Blizzard is working on including the Mystic back into the game, but it’s still not clear what unique feature she might offer.
Rule #1 of Grammar Nazism: Make 100% sure you're right. While some style guides (Associated Press, Economist) might agree with you, others (Chicago Manual of Style for example) occasionally seem to be okay using plural for collective nouns. The question is whether you consider the company as an entire unit (as in, "Blizzard has lots of employees") or the individuals of this company (it's not the company working on the Mystic, but its developers). Going with singular you're right in almost all cases, but sometimes the plural isn't wrong either. It's more of a stylistic issue. By the way, as a non-native speaker it still "sounds wrong" whenever I hear commentators referring to a sports team using plural (Manchester United are rubbish), but I've learned to accept that all languages have their counter-intuitive quirks.
On topic: I LOVE that they stress again that e-sports is off the table for now. Focus on PvE and fix that first, thanks. By the way, some of you seem to be a bit self-centered if you think that just a couple of suggestion topics are the reason why the Mystic will come back. Many people still haven't realized how close the Mystic was to being part of the release version. It's not like without the community's suggestion they would be unable to develop a game. In fact, all suggestion are based on beta concepts and have only small "novel ideas", so please give credit where credit is due.
The Diablo team draws a lot of inspiration and even “some direct ideas” from the community and even mentioned specifically some of our “Suggestion” articles that have gained some good popularity
Which ones?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The little boat gently drifted across the pond exactly the way a bowling ball wouldn’t...
Were you forced to ask questions about the console version to get this interview? Can't think of any other reason why you'd ask any questions about it otherwise.
Just because you're not interested in console (and I'm not interested in console news, either) doesn't mean no one else on DFans is. There are lots of people interested in the console, plus it's just the one thing most of the devs are working on right now.
Yeah Karyna's the mystic, but where did you get the info that Mira was a mystic too? I've listened to most dialogs/letters between Haedrig and Mira but didn't pick that up.
Player: Tell me more about your wife.
Haedrig: I broke her out in the middle of the night, and we escaped. They didn't chase us far. I guess they were glad to see her go.
Player: Not many care for witches.
Haedrig: She wasn't a witch. She was a mystic. Though we didn't find that out for a time, not until we started traveling with a Vecin wagon train. But that's another story for another time.
Why do they have to make paragon account wide? Why not just make the highest MF/GF bonus of the entire account apply to all characters.
If they made no changes to paragon then that would be fine. But:
There are talks about making Paragon levels account-wide, so that you don't feel like you're losing experience while playing your Paragon 100 character. Also potentially adding customization like stat allocation to it
If additions to the Paragon system are made, people that already have the required Paragon level will get the rewards on patch day
If you get extra bonuses like stats or even in game perks, then you'd be back to feeling like you're playing the game wrong by not being on your highest paragon.
No, it's separate character development.
For instance I have a level 100 paragon wizard, but right now I am playing my DH and she is paragon 41. I don't feel gimped in power by playing my 41 DH because I know I need to progress her separately and get her just as strong. To me, it's no different than having a level 60 monk and a level 30 wizard. The only way I have felt hindered on her is by losing the 300 MF/GF that my wizard has at level 100. I enjoyed starting her at level 60 no paragon and watching her progress to 41 and I will enjoy progressing her to paragon 100. I don't want her to just automatically be 100 and have nothing to do on her and lose any sense of progression. I want her to gain exp and actually play her and power her up, even if just a minimal amount per level. The reason I don't play my wizard anymore is because I don't gain experience so I don't really feel a sense of progression, all I do is play item lottery by killing monsters which isn't that fun lately because if I spend 4 hours farming and gain nothing I don't even have paragon level progression to feel I did something worthwhile. We shouldn't be striving for less things to do, but more things, and making paragon completely account bound would do just that.
What I would really like to see is have an insane paragon level cap (or another champion system with 100 extremely difficult levels that take thousands of hours to progress through), and you gain absolutely no benefits, it's strictly just for bragging rights and showing how long you have played your character in comparison to others. So at least you are progressing in some way at all times, even if just for vanity.
