If they aren't making them full-fledged mercenaries, I'd rather followers just be cosmetic. You get to choose which one to follow you. They do all the story stuff and chat with your character, but they don't really do any damage and have no customization. They should just be to keep your character company. Keep their health and survivability up throughout the game, but make their damage so low to be worthless.
You can have a follower, no problem, but don't expect them to follow you past normal. Don't expect them to be somewhat better if you acquire one in later difficulties either.
So, I dunno. I've never been the one to use a merc because I am definitely the kind of guy who just hates looking out for other people (in games), so I could care less how great this system turns out to be and how amazingly cool it is; I'll never use them. If they die, then it's wasted money that Blizzard wants us to spend the way we want to spend it. I'd rather pay for upgrading my weapons in Nightmare and Hell rather than getting stuff for my follower just so they don't die on me.
Am I saying it's a worthless system? No. I'm saying that I'll never use it because I don't see myself liking it. I prefer to slice my own bread.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I hate the way you cling to ignorance and pass it off as innocence
I wanna start by saying that I agree with blizz and support what they are doing. My question is as follows:
(I am asking this assuming that when we start in NM and Hell we will have our leveled followers with us, like we did with our mercs in d2.)
Since the followers are more tied into the story plot and are gained through quests rather than gold, does this mean that the follower quests will not appear in the second and third playthrough? and if they don't will it feel like there is a chunk missing from the story, or will the story change? jw
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
D3anonymous
@Upgradez I could've faceplanted on the keyboard and still killed everything in act 1.
I would assume you only do those quests when you're playing in Normal, but they could just have the quests and the followers are just at the end. They have said that the follower quests fit into the main story.
I would assume you only do those quests when you're playing in Normal, but they could just have the quests and the followers are just at the end. They have said that the follower quests fit into the main story.
I'm trying to understand what you meant by this, and here's what I've got: It will be like in d2 where you redo the blood raven quest in NM but instead of unlocking the mercs again you unlock something else, or get nothing.
if that is what you meant, then how is it possible to still have a quest present in the 2nd and 3rd playthrough, when the followers are the main point of said quest? It would drastically change the quest to remove the follower part of it, unless you don't mind running into Kormac's twin in NM.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
D3anonymous
@Upgradez I could've faceplanted on the keyboard and still killed everything in act 1.
The game is balanced so that everyone is required to have a mercenary for the intended Hell difficulty. This will diminish the experience of the people that don't like mercenaries.
The game is balanced so that no-one is required to have a mercenary. This will on the other hand make the game "too easy" (i.e. below balanced difficulty) for the people that are using mercenaries.
Easy fix, count mercs as 1 player or 1/2 a player when the game considers the level of difficulty by the amount of players. Like in D2, the more players in the game the stronger the monsters.
The game is balanced so that everyone is required to have a mercenary for the intended Hell difficulty. This will diminish the experience of the people that don't like mercenaries.
The game is balanced so that no-one is required to have a mercenary. This will on the other hand make the game "too easy" (i.e. below balanced difficulty) for the people that are using mercenaries.
Easy fix, count mercs as 1 player or 1/2 a player when the game considers the level of difficulty by the amount of players. Like in D2, the more players in the game the stronger the monsters.
Unfortunately it can't work that way, to balance the game with mercs the devs would have to consider the merc a 'pet' in which case they would have to make the character weaker to compensate for the mercs dmg etc. for example say you have 2 player characters in a game at the same level with relatively the same gear on so they're effectively both rated the same, say 100%. If one decides they want to use a merc that changes their rating. Lets say a merc equals 1/2 a player so 50%, in that case now the character with the merc has a rating of 150% where-as the other guy is still a now less than impressive 100%, if all they do is make diablos minions stronger, this creates a balancing problem for the character w/o the merc. So to balance it effectively you would have to make the character weaker, like 60%, and change the merc to 40% so together they equal 100% and it would turn the merc into a pet (or a dependancy) that the player would have to use all the time. If they do that it's not technically a merc anymore is it, it's a pet (i use the term 'pet' loosely, it doesn't have to be an animal of course :P). Now to effectively implement this there would have to be probably nearly double the balancing required to polish every class with and w/o the use of a merc, and it brings a few other problems with it like balancing different skill combos with different combos of characters/mercs etc etc. To me this sounds like a fairly large logistical problem and the new rune system sounds tough enough to balance as it is.
