Diablo.somepage.com had the great opportunity to talk to Diablo 3's new Game Director Josh Mosquiera and developers Travis Day and Kevin Martens. The interview was released in three parts with the last one being recently published. We've summarized some of the more interesting things that the devs shared. You can read the three parts of the interview here, here and here.
- The Itemization patch, or "Loot 2.0", will release after Blizzcon. Blizzard does not want to publish small chunks of updates, but instead intend to do a full overhaul
- All Legendary items should have unique properties, some examples include a set bonus that makes Call of the Ancients last forever and a Treasure Goblin that follows the character, picking up grey and white items and sometimes throwing the player magical items
- Items could become upgradeable, making them also non-tradable
- The 2 billion gold Auction House cap might get raised, but it's a fairly complex thing to do technically
- Least used class skills are what gets most attention when balancing classes. Developers want to bring more build diveristy and constantly strive for it
- Some Elite packs are harder than bosses, because the later are more of a celebration element in the storyline. With that said the experience from developing the bosses on PC and later on console versions has tought the development team a lot and new bosses that make their way into the game will be much better
- The PC version of D3 might get updated with some of the console features
- The Xbox 360 and PS3 versions are identical in gameplay and mechanics
- Console development didn't start until after the PC game launched, as the console team was brought in to help finish the title for PC
- Jay Wilson allowed "whatever tweaks are needed" to properly translate Diablo 3 to consoles
Diablo 3 PlayStation Q&A at E3
Josh Mosquiera and Jason Bender gave a Q&A at E3, which was later posted by Blizz Pro. In it the developers talk about making Diablo work well with a controller, the gear swap feature, online and offline play and exclusive console content.
Monster Density and Monster Power Settings on Console
Monster Density and Monster Power will actually be slightly different on consoles.
Originally Posted by Blue Tracker / Official Forums)
(Monster density has been custom tailored for the consoles, since the pace of combat is different than the PC counterpart. We wanted to make sure combat flow was smooth and action packed, so you can be sure that we've kept that in mind as we adjusted the density.
Let me be more specific: The monster density updates you added in 1.08 JUST for inferno, is that coming to console?
Yes and no.
Difficulty levels and Monster Power operate a little differently on console. There will still be Normal, Nightmare, Hell, and Inferno, and completing one mode will unlock the next mode -- just like on PC. Also, within each of these modes players will able to select from different difficulty levels to suit their preferred level of challenge. On console, however, there are only 8 settings: Easy, Medium, Hard, Master I, Master II, Master III, Master IV, and Master V. At Medium and higher in Inferno, density does increase, but the increase won't be as significant as what you'd typically see on PC (due to performance issues). Similar to MP on PC, higher difficulty settings present more powerful enemies that will have opportunity to reward players with more powerful loot.
For perspective, here's the current scaling (note that this may change before we ship):
- Easy = Monster Power 0
- Medium = Monster Power 2
- Hard = Monster Power 4
- Master I = Monster Power 6
- Master II = Monster Power 7
- Master III = Monster Power 8
- Master IV = Monster Power 9
- Master V = Monster Power 10
Differences on Console and Itemization Info
Lylirra has made a post regarding some of the changes the console version will have compared to the PC version. Later on she talks about the upcoming itemization patch.
Originally Posted by Blue Tracker / Official Forums)
(Interesting quote! (Also, apologies in advance for the TL;DR response.)
While the core of the console game is based on the PC game -- you get all the same content, systems, classes, skills, and runes on the console as you do on PC -- the console version of Diablo III is really its own thing. It's a familiar, but ultimately unique experience. Our goal when developing Diablo III for console was to deliver that same visceral gameplay you get with a mouse and keyboard, but at the same time feel completely natural when using a controller. (Basically, whichever platform you prefer for gaming, you can pick that version and know that it was tweaked to be best suited for the platform of your choice.)
In order to achieve that, we've made a variety of tweaks to the the PS3 and Xbox 360 versions, including a complete re-design of the UI and character controls, inventory management, as well as combat pacing and boss fights. The item game is predominantly the same, but we've also made some minor adjustments to itemization. Items will drop less frequently, but will typically be of higher quality. There's a chance that when a white or gray item drops, that it will be automatically converted to gold too. These changes were made to help manage the flow of gameplay and keep players in the midst of combat (and out of their inventory screens) as much possible. Inventory management is a little more difficult on the console version than it is on the PC, where you have a mouse to quickly navigate through menus, so this was a pretty key tweak for the PS3 and Xbox 360.
