase, and probably what people would want to see.

    Under no circumstances should they start introducing new "systems" (such a Monster Density Level), in order to fix inherent design issues with the same. This is simply not satisfactory.
  • #10


    Put more density in random dungeons?

    I like this one.
    But maybe have it randomize all maps? All maps and quests are kind of random, so why not the mob density?
    And maybe let increased MP also affect mob density?
    MP1 is ?% harder and gives ?% more xp and the same % more mobs?

    Static maps should have their density as is. This is to maintain the setting of the plot. Though it is acceptable that some sort of MP system can be used to increase it because MP isn't part of the plot.

    However, random dungeons should definitely have more mob density especially as you go deeper. I also want more floors on these random dungeons or more area per floor or both.
    sto lavorando
  • #11

    Static maps should have their density as is. This is to maintain the setting of the plot. Though it is acceptable that some sort of MP system can be used to increase it because MP isn't part of the plot.

    However, random dungeons should definitely have more mob density especially as you go deeper. I also want more floors on these random dungeons or more area per floor or both.


    Agreed, as long as they don't devise a "Monster Density Level", which would pretty much defeat the purpose of "Monster Power Level". If they choose to roll it into one, that's fine.

    On the dungeons, they solved this issue in D2, for example in Durance, where the higher the difficulty setting, the large the dungeon became. I'm not sure if D3 is set up to accomplish this though.
  • #12
    Why adjust the monster density, seams like a big hassle.

    Just adjust the drop chances and exp based on mob density = problem solved.

    Sure maybe you kill half as many zombies in act 1 compared to scorpions in act 3, but what the heck if they drop twice as much and give twice as much exp. This is a much easier fix then making all zones be the same, this way you also get other specs, not everything going for the best possible AoE spec there is.

    You could even make it dynamic, so if the player is rushing around killing lots of stuff super fast = lowers drops and exp, this would make it so that even if you enjoy farming in Act 3, you don't have to go to just the 3 areas with the highest mob density. It would be even better if you "wasted" some time running into side areas with lower density but higher drop rate mobs.

    So make drops/exp relate to the mob density (and I would like to add difficulty) = easier way to make all zones more attractive.
    Winter is coming...
  • #13
    I wouldn't really like for them to introduce another system. If they add a system where we choose how much mob density we have in the game, I can't see anyone not maxing it. I mean, most builds benefit greatly from that. I'd even change some of my own builds to make use of the insane amount of enemies.

    A lot of builds (already considered too good compared to anything else - WW Barb, Grave Injustice WD, Archon Wiz) benefit greatly from mob density. Giving us an option to increase it ourselves demotes build diversity even more.

    I'd rather if they just made all Acts equally dense/good for farming. That's a pretty complex (and big) change in itself, and it would be more than enough imho.
  • #14
    I'd second that - just increase mob density in act 1 and 2 (I think act 4 is fine, it's just that there are too few areas). And I think that's what Blizzard will change in the end. Yet another slider for mob density doesn't feel right somehow, and the idea of giving mobs in act 1+2 higher droprates doesn't solve the Archon uptime problem at all.
  • #15
    The point of asking for options is to try to innovate. Blizzard's point of view on this seems to be the in the region of: "as much as we try to balance it people would still find a "best route" of sorts and tell us it's not balanced". I'm sure they welcome new ideas into the mix.

    But yes, if at all possible, just adjust the other Acts accordingly.
  • #16
    Two things would open the game up beyond Act III:

    1) Adjust mob density to even it out between all Acts - I'd say bring the others up to Act III density
    2) Allow for full-game access -- all way points through all Acts. In other words, if you have the final checkpoint in Act IV for Inferno, select that and now you can go to any waypoint in any act while keeping stacks.

    Yes, people would still find the 5-10 most effective zones to farm for a min-maxed efficiency route but it would definitely open the experience up.

    Beyond that, a further wishlist to deal with variation and mob density would definitely be randomized maps, endless dungeons, etc. I suspect we'll get there over time, through expansions, etc.
  • #17

    Two things would open the game up beyond Act III:

    1) Adjust mob density to even it out between all Acts - I'd say bring the others up to Act III density
    2) Allow for full-game access -- all way points through all Acts. In other words, if you have the final checkpoint in Act IV for Inferno, select that and now you can go to any waypoint in any act while keeping stacks.

    Yes, people would still find the 5-10 most effective zones to farm for a min-maxed efficiency route but it would definitely open the experience up.


    I agree with you on point 1 and think that Blizzard is definitely looking at making Acts 1 and 2 commensurate with Act 3 and not vice-versa.