This is why the merc system in D2 wasn't ideal and I'm guessing thats the main reason why blizzard decided to scrap mercs and designed the followers to only 'add a bit of flavor' in normal difficulty (where perfect balance isn't as critical) plus the other points that the blizzard team have stated.
People keep saying it's so easy to fix, but from a developers stand point it wouldn't be that easy and probably seems unnecessary because they plan on alot of players co-op'ing anyway and this is what they're trying to encourage, so it would be going against one of the things they are trying to achieve with D3. damn that ended up way lengthier then planned, sorry
Do people ever just get excited about things? I guess I am a casual gamer because I totally do not look at features in an analytical way. I look at something and think about how it will add to the immersion, story or my gameplay experience. How frustrating life must be when things that are inherently fun and for leisure become points of contention and unrest in the eyes of those that play the games. What is the point? A lot of it also seems to be contrary for the sake of trying to play devil's advocate every single time something is shown.
Thanks so much for trying to sell me your personal world-view. The text in bold is especially condescending and judgmental, but I understand that from the outside, it's difficult to understand why certain among us behave this way.
The fact is, some of us thoroughly enjoy analyzing information in order to gain knowledge. If remaining ignorant is fun for you, cool, high five. Some of us are compelled to dissect life in an attempt to understand its governing dynamics.
Also, many of us just love to debate. We find it fun, and we understand that investigating other people's opinions can lead us to an enlightened viewpoint.
In short, you don't need me to be excited with you. And I don't need you lecturing me about how to approach my life. Also, be aware of the irony of complaining and bitching about all the people who complain and bitch.
Now, finally, on-topic.
<-ON TOPIC->
I always hated mercs. I'm not sure why, but they just annoyed the crap outta me. If followers were a big part of the game, I would want Dragon Age -esque control of the tactical choices of the followers, in depth. Otherwise they're just annoying.
But I agree with several people here.. why have followers at all if they're only used solo, AND they aren't viable past normal? That seems to me an incredible waste of engineering resources. If they did all that just to "encourage" people to play b-net co-op.. that seems a giant steaming waste.
If they don't get the game out by 12/31/2011, I'm blaming the followers that I'll never use.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions."
-Thomas Jefferson
Won't we be repeating quests on higher diffculties anyway? So why wouldn't followers come back in other difficulties. I say focus on the actuall game then rather then wasting your/our time on nastalgic/throwback brooohaha adding the followers, then taking them away when things get tough in single player.
Graphicaly I understand why none in multi, more characters on the screen means more memory consumption.
I always hated mercs. I'm not sure why, but they just annoyed the crap outta me. If followers were a big part of the game, I would want Dragon Age -esque control of the tactical choices of the followers, in depth. Otherwise they're just annoying.
But I agree with several people here.. why have followers at all if they're only used solo, AND they aren't viable past normal? That seems to me an incredible waste of engineering resources. If they did all that just to "encourage" people to play b-net co-op.. that seems a giant steaming waste.
If they don't get the game out by 12/31/2011, I'm blaming the followers that I'll never use.
It's interesting that you say that because, I feel the same way and I don't hear it often. I never played with mercs in d2 because they are innate NPCs that go off and die for no damn reason. In fact, I'm running a new sorc through Normal difficulty now and have no intention of getting a merc.
That being said, I'll definitely be exploring how the Follower system works, however it's implemented, and, if I don't like it then I won't use it.
I can't believe Blizzards thinking with this situation. First we don't get LAN play, so no multiplayer mods. Now we only get 4 players cooperative with no mercenaries, and no mercenaries after Normal play. Why? All because someone at Blizzard thinks it's too chaotic.
Hey, did you ever wonder what the players might want? I'll pitch you a key word to great game development, "OPTIONS". If me and my friends feel that the game will be too chaotic with more than 4 players, we'll only play with 4 players, but in the chance that 5 of us want to play together, it sure would be nice to be able to include that one extra person. "Too bad! You'll play the way we want you to, not the way you want to!"
What's the point of even having a merc in the first place? Is it a recruiting strategy? You mention you want people to feel the presence of another player so they'll be more inclined to play online with people. Some of us don't like playing online with strangers! Why are you trying to make us do it? I prefer virtual friends over some rude people online. If my friends can't play with me one day, I'd sure like to have my mercenary there to keep me company. "Too bad! You'll play the way we want you to, not the way you want to!"
