Diablo 2 was way too easy with 8 players. There was no real difficulty whatsoever. I'd rather have the game as difficult with any sized party instead.
Completely agreed, with 8 players in a game the only challenge was getting to the good drops first. Hell just became a place to farm gear, and had almost nothing to do with being fun and challenging.
There are MANY viable ways to make a game challenging. Increase the monsters' damage, increase their HP, write better A.I, etc. Decrease the player cap at the expense of gameplay isn't one of them.
I think personally we have enough games that you can play with 8+ players. I'm relieved to finally have one I can play with a close knit group of friends. 8 players and challenging just doesn't work, it has nothing to do with hp or damage, it's a hacknslash game, you can't make it challenging with 8 players without taking some of the hacknslash out, it would eventually feel like raiding in MMOs. I trust them that they've found a good balance between cooperation and difficulty.
Besides the absence of the necromancer (hands down the funnest character to play in D2, period, and the absurdly lame Witch Doctor doesn't count), my biggest disappointment with D3 is the downsize of online player capacity from 8 to 4.
I just simply don't understand this decision at all. A 4 players limit????!!!!! This doesn't even incorporate a party with all 5 characters!!! Not to mention more characters will undoubted come out with expansion packs (we all know it will be coming). In the realm of online gaming, 99% of the time, more is merrier. One of the best fun to be had on D2 was to fight high level bosses with a full 8 men party: A spectacular chaotic mosaic of spells and martial arts moves and explosions against the minions of hell ensured. To me, reducing 8 to 4 is the equivalent of having 50% less fun to be had. 4 men doesn't feel like a party, it feels like a pathetic little squad of loners with no friends.
Speaking of friends, I was extremely excited to be playing D3 with the enhanced Battle.net 2.0, one of the biggest frustrations on D2 was not being able to communicate with online friends outside of the game at all because of the limitations of the then Battle.net 1.0. Unfortunately Blizzard just had to shoot down my excitement as I learned that I can only play with 3 other friends at any one time......
I just utterly fail to understand the reason behind this decision from a gameplay standpoint.
Has Blizzard ever explained the reason?
You should really try to do a 'tiny' bit of research before you rant like that, Jay Wilson has clearly explained his reasoning behind the facts of 4 player cap, and truthfully they're all 100% understandable and good reason's why the player cap should be 4
You say 4 players doesn't feel like a party, when ironically 8 and above is what truly doesn't feel like a 'party' sorry but standing around and having WAYYYYYY to much information going through my screen and feeling like im not even contributing to the party doesnt feel 'awesome', 4 player cap allows more diversity and ALOT more depth in combat
Not really going to bother talking about the Necro / Witch Doctor, seeing as its that purely a subjective opinion, where as even though i enjoyed the Necro alot, the Witch Doctor seems like it will be just the same amount of fun
There are MANY viable ways to make a game challenging. Increase the monsters' damage, increase their HP, write better A.I, etc. Decrease the player cap at the expense of gameplay isn't one of them.
Can't get much more irony then that in one sentence, making the 4 player cap is improving the gameplay, having an 8 player cap in Diablo 3 will be at the expense of gameplay
There are MANY viable ways to make a game challenging. Increase the monsters' damage, increase their HP, write better A.I, etc. Decrease the player cap at the expense of gameplay isn't one of them.
Lets assume Diablo III will have 2 expansions. Both expansions will add one character class into the game.
With 7 classes, 8 people in a game, there are 5,764,801 combinations of different party setups that can be made.
With 7 classes, 4 people in a game, there are just 16,384 combinations of different party setups that can be made.
It's nigh impossible to balance a little less than six million combinations to be about as viable. It's somewhat possible to balance sixteen thousand.
Adding to the balancing problems, increasing monster stats to compensate for a large player cap isn't a good solution. Using Diablo 2 as an example, if Blizzard were to increase the HP, and damage output on monsters to a high enough level to be challenging for 8 players, then comes the problem where if a player strays from the group it would be near impossible for that player to survive. This isn't good gameplay; all players in the game would have to be back to back in order to survive. Of course the same thing applies to four players as in Diablo 3, but in a much more manageable level. Diablo is about team play, as said at Blizzcon, but there is a line between urging the player to fight with friends, and forcing a playing to remain with the group.
