@LinkX: Unfortunately for the guy who cannot play at all because they have no internet, they are out of luck. I'm not going to fight for offline mode when it would add time to the development of the game and the target audience for said game will not be affect. Yes, some people lose out. Hate to be cold, but its like saying someone should be able to play WoW offline. The focus of Diablo 3 is smashing through the story with other players. In addition, the RMAH will likely be the primary funding for regular additional content, staff to handle bots/hacks, etc. Oh yeah, on the point of additional content anyone without a connection to the internet would be unable to update their game regularly and as such miss out on that content as well.
Honestly, in this day and age, having internet is almost a must for gaming. I can look at someone and say sorry, but that is just a fact.
Oh and on a note of alternatives for D2, I've never played Metin, but Dungeon Siege doesn't have as nice of a multiplayer community as D2 does. Torchlight doesn't have multiplayer at all. Silk Road Online is a MMO. And again, I've never even heard of Titan Quest.
Honestly, I'm kinda confused as to why a individual having more then one of the same class is even important. Could I get some clarification as to why that is such a big deal? Seems to me to be kinda redundant in a ARPG to force people to keep rolling multiple Wizards to play different types of Wizards instead of just letting them change their gear and runes. Heck, from my past experience something like this would actually promote botting as many would have little drive to keep grinding the same class over and over and over to try different combinations at high level.
Now you seem to think that not having to make multiple of the same class is just a side effect, but really.. if Blizzard WANTED you to have to make a second class it seems like they would have noticed this right away. I'm pretty sure this fits well with their casual gameplay focus, to be honest.
My comment on gear was to standardize your idea across all gear instead of just skill mods. Since removing socketed gems will cost gold, having to unbind gear as well as runes (as they would be 'bound' to a skill) would kinda standardize the concept across all gear. My preference, however, would be to just keep it as they've announced as it allows for nice flexibility and more fun for the casual player. At most, I'd personally require going to the Mystic to swap out skills/runes (not for high cost just to restrict you to doing it at town).
@snowhammer: My comment about Diablo 3 being a casual game isn't wrong at all. Its what Blizzard is specifically marketing it as and focusing their development time for. As for the average player quitting after they beat normal. That is the reason why Blizzard (I believe) is trying to make the game more casual and less focused on competition. They want people to sit down for an hour or three, get through some content and play again later. Those people will make up the brunt of the playerbase for the first couple years most likely. Those that still play the game ten years down the road are the minority.
As I said, any 'lock in' mechanism is counter productive to the style of play Blizzard is clearly focusing on. Think about it for a minute.. do you lock in stats? nope. Do you lock in your skills? nope. How about your gear? nope. Why should you lock in your runes? Seems like it would just serve to confuse players.
To offer such lock in mechanics reasonably, I think it would also have to extend to normal gear. Perhaps making gear that binds and cannot be removed once worn without going to the Mystic. That alongside a more reasonable rune removal cost would create a system that encourages consideration of skills and gear without making it the end of the world if you choose wrong.
I really just think your idea would be too extreme and feel like punishing a player if they wanted to try something different with their character. A system like that would lead people to have to wiki how each rune could affect their character, what skills they want to use in the end, and search forums for how they should get there without making a mistake. That isn't playing Diablo, thats playing spreadsheets the game. I think a more natural 'explore' gameplay is much better. Get a new rune, try it out, and sell it if you don't like it. It really just turns out to be more fun.
What would your system accomplish besides punishing a player for trying a new skill/rune combo without reading everything about it first? I may be not grasping things very well, but I cannot see any inherent advantage. To me it really just seems like you played a ton of Diablo II and want III to be the same.
@Irrational: I'd only agree to the account that likely 50-60% of the playbase of Diablo 2 currently are bots. Last time I played Diablo 2 it was regular to see bot Baal runs done by hammerdins. When most of the playbase is bot, of course the game would be rather 'dead' without them. The remaining players were mostly hardcore people that have played for years and new players that got the game cheap. I heard from another poster that the current economy is just garbage. Prices for items are very low, etc.