Back to my options mention. Why can't you just have things optional? Player numbers is obvious. Why can't you have a "Allow Mercenaries" option for multiplayer? This gives the host the option to allow mercs or not. I'll bet my life more often than not they'll allow YES. But Blizzard says NO.
I'm just a little bit sick of what I heard today. We're hoping for a sequel to Diablo II with all the standard features we've become accustomed too, but Blizzard is saying NO. My ears are bleeding now from that word. I'm sorely disappointed in you, Diablo III development team. You need to allow the players to play your game the way they want to, not the way you think they should.
Am I the only one who's really disappointed there won't be mercs helping us in multiplayer hell mode?
I loved mercs in d2 and I was really looking forward to having more options for my endgame merc in d3. Now it's like they took away half the game from me.
And why even have them at all if you won't be able to use them in most of the game? Either make them always useable or don't put them in at all.
I can't believe Blizzards thinking with this situation. First we don't get LAN play, so no multiplayer mods. Now we only get 4 players cooperative with no mercenaries, and no mercenaries after Normal play. Why? All because someone at Blizzard thinks it's too chaotic.
Its not just Blizzard, thats been a common complaint on these forums for ages. 'Screen clutter' and 'pixelated soup' are commonly heard terms at BlizzCon panels (obviously in terms of what they want to avoid).
Hey, did you ever wonder what the players might want? I'll pitch you a key word to great game development, "OPTIONS". If me and my friends feel that the game will be too chaotic with more than 4 players, we'll only play with 4 players, but in the chance that 5 of us want to play together, it sure would be nice to be able to include that one extra person. "Too bad! You'll play the way we want you to, not the way you want to!"
What's the point of even having a merc in the first place? Is it a recruiting strategy? You mention you want people to feel the presence of another player so they'll be more inclined to play online with people. Some of us don't like playing online with strangers! Why are you trying to make us do it? I prefer virtual friends over some rude people online. If my friends can't play with me one day, I'd sure like to have my mercenary there to keep me company. "Too bad! You'll play the way we want you to, not the way you want to!"
Back to my options mention. Why can't you just have things optional? Player numbers is obvious. Why can't you have a "Allow Mercenaries" option for multiplayer? This gives the host the option to allow mercs or not. I'll bet my life more often than not they'll allow YES. But Blizzard says NO.
You have to stop looking at it as though Blizzard 'took away' our ability to have mercs. Just because its in D2 doesn't mean it makes it into D3. Especially considering how broken the system was in D2. And as far as options go, theres 97 billion builds in the game. Each skill has 5 different rune variations, and theres about 25-30 skills per character. Theres at least twenty different armor dyes and eighteen different armor looks. Why should they implement more options for the sake of options? They already have plenty of well-implemented options, why should they sacrifice quality for quantity?
Blizzard's design style revolves around them trying everything. In fact, Bashiok talked about how currently followers are available in MP, and its impossible to see what you're doing. They take feedback from hundreds, if not thousands of people and thats before the beta has even started. The reason followers aren't a part of endgame balance is because they probably were at some point and it was nearly impossible to pull off correctly, especially in a way that continues to promote cooperative play, which is a stated goal of the team. I'm not saying that its unreasonable to be disappointed that mercs/hirelings/followers aren't in the game, but you can't honestly try to argue that its part of some overall design philosophy where Blizzard wants to restrict our options.
I understand the screen clutter, and I agree, it's terrible! But I've played Diablo II a TON with my friends, sometimes we'd have 6 or more players, and one of them is a Necromancer...big mistake there. Having like 8 skeletons along with the players was a joke. However, every other time I've played Diablo II with 3 of my friends, screen clutter was not an issue, even with the mercs.
Thinking about this a bit, I understand an issue with balance. Some people said they hate having a mercenary and it's really not fair to them if a Mercenary is a significant part of their strength. When they don't have it, they're underpowered. The opposite, if you do have one, you could be overpowered. So for balance sake, no question, you either need a merc or don't.
On a second note, Diablo 1 was an awesome game as well, and you didn't have a mercenary in it. The more I think about it, that might have played a big part in the "dark, "scariness" of Diablo 1. When you played alone, you were alone. It helped add some mood that Diablo II didn't have as much of.
