Got bored and thought of some
- TheLastBaron
- Registered User
-
Member for 11 years, 9 months, and 11 days
Last active Mon, Jan, 20 2014 21:53:43
- 0 Followers
- 91 Total Posts
- 18 Thanks
-
2
soulzek posted a message on Fun Legendary IdeasPosted in: Diablo III General Discussion -
3
Fitsu posted a message on In which way the thorns can be redesigned?Honestly? I'm perfectly fine with that crusader thorns build being OP, in fact id opt for it to be even stronger because the fact is to get that build to work it needs the right item in every slot, hes basically full best in slot for that build. That's how a diablo game should work, difficult at first but once uve got everything and ure 100% geared for ure build you steamroll the game, it should take a long time before your at the point where you have that level of gear on every slot but that point should exist.Posted in: Diablo III General Discussion
I don't want thorns to become a competitive stat, I like there being stats which are basically pointless unless you build this one certain way and suddenly it becomes OP, having crazy build options like that is what makes a game more fun. -
1
Enty posted a message on Always Online RequirmentPosted in: Diablo III General DiscussionQuote from Fitsu
None of you even once mentioned the fact a client uses server-side code so please don't now claim that's what you meant. Ruksak even linked pure client-side changes, every single message you wrote was completely client-based and in no way explained that people would have server-side code running on the local PC if there was a single player had you been trying to say that, you would have said it so please i'm able to admit I didn't know why can't you? I learnt something today and i'm happy about it.
Quick question.... So if you think none of them knew this info, and you didn't either. How did you think Single-player works? It just appears. Viola GAME!? Like ... really? You thought that a single player game just magically generated code to make a game work? It just "poofed" into existence because it was a client-side game. This is just a very naive way of thinking if so.
Games always have to connect to some sort of "server" where certain files are executed and responded to and obtained and checked. IT's a very simple concept most "gamers" should understand. Basically any game has a backbone code a main code that is used, and in an online game that code is mostly stored on a server so it's harder for hackers to access and obtain. In a single player mode its there but it still has to be connected to. There has to be a link made and when you boot up a single player game it initiates the connection between your clients data (Think D2 Characters) and the servers data (Think all the bigger things like the background code actually running the instance of the game and allowing your client side code run through) By making the game have an offline mode that servers data would still have to be stored somewhere on your client, which makes it easy for hackers to get a hold of thus allowing them to fully understand how to hack the online version too. Clearly an inherent problem so they shut off some of the code and make it server side I.E its on Blizzard servers only and then you connect and use that code to run your game!
To some earlier points you made. I'm almost 100% positive all duped items weren't from hacks but exploits in the AH. I recall it had something to do with reporting an item didn't go through or something on the AH and they gave you a copy of said item and you had yours to keep thus creating 2 items. Not 100% sure of this but i remember reading this somewhere. There really are no "hacks" in D3 currently and that's mostly thanks to the online requirement which is fuckin awesome! And really if this upsets people this much I don't understand why it's so hard to say "okay... I'm not going to purchase this game" They don't make the game YOU want, they make the game THEY want.
As an aspiring Game developer/Programmer I think to myself why do I change my artistic vision for you. I MADE the damn thing! This isn't to say I can't change things that would result in a better experience, Patch 1.04, Loot 2.0 stuff like that has to be made so their vision of a great game to come true, but If I or any developer decides to say okay D3 will be online-only that is their choice that is the game they are making and that won't change. So if you don't like the game they are making buy a different game, show them with your wallet what you want, because there are currently plenty of alternatives to D3 and many other games. -
1
troqu posted a message on So.. is there any release date of this "extremely long hot fix"?.As someone who does QA for a living it's always hillarious to me how little people appreciate how much even the smallest change can screw up everything. Even well written code can sometimes break completely when a valid change is made.Posted in: Diablo III General Discussion
The joke around here is that the big changes never seem to be a problem, but the little ones will take weeks to fix all the issues found. -
1
ruksak posted a message on Whatever happened to the Shielded Crusader?Posted in: Diablo III General DiscussionQuote from Vulmio
Actually, it is not even that simple. The problem is dual wielding. I'm pretty sure if Paladins could dual wield in d2 and it was more efficient, they'd use 2 weapons no matter how good the shield were. In D3 softcore you will also use whatever does the highest dps. Right now it is using two weapons. If you make shields make more dps than dual wielding, then nobody will dual wield (because shield would provide more dps and more defense)...and people will cry because they "can't" dual wield.
