Here's a bucket of cold water:
Blizzard has a certain amount of money they want to spend on RoS, and a certain timeframe they want to ship it by. That's how project management works. This is an awesome idea, but (assuming they're not already working on something like it), it would cost millions and delay release by months. At the risk of uttering heresy, I've no doubt that Blizzard has ideas board has stories every bit as cool as this one, and more besides, but some point they have to stop burning time and money and get the product ready for release.
But if we lobby hard enough, maybe they'll add it post-release.
- 12/5/2013 2:19:37 PM Posted in: Diablo III General Discussion
12/4/2013 8:55:42 PM
Posted in: Diablo III General DiscussionQuote from FitsuQuote from CataleptThere already is a reason. We're just haggling about the price.
What reason? 3 seconds till you insta-res and then continue as you were, that's not a reason. When given the choice of avoiding death or getting a couple hits in dieing, ressing and then continuing to zerg the most efficient way would infact be to just die and that really isn't good. Dieing should almost never be a better option than surviving but right now in RoS it is, right now with the current death system the most optimal way to play is go full dps and zerg stuff down because it's better to get a few hits in and die to the slam than it is to get no hits in and avoid the slam, how is that good? It's actually rewarding those who don't try and punishing those who do.
I think you'd indulging in hyperbole, there. A 3-second rez-timer plus runback is never desirable, because it's time spent doing absolutely nothing. It's boring and inconvenient. It might be optimal if you're running a full glass-cannon build and moving out of danger loses you massive amounts of DPS, but it's never fun... and you seem to be overestimating just how efficient graveyard-zerging actually is... and if people want to play D3 in a way that's un-fun and inefficient, why stop them?
I just don't see the case for making the death penalty worse from a gameplay point of view, given that there's already a hardcore mode. I understand from the community point of view that some people don't want people saying they play at difficulty level X unless they 'deserve to be there', whatever that means exactly, but in a game like Diablo, that attitude makes negative sense. People who are obviously well out of their depth can be kicked if the others in their game feel like they're being held back, why insist that Blizzard implements some kind of constructive dismissal mechanism?
Hardcore already provides the perfect death penalty for those seeking a real challenge, why make a game mode for people who want a little hardcore, but don't want to go the whole way?
12/4/2013 8:26:20 PM
Posted in: Diablo III General DiscussionQuote from miles_drydenI'm no tech whiz, but I'm pretty sure making an HD version of a 10+ year old game with sprite graphics would be impossible. Someone with the knowledge feel free to call me out on that.
Not impossible... but potentially time-consuming. I imagine they still have the original 24-bit versions of the 2d assets, and the original models and scripts for the 3d stuff. The cost/benefit would be pretty crappy though. It'd probably cost them, like, 2 day's worth of WoW subs.
12/3/2013 9:38:21 PM
I've dropped in and out of PoE. There's a lot of ideas in there, but a lot of it feels unpolished... like there's still some iteration to do before 'clever' ideas become 'cool'... and I've tried really hard to figure out whether or not the 'sphere grid' is fake depth or actual depth, but the fact that I can't completely redo it means that (surprise, surprise) I find myself heading to 3rd-party sites and build guides to try and figure out whether or not I'll still want to play my character after the first 50 hours. I must have over a dozen ~20 hour characters that are either screwed up or just boring (to me, natch).Posted in: Diablo III General Discussion
There's a lot of good stuff in there, and it's great to see an indie dev staking a claim in a fairly tough genre, but there's stuff in there that feels like it's only there to pander to people who want to feel hardcore. Maybe GGG needs to spend less time trying to be 'Not Diablo' and more time just making the game more fun.... /shrug
12/3/2013 8:23:00 PM
Posted in: Diablo III General DiscussionQuote from makaNot that I believe OP's story (I'm leaning towards 'no'), but this exemplifies the "punish the saint for the sinner" type of policy that has been going on in Blizzard (and elsewhere) for a while, now (legit players suffering just so they can stop illegit ones). And I always thing that's a bad policy.