Many of these adjustments inspired future changes we'd like to make to PC, and many of them were inspired by plans we already had for improving itemization as a whole. Since we use staggered development (meaning, the PC and console games more or less have separate teams and development cycles), though, it's possible that one game will receive changes before another. Over time, which game that is may switch back and forth. Even so, PC will always be the lead platform.
Regardless, here are a few interviews and hands-on reviews from PAX East you may want to check out. I've only highlighted ones where itemization on console gets addressed, but I figured this was kind of important, as it lets you get the information directly from the developers.
Penny Arcade Report
Kotaku
IGN (Skip to 5:25)
Thank you for linking that blog. I wanted to confirm how long ago it was, and three months is a long time to stand around and do nothing, from a player's perspective. Ask the Devs isn't even done, and the blog came before it, three months ago. Three months
Correct. Sometimes, changes to games can be made quickly. But that's not always the case, especially when you're looking at a system (like itemization) that's very core to the game itself. We can definitely understand that players would like said changes made overnight -- heck, we would too -- but we'd much rather take our time and come up with something that's actually meaningful and relevant, rather than implement something quickly that doesn't satisfy the current problems and/or make the game anymore engaging.
Everything we get is super rushed feeling instead of complete and considering the amount of time you guys spend being mum about things, we are being reasonable to doubt you guys care.
We know that some players feel that way about previous changes we've made (i.e. legendary improvements), and it's not unreasonable. Even if that's not actually the case, that's part of the reason why we're taking things a little more slowly this time around and really looking at more big/sweeping changes to the core of the item game.
That's disrespectful towards the community, even though I know you guys regret that the itemization blog came out so soon (e.g. Travis Day said that in his interview with Archon on Twitch). Once it's done, just stand up to it, don't hide your heads behind your hands, like they could cover you.
So, Lylirra, this comes from a respectful player who loves D3 : why did you guys stop communicating about itemization for so long ? You come out as very unprofessional, especially after you yourself said you guys were going to make efforts to communicate with the community
That's fair. At the moment, we just don't have a lot of details to share about itemization (beyond what we've already communicated). Our goal is always to share new information once it's available, but the tricky part is what to communicate in between those points. Do we just reiterate what we've already said? Do we talk high-level only? Or do we just remain mum until that new information is out? Players are definitely divided on what they want.
Going to back to Travis's blog, itemization was a very popular topic and we wanted to acknowledge the concerns that players had officially, even if we didn't have a lot of details to share about how we were going to approach specific pain points. That was also feedback we'd heard a lot of: "We don't care if you don't have any details to share. Just respond to us." And so that particular developer journal blog was born, as well as the following Ask the Devs topic.
The upside to posting Travis's blog when we did is that is tackled some of the major discussions players were having while they were new and relevant. It was also a direct response to the feedback we'd been given. The downside is that the blog came out just as we were starting to approach our itemization revamp, so there's not been a lot of new information to share between then and now. We're still working on the same ideas and theories, but nothing's really reached a point where we can communicate that a) these are the things have been locked down and here are all the details of how those systems will work. Also, the communication we've provided on those "in-between" stages has been met with a lot of criticism (see the responses to the all itemization-related "Ask the Devs" answers) so far. Some people even said: "I don't know why you're even bothering to answer this if you don't have any details to share" -- which was the exact opposite feedback we'd heard just a few weeks prior.
We'd love to do more informal chats like what Travis and Wyatt did with Archon on the May 15, where the developers just take some time to casually talk about the game and their approach to certain issues. We might not have a lot of new information to share in those chats, but at least it would establish a nice of cadence of conversation. Less formal, more frequent.
But I don't know -- is that something that you guys would appreciate? We're always willing to experiment and find out what method works best to getting you information about the game. (Granted, it may not always be new information since Diablo III doesn't iterate as frequently as games like World of Warcraft or ones that are still in beta, but I think just having some transparency and candid communication with the developers would be nice.)
Over a decade and counting ain't enough?
Not sure what you're actually looking for here with your comment? We admit the item game we created in Diablo III has flaws, we've openly admitted those flaws to our players and that we want to improve them. The next big step is to identify the right way to fix those flaws and, in the process, really re-capture that lust for loot and feeling of "HOLY CRAP ORANGE" that many players feel is missing right now.
