DiabloFans

yeah the pots exist but have a cooldown to prevent hoarding and overusing them making the encounters easier/simpler. and as mentioned by Jay i think, every boss fight will have ways to find health globes (the regular fights will have globes anyway) so its just about how you'll approach the encounter to tactically use the globes.

i dont think it makes a real difference between hardcore and softcore. its not like the softcore people like to die (or as if the Diablo III dev team makes things so that they will die) so i dont think its an issue. Its only the people that play (just like sc) very well and dont die that will be better in hardcore

i think they should remove the numbers 60, 70, 80 and 85 from all future Blizzard games that arent related to Warcraft because they all remind of World of Warcraft /facepalm

seriously now, what's more important? a game that will be balanced and interesting up to end-game or a game that has a number people like because people like it?

*edit* did that last part make any sense? i almost loled at my english.

Quote from Gheed2010

Quote from FingolfinGR

they wouldnt do "research" with a franchise as big as Diablo. toying with that fanbase would give them more to lose than the profits of that specific "research".

your arguements are ridiculous.

Of course, Fing. Why would a company that revenues almost a billion and a half do a silly thing like throw less than 2% of that at a project not necessarily intended for release? Even if it provides a means to attract and retain some of the industry's best talent, while keeping them from working elsewhere, and helps keep millions of fans on the hook to the brand and playing the real cash cow all the while.

Even though your country is having some economic problems at the moment (as is mine) I'm sure that when new leaders like you take over, things will change for the better with this kind of thinking. :thumbsup:

right, a game that's in development for about 7 years, been completely scrapped and started over hiring new people, has some of the best professionals around in their area is just "a research project" wasting millions just to keep the programmers from being hired to other companies (lol). and many many Diablo fans arent into WoW (if you were on this forum around 2006-2008 you'd know better) and either never played or stopped playing (me included). WoW will be kept alive a little longer through the new battle.net with Diablo III and Starcraft II. i explained it too many times.

i've been in sales for a while to know what sells and what not. i know that Diablo II sells even as we speak while the WoW sales have substantially dropped over the last couple years. i also know that the game card sales have also dropped and the retailers are trying to lure customers through lower prices (without much success).
I also know that awesome new action RPGs are coming later this year and early 2011 and that WoW will loose subscribers to them (cause as you said "why pay every month when i can have a good game to keep me for a good while paying only once?"). Diablo III being released as soon as its done will help Blizzard cut their losses and generate some more profit on the long run.

Those millions of fans that are on the hook for Diablo III (you're right, they're there) will be pissed off if they indefinitely postpone the game as they did with Ghost, which was a very different (and new) kind of game.

and even though i havent studied economics to help my country in the current situation, i managed to pick up quite a few things working in the videogames sales.


PS. good thing you decided to quit this thread cause clearly you got nothing useful (or that simple makes sense) to say. God help the next thread you decide to troll.

Quote from Gheed2010

Quote from FingolfinGR

at least i can communicate in 3 languages, what's your excuse for not understanding simple valid things?

Of course you can, chief. And, sure, 1.4 annually > .3 once - well, even Pythagoras himself would be stumped by math like that, right?

all i did was take YOUR logic about Blizzard postponing Diablo III because it would reduce the subscriptions of WoW and turned it against you mentioning great RPG releases during 2011. its certain that WoW will loose subscribers to those games and Blizzard has to get the customers back one way or another. Only with Diablo III with the unified franchises through battle.net they'll have friends playing all 3 games, thus having more chances to add another gamecard for WoW and/or getting Starcraft II.

simple and absolutely logical. keep throwing your kindergarten maths on the forums, everyone knows you're trolling.

i want to see gameplay acts 1&2 and environments/concepts for 3&4.
also voted for "other" since i want to see the final character class (that's almost certain) and higher tier skills for all classes.

the problem with "in house competition" is getting solved through the new battle.net, stop argueing about it.
with the new battle.net people from Diablo 3, Starcraft II and WoW will be able to talk to each other without having to change games. this has some pretty positive results for Blizzard:

1. people that prefer say Diablo 3 from WoW will stay in touch with friends that still play WoW - ending up playing WoW sometimes to help them with X dungeon or Y raid.