As mentioned already, Blizzard has tested loads of possible solutions. Following their company philosophy of gameplay first, landing at a four player cap is very likely the best option.
“We act as though comfort and luxury were the chief requirements of life, when all that we need to make us happy is something to be enthusiastic about.” - Albert Einstein
A lot of you reply with the argument that "This was what Blizzard came up with as the most optimum and fun gaming experience".
But why should we let Blizzard spoon feed us into deciding "what's the most fun"? Why should we let Blizzard determine for us how exactly we should play our games?
We should be given the option to have at least 8 players in an online game to preserve that tradition from D2. If some players are against having too much spell effects and pixel mess on the screen, then let them have the option to limit the player vacancy slots in their games. If some players like me wish to have the same 8 men chaotic gameplay from D2, let us have that option too!!!
you have a point. they shouldn't be telling me whats fun. i think that we should have guns instead of spells. thats more fun. and screw 8 players. i want 20! why stop there? every game should just stay open to as many people who want to join.
If I remember right balance wasn't the main point blizzard made when they said they made it a 4 player cap though.
The four player cap was settled upon for both the low level of visual pollution, thus easy read on characters and monsters even during large battles, and balance.
To this many people say, "Well why not 5? Not that much different." We can be sure though that Blizzard thought the same thing, tried it, and didn't like it.
“We act as though comfort and luxury were the chief requirements of life, when all that we need to make us happy is something to be enthusiastic about.” - Albert Einstein
I would rather have solid 4 player games than gimicky, clunky, bad 8 player games. From everything blizzard has said on this subject, that's what 8 players was. So there is your reason.
Now that said, if they developed it from the start specifically with 8 in mind it may have worked..
Letting the cap be decided by us is one of the few YET important things they should allow us to decide, they maybe making the game, but they wont get far without fans BUYING the game.
Millions of people are going to buy the game even if you and your mother don't like it.
Sorry for the harsh words, but i just absolutely hate it when people say things like this. It just reminds me of all those people trying to start a "unlike" campaign on Facebook. They didn't get anywhere and neither will you. I guarantee that you will buy the game, even if it didn't have a multiplayer at all. I'm sorry but simply threatening to not buy the game won't sway blizzard.
And besides, once again, (the horse is still kicking), you are arguing about something that you have not played with for a second, against a dev team of professionals who have played it till their eyes bleed.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
D3anonymous
@Upgradez I could've faceplanted on the keyboard and still killed everything in act 1.
No one listens to me, I said before the """readability""" or too many spell graphics on the screen at any given time was the lamest excuse ever for 4 player cap
BUT THERE ARE OTHER FACTORS as ive said before several times
it mainly comes down to balance, and not flailing on a monster for 10 minutes
it also comes down to if you set a cap of 16 even if its suggested to only play 4 noone will listen,
because players don't always know what is best for them ( as ive also said before several times in other threads -.-)
Spells and attacks in Diablo 3 are bigger, better and a lot more flashy compared to Diablo 2. From what I can see on the gameplay videos, I might get a seizure with 8 people spamming all their flashy skills.
Like everyone else said, 4 seems to be the magical number according to blizzard in terms of readability, which I don't really mind.
is this a joke? 8 player diablo 2 fights were a complete mess. they were not fun at all, it was just a lag fest of flashing bolts that accumulated in you not even knowing who you killed.
Adding to the balancing problems, increasing monster stats to compensate for a large player cap isn't a good solution. Using Diablo 2 as an example, if Blizzard were to increase the HP, and damage output on monsters to a high enough level to be challenging for 8 players, then comes the problem where if a player strays from the group it would be near impossible for that player to survive. This isn't good gameplay; all players in the game would have to be back to back in order to survive. Of course the same thing applies to four players as in Diablo 3, but in a much more manageable level. Diablo is about team play, as said at Blizzcon, but there is a line between urging the player to fight with friends, and forcing a playing to remain with the group.
