The only problem I could really see is this: In Diablo 2 because of the party limit you could throw in every class in one game. It made it diverse . So, say a few years down the road when a few more classes are added after the initial 5 you wouldn't be able to get in all of the classes.
Not to sound like a dick (please dont take it that way) but this isn't WoW. In games like that you might need to strategize but if D3 requires certain classes to be effective then most people, especially the devs, would agree that they have failed. I'm sure as balancing goes on there will always be one build called "the best" but the rest of us will still wtfpwn the screen.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Apparently freezing yourself is fatal. HOW ARE YOU PEOPLE COPING?!
I know at least for D2 5 player games always seemed to have the best playing-communiction ratio.
I'd say 6 max would be nice, anymore and the cooperation really plummeted. We'd have one group of 3 doing one thing on part of the map and one group of 5 in another part. That was really more of a balance issue though I guess.
4 was just the current number I'm sure it'll at least be 5 or 6.
The bottom line is, Blizzard will do whatever is best for gameplay. If they find, through extensive playtesting, that 5 players is fun and 8+ is an incoherent fustercluck, they will go with 5.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Walk tall, kick ass, learn to speak Arabic, love music and never forget you come from a long line of truth seekers, lovers and warriors.
-Hunter S. Thompson
Only a few of us have played the game and it's still in early stages of development anyway. We don't know if the game needs more or less players. That's for Blizzard to decide until the playtesters come along.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
It's the decisions you make when you have no time to make them that define who you are.
This is the typical ignorant fanboy attitude that brougth HGL to its knees.
We are not here to preach dogmas, but to discuss and convince.
Not listening to a considerable amount of the current D2 player base might not be the wisest idea for Blizz.
So, if you dont like the concept of forums - go play videogames.
I like forums. That is why I stated my opinion on a Diablo 3 matter in my previous post. There is no need for you to respond to my opinion just because you do not happen to agree with it silly.
I suppose restricting us to four players per game isn't the end of the world. But I always figured if you are going to make five classes, let us have the opportunity to have one of each class in a game.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Don't try to be a great man, just be a man... and let history make its own judgment. -Zefram Cochrane, Star Trek
i like 4 because you cant use every class in the game lol
since the abilities you can use would probaly be too strong for most enemies to take if all the classes were good builds for their class XD
whereas with 4 players there is something you gotta lack to get something else adds to the strategy
also they could implement the channel chat in game like by typing /m ch hi or something like that xD
that way you can still talk to players in channel
thats assuming the rest of the system is the WC3 chat commands
and that way you can talk to players who are outside of the game =3
I actually agree; even though if there were 5 players per game, I doubt people will make a party with every single class in one game, but having 4 does make you lack something.
If you don't have a caster in your party but you have all the other classes, then you must deal with what you have.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Not Even Death Can Save You From Me" ~ Diablo (II)
Should be upped from 4 to 5 so that all the classes have the "option" to be present in one game. I know out of my friends everyone always chooses one of each of the classes to start off with!
I like forums. That is why I stated my opinion on a Diablo 3 matter in my previous post. There is no need for you to respond to my opinion just because you do not happen to agree with it silly.
Actually I agree with Lusida here. You just said 4 is good. if you dont like it go play an MMO. Thats not an argument. Mind you most posts aren't arguments and even if they are they're not that good. This is why you have posts whining about how blizz doesn't listen. They do listen they just don't do everything people say for the exactly the reason that most people don't know what they're talking about or don't make compelling arguments.
Decent reasons I can think of for 4 player max:
1. I think blizz is going to have some sort of auto-party for all players in the game. Much better suited for small games.
2. Harder to coordinate 8 players
3. 8 players is totally unnecessary. Many players could rush/run full games alone.
4. Most groups were no more than 4-5 people in D2. Prevents random people from joining and making it harder for the rest.