Depends on the false positive ratio, doesn't it? Unfortunately, that's information that's doubly impossible to get. Blizzard won't tell us how many people get banned for botting or how many people (if any) get those bans reversed, and there's really no way to tell how many permabans are given wrongly.
IMO, the mitigating factor for any such system is that it's not completely arbitrary. We know how to minimize risk and there is an appeals channel (although again, there's no way to tell how 'fair' it is). On top of that, AFAIK it's only a key-ban... they don't nuke your entire BNet account.
12/3/2013 7:00:19 PM
If you downloaded a bot's binaries onto a machine that you play D3 on... that's a paddlin'Posted in: Diablo III General Discussion
If you did something seriously daft, like make a little test program that uses the same API hooks as the botting code... that's a paddlin'
AFAICT Blizzard doesn't have a 'minimum time' for bots... running one for 60 seconds or 60 days makes no difference if you get caught. Also, you seem to be a little hazy about the difference between binaries and source code... only one of which you can poke around in with impunity. Messing around with grayware has inherent risks.
Your main problem, though, is that the story you're telling is basically identical to what Blizzard has no doubt been told by thousands upon thousands of actual botters. Your second main problem is that Blizzard has very good reasons for not being forthcoming about how they detect botters. IMO, eat the $50 and move on.
12/2/2013 3:49:46 PM
Posted in: Diablo III General DiscussionQuote from FitsuOk yeah, this game can't be challenging anymore from a tactical point of view but it can still reward skillful play in other wise. Basically all I want is for there to be a reason for me to not want to die, no matter what it is. Like OP said right now there is no difference in the difficulties because you can just keep smashing ure head against the elite until it dies. It could be as simply as gain x amount of MF for each creature you kill, upon death lose the stack and then I have a reason to not want to die and i'll be happy.
I don't think it's a crazy request for there to be a reason to want to avoid death...
There already is a reason. We're just haggling about the price.
11/28/2013 9:07:20 PM
Posted in: Diablo III General DiscussionQuote from KrelahnPermanent death should be good.
It is good. I love HC every bit as much as SC (yeah baby, I swing both ways).. but I play HC with a completely different mindset to SC, and I want it to stay that way. As much as I love the satisfaction (and blind panic) that killing a tough HC pack brings, I also love cranking up the MP to nowhere near comfortable, charging into a vortexing, plauging purple-laser boss and just spamming all my abilities cackling like a maniac with no idea who's going to die first. Don't take that away from me
11/28/2013 8:14:19 PM
Posted in: Diablo III General DiscussionQuote from IndimixIt's interesting how they changed from AH/RMAH -> no even trading bro, sorry.
Speaking of black or white...
That's pretty much how it had to be. Any other option is basically an open invitation to all manner of gray-market bullshit.
11/28/2013 7:24:16 PM
Posted in: Diablo III General DiscussionQuote from MeltQuote from CataleptCB is impossible to balance, precisely because it gets more powerful at higher difficulty levels, unlike every other stat ever.
I can see why they want another DPS stat, but CB is, IMO, a total bust. It's neither interesting nor optional. I'll lobby for changing it to be based on the player's HP until the end of time, but basing it on monster HP is a design dead-end.
How about a difficulty system that does not rely on multiplying healthpools by 2 digit factors? Isn't THAT the problem of crushing blow? It CAN be allowed to be better vs high hp targets as long as it's worse agains low hp targets.
Well yeah... I'm at something of a loss to explain why Blizzard went all 64-bit on monster HP, but even at lower HP levels, CB just functions as a crit that does (much) more damage to tougher opponents. I've no doubt that some combination of baseline DPS and monster health could make it workable, but even then it'll be Lifesteal 2.0... irrelevant at lower difficulties, mandatory at higher ones.
What I'd like to see is (at least) one DPS stat that doesn't just slot into existing DPS builds. Adding a fourth 'core' DPS stat will certainly make it easier to build a decent set, as it increases the chances of a 'fully loaded' item... but I'd rather have a stat that altered the desirability of all the other stats... maybe one that increased the damage of non-crit hits, or one that worked off your second highest stat for its base damage.
... but then, I like mathy systems, so I'm probably not the best guy to ask
- To post a comment, please login or register a new account.