As mentioned already, Blizzard has tested loads of possible solutions. Following their company philosophy of gameplay first, landing at a four player cap is very likely the best option.
Actually you are very incorrect.
The only way for players in a game to function as a team and to have any sort of cooperation is to eliminate the possibility of solo player surviving.
Take L4D for example. In normal difficulty of the game, no one in the team plays as a team. They all play the game solo, roaming around and do their own things. Why? Because they can.
It is only in the expert difficulty of the game where you actually see all four players sticking closely together and working as a team, watching each other's back, saving each other from monsters, healing and patching up wounded teammates. Why? Because this is the only way in which any of them can survive in the expert difficulty of the game. No player regardless of skill and capability can survive the expert difficulty of the game alone and they all know it, and this is why none of them is doing it.
Gently urging and simply suggesting to players to work together as a team doesn't work, period. This is because it's much simpler and easier to play the game solo than it is to communicate with strangers the player has never met before and trying to work as a team.
The only way for teamwork and cooperation to exist in the game is to make it a necessity, and this holds true for ALL online co-op games. Conclusively, this is why by making online D3 impossible for any solo player to survive, you are enhancing the gameplay because players will be playing the game the way D3 online was meant to be played.
Thus the balancing issue of having 8 players in online D3 is an non-existent issue.
Thus the balancing issue of having 8 players in online D3 is an non-existent issue.
Exactly right. Why? BECAUSE THE PLAYER CAP IS 4.
People, at a certain point, we have to stop arguing about who's assumptions are more correct. We have no factual information about how gameplay in Diablo 3 is affected by the number of players in a party.
What we do have are two camps:
1. People who trust Blizzard to choose reasonable feature constraints, at least until we get a chance to actually play and make an informed personal opinion.
2. People who do not trust Blizzard to choose reasonable feature constraints, and want to make their opinion heard that "4 is not enough."
Both camps have equally valid reasons to exist, based on precedence. Although I've chosen my camp, I really feel like we need to curb this discussion until we all have more factual information to guide our debate. The topic itself is a really important one, but carrying on over the same well-worn rhetorical ground, while lacking any substantive evidence to enlighten those in opposition to your particular viewpoint, just isn't doing anyone any good at this point.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions."
-Thomas Jefferson
Indeed; until we've played the game this is a gray area. Even after release I'm sure there will be a large amount of people who believe eight players is viable, and won't be happy with the four player cap. At the end of the day this is one of those discussions which is based off opinion, thus there can be no right and wrong. End result being each person bringing to the table points they feel are valid to support their opinion. I agree with you completely Dolaiim in that after we have played the game, we'll at least have first hand experiences to speak of. I still expect this concept to be around, seeing as at it's base it's preference and opinion. I for one trust in Blizzard to make a good choice, their track record is outstanding. Also as I've listed I feel more players would make balancing difficult on multiple levels, causing more cons than pros. This, is my opinion.
Edit: Seeing as the Poll reads 48/12 as of now, I see I'm not alone.
“We act as though comfort and luxury were the chief requirements of life, when all that we need to make us happy is something to be enthusiastic about.” - Albert Einstein
Thus the balancing issue of having 8 players in online D3 is an non-existent issue.
Exactly right. Why? BECAUSE THE PLAYER CAP IS 4.
People, at a certain point, we have to stop arguing about who's assumptions are more correct. We have no factual information about how gameplay in Diablo 3 is affected by the number of players in a party.
What we do have are two camps:
1. People who trust Blizzard to choose reasonable feature constraints, at least until we get a chance to actually play and make an informed personal opinion.
2. People who do not trust Blizzard to choose reasonable feature constraints, and want to make their opinion heard that "4 is not enough."
Both camps have equally valid reasons to exist, based on precedence. Although I've chosen my camp, I really feel like we need to curb this discussion until we all have more factual information to guide our debate. The topic itself is a really important one, but carrying on over the same well-worn rhetorical ground, while lacking any substantive evidence to enlighten those in opposition to your particular viewpoint, just isn't doing anyone any good at this point.
