My concern I think approaches the issue from a different angle to the usual complaints with the proposed change.
Imagine this; you are playing a 4 player game (public I'd say because none of my friends actually play D3 anymore I don't even remember what it was like playing with someone I know lol), having a blast at a good pace and everyone is contributing. The game feels great. Then a "Barbarian" Legendary drops for the Wizard in your group.
The Barb wants the item, so he and the Wizard take off to town to sort out a deal. Straight away the momentum is broken. The mobs are still "boosted" by having 4 players in the game but your power is reduced by 50% because 2 guys are off trading.
Does this scenario seem plausible to anyone out there? Would that not completely ruin the game (not Diablo3 itself but the "game" you're currently in). and cause the same issues it is aiming to fix.
I know I won't want to sit around in town waiting for people to trade with eachother (or even to me, I hate it) so it leads me to think that people would still avoid group play more often than engaging in it, unless playing with friends which for me at least, is a non-starter.. they've long gone lol
Sounds like a non-issue to me. As it is now, players dilly-dally around all the time in public games. Frankly, I'd prefer to know it was because they were actually engaging in something Diablo 3 related rather than standing idle in the inn taking up space.
Players are also going to be busy even in public games enchanting / xmoging / crafting / ID'ing legendaries / changing skills ect. If you want a 100% intact group you need to play with friends. Entering the public exposes you to things that Blizzard just can't control.
I guess it is just the nature of the beast when you're dealing with the public.
Now i take a step back and really think about it, the best experiences I have had in other games like Battlefield 4 or even Natural Selection 2 have been when playing with friends, voice chat and all.
The big problem in teamgames is the 4 player cap. You wil always have leechers, or just passive players in your games. You had that in D2 also. But the difference was that even with 4 people afk there would still be 4 other people killing mobs and so on. In D2 you werent as vulnerable to AKF'ers/leechers as you are in D3. If just 2 people are afk, your killing speed is heavily limited compared to D2.
The difference was that you could still pretty easily blow away the entire game solo, even with 7 people sitting in town. With any more actually playing, shit was dead before it even loaded on the screen.
I had a small group of friends (3 of us in total) who used to play on /players 8 all the time.
Why do they need to go to town to trade? Just drop the item on the ground and move along.
I suppose they could, but the point I was trying to make was the dicking around trading "while they still can" due to the 2 hour window was going to derail alot of public games.
Why do they need to go to town to trade? Just drop the item on the ground and move along.
I suppose they could, but the point I was trying to make was the dicking around trading "while they still can" due to the 2 hour window was going to derail alot of public games.
Honestly, even with a 2 hour trading window, and even with the "less is more" approach to item drops, I highly doubt it'll take two hours to fill one's pack with items, and the group as a whole can go back to town and settle up. This isn't a BOA problem, it's a "common courtesy in public games" problem.
My estimation (and I'm probably entirely wrong judging the community this way)...if legendaries are BOA, and it applies this kind of restriction to trading, people stand to gain the most by behaving themselves, communicating and cooperating, because with 3 other people in your game, there's a fair chance that one them had drop a particular item you want, and that you can trade for. Leeching off other people and running with your haul may get you "a haul," but it considerably lowers your ability to get specific things.
Besides, if there's a worry about time, then people can settle up with legednaries and set items first, and worry about trading rares later, as those don't have a time limit. Simple enough.
The big problem in teamgames is the 4 player cap. You wil always have leechers, or just passive players in your games. You had that in D2 also. But the difference was that even with 4 people afk there would still be 4 other people killing mobs and so on. In D2 you werent as vulnerable to AKF'ers/leechers as you are in D3. If just 2 people are afk, your killing speed is heavily limited compared to D2.
The difference was that you could still pretty easily blow away the entire game solo, even with 7 people sitting in town. With any more actually playing, shit was dead before it even loaded on the screen.
I had a small group of friends (3 of us in total) who used to play on /players 8 all the time.
Not only will I agree with daisychopper, Ackbarspiff...but one of the reasons they're doing a 4player game situation, instead of 8, is for exactly the reason you mentioned...
Smaller groups force people to work together more closely. Two people mess around in town with items, it's very noticeable. In D2, half your party could chill in town doing nothing while the other half is out in the world. D3 wants everyone participating and everyone working together as a group. If someone wants to head back to town, they should say that. They shouldn't just ditch, chill out with vendors and let the other three take the brunt of the fighting.
And more incentive to communicate and work together with team members will hopefully yield better decorum and attitudes in public games.
Could just be a pipe dream, but...as far as I'm concerned, it's not impossible.
They could introduce a system that would scale the monsters depending on how many players in a public game are outside town.
Like this: you are in a 4-man public game. So the monsters are 4x stronger. But suddenly 2 of you port to town - so now the monsters are only 2x stronger as long as the guys don't come back from town. Simple?
I don't know any of the tech or code behind what it would take to make that work, but...seems like it would make battle really jerky.
