DiabloFans

Yea its certainly a better system than D2's resetting of your look.

Exactly. And once you get it working for the PS3 (as in get a good console control scheme, etc) then its even easier to get it on the 360. If they're going to have it on both platforms (which is probably what's going to happen) then they would start on the PS3, so a job posting for PS3 positions doesn't disqualify the 360 at all.

Quote from Xerlane

Having a mouse and keyboard connected to a PS3 seems kinda silly and ruins the "console" feel of the system. Also why don't you just buy a better computer if your old one can't handle it. I'm sure you can get a better computer for less money than that of a PS3

Clearly thats not the case if you already own a PS3.

And the most likely reason they only have PS3 job listings on the site is because they're probably going to end up putting it on the PS3 and 360, but they, like most developers nowadays, are going to make it for the PS3 and bring it over to the 360. Apparently doing it the other way around is considerably more complicated.

I very much doubt D3 would end up being a PS3 exclusive considering Blizzard has never been a company that limits what platforms they release games on (just look at how long they've been putting games on Macs) and Activision rarely, if ever, releases PS3 exclusives.

Well 'pre-D1' is the Sin War novels. The other parts (I assume) are going to be D1 and D2.

All of the effects of the Worldstone, including its suppression of the Nephalem's power, are gone now that the stone is destroyed. However, that probably doesn't mean that all humans will suddenly have the power of the Nephalem, or otherwise there would be no reason for only five heroes, seeing as humanity would be able to more than defend itself.

Quote from Eso

There needs to be an option for too cheap.

Tickets sell for around $300 on ebay, so the price doesn't match demand. Most people that reach checkout buy the maximum number of tickets because even if they can't use them all, they know they call sell them for a profit.

Well I figured that if you thought they were too cheap, that also means they are reasonable for what you get. Or well I guess more than reasonable.

Quote from Eldius

Blizzcon tickets are more expensive than Comic-Con tickets...there is something truly wrong with that.

Well at Comic-Con, the people have to pay to set up booths, so the 'weight' of the cost to put on the event isn't entirely on the customer. At BlizzCon, tickets and the gift store are really the only way Blizzard makes back any of their money. That being said, you do bring up a legitimate point.

Really great stuff. Even though I know everything thats gonna be said your Purgatories are always enjoyable

Ok fine, lets go back 5 pages to discuss why Blizzard shouldn't include options for the sake of options. Sorry that I thought you were actually talking about what I was referring to, but thats fine, you can just apply it to something I wasn't even talking about.

Why should they include something thats entirely unbalanced? Even though the option obviously makes it non-essential, it would still lead to a scenario where some people have builds that rely on them, and therefore would only be able to play in games where that checkmark is checked.

They're not going to include something, even as a checkmark, unless its well balanced. And its simply nearly impossible to balance for reasons I've explained before, and as evidenced by the fact that Blizzard decided it wasn't worth it even though there were probably iterations where followers were available in co-op and higher difficulties.

And on a separate note, you can't honestly accuse me of misinformation. Not only is it impossible for my opinion to even be misleading, seeing as it is, after all, an opinion and not fact, but nearly everything I've said is based on something from Bashiok's posts after the followers were announced. I'm simply presenting what I interpret as Blizzard's reasoning behind the limited follower system because some people seem to have not even read what Bashiok said in direct response to questions like theirs. And lets not forget that you're the only one claiming I'm being misleading, and clearly it hasn't convinced you, so obviously its not a problem either way.

Quote from Legatus1982

Well again jack you can't post without lying. There is no scenario where where an OPTION is somehow essential.

Sure, there's no scenario like that. But theres also no scenario where an option is both non-essential AND useful. Either way theres going to be people who are mad that its essential, or mad that its useless. Thats my point, if you actually bothered reading. Which you didn't.

I'll say it again; there is NO REASON this can't be balanced. There is no reason any feature can't be balanced and again I'm not even going to start discussing options until you stop lying and ironically start calling everyone else childish.

Again, I never said this was the case. I only said it would be EXTREMELY hard work for a balance that could be destroyed the moment someone finds a build that works really well with followers. And theres 97 billion builds, so chances are one would tip the scales in that kind of way.

For the last time, either start reading posts and intelligently contributing to conversations, or leave. Those are your options. Stop being a troll.