Quoting merely one sentence out of the entire text is a very cheap way of censoring what you want people to read and what you don't want them to.
Indeed; until we've played the game this is a gray area. Even after release I'm sure there will be a large amount of people who believe eight players is viable, and won't be happy with the four player cap. At the end of the day this is one of those discussions which is based off opinion, thus there can be no right and wrong. End result being each person bringing to the table points they feel are valid to support their opinion. I agree with you completely Dolaiim in that after we have played the game, we'll at least have first hand experiences to speak of. I still expect this concept to be around, seeing as at it's base it's preference and opinion. I for one trust in Blizzard to make a good choice, their track record is outstanding. Also as I've listed I feel more players would make balancing difficult on multiple levels, causing more cons than pros. This, is my opinion.
Edit: Seeing as the Poll reads 48/12 as of now, I see I'm not alone.
Yes, as I have said again and again before, this is a matter of personal preference.
Some people prefer to play in a smaller squad with only 4 people so they feel more individually significant. And some people like me prefer to play in a larger group with 8 people for the hectic chaotic fun.
The problem is, currently D3 only provide options to the first group to have what they want. People who wish to be playing with more than 3 friends at any given time (to which there are plenty, judging from how many people play 4+ player games in D2), are completely neglected and ignored.
Whether or not any of us have had first hand experience of the game is irrelevant, because I already know what my experience with D3 online will be like: with three other people. All the balancing and considerations and whatnot that Blizzard has put into D3 are insubstantial, because the experience of playing D3 online will remain as a 4 player experience rather than 8, and no amount of balancing, flashy spells, particle effects or pixels will change the concrete fact that the number of maximum player in a game remains a 4.
And to be honest I expected the poll to be in favor of Blizzard's decision. I don't wish to label anyone with the derogatory term of "fanboy", but let's be blunt here, the majority of people who frequent these forums are ingrained fervent fans of Blizzard who support in virtually every decision that Blizzard undertakes.
I'm concerned though, whether some of you are placing too much faith in Blizzard. Blizzard is simply a company, a company is an organization of people working together, and people make mistakes. Granted, Blizzard has a history of making polished, high production value, stellar games. But just because Blizzard has never had a blunder before doesn't mean they will not in the future. Just because my leg has never broken doesn't mean my leg is unbreakable. Just because I haven't died, doesn't mean I am immortal.
And if you think my analogies are absurd, they are not. Blizzard are merely a group of people, and being mere people, to error is an inevitability, just as the breakability of my leg and my mortality.
Putting your faith in Blizzard making the right decision in this regard is considerably more reasonable than saying that a game mechanic is flawed before you've gotten your hands on the game itself. Not to mention the reasons Blizzard has supplied for the 4 player cap (screen clutter and keeping the game challenging for a group while making it so people don't get essentially one shot) make plenty of sense.
Putting your faith in Blizzard making the right decision in this regard is considerably more reasonable than saying that a game mechanic is flawed before you've gotten your hands on the game itself. Not to mention the reasons Blizzard has supplied for the 4 player cap (screen clutter and keeping the game challenging for a group while making it so people don't get essentially one shot) make plenty of sense.
I'm not arguing about game mechanics here. I am not arguing about the usefulness of artisans, runetones, the numerical stats of the each attribute, the teleportation system, etc, those are what you call "game mechanics".
I'm simply arguing that people who wish to be playing the game with more than 3 friends, which we had always been able to in D2, are simply not given the option to do so in D3, which ironically is a direct successor to D2. A lot of people simply wish to be playing the game with more than 3 people at once, and nothing besides adding more player capacity will change that. Therefore whether or not we have yet gotten our hands on the game itself is utterly irrelevant.
This is the equivalent of telling us to try an apple pie first before criticizing it, when all we wanted was a peach pie to begin with. It's irrelevant. No matter how good the apple pie is, it isn't a peach pie.