Classes in D3 are not "shield classes" lorewise (barb or monk with shield don't make sense from a lore point of view) so forcing them to use a shield (like it was the case for paladins) and forbid dual wielding wouldn't make sense. The problem in my opinion is dual wielding and the lack of a shield only class.
It's a matter of balance. Obviously making shields on-par with dual wielding in terms of DPS would be faulty. A nominal DPS effect is in order, not equal to sporting an EF for example, in that off-hand slot. Remember, weapons will be getting a buff, likely a huge buff. Shields should follow suite as they are woeful in most respects.
What I'm saying is ...find a way to make shields embellish your DPS to a point where people know they're going to lose some DPS over dual wielding, yet, the prospects of innovative procs and survivability lures them to face a hard choice in gears.
I want to point out that a lack of significant death penalty is part of the problem. Having these Elite packs regenerate health if someone dies would be a great incentive not to die. - To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
2
I suppose since banks and other corporations with sensitive data have been hacked at some point or other they too should just dump out their source code while we're at it.
Flawless logic.
1
I guess what I am trying to say is stop with the stupid fucking transmorg threads.
1
The other reason I voted this way is because not every game has to turn into a giant e-peen contest vs. your neighbor.
1
I am not a fan of any design decision such as this one that forces people to play a certain way. Also I have this gut feeling like this decision is to compensate for a much larger, lazy design decision.
For example, if this decision is to compensate for the fact that legendary items drop like candy in RoS I will be disappointed because the solution was to go from one extreme to the other rather than finding a reasonable, level-headed solution to the problem.
Like I said though ... I shall wait and see.
1
It's called self-control. Just because the AH is there doesn't mean you have to use it. No one is forcing you.
1
If I am not mistaken this really only applied to non-magic based characters. I could swear (I could also be misremembering) leveling a barb a million times in D2 and thinking, "damn I wish a new weapon would drop because the damage on this one sucks and it is slowing me down".
1
This is not a valid line of logic. Just because I may not ever see it drop does not mean I shouldn't have a chance to see it drop. Also consider the inverse of that. Chances are you will never see it drop in ladder-only, so therefore why does it need to drop in ladder-only?
1
1
It's not defection at all. Anyone with any modicum of sense can read between the lines and understand what I am saying. Truthfully your posts seems more like hallow attempts at flame baiting rather than substantive talking points about the topic.
The posts I have seen so far reek more of someone making their way through college as a software developer and gone through an internship or two but hasn't fully been introduced to the development life cycle first hand to experience all the inefficiencies involved in the process. The only thing I see is someone spouting off college level ideals about Utopian coding situations where all your code sits perfectly in frameworks, perfectly adhering to standards, no zero spaghetti code, perfectly optimized and no inefficiencies.
There are a million reasons as to why I can think of as to why it is perfectly fine that the patch would be taking this long, but I can't sit back and think of any reason to say why a patch should be done in X amount of time without being able to look under the hood at many variables.
Saying someone should be developing every piece of code now that they would need for the next ten years is beyond ignorant. There is no human on the planet that would be able to sit back and predict where a project is going to go due to bosses changing their minds on the direction of projects, clients changing their minds with what they want every time they see the project.
1
Inferno wasn't tuned for anyone at the start. The biggest blunder of this game was allowing beta testers to only test up to Leoric because they didn't want to give away the Saturday morning cartoon level story line to anyone. So many of the pitfalls of the game could have been recognized had they just allowed beta testing.
As for the rest, I don't know why people speculate about development times for different aspects of the game. I really do feel bad for the real developers who have to put up with all the arm chair developers exactly how long it should have taken for them to deliver certain things.
In this industry you are damned if you do, damned if you don't with how whiny and demanding the player bases are. And God forbid if you were to release it a bug! They'll get crucified for that too.
I can tell you this, I work on highly dynamic websites for a living, which in comparison pale to the complexities of these games. You'd be surprised how many times someone has come to me with what you'd think would be the simplest of requests only to have me tell them that it just isn't that simple. That the initial specs didn't call for me to consider certain things and to input their requests it would require a minor recoding/redesign of the database to create the most seemless way possible for us to code going forward and for the UI/UX portion of the update. So now that simple request that they figured would only take an hour, coupled with all of the other things going on at work is now on a time table of a week or longer for a delivery date.
The development life cycle isn't that easy of a process to work through, and it just irks me to her people speculating on how systems should have been built to incorporate unforeseen twists and turns in how companies plan for their projects to evolve. These people have lives and families too, they can't just code 24/7/365 so we can have unlimited bug free content as out disposal.