It is about the size of the party, which is aimed at 4 now due to Jay being wrong, get with the program.
It's due to the fact that the game drops four times more loot for four people and that's already a wet dream for those online item shops. You understand how this is exploitable or do I need to explain further?
Secondly, Jay is not wrong. Most games on bnet were solo. That .2 comes from those botted baal runs which was non-coopearative bullshit. Everything relevant was done solo. Even when you made a public game to find people to do a quest you would hardly find one guy, two if you're lucky. MFing? Everyone on their own. So it was either rushing/exp grind or trade games that change the statistic from 1 player per game to 1.2 and there is nothing you can do about it.
Now that begs a question, if everything was done either solo or with a friend, what is the purpose of being penalized to 1/8 of the drop rates? Do you know how hard it is to get a full game? This way, you will still play with the same amount of people as you would before, except that once you play solo, you are only three people away from a full game instead of seven, making things more ballanced to your scope, and also making things more rewarding compared to a full game.
And finally, the sole reason why they kept the number of players down, is because with say, six or seven people, the screen would become bogged with spells and bullshit and nothing would make sense. Action is already intense with two people, imagine eight idiots spamming their AoE spells all around. Where's the skill and balance in that? If you can't agree with THAT, your brain is too small to coprehend.
What you are doing here is baseless crying. You have no argument against this decision.
I like to play D2 multiplayer legit and no rush. Rushes take all the fun out of this game. I like looking at drops, killing monsters and challenge. I know the normal difficulty is a breeze, but you and 4 or 5 friends doing Hell difficulty is a really fun time. Anything that D3 does to promote partying is fine by me. I can't even get people to join my games when I'm rolling a new character because there is always "no rush" in the title. I'd like to start on a clean slate in D3 and hope that the community really embraces the new features. Multiplay dungeon crawling is what Diablo is about for me. I can't wait to once again be a part of the Diablo community that is thriving instead of isolating itself.
I think all of us agree if you.
But, the problem is:
JW are giving as bad excuses for remove the open pvp system. I know we all want a game without rushs/runs and with a fun cooperative PvM, but thats really not the case.
They have remove the open pvp because blizz hate griefer's, because those players make other players quit the game, so their game become less popular.
But let's think a bit more...
Of course the majority of ppl who isolate thenselfs in games was because it's better for running, not for fear of pk's, as allready said. However, in D3 we will 've no mf run, so this big majority of isolated games are allready inexistent. So maybe the removal of PK griefers was to resolve the possible isolated games created bt Pking threat.
Through i'm a fun of PK systems, i must admit it foens't wrok for diablo. You can simple avoid it by making your game less fun, wich is a big contradiction =x it only works in a full open world like L2 and UO.
Dimebog I actually agreed with most of your points except...
Quote from "Dimebog" »
Secondly, Jay is not wrong.
The thread title may be confusing, but the OP is arguing only that Jay didn't nail down the actual reasons the number was so low. He misplaced blame on PK which is a very small piece of the blame pie. You must admit he is wrong in that respect as you have named all of the main contributors to low cooperation.
I think the person that creates the game should be able to kick and ban people that misbehave. Not just pkers, but since there is team speak, noisy annoying children.
Jay Wilson is wrong. He is misinterpreting that statistic. The reason why the average game size is 1.2 players is because of magic finding (accumulating rare items). The most popular way to magic find was to make a game and quickly kill a boss like Mephisto. So what people do is make a game, kill Mephisto, quit, and remake. You have thousands of people doing this and the frequency of magic find games becomes very high. Each game only has 1 person in it, the magic finder, so it makes sense that the average game size is around 1.
When people want to level and quest then full games are preferred to maximize the amount of experience gained. People would work together for longer periods of time, even hours when trying to advance through acts, and therefore the frequency of these games is very low.
The fact is that people DID work, quest together, and level together. In HC, questing games were the most difficult to join because they were always full!
To address the average game size of 1.2 players and blame it on hostility and playing killing is wrong. Anyone who seriously played the game knows this. Player killers were something to deal with but everyone would deal with them together. Hostility and playing killing does not take away but adds another dynamic to the game. The real issue for this statistic has nothing to do with player killing, but has everything to do with magic find and loot.
its his scapegoat... he basically cant say anything positive so he throws some random bull shit out there. there is nothing positive you can say above having so few players... 8 was low already but 4 hahaha damn...
its his scapegoat... he basically cant say anything positive so he throws some random bull shit out there. there is nothing positive you can say above having so few players... 8 was low already but 4 hahaha damn...
Unless you back this up, you're just talking trash.
Yeah, but doesn't individual loot promote playing together even more now? Imagine if this was present in D2, we would have full games just for doing Andy and Mephisto. Now take out monsters that always drop more and better loot, and people are more intrigued to play together - even when they're going after gear, in all corners of the game.