2. enthusiastic friends tend to talk alot. and when there's epic gameplay moments, they'll talk to their friends that play another Blizzard game - that's like advertising.



now even though Diablo III is a RPG its way different than WoW (not MMORPG - faster paced etc etc) in many ways and what's really the danger for WoW is its age only. Blizzard (in some interviews i read over the summer) said that if some "real" competition shows, they have plans to make it free to play with microtransactions to make money from (they do have a plan with the coming of Star Wars MMO).

and as a final point - many people that dont even play games at the moment are waiting for Diablo III. a little hype like Blizzard knows it and there's gonna be a new record in sales again. and they can always use good publicity about (another) bestseller they made.

and to those complaining about how they "cut" or "reduce" the game length there's a pretty easy point to make to prove "you're all wrong".

they arent cutting or reducing anything. they're in the process of creating it right now and they plan to make it like Diablo II. Not much bigger or shorter. but it seems the game itself will be even more interesting from what i read in another interview. which is kinda cool actually. (the interview's been sent to the news staff, they'll probably make an article and publish it soon enough).

you can read the original here

Keeper of Balance: finish all optional quests given by necromancers.

Someone's in a Hurry: finish the game without finishing any side quest.

Someone finally listened!!!: listen to all of Deckard Cains dialogues.

Master Tactician: kill 1000 enemies by using the environment.

Careless: trigger 100 traps.

more curious if its possible to give negative reputation. havent seen an option so far (could be me).
and its one thing to give negative rep to a post and another to report it.
some things just look like spam and if a few clicks made it easier to hide them, would make it harder for trolls to... troll. and if a member had too much bad reputation and his posts got hidden (with a show button of course) it would very much discourage annoying behaviors overall.

i didnt read all of the precious posts naturally (10 pages make a big read, i'd rather finish with the last book of the Sin War trilogy :P) but i'll make my point anyway.

first gameplay video we saw on release, they said that the drops were "planted". so no actual random drops from monsters were there. that mentioned, there was a short bow dropping and yet we never saw a character class released to use it. the Ranged archetype is still missing so it would all make sense if we had one that mainly uses ranged weapons to kill things (as we have the wizard that mainly uses ranged spells but has some melee range spells too - those magical weapons that kill masses infront of her are awesome).

now if you've read the Sin War Trilogy you'll notice a certain character that was a great hunter named Achilios. He used bows as a weapon of preferrence and a dagger for close range. add some traps to it and we might aswell have our 5th class.

your logic stops making much sense at the point where you expect all of the classes to be played the same way. where's the fun in that? i know it and i'm pretty sure Blizzard knows it too, that's why they make all classes be played in a well different way from each other. and since we got already 2 melee and 2 magic based classes, the fifth one should cover the one thing that's not

just my opinion, though, let's see if my logic is shot down at Blizzcon this year

its not lupus

That settles it, I'm going monk+templar. Screw synergies and magic and crap, I'm going holy!

Hello good people. I'm a long time lurker on diablofans.
I now felt it was time to take the leap and register so that I maybe can contribute to this fine community.

Gotta say that admins and moderators are doing one heck of a job. Keep it up boys (and girls?).

See you around!

Quote from Siaynoq

Quote from AnathemicOne

Just adding some thoughts of mine concerning Bin Laden's death.

Al Quaeda still has a chain of command, most likely the second-in-command (whose name escapes me right now) will take charge of the group, and with the Bin Laden's death, I expect a serious backlash from them on the world (most likely America again) in the near future.

War on Terrorism isn't over yet.

His name is al-Zawahiri.

And no, the war on terror will never be completely won. And I don't wish to understate the threat of terrorism, but just like the effort to fight it, so too does terrorism require a lot of money and energy and manpower. It has setbacks just like governments do. And terrorists constantly have to operate in secret where governments can openly fight them.

I'm not sure what my point is really. I'm just trying to say that yes we should still take terrorism seriously, but it doesn't have to affect our daily lives. Terrorists are far from being all powerful and they have to work hard every day too to keep terror going at least as much as governments have to work hard to fight them.