Yes almost 100% console version will have 1.0.9
Going to nip this one in the bud. The console version of Diablo III will ship with all of 1.0.7 content, plus some features from 1.0.8 -- but that's it. Detailed that a little more here: http://us.battle.net...ic/9245624848#4
While the core of the console game is based on the PC game -- you get all the same content, systems, classes, skills, and runes on the console as you do on PC -- the console version of Diablo III is really its own thing. It's a familiar, but ultimately unique experience. Our goal when developing Diablo III for console was to deliver that same visceral gameplay you get with a mouse and keyboard, but at the same time feel completely natural when using a controller. (Basically, whichever platform you prefer for gaming, you can pick that version and know that it was tweaked to be best suited for the platform of your choice.)
In order to achieve that, we've made a variety of tweaks to the the PS3 and Xbox 360 versions, including a complete re-design of the UI and character controls, inventory management, as well as combat pacing and boss fights. The item game is predominantly the same, but we've also made some minor adjustments to itemization. Items will drop less frequently, but will typically be of higher quality. There's a chance that when a white or gray item drops, that it will be automatically converted to gold too. These changes were made to help manage the flow of gameplay and keep players in the midst of combat (and out of their inventory screens) as much possible. Inventory management is a little more difficult on the console version than it is on the PC, where you have a mouse to quickly navigate through menus, so this was a pretty key tweak for the PS3 and Xbox 360.
Many of these adjustments inspired future changes we'd like to make to PC, and many of them were inspired by plans we already had for improving itemization as a whole. Since we use staggered development (meaning, the PC and console games more or less have separate teams and development cycles), though, it's possible that one game will receive changes before another. Over time, which game that is may switch back and forth. Even so, PC will always be the lead platform.
Regardless, here are a few interviews and hands-on reviews from PAX East you may want to check out. I've only highlighted ones where itemization on console gets addressed, but I figured this was kind of important, as it lets you get the information directly from the developers.
Penny Arcade Report
Kotaku
IGN (Skip to 5:25)
Thank you for linking that blog. I wanted to confirm how long ago it was, and three months is a long time to stand around and do nothing, from a player's perspective. Ask the Devs isn't even done, and the blog came before it, three months ago. Three months
Correct. Sometimes, changes to games can be made quickly. But that's not always the case, especially when you're looking at a system (like itemization) that's very core to the game itself. We can definitely understand that players would like said changes made overnight -- heck, we would too -- but we'd much rather take our time and come up with something that's actually meaningful and relevant, rather than implement something quickly that doesn't satisfy the current problems and/or make the game anymore engaging.
Everything we get is super rushed feeling instead of complete and considering the amount of time you guys spend being mum about things, we are being reasonable to doubt you guys care.
We know that some players feel that way about previous changes we've made (i.e. legendary improvements), and it's not unreasonable. Even if that's not actually the case, that's part of the reason why we're taking things a little more slowly this time around and really looking at more big/sweeping changes to the core of the item game.
That's disrespectful towards the community, even though I know you guys regret that the itemization blog came out so soon (e.g. Travis Day said that in his interview with Archon on Twitch). Once it's done, just stand up to it, don't hide your heads behind your hands, like they could cover you.
So, Lylirra, this comes from a respectful player who loves D3 : why did you guys stop communicating about itemization for so long ? You come out as very unprofessional, especially after you yourself said you guys were going to make efforts to communicate with the community
That's fair. At the moment, we just don't have a lot of details to share about itemization (beyond what we've already communicated). Our goal is always to share new information once it's available, but the tricky part is what to communicate in between those points. Do we just reiterate what we've already said? Do we talk high-level only? Or do we just remain mum until that new information is out? Players are definitely divided on what they want.
Going to back to Travis's blog, itemization was a very popular topic and we wanted to acknowledge the concerns that players had officially, even if we didn't have a lot of details to share about how we were going to approach specific pain points. That was also feedback we'd heard a lot of: "We don't care if you don't have any details to share. Just respond to us." And so that particular developer journal blog was born, as well as the following Ask the Devs topic.
The upside to posting Travis's blog when we did is that is tackled some of the major discussions players were having while they were new and relevant. It was also a direct response to the feedback we'd been given. The downside is that the blog came out just as we were starting to approach our itemization revamp, so there's not been a lot of new information to share between then and now. We're still working on the same ideas and theories, but nothing's really reached a point where we can communicate that a) these are the things have been locked down and here are all the details of how those systems will work. Also, the communication we've provided on those "in-between" stages has been met with a lot of criticism (see the responses to the all itemization-related "Ask the Devs" answers) so far. Some people even said: "I don't know why you're even bothering to answer this if you don't have any details to share" -- which was the exact opposite feedback we'd heard just a few weeks prior.
