I disagree. Keep making the uber gear, it's fun to get and fun to use.)
Speak for yourself. (Well, I guess you are speaking for alot of people. ) Me I liked going through no-twink and with zero boss runs. A barbarian relying on leap, howl, and battle cry for survival is way more challenging than putting up your BO, whirling into any mass of enemies with your super armor and not even flinching, watching them fall over. D2 was capable of being a challenging arcade game requiring "dodge" type active defense moves, its just that the default imbalance rarely supported this kind of play.
The OP asked how to make gameplay challenging. You let your gear (and skills) get out of control and people will break any kind of challenge there is. 1.10+ hell mode for example can be really rough on melee chars, UNLESS you have the right gear, and then it's a joke. There's no way to bridge that disparity unless you cut down the gear differences.
I'm not at all saying there shouldn't be super rare gear, and it shouldn't be the best... it just shouldn't be 5x better than everything else. In other words you shouldn't be able to just rely on gear, otherwise you get the above dilemma.
In the end, you can get through something, or you can't. If I can't, it will most likely be a gear issue.
Don't make crazy gear.
I know, insane idea, Blizzard will never adopt it, etc. But it works pretty well in games that keep the gear in check. Don't put insanely powerful gear into the game. Don't make the uber rare gear 10 times better than the common stuff. Keep the lvl 75 (or whatever the max level req is) stuff all very similar in power. Then it's going to come down to your build, execution, and teamwork where relevant to get past something rather than having done a million boss runs.
1) Teleport full-runs shouldn't be nearly as desired because of respecs. You don't have to keep rerolling characters every time you need a new build or ladder reset.
2) Teleport for boss-runs wasn't exactly a shining feature of the game. Heck BOSS RUNS are not a shining feature of the game. I think Blizzard will try to avoid rewarding players for running past mobs instead of fighting them.
3) Even if there is an overworld map as obnoxious as Act 3, the above ground areas are way more static than in D2 and so you wouldn't have nearly as much problem navigating and getting lost after the first few times.
I'm pretty sure corpses are 100% for show. They get tossed around locally by havok physics, the server doesn't track where they get thrown in that process. None of the known skills interact with corpses and there probably won't be any. Which is just as well considering it's a poorly balanced mechanic.
Another factor in choosing the Monk over say Paladin-type character is that they don't want a holy warrior defined in terms of subserviance to Heaven. I think the conclusion to D3 (or its last expansion) will see humans rising to stand on their own, independent of both angels and demons, unlike the past games where the heroes were aligned with the angels. We already got hints with Tyreal being "cast from heaven" and the whole nephalim backstory setup, and while demons will continue to be the main antagonist, I wouldn't be surprised if we end up fighting an angel at some point. Hence the "holy warrior" monk serving spirits *within* sanctuary rather than from without.
Light radius did actually determine aggro in D1. If you couldn't see a monster, it couldn't see you. There were certain strategic advantages to gotterdamerung for catching succubi and the like.
This isn't how it works in D2 at all. Different monsters have different AI for aggroing, but the majority wake up from an off-screen distance even in 800x600. If you play with some of the current resolution mods and push up to 1680 or so you can see how monsters just sit there until you get within a certain range.
So the OP has some valid points, but I wanted to examine what is probable/likely as opposed to what people want.
- One of the panels already described the D3 heroes as "morally ambiguous, like the D1 chars, or the D2 sin/necro." So yes, you're completely spot-on when you mention that this is about "who is the biggest badass" as opposed to a noble hero. Good or bad that's the direction they are taking.
- The bone the good-two-shoers have been thrown is already here, it's the monk. It's really a less ambiguous character than most will give credit for, you (and probably most people) are just not tuned into it because it exemplifies a nobility very different from chivalrous knights. As the witch doctor suggests though, D3 is really reaching out for some exotic and non-western twists on the typical archetypes. (e.g. even the classic wizard has clearly asian origins)
- While we are on the "leadership" topic, I feel confident that nothing mechanically similar to the paladin auras will return in a major way. Blizzard seems to be very consciously trying to differentiate this from MMOs (including their own) and not create support characters or encourage balanced parties, they want any band of 1-x players to get together, have a good time, and be farily challenged in higher difficulties. Considering they are talking about max 4 party size, support characters aren't that exciting anyway.
The question of 4 vs 8 has less to do with netcode and graphics cards, and more to do with D3 being primarily geared for solo and small team play. All of the classes are self-sufficient, there are no support characters or intention to promote a balance of classes in a party. Furthermore they all have over-the-top effects and powers that could make play too chaotic in large numbers, not to mention the problems with scaling monster difficulty appropriately. Personally I found 8-player D2 parties over the top and not enjoyable, and opinions will vary, but it seems the D3 designers have some similar concerns.
Are people still in denial about Diablo being the 3-headed demon featured in the earliest CG trailer?