Bots don't make for a better game. They actually make for a worse one. By removing bots, creating item/gold sinks in game, and giving the average player an outlet to sell their items (RMAH), Blizzard will likely create in-game economy that is rather self-sustaining.
The big things are having both item AND gold sinks though. If nothing takes items out of the system, then eventually the system will become stagnant and bloated with legendaries. I am pretty sure that Blizzard grasps this very well and we'll see a rather nice economy form as the years progress.
Edit: Sorry OP for this kinda straying from the main topic a bit.
I think you're missing one fundamental issue with your idea. Diablo 3 is focused on casual gameplay. Requiring a user to make multiple characters of the same class and get them all to max level in order to test various skill/rune combinations effectively is not casual gameplay.
What you're asking for is just tedious and frustrating for the average player. Sure, for the more hardcore its great, but the average player won't be hardcore. They'll want to try out the new rune they got and see if they like the effect. Just as you would a new piece of equipment. Players should not be forced to pre-plan their character using wiki, guidebooks, forums, etc as they did in the past. Instead, they should play the game and if they get a new rune they can try it without feeling like its permanent.
Now, that said.. I'm not against the idea of requiring a cost and requiring the Mystic to change out runes. I just think it should be decently cost effective. It could act as a soft respec as well as a gold sink. It wouldn't force you to re-roll but it would deter you slightly from continually switching out skills (especially since gold will have real money value).
As peasofme said, it is VERY likely they will be trying very hard to release before or at x-mas. Especially now that we will have the RMAH, releasing in time for x-mas would be very good move financially. People tend to get a lot of gift money during x-mas (at least in the US) and we'd likely see a lot of RMAH transactions right away. In addition to the RMAH, people are more likely to buy the game for friends/family as presents. So if Blizzard intends on maximizing its initial sales, getting it out before Dec 25 would be likely.
@Irrational: No, its not alive because PvP really. That may be the area of gameplay that some people focus on, but the reality is that the reason D2 hadn't died yet is because no viable alternative had been made. If one had been made, D2 would be a wasteland and only hardcore D2 fans would still play it (Kinda like old WC2).
Botting is just a means to an end in D2, aka making money or leveling a character. If it were restricted as it will be in D3, people would just go back to grinding for the items/levels instead because its where their customers are.
I can imaging the item grind getting tiring, which is why I'm glad there will be the dual AH system. As for killing mobs getting tiring, well, guess you'll need to find a different game then D3 as that is kinda the focus.
@sithslylar: There is Torchlight, but it doesn't offer multiplayer support. So, until Torchlight II is out, Diablo 2 is still kinda king in that genre.
@Irrational: I actually disagree. What kept D2 alive was that there was not a viable alternative to the game really. I personally am glad that Blizzard will be able to monitor activity easily and ban those that bot. It won't catch everyone, but it'll catch many of them.
I kinda skipped to the fourth page some in this discussion, but I read through the first two pages.
The reality is that online only WILL decrease the amount of effective hacks and bots on the official servers. It just will, this is a fact. The main reason that this will be the case is that if an account is caught hacking/botting it will likely be reported to blizzard (happens all the time in WoW, I've even reported some) and its a rather simple process to monitor the behavior of said account and ban it if it is indeed botting/hacking.
As for those people complaining about a lack of offline mode, honestly, are you in this century? Seriously, most everything is online now days. Even my console systems have online only games. Complaining that you cannot play Diablo 3 on your flight while you travel is kind of ridiculous. Its a minor inconvenience that you're using to complain. If that seriously is the only time you can play the game, then don't buy it.
Now, I understand that it will remove the ability for someone without an internet connection to play the game. However, from a business standpoint the amount of people that alienates is almost negligible. Most of the people that would purchase the game in the first place have access to the internet either at home or a nearby cafe. Heck, our mall has open wireless.
If you people actually paid attention to how games are evolving now days you'd see that the future of gaming is online. Computers will eventually be terminals to your online environment, almost exactly as Google has been pushing for with their Chrome OS. This is the reality of gaming and indeed computers in general. If you don't like it, I'm sorry...but its inevitable.