I will agree with others though about how having it in Normal and not anywhere else is a completely idiotic idea. Give them always or ditch them completely. You think me having a AI mercenary is going to make me want to play online with strangers!? Whatever. You're wasting your time with the mercs.
What I am disappointed with is the investment of energy into the system.
After the video leak we were given links to interviews by Leonard Boyarsky and Jay Wilson, Leonard said that the system would only work on Single Player, Jay said it would work on COOP but only when you were without party, having the follower return to town when some player joined the game.
They also go on about all the kinds of uniques that are suited for followers etc and and skills. So why all the effort for single player and 20 levels. I don´t understand that at all!!
I was very happy with the idea of having the followers when playing alone. What pisses me off is that change of ideas only a few days after revealing to all the fans, was that strategy a mistake from marketing?
Say it out loud when it is done! Don´t screw round with us till you have a solid decision...
A lot of good points on both sides. At first glance, I don't care either way. As I said before, I never liked the idea of having mercs in the first place. And I never played summoning classes. Not my style.
There is one thing that does have me annoyed though.. it's this: Bashoik openly admits that followers are implemented specifically for people who will likely only play through normal then ditch the game. It's a feature that is only functionally useful to novices.
Now look, I think it's a great idea to have features that are attractive to new players, and/or ones who aren't hardcore freak addicts like us. And it should be said.. if the followers have a significant impact on the storyline, then that's something. But frankly, if you need followers to reveal the story through exposition, well, that's awful storytelling. Diablo's not about talking, it's about showing. Or, at least it used to be.
So anyway, if the D3 dev team has spent this much time creating a feature that's only useful to nubbins, that tells me something about the design mindset over at Blizzard.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions."
-Thomas Jefferson
Well the thing is those 'nubbins' are the majority of the people who have ever played D2 (or, more recently, SC2). So catering to them, at least in some ways, is almost forced upon the D3 team. And considering the aim of this system is to encourage them to become more hardcore and involved with the online community, as opposed to just trying to appeal to them, which I would say is much more indicative of their design mindset. They want a game that has a large community and a wide range of players.
As far as storytelling, I'm sure that any quests that are part of the main story arc that involve the followers will still be in the game regardless if you're playing multiplayer or not. As in you'll still have to rescue the people, and go on whatever other quests that leads to (ie discovering who the Prophet is, etc). Also, any time someone is lecturing you on storyline while you're away from town (or even while you're in it), you'll be able to continue killing/questing/etc while they talk. So its not like in D2 where you have to pay attention to a bunch of scrolling text.
i agree with a lot of people here in that i think this follower system is bogus.
for the record, ive always been a SP D2 player. and i refuse to play online. i always felt that Blizzard has given us single players the shaft regarding its content and options.
now i hear this news regarding the the followers and i think to myself "there they go again, giving us the shaft!"
this is NOT about having the ability regarding the use of a merc or not. as far as im concerned and like others have mentioned, just scrap the whole follower thing. but i have a bad feeling that unless you go COOP after normal and without a follower, we SP's are doomed in nightmare and hell thus leading to the temptation to to play COOP. well not me, i refuse to play with morons, and if i cannot make a character in SP thats viable in nightmare and hell without dying every other minute, then i guess i will be one of those players that Blizzard refers to as the general population that just plays it once through normal, then puts it on the shelf and its forgotten.
this is NOT about having the ability regarding the use of a merc or not. as far as im concerned and like others have mentioned, just scrap the whole follower thing. but i have a bad feeling that unless you go COOP after normal and without a follower, we SP's are doomed in nightmare and hell thus leading to the temptation to to play COOP. well not me, i refuse to play with morons, and if i cannot make a character in SP thats viable in nightmare and hell without dying every other minute, then i guess i will be one of those players that Blizzard refers to as the general population that just plays it once through normal, then puts it on the shelf and its forgotten.
I'm sure the game is 100% solable in all difficults. Don't worry you will not be forced to MP.
Imo Blizz is understemating the amount of people that pass normal and go to nm. For people that don't care about merc and this whole follower system, it's a neutral update. If you don't like it, don't use it, ok.