Don't make the matter more complicated than it is.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
There are MANY viable ways to make a game challenging. Increase the monsters' damage, increase their HP, write better A.I, etc. Decrease the player cap at the expense of gameplay isn't one of them.
You should really try to do a 'tiny' bit of research before you rant like that, Jay Wilson has clearly explained his reasoning behind the facts of 4 player cap, and truthfully they're all 100% understandable and good reason's why the player cap should be 4
You say 4 players doesn't feel like a party, when ironically 8 and above is what truly doesn't feel like a 'party' sorry but standing around and having WAYYYYYY to much information going through my screen and feeling like im not even contributing to the party doesnt feel 'awesome', 4 player cap allows more diversity and ALOT more depth in combat
Not really going to bother talking about the Necro / Witch Doctor, seeing as its that purely a subjective opinion, where as even though i enjoyed the Necro alot, the Witch Doctor seems like it will be just the same amount of fun
Can't get much more irony then that in one sentence, making the 4 player cap is improving the gameplay, having an 8 player cap in Diablo 3 will be at the expense of gameplay
Adding to the balancing problems, increasing monster stats to compensate for a large player cap isn't a good solution. Using Diablo 2 as an example, if Blizzard were to increase the HP, and damage output on monsters to a high enough level to be challenging for 8 players, then comes the problem where if a player strays from the group it would be near impossible for that player to survive. This isn't good gameplay; all players in the game would have to be back to back in order to survive. Of course the same thing applies to four players as in Diablo 3, but in a much more manageable level. Diablo is about team play, as said at Blizzcon, but there is a line between urging the player to fight with friends, and forcing a playing to remain with the group.
As mentioned already, Blizzard has tested loads of possible solutions. Following their company philosophy of gameplay first, landing at a four player cap is very likely the best option.
you have a point. they shouldn't be telling me whats fun. i think that we should have guns instead of spells. thats more fun. and screw 8 players. i want 20! why stop there? every game should just stay open to as many people who want to join.
The four player cap was settled upon for both the low level of visual pollution, thus easy read on characters and monsters even during large battles, and balance.
To this many people say, "Well why not 5? Not that much different." We can be sure though that Blizzard thought the same thing, tried it, and didn't like it.
Now that said, if they developed it from the start specifically with 8 in mind it may have worked..
Millions of people are going to buy the game even if you and your mother don't like it.
Sorry for the harsh words, but i just absolutely hate it when people say things like this. It just reminds me of all those people trying to start a "unlike" campaign on Facebook. They didn't get anywhere and neither will you. I guarantee that you will buy the game, even if it didn't have a multiplayer at all. I'm sorry but simply threatening to not buy the game won't sway blizzard.
And besides, once again, (the horse is still kicking), you are arguing about something that you have not played with for a second, against a dev team of professionals who have played it till their eyes bleed.
@Upgradez I could've faceplanted on the keyboard and still killed everything in act 1.
-Funny troll tweet
We don't know how hectic the combat gets.
Therefore this thread is pointless.
How's that for logic?
BUT THERE ARE OTHER FACTORS as ive said before several times
it mainly comes down to balance, and not flailing on a monster for 10 minutes
it also comes down to if you set a cap of 16 even if its suggested to only play 4 noone will listen,
because players don't always know what is best for them ( as ive also said before several times in other threads -.-)
Like everyone else said, 4 seems to be the magical number according to blizzard in terms of readability, which I don't really mind.
Actually you are very incorrect.
The only way for players in a game to function as a team and to have any sort of cooperation is to eliminate the possibility of solo player surviving.
Take L4D for example. In normal difficulty of the game, no one in the team plays as a team. They all play the game solo, roaming around and do their own things. Why? Because they can.
It is only in the expert difficulty of the game where you actually see all four players sticking closely together and working as a team, watching each other's back, saving each other from monsters, healing and patching up wounded teammates. Why? Because this is the only way in which any of them can survive in the expert difficulty of the game. No player regardless of skill and capability can survive the expert difficulty of the game alone and they all know it, and this is why none of them is doing it.