I can make cyclonite in my kitchen. I can make an array of deadly explosives with Google and a kiddy chemistry set. A large scale attack takes a lot of planning, but a small one that would STILL cause a lot of unease and terror and still kill dozens of people requires very little hassle.

Quote from Nektu

Quote from Noa

Man am i sick with justifying a crime with "war on terror". But isnt that terrorism what the Us government is doing .... who the hell do they think they are , GOD ? , to go in a country that isnt theirs and wage war and kill thousands of innocent ppl and solving nothing.

When the two planes were flown into the twin towers, that can be taken as an act of war. Innocent people were killed. Innocent people were killed in the plane crash in Pennsylvania. Does that give us the right to go into other countries and get those responsible? IMO, yes.

That is more terror to me than what you people believe osama did, i mean how is it possible that both buildings collapsed in free fall speed , and then what about the building 7 that didnt even get hit and STILL fell in free fall speed.

So you think that attacks that are unexpected, the planes in the buildings, isn't more terrifying that knowing that troops are coming in to kill people? Osama sat back in hiding like a coward and when all was said and done took responsibility for it all. Our government announced what they were going to do. And didn't hide. The other building? What are you talking about?

Interesting how some ppl think the economic crisis is only in europe, USA is indebt to its throat , dont analize the crisis looking only at your person, family or state in wich you live ... look at the whole country its not that good looking.

The economic "crisis" is a global thing. Each economy effects the others.

The first point you made is very, very flawed. The government of the country did not commit an act of war, a sentient organization within that country did. If a group of stupid Americans were to plan an attack on Russia, the US government would not condone the action, and would rush to mend relations with Russia, and I sincerely doubt Russia would wage war on America. The right thing to do is to make sure the government of the country seeks and works to bring down those terrorists. In no way is it a free pass for the victim country to go into that country, completely fucking ruin it, looking for a bunch of guys who wronged them, all the while pillaging the place and causing the death of thousands of innocent people. The real disaster is what's happening in Iraq, but this isn't the topic of discussion here.

As others have pointed out, I think your voting options are flawed from the start. How can you have a "No" and a "Yes" option both followed by "he influenced some of it". That makes no sense. How can I not believe in a high power, but still believe that he influenced anything? Why is there no, "No, there is no higher power" option?

In terms of religious beliefs, I personally go for 'Agnostic Atheism'. Essentially, while I do not believe in a God or higher power, I do not deny the possibility that one exists. I think that human perception is simply too limited to every truly know whether something higher exists. If we could, that would undermine the very concept of a higher power.

You also specify "life on earth as it is today". This obviously makes the odds much much much lower than simply asking about life in general appearing. Life as it is today is the result of millions and millions (if not billions, seeing as how the numbers are a little fuzzy that far back) of years of evolution. With every second of existence, the probability of anything being the way it is goes down. Even so, I can't see how there's any evidence of life as it is today being the result of some higher power. Random mutations combine with favourable conditions and some dumb luck (evolution in a nutshell) to create life as it is today.

With that in mind, I find that science - which attempts to provide evidence and explanations for universal phenomena based on what we can perceive - makes the most the sense. According to (most) scientists and scholars, the probability of life forming here (and elsewhere in the universe) is actually fairly high. It's true that the odds are not at a particularly high ratio, but even taking that into consideration, the sheer volume of other solar systems that exist make it near impossible for me to believe that life does not exist out there somewhere other than here (even if it is very unlike life on earth).

Occam's Razor would suggest that the simplest answer - in this case, the idea that stuff just happened the way it did for no reason - is often the correct one. When it comes to proving the existence of any type of God being, I am going to require direct evidence. If God himself comes down and speaks to me or if I die and go to heaven, that's about it.

Pretty chill dude, seems mature and never really flips shit on anyone. Calm and collected.

You are now officially a bigger source of negativity than me.

You should definitely use the hi-res dfans head on the first page of this thread.

I tried to incorporate it in there but it just dident look right and I tend to be very picky about stuff like that but I will try to get it in there.

ok decided to change a few things up.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RCEG1Ncw5fM