5. Harder to see whats going on with the effects from 8 players in D3.
I could go on but theres not much point. Blizz will have the final word and I hope its 5. Though I don't mind if its higher. Its just the OPTION to have more not a REQUIREMENT. Blizz has said there won't be any parts that you can't solo. There will still be private games and settings for max players so why exactly everyone cares so much I dont know. As long as the game runs and I can see whats going on I'm good. You all have more than a year to get a comp that will run it and blizz will be kind to your comp.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Apparently freezing yourself is fatal. HOW ARE YOU PEOPLE COPING?!
Has anyone considered it might be more about performance?
I mean, really, perhaps at this still-early stage it's just not realistic to have more than 4 players in a game due to lag or something. The graphics are fully 3d, and with the physics flying around all the time i could see how too many people could slow things down.
Personally, I don't really care.
games have been fully 3d for more than 10 years ;P
Look at Crysis... Its fully 3d with tons of physics. Same with Farcry2. Both games are very demanding. They both have 16+ multiplayer. D3 does not have the same or anywhere near the graphics of Crysis or FC2. Therefore I do not think lag has anything to do with the maximum amount of players in one particular match.
Personally after watching the video, i think the game could use at least 6 players easy. With only 4 players it seemed very little was going on, and people saying they could not tell what was going on I really don't see how you couldn't. I even have a giant glair from from the sun and i could tell what was going on.
Anyways as a side topic i really hope monsters are not always that easy to kill. The little scrubby monsters just dropped way too fast and to me made it seem very insignificant to kill them.
Even in D2 mobs were not easy to kill all the time. Only after having pretty good equipment did monsters die easily, yet some still wtf pwnd you. (Spectors during a Bail run anyone?)
Well, I made countless comments on why 4-6 are good, and 6 being the MOST MAX. I personally prefer I guess 4 (after switching from 5 to 4 every 5 minutes)
I'll summarize what I wrote in this thread, and stop commenting on it. Repeating myself is pointless. Every paragraph is either a different reason, or something I found interesting while reading through all the posts.
Even though this isn't an FPS game, all the physics, effects and AI can make the game lag. In D2 when playing Baal runs games, people would literally sit and right click; the screen would freeze and you would see all the enemies dead. This is only with 3 or 4 guys attacking and the rest standing and stealing xp.
They want you to have good communication. 8 is not a good amount of people for communication. 4 is really good for communication, and coordinating the group.
5 people is starting to step into the atmosphere of bigger games, but it is worth looking over because there will be 5 classes. It is great to be able to have one of each in one game.
6 players per game is looked at because some people find games more interesting with bigger groups, also so you can have all 5 classes plus one more.
For me, I prefer small tactical groups to play with (4). Like KotanaX said: with 4 players you lack one type of class no matter what. This can be used to make players play strategically; even though each character should be able to hold his own. 90% of the time there are 1-4 people actually playing, and the rest are just following and milking xp. This game should be different. It would also always be easy to fill up games.
Another reason smaller groups are good instead of bigger groups is because when there are smaller groups of players, more effects can be added, more textures, better graphics (more polygons), and more detail. One thing we heard from Bashiok a long time ago was that there could be up to 100 monsters on a screen at a time. In D2 there were maybe 30? at most.. 100 monsters with good effects and detail seems better to me.
It is hard to see with many characters, monsters, effects etc. Like "FreezeMe" said: It is hard to see WTF you are doing when there are so many characters on the screen. In the end of the gameplay trailer (when the Barb, and WD went into the trap) the other 2 female counterparts joined in, and it took a while to figure out what is what. (Same reason the Light radius is taken out).
Even though Blizzard can always make the game limit 20, and we can limit our games to 4 people, whatever they make the max, would be what we play with 90% of the time in public games.
They can make games with more than 4 if it isn't P.V.E. If they have dueling games, that is a COMPLETELY different story.
Don't compare Diablo 3 with 4 players to Diablo2 with 4 players. Even though that would be the case most of the time.
People would want to use each person that joins the game. In D2, when we had 8 people in a game, and 6 people were playing, and 2 people were in town, some people wouldn't care enough to send a tp (I guess they are just A-holes) or it would be more annoying if another sorc came and spammed the game with lagging missiles.
Like "FreezeMe" said in another post. You don't need all the classes to beat the game.