But for the people that like this kind of system ? Imo the avarage player will be shocked (in a bad way) when his follower start to die endlessly until it becames useless. Seriously i bet they will change it in beta or just fix it in a patch after the top 10 reviwers of the industry start to point the follower start as a "unfinished, confusing and agfainst the most basic principle of game progression". It's like those old games that removed the special moves of your character in higher difficulties in order to make it harder...
A design that gives something and then remove it as the game progress is is flawed. None can argue that, despite any consequencies the follower system may have.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"In time the hissing of her sanity
Faded out her voice and soiled her name
And like marked pages in a diary
Everything seemed clean that is unstained
The incoherent talk of ordinary days
Why would we really need to live?
Decide what is clear and what's within a haze
What you should take and what to give" - Opeth
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
You, sir, win.
You can have a follower, no problem, but don't expect them to follow you past normal. Don't expect them to be somewhat better if you acquire one in later difficulties either.
So, I dunno. I've never been the one to use a merc because I am definitely the kind of guy who just hates looking out for other people (in games), so I could care less how great this system turns out to be and how amazingly cool it is; I'll never use them. If they die, then it's wasted money that Blizzard wants us to spend the way we want to spend it. I'd rather pay for upgrading my weapons in Nightmare and Hell rather than getting stuff for my follower just so they don't die on me.
Am I saying it's a worthless system? No. I'm saying that I'll never use it because I don't see myself liking it. I prefer to slice my own bread.
I hate the way you cling to ignorance and pass it off as innocence
(I am asking this assuming that when we start in NM and Hell we will have our leveled followers with us, like we did with our mercs in d2.)
Since the followers are more tied into the story plot and are gained through quests rather than gold, does this mean that the follower quests will not appear in the second and third playthrough? and if they don't will it feel like there is a chunk missing from the story, or will the story change? jw
@Upgradez I could've faceplanted on the keyboard and still killed everything in act 1.
-Funny troll tweet
Find any Diablo news? Contact me or anyone else on the news team.
DiabloFans: Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, Live Chat
I'm trying to understand what you meant by this, and here's what I've got: It will be like in d2 where you redo the blood raven quest in NM but instead of unlocking the mercs again you unlock something else, or get nothing.
if that is what you meant, then how is it possible to still have a quest present in the 2nd and 3rd playthrough, when the followers are the main point of said quest? It would drastically change the quest to remove the follower part of it, unless you don't mind running into Kormac's twin in NM.
@Upgradez I could've faceplanted on the keyboard and still killed everything in act 1.
-Funny troll tweet
Easy fix, count mercs as 1 player or 1/2 a player when the game considers the level of difficulty by the amount of players. Like in D2, the more players in the game the stronger the monsters.
Unfortunately it can't work that way, to balance the game with mercs the devs would have to consider the merc a 'pet' in which case they would have to make the character weaker to compensate for the mercs dmg etc. for example say you have 2 player characters in a game at the same level with relatively the same gear on so they're effectively both rated the same, say 100%. If one decides they want to use a merc that changes their rating. Lets say a merc equals 1/2 a player so 50%, in that case now the character with the merc has a rating of 150% where-as the other guy is still a now less than impressive 100%, if all they do is make diablos minions stronger, this creates a balancing problem for the character w/o the merc. So to balance it effectively you would have to make the character weaker, like 60%, and change the merc to 40% so together they equal 100% and it would turn the merc into a pet (or a dependancy) that the player would have to use all the time. If they do that it's not technically a merc anymore is it, it's a pet (i use the term 'pet' loosely, it doesn't have to be an animal of course :P). Now to effectively implement this there would have to be probably nearly double the balancing required to polish every class with and w/o the use of a merc, and it brings a few other problems with it like balancing different skill combos with different combos of characters/mercs etc etc. To me this sounds like a fairly large logistical problem and the new rune system sounds tough enough to balance as it is.
This is why the merc system in D2 wasn't ideal and I'm guessing thats the main reason why blizzard decided to scrap mercs and designed the followers to only 'add a bit of flavor' in normal difficulty (where perfect balance isn't as critical) plus the other points that the blizzard team have stated.
People keep saying it's so easy to fix, but from a developers stand point it wouldn't be that easy and probably seems unnecessary because they plan on alot of players co-op'ing anyway and this is what they're trying to encourage, so it would be going against one of the things they are trying to achieve with D3. damn that ended up way lengthier then planned, sorry
Thanks so much for trying to sell me your personal world-view. The text in bold is especially condescending and judgmental, but I understand that from the outside, it's difficult to understand why certain among us behave this way.