What didn't work on D2 was when you made a public game, chances were you didn't get people to play the game with you, but instead, players joining to hunt you down. If I create a game to have people join me in beating act4, chances are I would probably enjoy actually getting to do that instead of having to deal with hostile players. Its not even that they necessarily kill me, its that I started up the game thinking "Hey, lets do that today" and not getting to do that.
How the gathering of items affect what Item Stores depends on how Blizzard works against them. Soulbound items won't exist like they did on WoW, which is good for our trading economy. Now Blizzard has to come up with a way to work around the money for items system.
Instead of half the fans complaining about how the game looks, they should all start brainstorming and maybe give Blizzard some feedback on how to solve that problem instead.
Somehow this made it to the back of my mind. Very insightful.
Unless you back this up, you're just talking trash.
back it up with what you stupid sod....? its so clear it does not need to be backed up.. holy fuck you have to be so fucking oblivious to common sense to not see what im saying to be the truth.
Yea Doppelganger, just ignore all the arguments we have made in the past 10 pages.
What are you talking about? He's saying that he doesn't agree with limiting games to four people. I agree. Why impose limits like that? People can play with four players if they want but why limit people who want to play with 5 or more? That sucks if I'm with five friends and we all want to play Diablo 3 but we have to exclude someone!
What are you talking about? He's saying that he doesn't agree with limiting games to four people. I agree. Why impose limits like that? People can play with four players if they want but why limit people who want to play with 5 or more? That sucks if I'm with five friends and we all want to play Diablo 3 but we have to exclude someone!
If blizzard actually balances the game specifically for 1 person, 2 people, 3, 4... then it will end up better off than allowing 16 people in a game with the only difference between 1 and 16 people is the monsters have 16x more life, 16x more damage or whatever. A health and damage scaling factor is a sorry excuse for balancing, they need to tweak around resistances, monsters speed, etc to make it so you have to work together more.
they need to tweak around resistances, monsters speed, etc to make it so you have to work together more.
And I agree that they should. They shouldn't coast past these issues by simply lowering the max amount of players per game, they should work on balancing.
And I agree that they should. They shouldn't coast past these issues by simply lowering the max amount of players per game, they should work on balancing.
In every game there is a point where you have to draw the line. In WoW they balanced instances for 5 people and 25 man raids. They didnt make it so you could bring anywhere from 1-25 people into an instance. You can't expect them to balance it like that and end up with a decent playing experience no matter where your party falls in that spectrum. You are essentially asking them to balance the whole game of Diablo 3 for eight different sized parties...that could take a lot of work especially considering the more people you have the harder it is to balance.
i don't think they should balance it around 4 players...
i liked it in diablo 2 where it scaled: ("diablo's minions grow stronger" "diablo's minions weaken")
but that you couldn't (reasonably) get to the highest levels without team effort (or using multiple games run yourself)
balanced to one player. scaled based on players in the game. rewards EASIER or FASTER to attain through team work but not unattainable for the soloist.
that was one of the best things about d2.. PERFECT for the solo player but also allowed for grouping that was balanced around the number of players.
i really hope they don't mess with that.
i realize people want to play together raid together.. but there's a lot of games that cater to that playstyle and leave solo players on the sidelines.
i hope d3 can please both kinds of players (soloers and those that want hard fights that take the coordination of many) and i agree that balance around 4 players seems to please no one.
but i'm not sure that they have said that they're balancing the game around having 4 players present; just that it was the current max allowed in a game.
i'im hoping that it scales with level and that more than 4 is the max, but just have to wait and see.
edit: also about hostility
Quote from "Num3n" »
the cool thing though was having the ability for it to happen
also i agree with this. i really hope that public game lists and the ability to hostile make it to d3.
i played a lot of public hardcore games and i loved the thrill of not knowing if that person that just joined is planning to hunt meph or me; no other game had that
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
they'll never see me coming.. life is a sequence of tragedies, inconsistent only by fleeting, elusive moments of pleasure,
serving only to ensure absolute vulnerability to the pain of their inevitable absence.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
This is his point actually, they will promote mfing in group.
Secondly, Jay is not wrong. Most games on bnet were solo. That .2 comes from those botted baal runs which was non-coopearative bullshit. Everything relevant was done solo. Even when you made a public game to find people to do a quest you would hardly find one guy, two if you're lucky. MFing? Everyone on their own. So it was either rushing/exp grind or trade games that change the statistic from 1 player per game to 1.2 and there is nothing you can do about it.
Now that begs a question, if everything was done either solo or with a friend, what is the purpose of being penalized to 1/8 of the drop rates? Do you know how hard it is to get a full game? This way, you will still play with the same amount of people as you would before, except that once you play solo, you are only three people away from a full game instead of seven, making things more ballanced to your scope, and also making things more rewarding compared to a full game.
