Diablo 3 Difficulty Levels

After a user expressed concerns about how Diablo 3 would supposedly be relatively easy, Bashiok chimed in to reassure us that the game will have a variety of difficulty levels to master:

Originally Posted by (Blue Tracker / Official Forums)

"We aren't looking to make the game any easier, we're shooting for Diablo II difficulty more or less for normal. It's an easy ramp up, pretty much anyone regardless of if they've ever played a game before or not can get in and start clicking on monsters and kill them with little trouble.

Then you have the new difficulty levels that unlock, and the game really forces you to move beyond the "easy to learn" portion and into the "difficult to master".

Actually some of the things that made/make Diablo II extremely difficult later on are usually due to bugs or design/balance issues, so it's hard to compare overall difficulty at those later difficulties with a completely new game. But in short, no, we're not planning on the game being any "easier". We've only said that we're shooting for a similar difficulty ramp in normal mode.

There are currently no plans to require more than one person to complete any areas of the game."
So how hard are you hoping Diablo 3 will be compared to the previous installments?

Comments

  • #1 Daemaro
    The main thing that bothered me in Hell was ridiculous unique combinations on monsters. Super Fast, physical immune or stone skin on one of those big Blunderbores that already stunned.

    Some combinations just got nasty.

    But also that's more of a balance issue like he said.
  • #2 AManWhoLikesHisMetal
    Quote from "Daemaro" »
    The main thing that bothered me in Hell was ridiculous unique combinations on monsters. Super Fast, physical immune or stone skin on one of those big Blunderbores that already stunned.

    Some combinations just got nasty.

    But also that's more of a balance issue like he said.


    Yes. It just got to be too much and ridiculous. Balance was definitely somewhat of an issue in the game.


    EDIT: In my humble opinion, of course.
  • #3 okok9
    Quote from "Daemaro" »
    The main thing that bothered me in Hell was ridiculous unique combinations on monsters. Super Fast, physical immune or stone skin on one of those big Blunderbores that already stunned.

    Some combinations just got nasty.

    But also that's more of a balance issue like he said.


    you dont want monsters to be nasty eh?
    well its good that some monster were ultra tough so you had to run away like a bunny :)
  • #4 LordRayken
    Loved the difficulty.

    It all felt extraordinarly powered to the right angles. Normal was simple, most of the time, but still took a lot once you got into further acts.

    Nightmare really ramped it up. You truly felt like the monsters were powerhouses and you were struggling.

    Then, in Hell, literally, it was all or nothing. Death was right around the corner constantly, and you were struggling in constant battle even with just one or two enemies. I especially loved Hell difficulty in the chaos sanctuary, it was always heads or tails. Crazy battle, massive damage.

    Then you got tons of good gear, and higher levels, and it was hard to imagine playing on any difficulty except Hell... Then you'd get hit with Iron Maiden, and my Barb would dish out 4k damage or more and kill himself...

    Edit:
    I think the Diablo 2 balance worked perfectly, as did Diablo 1's. IF they make Diablo 3 differ, it wont be the same series in my opinion. I don't care if some of Diablo 2's difficulty came from bugs, I loved it.
  • #5 Magistrate
    Diablo II's difficulty was basically just puting Lightning Enchanted and Conviction on a monster and surrounding it with monsters of every immunity. That was poor balancing and was unfair to certain classes. If there had actually been tactical difficulty in Hell besides just getting uber gear to break immunity and cramming all your stat points in to Vitality, then there would actually have been a purposeful difficulty behind it. But, there wasn't, and it was a very lame way of going about it. Anyone, even a non-game developer, could have thought out "Oh, let's make it so it's impossible to hurt a monster! That'll make it really hard!" Bad design. Simply terrible. And, I'm glad to see that, via previous announcements and this one, this is something that is going to be fixed and avoided.
  • #6 Dauroth
    I remember with my Barbarian running into some freaks that were Immune to Physical, Immune to Magic and who knows what else! How am I suppose to kill something like that with the Barbarian? That's something that really requires to be fixed!
  • #7 LJ16
    Well, to be completely honest, I hope that Diablo 3 will be harder than Diablo II. Also, I hope that it will be impossible and against the rules to do any type of "rushing" or "grushing." Anyway, I am sure you know that Diablo II was fun, but I hope you can agree with me when I say that it became fairly easy after one or two times through.