Quote from Legatus1982

It IS as simple as a checkbox. And there ISN'T a reason why bliz can't nerf/buff/modify until it is balanced and works if they wanted to take the time.
Until you accept this simple fact and talk some truth your entire argument is pointless.

Here's how most adults handle conflicting opinions:
Person A: My way is the best.
Person B: I disagree, I like my way better.
Both: OK, we'll come up with a compromise.

Here's you:
Jackzor: My way is the best.
Person B: I disagree, I like my way better.
Jackzor: NO! I want it MY way. You're just a big stupid-head.

What is wrong in this scenario?

Now you're just being childish. I clearly laid out reasons why its considerably more complex than just a checkmark, and why no matter how much they balance it, followers will either end up being essential or useless based on the builds people find. You can go look at my previous posts. I'm not going to write all of that up again.

And, for the record, this current system is a compromise. If you've been paying any attention to the controversy surrounding the followers, you would know that when the video was leaked, everyone (or a large, loud group) was outraged that they would be essential for MFing, or other purposes, in the endgame. Once it was announced that they're only usable in Normal, everyone (as in an equally large, loud group) has since been pissed off that they're apparently useless. So Blizzard chose something of an in between scenario where they are available in Normal for anyone who wants to have a follower, and to promote online play.

The thing is, as any person whose had to make compromises before knows, nobody ends up happy in a compromise. So now we have the current scenario.

Also, the reason Blizz isn't nerfing/buffing/modifying the system until it works is because the game's design mentality doesn't fit well with a follower. The idea is for you to feel as powerful as possible, and if you're allowed to use a follower to fill in the blanks of your build that doesn't correspond to you feeling powerful.

Not to mention that its not just a matter of buffing/nerfing it. Because of the insane amounts of builds in the game (97 billion), it would be impossible to take into account all the possibilities. Which means that they could come up with a system that works perfectly in internal testing, only to have it fall apart on Day 3 of the beta because someone discovered an insane build that compliments followers. It would be something they would have to constantly worry about, for a system that not everyone even wants.

Unless you have something to say that actually applies to the followers system (ie something thats not just a troll/personal attack), don't post here again. Take note of all the other people who want followers that I've had legitimate conversations with about the reasons for and against followers, and learn from them.

Well these are all pieces of art and screenshots that Bashiok received beforehand. Its not like they're 'whipping them up' once the page hits a certain amount of likes.

Quote from Legatus1982

Mercs were never essential even in d2 and they most certainly CAN be balanced. Who are you to tell blizzard what they can and can't do? Have you ever programmed a diablo game?
A good place for you to start in this debate would be saying something that is true.

And I dont really care if mercs or followers can be used in pvp, but again I'd prefer having the option. If they aren't balanced in pvp, don't use them in pvp.

Well, for starters, I'm not telling Blizz to do anything. Their own playtesting and iterations led them to the current conclusion to the follower 'problem,' and I'm simply pointing out the reasoning behind it.

And I'm honestly sick and tired of everyone saying 'I just want the option.' Of course you do. That doesn't mean that Blizzard should sacrifice quality just so that you have more options. We all know that its not a realistic solution to just have it be a checkmark. If it doesn't work or isn't balanced, it shouldn't be in the game. Period. There are plenty of other options in D3, we don't need more that don't meet Blizz's quality standards.

If (with an emphasis on if) there was a way to actually make it optional across the board, then sure, it should be implemented. But theres just not. So its not in the endgame.

And as for the number of people disappointed, there was an equally large crowd complaining that followers would be essential.

Because you still haven't provided a valid reason that I can see; all I see is you telling everyone else you don't care what they get because you want it your way. And that is pissing me off to be honest.
Consider other people please.

Did you even read my posts? I pointed out multiple different ways that followers would be almost impossible to balance in a way that makes them both useful and non-essential. If you can't see a valid reason in there its your own fault.

Quote from Legatus1982

Look nobody is saying you guys are wrong for not wanting mercs or endgame followers. We're just saying there are lots of us who wanted them, and won't have them. And -I- am saying you have no justification in your argument, since you've always had the option of not using it. And you still have that option now. We, on the other hand, no longer have any option at all. They took it from us.

Which is worse? Having the option or not having the option? That's the question you need to answer here, not "how much do i hate stupid mercs". There are other ways of getting people to go online, clear screen space, and balance the game, without taking away our options.

And? You can actually make that argument for everything ever excluded from anything. That doesn't mean that they should be present.