And finally, the sole reason why they kept the number of players down, is because with say, six or seven people, the screen would become bogged with spells and bullshit and nothing would make sense. Action is already intense with two people, imagine eight idiots spamming their AoE spells all around. Where's the skill and balance in that? If you can't agree with THAT, your brain is too small to coprehend.
What you are doing here is baseless crying. You have no argument against this decision.
I think all of us agree if you.
But, the problem is:
JW are giving as bad excuses for remove the open pvp system. I know we all want a game without rushs/runs and with a fun cooperative PvM, but thats really not the case.
They have remove the open pvp because blizz hate griefer's, because those players make other players quit the game, so their game become less popular.
But let's think a bit more...
Of course the majority of ppl who isolate thenselfs in games was because it's better for running, not for fear of pk's, as allready said. However, in D3 we will 've no mf run, so this big majority of isolated games are allready inexistent. So maybe the removal of PK griefers was to resolve the possible isolated games created bt Pking threat.
Through i'm a fun of PK systems, i must admit it foens't wrok for diablo. You can simple avoid it by making your game less fun, wich is a big contradiction =x it only works in a full open world like L2 and UO.
The thread title may be confusing, but the OP is arguing only that Jay didn't nail down the actual reasons the number was so low. He misplaced blame on PK which is a very small piece of the blame pie. You must admit he is wrong in that respect as you have named all of the main contributors to low cooperation.
Fuck you, I'm a dragon.
its his scapegoat... he basically cant say anything positive so he throws some random bull shit out there. there is nothing positive you can say above having so few players... 8 was low already but 4 hahaha damn...
Unless you back this up, you're just talking trash.
Somehow this made it to the back of my mind. Very insightful.
they haven't released details about pvp yet... so i'm guessing that it will be a proper pvp system, complete with arenas and what not...
having pvp mixed with pve seems stupid, also gets rid of retards who want to come in and ruin most games (you all know it happens)
back it up with what you stupid sod....? its so clear it does not need to be backed up.. holy fuck you have to be so fucking oblivious to common sense to not see what im saying to be the truth.
the cool thing though was having the ability for it to happen
(the English version is a disgrace)
Fuck you, I'm a dragon.
So then play with four players. But why FORCE me to play with four players? They should be raising the limits not lowering them.
...
What are you talking about? He's saying that he doesn't agree with limiting games to four people. I agree. Why impose limits like that? People can play with four players if they want but why limit people who want to play with 5 or more? That sucks if I'm with five friends and we all want to play Diablo 3 but we have to exclude someone!
If blizzard actually balances the game specifically for 1 person, 2 people, 3, 4... then it will end up better off than allowing 16 people in a game with the only difference between 1 and 16 people is the monsters have 16x more life, 16x more damage or whatever. A health and damage scaling factor is a sorry excuse for balancing, they need to tweak around resistances, monsters speed, etc to make it so you have to work together more.
And I agree that they should. They shouldn't coast past these issues by simply lowering the max amount of players per game, they should work on balancing.
In every game there is a point where you have to draw the line. In WoW they balanced instances for 5 people and 25 man raids. They didnt make it so you could bring anywhere from 1-25 people into an instance. You can't expect them to balance it like that and end up with a decent playing experience no matter where your party falls in that spectrum. You are essentially asking them to balance the whole game of Diablo 3 for eight different sized parties...that could take a lot of work especially considering the more people you have the harder it is to balance.
i liked it in diablo 2 where it scaled: ("diablo's minions grow stronger" "diablo's minions weaken")
but that you couldn't (reasonably) get to the highest levels without team effort (or using multiple games run yourself)
balanced to one player. scaled based on players in the game. rewards EASIER or FASTER to attain through team work but not unattainable for the soloist.
that was one of the best things about d2.. PERFECT for the solo player but also allowed for grouping that was balanced around the number of players.
i really hope they don't mess with that.
i realize people want to play together raid together.. but there's a lot of games that cater to that playstyle and leave solo players on the sidelines.
i hope d3 can please both kinds of players (soloers and those that want hard fights that take the coordination of many) and i agree that balance around 4 players seems to please no one.
but i'm not sure that they have said that they're balancing the game around having 4 players present; just that it was the current max allowed in a game.
i'im hoping that it scales with level and that more than 4 is the max, but just have to wait and see.
edit: also about hostility
also i agree with this. i really hope that public game lists and the ability to hostile make it to d3.
i played a lot of public hardcore games and i loved the thrill of not knowing if that person that just joined is planning to hunt meph or me; no other game had that
they'll never see me coming..
life is a sequence of tragedies, inconsistent only by fleeting, elusive moments of pleasure,
serving only to ensure absolute vulnerability to the pain of their inevitable absence.