    -Lj
  • #8 Dimebog
    Iron Maiden spell in A4 Hell was not nasty. It was beyond nasty. It was obviously buggy, or people who were in charge of balancing the game were eating some mushrooms.
  • #9 Dauroth
    Quote from "Dimebog" »
    Iron Maiden spell in A4 Hell was not nasty. It was beyond nasty. It was obviously buggy, or people who were in charge of balancing the game were eating some mushrooms.


    I agree! I remember I had to move step by step in the Chaos Sanctuary in order to survive! It's really too much!
  • #10 LJ16
    Quote from "Dimebog" »
    Iron Maiden spell in A4 Hell was not nasty. It was beyond nasty. It was obviously buggy, or people who were in charge of balancing the game were eating some mushrooms.

    ROFLROFLROFLROFL

    dude thats funny!

    -this is for all the people with barbs in D2:
    i know all of u that this pertains to know about that "special feeling" u get when ur WW through a crowd after having IM on u. ur watchin ur barb WWing away but ur health is already out. the only thing u can do is say, "fucking iron maiden....damnit..."

    thats the only thing i just HATED about it. lol
  • #11 SNowfreak
    i like how bashiok put it. Diablo II was a pretty good difficulty IMO, but it was flawed in areas. Trying to beat the game with a sorceress in hell mode was pretty hard, annoying, and boring. Now it should be hard, but not impossible! reesistances are good, but immunities are no fun to have ALL THE TIME. IT should be as hard or harder than DII but in a better way that fixes the bad things of DII.
  • #12 Drazdan
    Really, we need it to become just as difficult as D2 was in Hell, without putting "Immune to X" on everything that moves. I would really like new monsters only seen on higher difficulties, rather than trying to recolor old ones. Monsters that have unique effects/spells that are predetermined instead of randomly chosen. So instead of just making monsters immune, make certain monsters only for higher difficulties. That way, we'd feel like it was more of a fresh experience, and they could give the new monsters a better combination of abilities and characteristics (Think the Berserker smash attack, things like that), that require skill to combat.

    I think that'd be something I'd like to see. Then Hell mode could really feel like hell, since there'd be more hellish creatures;)
  • #13 LJ16
    Quote from "Azylium" »
    Really, we need it to become just as difficult as D2 was in Hell, without putting "Immune to X" on everything that moves. I would really like new monsters only seen on higher difficulties, rather than trying to recolor old ones. Monsters that have unique effects/spells that are predetermined instead of randomly chosen. So instead of just making monsters immune, make certain monsters only for higher difficulties. That way, we'd feel like it was more of a fresh experience, and they could give the new monsters a better combination of abilities and characteristics (Think the Berserker smash attack, things like that), that require skill to combat.

    I think that'd be something I'd like to see. Then Hell mode could really feel like hell, since there'd be more hellish creatures;)


    definitely man. i agree. that shit would be badass
  • #14 palmtrees
    I agree that immunities were just annoying and didn't really add much to the gaming experience other than making breaking those said immunities top priority for certain classes (remember amp dmg?).

    What I think it boils down to is hard counters vs soft counters. Immunities are hard counters and resistances are soft counters. People don't want to be rendered completely impotent because then there really is no point in playing.

    Also, the idea of changing the types of monsters you fight is a great one! It would be significantly more work for the developers, but it sure would beat fighting skeletons of every color!
  • #15 LJ16
    Quote from "palmtrees" »
    I agree that immunities were just annoying and didn't really add much to the gaming experience other than making breaking those said immunities top priority for certain classes (remember amp dmg?).

    What I think it boils down to is hard counters vs soft counters. Immunities are hard counters and resistances are soft counters. People don't want to be rendered completely impotent because then there really is no point in playing.

    Also, the idea of changing the types of monsters you fight is a great one! It would be significantly more work for the developers, but it sure would beat fighting skeletons of every color!


    yeah i agree. i think wut would be good in Diablo3 would be if all the monsters had better resistances to things than others, but not completely immune; therefore, it would be hard to kill them but it would actually be possible for anyone.
  • #16 Daemaro
    Quote from "okok9" »
    you dont want monsters to be nasty eh?
    well its good that some monster were ultra tough so you had to run away like a bunny :)


    No I'm all for nasty situations where you have a pretty low chance of survival but some situations you had no chance to survive. Like the Blunderbore with extra fast/magic immune you teleport in and are stunned until death basically.