The point people are trying to make is that they've stated that they expect a two month beta. Them saying this when they said it'd be the first real beta they've had means that they are already relatively confident that any issues that crop up will be fixable within those two months. The point they are trying to put out is not that the game is unfinished, but that they really need to get a LOT of testing done within a short amount of time. So instead of it being like WoW beta's where you essentially get to play content early for quite awhile, D3's beta will be focused rather heavily on finding bugs, stress testing the systems, and polishing the edges.
Heck, they've already stated that they have a fully playable alpha version. So I highly doubt the game is as unfinished as you make it seem. They just want to kinda let people that are looking forward to the beta that the focus will be testing, testing, and more testing. So I'd expect frequent server resets, lots of little skill interaction reports, etc.
I'm still expecting a 2011 release. If not 2011 really early 2012 (Jan/Feb likely).
Um, where do you get that it won't come out this year? I believe they specifically stated that they are shooting for third quarter. Unless that is referring to the beta specifically, but even then I would not be surprised at all for Diablo 3 to have a December release.
Everything I've read on the topic (from the interviews posted in the the news) seems to point out that they are shooting for this year as release.
(though I've never cared for Diablo PvP that much).
Dude, I read through all of your post. Couldn't you at least have begun your post with that you have never cared for Diablo PvP so I wouldn't have wasted my time reading your whole post?
It's hard to discuss PvP and why it matters with someone that doesn't care for it to begin with.
It would be like you and I discuss the awesome features of the big bad boogy man boss or whatever the bosses are called in Diablo when in fact I don't give 2 cents about what the boss is called and what script he follows.
To me, he is something that gives gear so I can beat the crap of human players I want to play with/against.
Also stop with the nonsense "it costs to develop and maintain". Lets just play with the idea that Diablo would have 20% more players if the PvP was a bit more than the cuddly environment it will be now. I bet that would be kind of a good business case, wouldn't it?
So, just because I didn't care about PvPing where if you weren't in super amazo gear you would get killed instantly makes my points invalid? Nothing I stated was less valid because I didn't care for Diablo PvP. In addition, I'm actually MORE interested in the PvP of Diablo 3 due to the plans they have for it.
The point is though that Diablo is about its story and bashing monsters, not players. Sure they gave you the option, because it isn't hard to do so. Now in Diablo 3 they are already devoting time and money to give those that liked the ridiculous nature of Diablo PvP some love. Yet they still get downed on as if its never enough.
I'm sorry, Diablo 3 is a RPG not a PvP battle game. Its primary focus is those RPG elements. If this doesn't suit you, then go play another game. Heck, MOBA games seem to fit that style of PvP pretty well, abiat with a lot less grind.
As others in this thread have pointed out as well, just because they are using the term casual a lot when they talk about Diablo 3, doesn't mean it'll really be 'easy'. They are making an effort to make some rather extreme difficulty modes for play through.
You know what would make this VERY easy? Stop expecting e-sport level PvP in a game that the developer has specifically stated will be nearly completely focused on PvE. Can't do that? Play a different game.
Why can they not balance around PvP? Because many of the skills that exist would be rather overpowered for PvP as they were designed with wiping out hordes of enemies in PvE in mind. They don't want to give you a separate skill set specifically for PvP because not only does it take more development time and money, but it also creates conflicts for learning how your character works.
All of this was stated in interviews and videos. I didn't do anything special to figure it out. Diablo 3 will be about progressing through the story and smashing monsters (possibly with a few friends, if ya choose). Guess what Diablo 2 was about.. oh yeah.. same thing. Diablo 1? Yep, bingo. Diablo 2's PvP was in the form of turning a flag on so that you could fight outside of town, and anyone in super gear owned you. Diablo 1's PvP was, if I remember correctly, just the fact that you could hurt allies (been a long time since I played 1). Diablo 3 is going to have an arena, achievements, titles, and levels for PvP. I'd say they are actually giving you that want PvP quite a bit more then they have in the past, yet you complain.