We'd love to do more informal chats like what Travis and Wyatt did with Archon on the May 15, where the developers just take some time to casually talk about the game and their approach to certain issues. We might not have a lot of new information to share in those chats, but at least it would establish a nice of cadence of conversation. Less formal, more frequent.
But I don't know -- is that something that you guys would appreciate? We're always willing to experiment and find out what method works best to getting you information about the game. (Granted, it may not always be new information since Diablo III doesn't iterate as frequently as games like World of Warcraft or ones that are still in beta, but I think just having some transparency and candid communication with the developers would be nice.)
Over a decade and counting ain't enough?
Not sure what you're actually looking for here with your comment? We admit the item game we created in Diablo III has flaws, we've openly admitted those flaws to our players and that we want to improve them. The next big step is to identify the right way to fix those flaws and, in the process, really re-capture that lust for loot and feeling of "HOLY CRAP ORANGE" that many players feel is missing right now.
Yes almost 100% console version will have 1.0.9
Going to nip this one in the bud. The console version of Diablo III will ship with all of 1.0.7 content, plus some features from 1.0.8 -- but that's it. Detailed that a little more here: http://us.battle.net...ic/9245624848#4
I just had a feeling someone was going to take that sentense out of context. I never stated that Diablo 3 was a sub based game, I mearly stated that that sub based games are affected even greater by it. And yes, we can expect and we should very well expect weekly updates if they are relevant, like bug fixes and completed features. This is a problem that companies have done well to confused the playerbase about, and thats how frequent content updates can be.
Just because something doesnt have a monthly monetary fee, doesnt mean its value is any less; and if anything most monthly fees dont reward players with better value for their game, its very much an up and down curve depending on what part of a very long development cycle the company is at. This is why having frequent updates makes that monthly value reasonable.
The other problem is that companies dont feel required to further update a game if they are not recieving a possible profit from it, ala monthly fees, dlc, in game transactions, etc. This still doesnt devalue the need for frequent updates, it just means that companies have refused to support their game honorably after the initial release. How many companies shovel out a bad or unfinished game and then just quietly disapear, usually with a "we cannot afford to further develop the game" ? A metric ton. How many games can honestly say they are "complete" at release? Almost none of them. There are also games, like Diablo 3, that have stated that they will continue to develop the game for the years to come. So there is no clause that says "We do not have to be professional about our game support, you are not giving us money" . And yet they are recieving continued monetary support, just like a free to play game though via the RMAH.
Also, PoE hasnt been in beta for months and it has a ton of players. Also, LoL has a much higher player base than Diablo 3, and it has an almost annoyingly frequent amount of updates. The amount of games that actually do frequently update their game is not some small number, and not one thats religated to only niche genre or money.
Thats a rather funny and ironic statement to make, considering you saying that shows that you do not have an idea in how programming works, or that your "expertise" in the field is fed solely from what game developers have told you in PR talks and what "a friend of a friend" have said. I in fact know very well how programming "works" . I do not claim to be the be all and end all of all things software, but I very well know the very basic rule that every computer science student or enthusiest learns when they start on the path for software development; you're code is only as good as you make it to be.
Just because blizzard made a lot of mistakes, and a lot of companies, in their coding process, who the hire, how they treat their workers, etc. does not mean that the "physics" of coding is some sort of unrulely dragon that you cannot fathom to saddle, that only god himself has the knowhow to write beautiful code. Changing 1 line of code does not break another line of code, unless you improperly wrote all the code. Giving a sword +5 to str accidently does not create 100 black dragons to spawn in a noob friendly zone, unless something went horribly horribly wrong in designing the game. Now, you can argue things like: causing memory leaks, runtime errors, eronious movement / controls , etc. , those are valid issues that come up with improper code and/or bad design. Having your armor turn blue when you pick up a rock does not qualify as "just how it works when you code".
Bad programmers make bad code, bad teachers make bad programmers, and bad bosses make bad workers. Code, only does what you tell it to do.