    I also think that, along the lines of #2, killing Inferno Diablo should unlock "farming mode" or wtfever they want to call it. Farming mode would consist of: all waypoints available, inter-act travel, and all bosses alive. With appropriate farming experiences in each act and all bosses and waypoints available, that would truly allow people to hit the areas they like best.

    I'm sure that, no matter what they do there will be one spot that's 2% better than the rest, and that's ok. Knowing that you can port to any WP and slaughter monsters and have very similar XP/hr and drops/hr should be enough. They'll never be exact, and we'll live with that, but very close is all that's necessary.

    Personally I'd love to get 5 stacks, clear some of my favorite areas (Leoric's Manor, Rakkis Crossing, Keeps 1, 3 - fuck 2 and those suicide guys, Cathedral 2, 3, 4, Vault of the Assassin, Black Canyon Mines through Alcarnus, the Keywardens, and whatever bosses are fairly accessible - Siegebreaker, Azmodan, Skeleton King, Maghda, Zoltan Kulle, Belial, Rakanoth.

    That would be a great run (for me). It'd have enough variety that I wouldn't get bored of it. It'd be long enough that I didn't finish it in 15 minutes and have to start over.

    I'd also love for sub-zones to feel like something you get excited about finding. Perhaps they need to have more randomized locations but also have better density and more rares/champions. You know, so that you can't just look for them like you would for the Watch Tower.
    66.0k elite kills :: 1.97m total kills :: p244
    Planet Express <PlanEx>
    (V) (°,,°) (V)
  • #18

    I'd also love for sub-zones to feel like something you get excited about finding. Perhaps they need to have more randomized locations but also have better density and more rares/champions. You know, so that you can't just look for them like you would for the Watch Tower.


    Phase Beasts. Kgo.
  • #19

    Why adjust the monster density, seams like a big hassle.

    Just adjust the drop chances and exp based on mob density = problem solved.


    This is a valid idea.



    I wouldn't really like for them to introduce another system. If they add a system where we choose how much mob density we have in the game, I can't see anyone not maxing it. I mean, most builds benefit greatly from that. I'd even change some of my own builds to make use of the insane amount of enemies.

    A lot of builds (already considered too good compared to anything else - WW Barb, Grave Injustice WD, Archon Wiz) benefit greatly from mob density. Giving us an option to increase it ourselves demotes build diversity even more.

    I'd rather if they just made all Acts equally dense/good for farming. That's a pretty complex (and big) change in itself, and it would be more than enough imho.


    I agree with this too. I would like to see more monsters though, somehow. Act 3 offers some really nice, huge, epic battles. In Act 1 and Act 2, not so much. You either get small, trite battles with a few huge ones in-between, or annoying battles (wasps, trees, etc.) that you just want to avoid.

    Act 4... yea, I don't see any reason to go to Act 4 after getting the plans for Infernal Machine, plans for Staff of Herding (just to have it - since Whimsyshire is simply not worth the time), and killing Diablo. Other that that, Act 4 is pretty much off limits, imo.


    The point of asking for options is to try to innovate. Blizzard's point of view on this seems to be the in the region of: "as much as we try to balance it people would still find a "best route" of sorts and tell us it's not balanced". I'm sure they welcome new ideas into the mix.

    But yes, if at all possible, just adjust the other Acts accordingly.


    Well, of course people are going to find the best routes possible. I don't think either you or I disagree with that. There will always be people who want to find the mathematically "best route" for gaining Paragon XP, farming elites, and so on. That type of player will continue to exist.

    After doing tons of Act 3 runs though, I came by an Act 2 route posted here the other day. It's a nice, simple route, and very quick. Sure, I don't get the massive fights and tons of elites, but I am able to get in a game, get my 5 stacks, farm the Vaults, and get out. I probably get less XP overall, and less loot overall while doing it, but it's something new and fresh, and it will keep me playing.

    Likewise, if a route for Act 1 existed like that, I would be all for it. I don't mind doing key runs - do crypts to get 5 stacks then run around in Fields of Misery to kill the Keywarden picking up any needed NV stacks along the way. In fact, I WANT to do runs like that.

    I recall in the beta when Bashiok told us about NV, and how its purpose was to entice us to kill elites instead of farming bosses, to keep us in the same game. At this point, it has evolved to playing in the same game for hours, basically almost clearing Act 3 on the highest MP possible. Either that, or doing the same route in Act 3 on MP0 which is no challenge, more of a speed run, and lets you just see more of Act 3 over and over again.

    They completely missed the fact that players WANT to do runs. And if the runs aren't available as part of the game plan (ie. Meph runs, CS runs, etc.), then players will find ways to create them. Many players would rather do 4 x 30 minute runs than one 2 hour run.
  • To post a comment, please or register a new account.
Posts Quoted:
Reply
Clear All Quotes