I, personally, am glad they are focusing on the PvE. Heck, I'll probably actually try out the PvP even (though I've never cared for Diablo PvP that much). I'm glad for the changes to stats/skills. I'm looking forward to the dual auction house system. Diablo 3 seems like it'll be a really awesome game.
0
Honestly, in this day and age, having internet is almost a must for gaming. I can look at someone and say sorry, but that is just a fact.
Oh and on a note of alternatives for D2, I've never played Metin, but Dungeon Siege doesn't have as nice of a multiplayer community as D2 does. Torchlight doesn't have multiplayer at all. Silk Road Online is a MMO. And again, I've never even heard of Titan Quest.
0
Now you seem to think that not having to make multiple of the same class is just a side effect, but really.. if Blizzard WANTED you to have to make a second class it seems like they would have noticed this right away. I'm pretty sure this fits well with their casual gameplay focus, to be honest.
My comment on gear was to standardize your idea across all gear instead of just skill mods. Since removing socketed gems will cost gold, having to unbind gear as well as runes (as they would be 'bound' to a skill) would kinda standardize the concept across all gear. My preference, however, would be to just keep it as they've announced as it allows for nice flexibility and more fun for the casual player. At most, I'd personally require going to the Mystic to swap out skills/runes (not for high cost just to restrict you to doing it at town).
0
As I said, any 'lock in' mechanism is counter productive to the style of play Blizzard is clearly focusing on. Think about it for a minute.. do you lock in stats? nope. Do you lock in your skills? nope. How about your gear? nope. Why should you lock in your runes? Seems like it would just serve to confuse players.
To offer such lock in mechanics reasonably, I think it would also have to extend to normal gear. Perhaps making gear that binds and cannot be removed once worn without going to the Mystic. That alongside a more reasonable rune removal cost would create a system that encourages consideration of skills and gear without making it the end of the world if you choose wrong.
I really just think your idea would be too extreme and feel like punishing a player if they wanted to try something different with their character. A system like that would lead people to have to wiki how each rune could affect their character, what skills they want to use in the end, and search forums for how they should get there without making a mistake. That isn't playing Diablo, thats playing spreadsheets the game. I think a more natural 'explore' gameplay is much better. Get a new rune, try it out, and sell it if you don't like it. It really just turns out to be more fun.
What would your system accomplish besides punishing a player for trying a new skill/rune combo without reading everything about it first? I may be not grasping things very well, but I cannot see any inherent advantage. To me it really just seems like you played a ton of Diablo II and want III to be the same.
0
Bots don't make for a better game. They actually make for a worse one. By removing bots, creating item/gold sinks in game, and giving the average player an outlet to sell their items (RMAH), Blizzard will likely create in-game economy that is rather self-sustaining.
The big things are having both item AND gold sinks though. If nothing takes items out of the system, then eventually the system will become stagnant and bloated with legendaries. I am pretty sure that Blizzard grasps this very well and we'll see a rather nice economy form as the years progress.
Edit: Sorry OP for this kinda straying from the main topic a bit.
0
What you're asking for is just tedious and frustrating for the average player. Sure, for the more hardcore its great, but the average player won't be hardcore. They'll want to try out the new rune they got and see if they like the effect. Just as you would a new piece of equipment. Players should not be forced to pre-plan their character using wiki, guidebooks, forums, etc as they did in the past. Instead, they should play the game and if they get a new rune they can try it without feeling like its permanent.
Now, that said.. I'm not against the idea of requiring a cost and requiring the Mystic to change out runes. I just think it should be decently cost effective. It could act as a soft respec as well as a gold sink. It wouldn't force you to re-roll but it would deter you slightly from continually switching out skills (especially since gold will have real money value).
0
1
Botting is just a means to an end in D2, aka making money or leveling a character. If it were restricted as it will be in D3, people would just go back to grinding for the items/levels instead because its where their customers are.