    It's just that some combinations were pretty crippled. As long as there is a survivability rate high enough that I can play through without having to close the game and start back up to get rid of the monster than I don't mind. Unfortunately there were times in Hell I had to do this.

    That's pretty broken and I think it says a lot about balance if you have to close the game and reopen it just to avoid that monster. Like I said I don't think difficulty is a problem, I think game play imbalances are. As long as I can eventually kill the monster I have no problem dying time and time again.
  • #17 LordRayken
    With the way you guys whine about everything in Diablo 2 that made Diablo 2 the game it is... I'm amazed you are even on a Diablofans website.

    Every difficulty was the same exact stuff, just even harder... Tell me, how the hell are they supposed to increase difficulty without putting more immunities and whatnot on monsters? Then it'd REALLY be plain to just go from normal to hell difficulty with the monsters a bit stronger and nothing else.

    What did you guys expect? A walk through the park? It's HELL Difficulty. If the game isnt giving you HELL when you play it, then its a poor title for a difficulty.

    For everyone -bitching- about how "Difficult" all your immune monsters were... You dont HAVE to play Hell difficulty. I swear to god, I am the only one in this whole thread so far who actually liked what they did with the difficulty and hasnt outright whined and bitched about it.

    Edit: Survivability rate? It's called gaining levels. That gives you your survivability. I mean, I think I read someone complaining that the Iron Maiden curse made him have to take Hell in Hell difficulty one step at a time... My god? What the hell? That's supposed to be a bad thing? "It was the hardest difficulty in the game and the curses made me have to take my time to beat it!"
  • #18 palmtrees
    Quote from "LordRayken" »

    Tell me, how the hell are they supposed to increase difficulty without putting more immunities and whatnot on monsters? Then it'd REALLY be plain to just go from normal to hell difficulty with the monsters a bit stronger and nothing else.


    There are other ways to increase difficulty than just slapping on immunities. For instance, as one user suggested, you could actually add different deadlier monsters as the difficulty increases.

    Other options include:

    1) Giving the monsters better AI. Farcry 2 did this and it worked out pretty well.
    2) Giving the monsters different special moves. Something akin to heroic mode for WoW.
    3) Make the monsters more aggressive and see you further away.

    If you sit down and think about different solutions, I'm sure you'll find that immunities aren't the only answer... certainly not the most FUN answer and this being a game, that is what should be considered first, no?
  • #19 Daemaro
    Quote from "LordRayken" »

    Edit: Survivability rate? It's called gaining levels. That gives you your survivability. I mean, I think I read someone complaining that the Iron Maiden curse made him have to take Hell in Hell difficulty one step at a time... My god? What the hell? That's supposed to be a bad thing? "It was the hardest difficulty in the game and the curses made me have to take my time to beat it!"


    And how am I supposed to level when I can't procede in the game without getting passed that monster? That's pretty broken and I think it says a lot about balance if you have to close the game and reopen it just to avoid that monster. Like I said I don't think difficulty is a problem, I think game play imbalances are. As long as I can eventually kill the monster I have no problem dying time and time again.
  • #20 LordRayken
    Every difficulty was the same exact stuff, just even harder... How are they supposed to increase difficulty without putting more immunities and whatnot on monsters? Without that, it'd be very plain to just go from normal to hell difficulty with the monsters a bit stronger and nothing else.

    What did you guys expect, though? It is "HELL" Difficulty. If the game isnt giving you "HELL" when you play it, then its a poor title for a difficulty... Lots of hell in Diablo, eh?

    Also, about how difficult all the immune monsters were... You dont have to play on the Hell difficulty to get the full game, really. So I don't think that is a valid point.

    The game of Diablo and Diablo 2 are entirely about gaining levels. And via those levels, your character becomes much stronger to combat the burning legions. Without a higher level character, I'm sure Hell difficulty will always remain a "pain" in the ass... Or... A Hell in the ass?
  • To post a comment, please or register a new account.
Posts Quoted:
Reply
Clear All Quotes