FreezeMe Quote:
"if D3 requires certain classes to be effective then most people, especially the devs, would agree that they have failed."
There are no tanks, and healers..Even though some could be. A sorc soloing should be able to handle the whole game.
This isn't an MMO, the more isn't the better.
If you read this, pat yourself on the back. Sorry for it being jumbled up..had to touch on many points..
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Not Even Death Can Save You From Me" ~ Diablo (II)
Who says it would strain your graphics card? That's the stupidest argument ever.
Bottom line is that with 8 people spamming everything they got, you won't see shit. You don't know what you are doing and what you are doing has no purpose.
Nothing that had any meaning in D2 was not played by more than 4-5 people.
Think about it this way: if you want to do a 'full' game on a boss for the maximum loot, you need to host a game and wait for SEVEN people to join. With a four-player limit, once you host a game, you are only three people away from a full game, and all the benefits that brings.
If you can't do the math: playing solo means having a 1/4 penalty, instead of the 1/8 penalty. Alright?
Also. The four player limit was for Blizzcon purposes only. They never said anything about making a decision so early in the development. The only thing they DID say repeatedly, is that the game currently works the best with five people. Five.
This thread makes me cringe on every level.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Your friends win the most-generic-names-ever award.
does this sound better?
Hulio
Horhay
Achmed
Sadaam Husein
Shlomo
Avinoam
Megan
Julie
Now, if people with these names actually put there problems aside to play Diablo3, then there are no need for nuclear weapons
Not to sound like a dick (please dont take it that way) but this isn't WoW. In games like that you might need to strategize but if D3 requires certain classes to be effective then most people, especially the devs, would agree that they have failed. I'm sure as balancing goes on there will always be one build called "the best" but the rest of us will still wtfpwn the screen.
I'd say 6 max would be nice, anymore and the cooperation really plummeted. We'd have one group of 3 doing one thing on part of the map and one group of 5 in another part. That was really more of a balance issue though I guess.
4 was just the current number I'm sure it'll at least be 5 or 6.
i like 4 because you cant use every class in the game lol
since the abilities you can use would probaly be too strong for most enemies to take if all the classes were good builds for their class XD
whereas with 4 players there is something you gotta lack to get something else adds to the strategy
also they could implement the channel chat in game like by typing /m ch hi or something like that xD
that way you can still talk to players in channel
thats assuming the rest of the system is the WC3 chat commands
and that way you can talk to players who are outside of the game =3
Be my Buddy =^.^=
-Hunter S. Thompson
TED . LEAP . Woot . MF
Only a few of us have played the game and it's still in early stages of development anyway. We don't know if the game needs more or less players. That's for Blizzard to decide until the playtesters come along.
It's the decisions you make when you have no time to make them that define who you are.
I like forums. That is why I stated my opinion on a Diablo 3 matter in my previous post. There is no need for you to respond to my opinion just because you do not happen to agree with it silly.
I actually agree; even though if there were 5 players per game, I doubt people will make a party with every single class in one game, but having 4 does make you lack something.
If you don't have a caster in your party but you have all the other classes, then you must deal with what you have.
And The Heavens Shall Tremble...
Actually I agree with Lusida here. You just said 4 is good. if you dont like it go play an MMO. Thats not an argument. Mind you most posts aren't arguments and even if they are they're not that good. This is why you have posts whining about how blizz doesn't listen. They do listen they just don't do everything people say for the exactly the reason that most people don't know what they're talking about or don't make compelling arguments.
Decent reasons I can think of for 4 player max:
1. I think blizz is going to have some sort of auto-party for all players in the game. Much better suited for small games.
2. Harder to coordinate 8 players
3. 8 players is totally unnecessary. Many players could rush/run full games alone.
4. Most groups were no more than 4-5 people in D2. Prevents random people from joining and making it harder for the rest.
5. Harder to see whats going on with the effects from 8 players in D3.
I could go on but theres not much point. Blizz will have the final word and I hope its 5. Though I don't mind if its higher. Its just the OPTION to have more not a REQUIREMENT. Blizz has said there won't be any parts that you can't solo. There will still be private games and settings for max players so why exactly everyone cares so much I dont know. As long as the game runs and I can see whats going on I'm good. You all have more than a year to get a comp that will run it and blizz will be kind to your comp.