I can imaging the item grind getting tiring, which is why I'm glad there will be the dual AH system. As for killing mobs getting tiring, well, guess you'll need to find a different game then D3 as that is kinda the focus.
1
1
0
The reality is that online only WILL decrease the amount of effective hacks and bots on the official servers. It just will, this is a fact. The main reason that this will be the case is that if an account is caught hacking/botting it will likely be reported to blizzard (happens all the time in WoW, I've even reported some) and its a rather simple process to monitor the behavior of said account and ban it if it is indeed botting/hacking.
As for those people complaining about a lack of offline mode, honestly, are you in this century? Seriously, most everything is online now days. Even my console systems have online only games. Complaining that you cannot play Diablo 3 on your flight while you travel is kind of ridiculous. Its a minor inconvenience that you're using to complain. If that seriously is the only time you can play the game, then don't buy it.
Now, I understand that it will remove the ability for someone without an internet connection to play the game. However, from a business standpoint the amount of people that alienates is almost negligible. Most of the people that would purchase the game in the first place have access to the internet either at home or a nearby cafe. Heck, our mall has open wireless.
If you people actually paid attention to how games are evolving now days you'd see that the future of gaming is online. Computers will eventually be terminals to your online environment, almost exactly as Google has been pushing for with their Chrome OS. This is the reality of gaming and indeed computers in general. If you don't like it, I'm sorry...but its inevitable.
0
Heck, they've already stated that they have a fully playable alpha version. So I highly doubt the game is as unfinished as you make it seem. They just want to kinda let people that are looking forward to the beta that the focus will be testing, testing, and more testing. So I'd expect frequent server resets, lots of little skill interaction reports, etc.
I'm still expecting a 2011 release. If not 2011 really early 2012 (Jan/Feb likely).
0
Everything I've read on the topic (from the interviews posted in the the news) seems to point out that they are shooting for this year as release.
0
So, just because I didn't care about PvPing where if you weren't in super amazo gear you would get killed instantly makes my points invalid? Nothing I stated was less valid because I didn't care for Diablo PvP. In addition, I'm actually MORE interested in the PvP of Diablo 3 due to the plans they have for it.
The point is though that Diablo is about its story and bashing monsters, not players. Sure they gave you the option, because it isn't hard to do so. Now in Diablo 3 they are already devoting time and money to give those that liked the ridiculous nature of Diablo PvP some love. Yet they still get downed on as if its never enough.
I'm sorry, Diablo 3 is a RPG not a PvP battle game. Its primary focus is those RPG elements. If this doesn't suit you, then go play another game. Heck, MOBA games seem to fit that style of PvP pretty well, abiat with a lot less grind.
As others in this thread have pointed out as well, just because they are using the term casual a lot when they talk about Diablo 3, doesn't mean it'll really be 'easy'. They are making an effort to make some rather extreme difficulty modes for play through.
0
Why can they not balance around PvP? Because many of the skills that exist would be rather overpowered for PvP as they were designed with wiping out hordes of enemies in PvE in mind. They don't want to give you a separate skill set specifically for PvP because not only does it take more development time and money, but it also creates conflicts for learning how your character works.
All of this was stated in interviews and videos. I didn't do anything special to figure it out. Diablo 3 will be about progressing through the story and smashing monsters (possibly with a few friends, if ya choose). Guess what Diablo 2 was about.. oh yeah.. same thing. Diablo 1? Yep, bingo. Diablo 2's PvP was in the form of turning a flag on so that you could fight outside of town, and anyone in super gear owned you. Diablo 1's PvP was, if I remember correctly, just the fact that you could hurt allies (been a long time since I played 1). Diablo 3 is going to have an arena, achievements, titles, and levels for PvP. I'd say they are actually giving you that want PvP quite a bit more then they have in the past, yet you complain.
I, personally, am glad they are focusing on the PvE. Heck, I'll probably actually try out the PvP even (though I've never cared for Diablo PvP that much). I'm glad for the changes to stats/skills. I'm looking forward to the dual auction house system. Diablo 3 seems like it'll be a really awesome game.