The fact is, some of us thoroughly enjoy analyzing information in order to gain knowledge. If remaining ignorant is fun for you, cool, high five. Some of us are compelled to dissect life in an attempt to understand its governing dynamics.
Also, many of us just love to debate. We find it fun, and we understand that investigating other people's opinions can lead us to an enlightened viewpoint.
In short, you don't need me to be excited with you. And I don't need you lecturing me about how to approach my life. Also, be aware of the irony of complaining and bitching about all the people who complain and bitch.
Now, finally, on-topic.
<-ON TOPIC->
I always hated mercs. I'm not sure why, but they just annoyed the crap outta me. If followers were a big part of the game, I would want Dragon Age -esque control of the tactical choices of the followers, in depth. Otherwise they're just annoying.
But I agree with several people here.. why have followers at all if they're only used solo, AND they aren't viable past normal? That seems to me an incredible waste of engineering resources. If they did all that just to "encourage" people to play b-net co-op.. that seems a giant steaming waste.
If they don't get the game out by 12/31/2011, I'm blaming the followers that I'll never use.
-Thomas Jefferson
Graphicaly I understand why none in multi, more characters on the screen means more memory consumption.
It's interesting that you say that because, I feel the same way and I don't hear it often. I never played with mercs in d2 because they are innate NPCs that go off and die for no damn reason. In fact, I'm running a new sorc through Normal difficulty now and have no intention of getting a merc.
That being said, I'll definitely be exploring how the Follower system works, however it's implemented, and, if I don't like it then I won't use it.
I can't believe Blizzards thinking with this situation. First we don't get LAN play, so no multiplayer mods. Now we only get 4 players cooperative with no mercenaries, and no mercenaries after Normal play. Why? All because someone at Blizzard thinks it's too chaotic.
Hey, did you ever wonder what the players might want? I'll pitch you a key word to great game development, "OPTIONS". If me and my friends feel that the game will be too chaotic with more than 4 players, we'll only play with 4 players, but in the chance that 5 of us want to play together, it sure would be nice to be able to include that one extra person. "Too bad! You'll play the way we want you to, not the way you want to!"
What's the point of even having a merc in the first place? Is it a recruiting strategy? You mention you want people to feel the presence of another player so they'll be more inclined to play online with people. Some of us don't like playing online with strangers! Why are you trying to make us do it? I prefer virtual friends over some rude people online. If my friends can't play with me one day, I'd sure like to have my mercenary there to keep me company. "Too bad! You'll play the way we want you to, not the way you want to!"
Back to my options mention. Why can't you just have things optional? Player numbers is obvious. Why can't you have a "Allow Mercenaries" option for multiplayer? This gives the host the option to allow mercs or not. I'll bet my life more often than not they'll allow YES. But Blizzard says NO.
I'm just a little bit sick of what I heard today. We're hoping for a sequel to Diablo II with all the standard features we've become accustomed too, but Blizzard is saying NO. My ears are bleeding now from that word. I'm sorely disappointed in you, Diablo III development team. You need to allow the players to play your game the way they want to, not the way you think they should.
I loved mercs in d2 and I was really looking forward to having more options for my endgame merc in d3. Now it's like they took away half the game from me.
And why even have them at all if you won't be able to use them in most of the game? Either make them always useable or don't put them in at all.
I'm really going to miss my merc in endgame :'(
You have to stop looking at it as though Blizzard 'took away' our ability to have mercs. Just because its in D2 doesn't mean it makes it into D3. Especially considering how broken the system was in D2. And as far as options go, theres 97 billion builds in the game. Each skill has 5 different rune variations, and theres about 25-30 skills per character. Theres at least twenty different armor dyes and eighteen different armor looks. Why should they implement more options for the sake of options? They already have plenty of well-implemented options, why should they sacrifice quality for quantity?
Blizzard's design style revolves around them trying everything. In fact, Bashiok talked about how currently followers are available in MP, and its impossible to see what you're doing. They take feedback from hundreds, if not thousands of people and thats before the beta has even started. The reason followers aren't a part of endgame balance is because they probably were at some point and it was nearly impossible to pull off correctly, especially in a way that continues to promote cooperative play, which is a stated goal of the team. I'm not saying that its unreasonable to be disappointed that mercs/hirelings/followers aren't in the game, but you can't honestly try to argue that its part of some overall design philosophy where Blizzard wants to restrict our options.