Anyways as a side topic i really hope monsters are not always that easy to kill. The little scrubby monsters just dropped way too fast and to me made it seem very insignificant to kill them.
Even in D2 mobs were not easy to kill all the time. Only after having pretty good equipment did monsters die easily, yet some still wtf pwnd you. (Spectors during a Bail run anyone?)
I'll summarize what I wrote in this thread, and stop commenting on it. Repeating myself is pointless. Every paragraph is either a different reason, or something I found interesting while reading through all the posts.
Even though this isn't an FPS game, all the physics, effects and AI can make the game lag. In D2 when playing Baal runs games, people would literally sit and right click; the screen would freeze and you would see all the enemies dead. This is only with 3 or 4 guys attacking and the rest standing and stealing xp.
They want you to have good communication. 8 is not a good amount of people for communication. 4 is really good for communication, and coordinating the group.
5 people is starting to step into the atmosphere of bigger games, but it is worth looking over because there will be 5 classes. It is great to be able to have one of each in one game.
6 players per game is looked at because some people find games more interesting with bigger groups, also so you can have all 5 classes plus one more.
For me, I prefer small tactical groups to play with (4). Like KotanaX said: with 4 players you lack one type of class no matter what. This can be used to make players play strategically; even though each character should be able to hold his own. 90% of the time there are 1-4 people actually playing, and the rest are just following and milking xp. This game should be different. It would also always be easy to fill up games.
Another reason smaller groups are good instead of bigger groups is because when there are smaller groups of players, more effects can be added, more textures, better graphics (more polygons), and more detail. One thing we heard from Bashiok a long time ago was that there could be up to 100 monsters on a screen at a time. In D2 there were maybe 30? at most.. 100 monsters with good effects and detail seems better to me.
It is hard to see with many characters, monsters, effects etc. Like "FreezeMe" said: It is hard to see WTF you are doing when there are so many characters on the screen. In the end of the gameplay trailer (when the Barb, and WD went into the trap) the other 2 female counterparts joined in, and it took a while to figure out what is what. (Same reason the Light radius is taken out).
Even though Blizzard can always make the game limit 20, and we can limit our games to 4 people, whatever they make the max, would be what we play with 90% of the time in public games.
They can make games with more than 4 if it isn't P.V.E. If they have dueling games, that is a COMPLETELY different story.
Don't compare Diablo 3 with 4 players to Diablo2 with 4 players. Even though that would be the case most of the time.
People would want to use each person that joins the game. In D2, when we had 8 people in a game, and 6 people were playing, and 2 people were in town, some people wouldn't care enough to send a tp (I guess they are just A-holes) or it would be more annoying if another sorc came and spammed the game with lagging missiles.
Like "FreezeMe" said in another post. You don't need all the classes to beat the game.
FreezeMe Quote:
"if D3 requires certain classes to be effective then most people, especially the devs, would agree that they have failed."
There are no tanks, and healers..Even though some could be. A sorc soloing should be able to handle the whole game.
This isn't an MMO, the more isn't the better.
If you read this, pat yourself on the back. Sorry for it being jumbled up..had to touch on many points..
That'll do poster, that'll do.
Bottom line is that with 8 people spamming everything they got, you won't see shit. You don't know what you are doing and what you are doing has no purpose.
Nothing that had any meaning in D2 was not played by more than 4-5 people.
Think about it this way: if you want to do a 'full' game on a boss for the maximum loot, you need to host a game and wait for SEVEN people to join. With a four-player limit, once you host a game, you are only three people away from a full game, and all the benefits that brings.
If you can't do the math: playing solo means having a 1/4 penalty, instead of the 1/8 penalty. Alright?
Also. The four player limit was for Blizzcon purposes only. They never said anything about making a decision so early in the development. The only thing they DID say repeatedly, is that the game currently works the best with five people. Five.
This thread makes me cringe on every level.