Unless of course whole groups jumped in and out of battle together, but...since everyone in a public game has the freedom to do that at will, it could cause problems.
Honestly, even with a 2 hour trading window, and even with the "less is more" approach to item drops, I highly doubt it'll take two hours to fill one's pack with items, and the group as a whole can go back to town and settle up. This isn't a BOA problem, it's a "common courtesy in public games" problem.
Agreed, this "problem" would occur with bind-to-game or not. Bind-to-game just makes it a more-imminent threat with the two-hour restriction. I'm still not sure what they are thinking with this. The reason they implemented a very very similar system (bind-to-people-saved-to-the-boss) in WoW was, in particular, so GMs could spend less time dealing with mis-assigned loot. But this was loot that was already BoP and untradable, so this change actually gave more flexibility to the players, not less.
So in WoW you're not attempting to make an item-for-item trade with this system. You are just given a two-hour window in which you can re-assign items to the proper recipient. Instead of making a roll or a master loot decision set-in-stone and only reverseable by a GM, for two hours it's fixable by the players themselves, thus saving the GMs a lot of tedious work.
In D3 you are actually looking to make item-for-item trades (Hey, Cardinal, I found this monk item that I think you would really love, do you have a sweet WD item for me?) which means we both have to find something appropriate for each other within two hours and that seems unlikely to me, even with Loot 2.0. If you don't find that WD item, I have two choices: give it to you anyway and hope that you'll repay the kindness to me one day, or be a greedy douchebag and not give it to you. Neither of those is particularly good for me, and only one of them is good for you.
So, unfortunately, I feel that this system will actually "force" people to find 2-3 other friends with whom they can form some kind of regular group where they just give items they find to the person who needs them most - where everyone is going on the "good faith" system because this gives them the greatest exposure to items, but keeping it between friends removes the "must repay one item with one item" aspect. And, to me, that seems like it circumvents the rules just as much as anything else.
Agreed, this "problem" would occur with bind-to-game or not. Bind-to-game just makes it a more-imminent threat with the two-hour restriction. I'm still not sure what they are thinking with this. The reason they implemented a very very similar system (bind-to-people-saved-to-the-boss) in WoW was, in particular, so GMs could spend less time dealing with mis-assigned loot. But this was loot that was already BoP and untradable, so this change actually gave more flexibility to the players, not less.
So in WoW you're not attempting to make an item-for-item trade with this system. You are just given a two-hour window in which you can re-assign items to the proper recipient. Instead of making a roll or a master loot decision set-in-stone and only reverseable by a GM, for two hours it's fixable by the players themselves, thus saving the GMs a lot of tedious work.
In D3 you are actually looking to make item-for-item trades (Hey, Cardinal, I found this monk item that I think you would really love, do you have a sweet WD item for me?) which means we both have to find something appropriate for each other within two hours and that seems unlikely to me, even with Loot 2.0. If you don't find that WD item, I have two choices: give it to you anyway and hope that you'll repay the kindness to me one day, or be a greedy douchebag and not give it to you. Neither of those is particularly good for me, and only one of them is good for you.
So, unfortunately, I feel that this system will actually "force" people to find 2-3 other friends with whom they can form some kind of regular group where they just give items they find to the person who needs them most - where everyone is going on the "good faith" system because this gives them the greatest exposure to items, but keeping it between friends removes the "must repay one item with one item" aspect. And, to me, that seems like it circumvents the rules just as much as anything else.
Actually, the 2-hour window trade window is intended for something similar to WoW's "easy loot re-assignment", as you put it, and not item-for-item bartering.
The idea is that if you are playing with a friend of yours, and you find a legendary he could use, you can give it to him. The underlying rationale is that, like WoW, the two of you more-or-less earned the item "together" because you were playing together, so there's a chance to re-assigning it, if you want. That's why in WoW, you can only trade the item to another player that was also eligible for the drop (i.e., was in the same instance or raid with you), rather than anyone at all.
If you are able to strike a bargain with another player in the game within the 2-hour window and do an item-for-item exchange, that's just gravy in the eyes of the developers. It's not what they're actually trying to support.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Imagine this; you are playing a 4 player game (public I'd say because none of my friends actually play D3 anymore I don't even remember what it was like playing with someone I know lol), having a blast at a good pace and everyone is contributing. The game feels great. Then a "Barbarian" Legendary drops for the Wizard in your group.
The Barb wants the item, so he and the Wizard take off to town to sort out a deal. Straight away the momentum is broken. The mobs are still "boosted" by having 4 players in the game but your power is reduced by 50% because 2 guys are off trading.
Does this scenario seem plausible to anyone out there? Would that not completely ruin the game (not Diablo3 itself but the "game" you're currently in). and cause the same issues it is aiming to fix.
I know I won't want to sit around in town waiting for people to trade with eachother (or even to me, I hate it) so it leads me to think that people would still avoid group play more often than engaging in it, unless playing with friends which for me at least, is a non-starter.. they've long gone lol
Thoughts?