Gently urging and simply suggesting to players to work together as a team doesn't work, period. This is because it's much simpler and easier to play the game solo than it is to communicate with strangers the player has never met before and trying to work as a team.
The only way for teamwork and cooperation to exist in the game is to make it a necessity, and this holds true for ALL online co-op games. Conclusively, this is why by making online D3 impossible for any solo player to survive, you are enhancing the gameplay because players will be playing the game the way D3 online was meant to be played.
Thus the balancing issue of having 8 players in online D3 is an non-existent issue.
Exactly right. Why? BECAUSE THE PLAYER CAP IS 4.
People, at a certain point, we have to stop arguing about who's assumptions are more correct. We have no factual information about how gameplay in Diablo 3 is affected by the number of players in a party.
What we do have are two camps:
1. People who trust Blizzard to choose reasonable feature constraints, at least until we get a chance to actually play and make an informed personal opinion.
2. People who do not trust Blizzard to choose reasonable feature constraints, and want to make their opinion heard that "4 is not enough."
Both camps have equally valid reasons to exist, based on precedence. Although I've chosen my camp, I really feel like we need to curb this discussion until we all have more factual information to guide our debate. The topic itself is a really important one, but carrying on over the same well-worn rhetorical ground, while lacking any substantive evidence to enlighten those in opposition to your particular viewpoint, just isn't doing anyone any good at this point.
-Thomas Jefferson
Edit: Seeing as the Poll reads 48/12 as of now, I see I'm not alone.
Quoting merely one sentence out of the entire text is a very cheap way of censoring what you want people to read and what you don't want them to.
Yes, as I have said again and again before, this is a matter of personal preference.
Some people prefer to play in a smaller squad with only 4 people so they feel more individually significant. And some people like me prefer to play in a larger group with 8 people for the hectic chaotic fun.
The problem is, currently D3 only provide options to the first group to have what they want. People who wish to be playing with more than 3 friends at any given time (to which there are plenty, judging from how many people play 4+ player games in D2), are completely neglected and ignored.
Whether or not any of us have had first hand experience of the game is irrelevant, because I already know what my experience with D3 online will be like: with three other people. All the balancing and considerations and whatnot that Blizzard has put into D3 are insubstantial, because the experience of playing D3 online will remain as a 4 player experience rather than 8, and no amount of balancing, flashy spells, particle effects or pixels will change the concrete fact that the number of maximum player in a game remains a 4.
And to be honest I expected the poll to be in favor of Blizzard's decision. I don't wish to label anyone with the derogatory term of "fanboy", but let's be blunt here, the majority of people who frequent these forums are ingrained fervent fans of Blizzard who support in virtually every decision that Blizzard undertakes.
I'm concerned though, whether some of you are placing too much faith in Blizzard. Blizzard is simply a company, a company is an organization of people working together, and people make mistakes. Granted, Blizzard has a history of making polished, high production value, stellar games. But just because Blizzard has never had a blunder before doesn't mean they will not in the future. Just because my leg has never broken doesn't mean my leg is unbreakable. Just because I haven't died, doesn't mean I am immortal.
And if you think my analogies are absurd, they are not. Blizzard are merely a group of people, and being mere people, to error is an inevitability, just as the breakability of my leg and my mortality.
Find any Diablo news? Contact me or anyone else on the news team.
DiabloFans: Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, Live Chat
I'm not arguing about game mechanics here. I am not arguing about the usefulness of artisans, runetones, the numerical stats of the each attribute, the teleportation system, etc, those are what you call "game mechanics".
I'm simply arguing that people who wish to be playing the game with more than 3 friends, which we had always been able to in D2, are simply not given the option to do so in D3, which ironically is a direct successor to D2. A lot of people simply wish to be playing the game with more than 3 people at once, and nothing besides adding more player capacity will change that. Therefore whether or not we have yet gotten our hands on the game itself is utterly irrelevant.
This is the equivalent of telling us to try an apple pie first before criticizing it, when all we wanted was a peach pie to begin with. It's irrelevant. No matter how good the apple pie is, it isn't a peach pie.
Don't make the matter more complicated than it is.