To be clear, in case there are any misunderstandings my stance would be to have any perks that don't affect character strength (MF, GF, vanity items) should be account-wide based on the highest paragon level and any character development progression should be based on that specific character's personal paragon level (stat points, paragon skills).
I think with account wide paragon levels they mean that the exp you get from playing with a P100 character will transfer over to some kind of buffer that you can distribute to other characters on your account. That would make sense - making all your characters P100 wouldn't really. What would be the fun of that?
They didn't miss the launch window for the new consoles because of any obsession with quality - they missed it for the same reason they shipped a mediocre game, never really made PVP, and will be lucky to ship an expansion in under two years.
But this is inevitable when a corporate culture spends a dozen years moving away from actual focus on their products and promotes people based on their ability to play politics.
Rule #1 of Grammar Nazism: Make 100% sure you're right. While some style guides (Associated Press, Economist) might agree with you, others (Chicago Manual of Style for example) occasionally seem to be okay using plural for collective nouns. The question is whether you consider the company as an entire unit (as in, "Blizzard has lots of employees") or the individuals of this company (it's not the company working on the Mystic, but its developers). Going with singular you're right in almost all cases, but sometimes the plural isn't wrong either. It's more of a stylistic issue. By the way, as a non-native speaker it still "sounds wrong" whenever I hear commentators referring to a sports team using plural (Manchester United are rubbish), but I've learned to accept that all languages have their counter-intuitive quirks.
On topic: I LOVE that they stress again that e-sports is off the table for now. Focus on PvE and fix that first, thanks. By the way, some of you seem to be a bit self-centered if you think that just a couple of suggestion topics are the reason why the Mystic will come back. Many people still haven't realized how close the Mystic was to being part of the release version. It's not like without the community's suggestion they would be unable to develop a game. In fact, all suggestion are based on beta concepts and have only small "novel ideas", so please give credit where credit is due.
Which ones?
Just because you're not interested in console (and I'm not interested in console news, either) doesn't mean no one else on DFans is. There are lots of people interested in the console, plus it's just the one thing most of the devs are working on right now.
http://diablo.wikia.com/wiki/Haedrig_-_Conversation_Achievement
Top 10 Solo Wizard Leaderboard - North America
Highest: Rank 6 // Greater Rift 42 12m40s
No, it's separate character development.
For instance I have a level 100 paragon wizard, but right now I am playing my DH and she is paragon 41. I don't feel gimped in power by playing my 41 DH because I know I need to progress her separately and get her just as strong. To me, it's no different than having a level 60 monk and a level 30 wizard. The only way I have felt hindered on her is by losing the 300 MF/GF that my wizard has at level 100. I enjoyed starting her at level 60 no paragon and watching her progress to 41 and I will enjoy progressing her to paragon 100. I don't want her to just automatically be 100 and have nothing to do on her and lose any sense of progression. I want her to gain exp and actually play her and power her up, even if just a minimal amount per level. The reason I don't play my wizard anymore is because I don't gain experience so I don't really feel a sense of progression, all I do is play item lottery by killing monsters which isn't that fun lately because if I spend 4 hours farming and gain nothing I don't even have paragon level progression to feel I did something worthwhile. We shouldn't be striving for less things to do, but more things, and making paragon completely account bound would do just that.
What I would really like to see is have an insane paragon level cap (or another champion system with 100 extremely difficult levels that take thousands of hours to progress through), and you gain absolutely no benefits, it's strictly just for bragging rights and showing how long you have played your character in comparison to others. So at least you are progressing in some way at all times, even if just for vanity.
To be clear, in case there are any misunderstandings my stance would be to have any perks that don't affect character strength (MF, GF, vanity items) should be account-wide based on the highest paragon level and any character development progression should be based on that specific character's personal paragon level (stat points, paragon skills).
Top 10 Solo Wizard Leaderboard - North America
Highest: Rank 6 // Greater Rift 42 12m40s
But this is inevitable when a corporate culture spends a dozen years moving away from actual focus on their products and promotes people based on their ability to play politics.