And did anyone bother reading the freaking manuals? The prime three could wander the mortal realm in disembodied spirit form just fine, they simply used the soulstones to anchor and focus their powers. Destroying the soulstones at the hellforge merely released their spirits back into hell, where they could later reform, but making return to sanctuary more difficult. These are the prime evils heading an eternal war, you don't just "kill" them.
Glad you have employment now, but this seems planned by D3.net from the start. "Hey, how can we eliminate that stupid other fansite so everyone comes and clicks our ads? I know, let's hire them..." Obviously you have to take the paying deal if you're out of job.
Really hate these stupid companies taking over, especially one like gamers.inc that censor discussing anyone but themselves. Diablofans must persist in spite of the loss.
I honestly think it's a PTR and/or possibly downloadable beta. That's not a patch but it's meaningful. This is the path they followed with all the 1.10 changes, they may need something similar just to stress test the stash upgrade.
D3 doesn't have a world, it has 4 players. :/ This kind of dynamic is appropriate to an MMO but not really here.
Most successful MMOs that do this seperate the groups into factions rather than free-for-all, which immediately identifies who is your ally and who you have to watch out for. There's also the possibility of teams going against each other instead of being out for themselves, which makes pvp a form of cooperative play. Again the games here are too small for that to emerge.
In the end we can see how Blizzard is cutting any "unneeded" complexity from the game (lol weapon swap), so any convoluted pvp system that benefits a small minority seems like a non-starter.
0
Speak for yourself. (Well, I guess you are speaking for alot of people. ) Me I liked going through no-twink and with zero boss runs. A barbarian relying on leap, howl, and battle cry for survival is way more challenging than putting up your BO, whirling into any mass of enemies with your super armor and not even flinching, watching them fall over. D2 was capable of being a challenging arcade game requiring "dodge" type active defense moves, its just that the default imbalance rarely supported this kind of play.
The OP asked how to make gameplay challenging. You let your gear (and skills) get out of control and people will break any kind of challenge there is. 1.10+ hell mode for example can be really rough on melee chars, UNLESS you have the right gear, and then it's a joke. There's no way to bridge that disparity unless you cut down the gear differences.
I'm not at all saying there shouldn't be super rare gear, and it shouldn't be the best... it just shouldn't be 5x better than everything else. In other words you shouldn't be able to just rely on gear, otherwise you get the above dilemma.
0
Don't make crazy gear.
I know, insane idea, Blizzard will never adopt it, etc. But it works pretty well in games that keep the gear in check. Don't put insanely powerful gear into the game. Don't make the uber rare gear 10 times better than the common stuff. Keep the lvl 75 (or whatever the max level req is) stuff all very similar in power. Then it's going to come down to your build, execution, and teamwork where relevant to get past something rather than having done a million boss runs.
0
0
2) Teleport for boss-runs wasn't exactly a shining feature of the game. Heck BOSS RUNS are not a shining feature of the game. I think Blizzard will try to avoid rewarding players for running past mobs instead of fighting them.
3) Even if there is an overworld map as obnoxious as Act 3, the above ground areas are way more static than in D2 and so you wouldn't have nearly as much problem navigating and getting lost after the first few times.
0
1
0
This isn't how it works in D2 at all. Different monsters have different AI for aggroing, but the majority wake up from an off-screen distance even in 800x600. If you play with some of the current resolution mods and push up to 1680 or so you can see how monsters just sit there until you get within a certain range.
0
- One of the panels already described the D3 heroes as "morally ambiguous, like the D1 chars, or the D2 sin/necro." So yes, you're completely spot-on when you mention that this is about "who is the biggest badass" as opposed to a noble hero. Good or bad that's the direction they are taking.
- The bone the good-two-shoers have been thrown is already here, it's the monk. It's really a less ambiguous character than most will give credit for, you (and probably most people) are just not tuned into it because it exemplifies a nobility very different from chivalrous knights. As the witch doctor suggests though, D3 is really reaching out for some exotic and non-western twists on the typical archetypes. (e.g. even the classic wizard has clearly asian origins)
- While we are on the "leadership" topic, I feel confident that nothing mechanically similar to the paladin auras will return in a major way. Blizzard seems to be very consciously trying to differentiate this from MMOs (including their own) and not create support characters or encourage balanced parties, they want any band of 1-x players to get together, have a good time, and be farily challenged in higher difficulties. Considering they are talking about max 4 party size, support characters aren't that exciting anyway.
0
0
And did anyone bother reading the freaking manuals? The prime three could wander the mortal realm in disembodied spirit form just fine, they simply used the soulstones to anchor and focus their powers. Destroying the soulstones at the hellforge merely released their spirits back into hell, where they could later reform, but making return to sanctuary more difficult. These are the prime evils heading an eternal war, you don't just "kill" them.
0
Really hate these stupid companies taking over, especially one like gamers.inc that censor discussing anyone but themselves. Diablofans must persist in spite of the loss.