Players are also going to be busy even in public games enchanting / xmoging / crafting / ID'ing legendaries / changing skills ect. If you want a 100% intact group you need to play with friends. Entering the public exposes you to things that Blizzard just can't control.
I guess it is just the nature of the beast when you're dealing with the public.
Now i take a step back and really think about it, the best experiences I have had in other games like Battlefield 4 or even Natural Selection 2 have been when playing with friends, voice chat and all.
The difference was that you could still pretty easily blow away the entire game solo, even with 7 people sitting in town. With any more actually playing, shit was dead before it even loaded on the screen.
I had a small group of friends (3 of us in total) who used to play on /players 8 all the time.
Top 10 Solo Wizard Leaderboard - North America
Highest: Rank 6 // Greater Rift 42 12m40s
I suppose they could, but the point I was trying to make was the dicking around trading "while they still can" due to the 2 hour window was going to derail alot of public games.
Honestly, even with a 2 hour trading window, and even with the "less is more" approach to item drops, I highly doubt it'll take two hours to fill one's pack with items, and the group as a whole can go back to town and settle up. This isn't a BOA problem, it's a "common courtesy in public games" problem.
My estimation (and I'm probably entirely wrong judging the community this way)...if legendaries are BOA, and it applies this kind of restriction to trading, people stand to gain the most by behaving themselves, communicating and cooperating, because with 3 other people in your game, there's a fair chance that one them had drop a particular item you want, and that you can trade for. Leeching off other people and running with your haul may get you "a haul," but it considerably lowers your ability to get specific things.
Besides, if there's a worry about time, then people can settle up with legednaries and set items first, and worry about trading rares later, as those don't have a time limit. Simple enough.
Not only will I agree with daisychopper, Ackbarspiff...but one of the reasons they're doing a 4player game situation, instead of 8, is for exactly the reason you mentioned...
Smaller groups force people to work together more closely. Two people mess around in town with items, it's very noticeable. In D2, half your party could chill in town doing nothing while the other half is out in the world. D3 wants everyone participating and everyone working together as a group. If someone wants to head back to town, they should say that. They shouldn't just ditch, chill out with vendors and let the other three take the brunt of the fighting.
And more incentive to communicate and work together with team members will hopefully yield better decorum and attitudes in public games.
Could just be a pipe dream, but...as far as I'm concerned, it's not impossible.
I don't know any of the tech or code behind what it would take to make that work, but...seems like it would make battle really jerky.
Unless of course whole groups jumped in and out of battle together, but...since everyone in a public game has the freedom to do that at will, it could cause problems.
Good try on the idea, though. :-)
Agreed, this "problem" would occur with bind-to-game or not. Bind-to-game just makes it a more-imminent threat with the two-hour restriction. I'm still not sure what they are thinking with this. The reason they implemented a very very similar system (bind-to-people-saved-to-the-boss) in WoW was, in particular, so GMs could spend less time dealing with mis-assigned loot. But this was loot that was already BoP and untradable, so this change actually gave more flexibility to the players, not less.
So in WoW you're not attempting to make an item-for-item trade with this system. You are just given a two-hour window in which you can re-assign items to the proper recipient. Instead of making a roll or a master loot decision set-in-stone and only reverseable by a GM, for two hours it's fixable by the players themselves, thus saving the GMs a lot of tedious work.
In D3 you are actually looking to make item-for-item trades (Hey, Cardinal, I found this monk item that I think you would really love, do you have a sweet WD item for me?) which means we both have to find something appropriate for each other within two hours and that seems unlikely to me, even with Loot 2.0. If you don't find that WD item, I have two choices: give it to you anyway and hope that you'll repay the kindness to me one day, or be a greedy douchebag and not give it to you. Neither of those is particularly good for me, and only one of them is good for you.
So, unfortunately, I feel that this system will actually "force" people to find 2-3 other friends with whom they can form some kind of regular group where they just give items they find to the person who needs them most - where everyone is going on the "good faith" system because this gives them the greatest exposure to items, but keeping it between friends removes the "must repay one item with one item" aspect. And, to me, that seems like it circumvents the rules just as much as anything else.
This is nit pickin at it's greatest.
Actually, the 2-hour window trade window is intended for something similar to WoW's "easy loot re-assignment", as you put it, and not item-for-item bartering.
The idea is that if you are playing with a friend of yours, and you find a legendary he could use, you can give it to him. The underlying rationale is that, like WoW, the two of you more-or-less earned the item "together" because you were playing together, so there's a chance to re-assigning it, if you want. That's why in WoW, you can only trade the item to another player that was also eligible for the drop (i.e., was in the same instance or raid with you), rather than anyone at all.
If you are able to strike a bargain with another player in the game within the 2-hour window and do an item-for-item exchange, that's just gravy in the eyes of the developers. It's not what they're actually trying to support.