Again, propper coding negates the need for heavy Q & A . Do we live in a world where everyone writes beautiful code? A lot of people do, but if someone who doesnt messes something up, of course things will break. Do I think having a testing phase is important? I sure do. I never stated it wasnt important, I only stated that that Blizzard's Q&A is laughable, and they still release errors that have been pointed out to them for weeks, and break things in the game that have no relation at all to what they were working on. Again, this is not something that "just happens" as a result from programming, its a result from poor workmanship. Q&A, as well as frequency of errors, can be improved by doing the job correctly the first time around, or at the very least focused more heavily on doing a propper job.
Im sure there are employees at blizzard that do their best, and some that dont realize that they are making mistakes or making unnessisary bloat to their game. Its still the job of blizzard and the employees to put forth an effort to correct and improve the quality of work, as well as comprehend preventative skills to keep things like this from becoming a hinderance.
I don't believe you understand the statement you quoted, or the context of where you quoted it from. Blizzard "postponing a release as long as they want" , ' reset a development" and "cancel a game" are exaclty the issues I was talking about. Blizzard postpones releases of things "to create the best quality content" sure, but thats not even half of the real reason.
They postpone because they cant get a grip on what it is they are trying to create, they try too many different iterations of the same thing, the coding / development becomes a much bigger job than the workers can accomplish in the given time, someone changes thier focus part of the way through because of a sudden development, etc. etc. Preaching quality is a very admirable thing, but blizzard has been far from "quality" work for years now.
They have also admited several times (as shields against people getting angry about features not being released) , that they spend a lot of time reworking the same thing over and over, even to the detriment of the feature itself. They also spend a great deal of time trying to create features that either dont pan out as well as they had hoped (or us hoped) for , or dont even make it to finish. These are design resources that countless companies waste and get lost "in the heat of" when developing games, especially before a release of one. These are not examples of "making the game better" , they are examples of "going overboard in design" and creating development bloat.
Is it great and good for companies to want to experiment? Sure is. But you dont sacrafice the overarching progress of the game "to feel something out." . Too many companies, with kickstarter for example, create these huge stretch goals to "improve the game with better funding" , and bottom out shortly after wtih all that extra funding. They dont know how to properly manage their resources, and know when to "stop" or "let it go" , if even temporarly until a better time to work on it.
Titan is a great example at blizzard tryin to create something without a propper focus and desgin, and wasting a lot of manhours and resources (leaving the rest of their franchises with less manpower) , only to scrap it and start over with a smaller team. Does this happen? Yea, it happens, and its unfortunate. But blizzard has done this too frequently (ghost, diablo 3, content updates for wow, etc.) , that its no longer a "Hey, cut them a break, stuff happens." and its entirely "Hey, get your development teams and higher ups heads out of the sand."
They've shown full well that their last several years, and their comitments of "getting better" , have fallen flat. They need to actually change up and create a new system for development, or they will continue to waste time, effort, money; and delay, reset, and cancel games/content for the forseeable future.
Its a choice, not a condition, to stay the course when you are doing poorly at something.
This is just not how coding works. In a fully-fledged game like Diablo 3 that has millions of lines of code, unforeseen things just happen. You talk about programming as if there were two kinds of programmers: those who make mistakes, and those who make no mistakes. This is just wrong. Bug-free software is a myth.
If you believe otherwise, read up a bit, for example follow some of the links and arguments in this StackOverflow discussion, familiarize with the history of TeX (which was believed to be bug-free since 1982, but Donald Knuth is still sending out checks to people - a friend of mine got his just a couple of years ago), or just spend some time around real programmers. No programmer will ever say he has never made a programming mistake (and if you know someone who says that he's either lying or not really a programmer).
Okay, this is my last comment to what you said here - initially didn't want to respond but there are just some things that cannot be left uncommented. It's fairly obvious that we disagree in how software development works, and I'm not gonna say that what you said is wrong (though I believe it is) - I just want to clarify some things for other readers.
1) You cannot compare some small Kickstarter project with a Blizzard game. Period.
2) You have no idea about the Titan development (if you had, you wouldn't be bitching about Blizzard so much). Please refrain from making statements like "blizzard tryin to create something without a propper focus and desgin, and wasting a lot of manhours and resources".
3) "Iterating too often" is almost impossible. In fact, everything you say about Blizzard's style of game development is what distinguishes them from all the other companies that create software with mediocre quality. If you think that Blizzard's software is bad in terms of quality, then please move along and keep thinking that way, but in the world of software engineers and game developers you won't find many people to agree with you.
this is the last thing we need at this point...
also, itemization not untill next year just made me decide to just walk away from the game till then. not worth it since that patch on the horizon was the only thing keeping me interested enough to keep logging in.