Find any Diablo news? Contact me or anyone else on the news team.
DiabloFans: Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, Live Chat
Thinking about this a bit, I understand an issue with balance. Some people said they hate having a mercenary and it's really not fair to them if a Mercenary is a significant part of their strength. When they don't have it, they're underpowered. The opposite, if you do have one, you could be overpowered. So for balance sake, no question, you either need a merc or don't.
On a second note, Diablo 1 was an awesome game as well, and you didn't have a mercenary in it. The more I think about it, that might have played a big part in the "dark, "scariness" of Diablo 1. When you played alone, you were alone. It helped add some mood that Diablo II didn't have as much of.
I will agree with others though about how having it in Normal and not anywhere else is a completely idiotic idea. Give them always or ditch them completely. You think me having a AI mercenary is going to make me want to play online with strangers!? Whatever. You're wasting your time with the mercs.
After the video leak we were given links to interviews by Leonard Boyarsky and Jay Wilson, Leonard said that the system would only work on Single Player, Jay said it would work on COOP but only when you were without party, having the follower return to town when some player joined the game.
They also go on about all the kinds of uniques that are suited for followers etc and and skills. So why all the effort for single player and 20 levels. I don´t understand that at all!!
I was very happy with the idea of having the followers when playing alone. What pisses me off is that change of ideas only a few days after revealing to all the fans, was that strategy a mistake from marketing?
Say it out loud when it is done! Don´t screw round with us till you have a solid decision...
There is one thing that does have me annoyed though.. it's this: Bashoik openly admits that followers are implemented specifically for people who will likely only play through normal then ditch the game. It's a feature that is only functionally useful to novices.
Now look, I think it's a great idea to have features that are attractive to new players, and/or ones who aren't hardcore freak addicts like us. And it should be said.. if the followers have a significant impact on the storyline, then that's something. But frankly, if you need followers to reveal the story through exposition, well, that's awful storytelling. Diablo's not about talking, it's about showing. Or, at least it used to be.
So anyway, if the D3 dev team has spent this much time creating a feature that's only useful to nubbins, that tells me something about the design mindset over at Blizzard.
-Thomas Jefferson
As far as storytelling, I'm sure that any quests that are part of the main story arc that involve the followers will still be in the game regardless if you're playing multiplayer or not. As in you'll still have to rescue the people, and go on whatever other quests that leads to (ie discovering who the Prophet is, etc). Also, any time someone is lecturing you on storyline while you're away from town (or even while you're in it), you'll be able to continue killing/questing/etc while they talk. So its not like in D2 where you have to pay attention to a bunch of scrolling text.
Find any Diablo news? Contact me or anyone else on the news team.
DiabloFans: Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, Live Chat
for the record, ive always been a SP D2 player. and i refuse to play online. i always felt that Blizzard has given us single players the shaft regarding its content and options.
now i hear this news regarding the the followers and i think to myself "there they go again, giving us the shaft!"
this is NOT about having the ability regarding the use of a merc or not. as far as im concerned and like others have mentioned, just scrap the whole follower thing. but i have a bad feeling that unless you go COOP after normal and without a follower, we SP's are doomed in nightmare and hell thus leading to the temptation to to play COOP. well not me, i refuse to play with morons, and if i cannot make a character in SP thats viable in nightmare and hell without dying every other minute, then i guess i will be one of those players that Blizzard refers to as the general population that just plays it once through normal, then puts it on the shelf and its forgotten.
I'm sure the game is 100% solable in all difficults. Don't worry you will not be forced to MP.
Imo Blizz is understemating the amount of people that pass normal and go to nm. For people that don't care about merc and this whole follower system, it's a neutral update. If you don't like it, don't use it, ok.
But for the people that like this kind of system ? Imo the avarage player will be shocked (in a bad way) when his follower start to die endlessly until it becames useless. Seriously i bet they will change it in beta or just fix it in a patch after the top 10 reviwers of the industry start to point the follower start as a "unfinished, confusing and agfainst the most basic principle of game progression". It's like those old games that removed the special moves of your character in higher difficulties in order to make it harder...
A design that gives something and then remove it as the game progress is is flawed. None can argue that, despite any consequencies the follower system may have.