honestly i think a 4 player cap is an improvement. my initial response, like many others, was we getting screwed as less people equals less fun. however, if you think back to d2 how 8 player dynamic actually function? IMO it didn't function well as the game didn't really have a niche for all 8 players as a result how often did you actually see all other 7 people on your screen actively participating? a majority of my games usually looked like this: where only about 3-4 people killing everything while everyone else passively participated e.g. kind of lagged behind leeching, looting, afk in town, or they just splintered off into another direction. the only real exceptions were like boss fights where the rest of your party was present, but it was still only a handful of people doing all the fighting. which is why i think 4 players is an improvement as it will be you and three other friends who are all actively participating.
I guess my biggest issue with the player cap is that it doesn't allow one of each class to be in the game at the same time... Graphics and balancing of powers aside, I'd think adding one more slot to the capacity and dealing with the other pertinent issues would have been worthwhile for this purpose if nothing else.
I guess my biggest issue with the player cap is that it doesn't allow one of each class to be in the game at the same time... Graphics and balancing of powers aside, I'd think adding one more slot to the capacity and dealing with the other pertinent issues would have been worthwhile for this purpose if nothing else.
I think finding 5 people, one of each class, and getting them all to join a game at the same time is a very unlikely scenario. WoW is a great case study for that. If you've ever lead a raid you know what I'm talking about.
But that aside, what would this actually give you? Since class balance won't really be essential to success, given each class can solo the game.. I think once a group figures out what role each player will be serving, and starts getting into combat, people will almost instantly forget what the other classes are, specifically, instead only thinking about what their role is.
I strongly believe that the positive benefit of having all 5 classes in the same game is far outweighed by the potential negative impact that is clearly informing Blizzard's decision of a 4-player cap.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions."
-Thomas Jefferson
I guess my biggest issue with the player cap is that it doesn't allow one of each class to be in the game at the same time... Graphics and balancing of powers aside, I'd think adding one more slot to the capacity and dealing with the other pertinent issues would have been worthwhile for this purpose if nothing else.
I think finding 5 people, one of each class, and getting them all to join a game at the same time is a very unlikely scenario. WoW is a great case study for that. If you've ever lead a raid you know what I'm talking about.
But that aside, what would this actually give you? Since class balance won't really be essential to success, given each class can solo the game.. I think once a group figures out what role each player will be serving, and starts getting into combat, people will almost instantly forget what the other classes are, specifically, instead only thinking about what their role is.
I strongly believe that the positive benefit of having all 5 classes in the same game is far outweighed by the potential negative impact that is clearly informing Blizzard's decision of a 4-player cap.
While plausible, I think there's no way you can tangibly support that.
On the other hand, I have on my side the fact that Blizzard is good at designing diversity into classes, and therefore, however many classes are missing, that diversity is lessened by that much.
I have lead quite a few WoW raids, and I believe diversity is always key. Depending on the raid/fight, some classes bring a lot more to the table, and since Cata has merged quite a few buffs that degree of impact is lessened, but I believe we both can recognize that some classes' absence are felt very heavily. For instance, I was in a raid for a couple months that didn't have any druids. That put a high degree of "don't fuck it up" for all encounters, since we didn't have a get out of jail free card battle rez.
Of course, none of us know exactly how the classes in Diablo III will interact just yet. Diablo II was decidedly not a team of cooperation based game when it came to necessity, simply because, as you said, it was designed so that people can solo it. However, that potential was there, and if you think either of the following things:
-That there won't be people who want to make five man teams with all classes represented (I'm one of those people)
-That excelling at classes and having diversity is more important than gear
I think we simply need to examine the theory of diminishing returns when it comes to this issue. I think that there is definitely a point at which too many players start mucking up things in the design flow. However, I find it hard to believe that:
A. That point comes a single player slot lower than the amount of classes in the game.
B. That the difference between 4 and 5 players will be that drastic in either direction.
I have lead quite a few WoW raids, and I believe diversity is always key. Depending on the raid/fight, some classes bring a lot more to the table, and since Cata has merged quite a few buffs that degree of impact is lessened, but I believe we both can recognize that some classes' absence are felt very heavily.
Which leads to exclusion and preference of some classes over others despite Blizzard's stance of "bring the player not the class".
We DO NOT need this in Diablo. Hell, we do not even need this in WoW. WoW did a horrible job with that in terms of preference of some classes over others.
In a game that's not balanced in an artificial way (trinity is very artificial), class diversity is not as important, so the comparison is invalid all together.
-That there won't be people who want to make five man teams with all classes represented (I'm one of those people)
-That excelling at classes and having diversity is more important than gear
As it thoroughly disproves both of those things. The videos in that link are amazing btw.
It doesn't disprove what he said, you're just attaching yourself to semantics.
There's always someone who likes something, there are people who like to watch paint dry, and there's rule 34. This doesn't really change the fact that the amount of these people is very, very small.
From what I've seen nobody does ironmans except people who played DII for a very long time and became very bored of the core game. Same goes for people who will assemble teams. The majority of the people will play solo with strangers, or just solo, and they will play with whatever ends up.
In fact, what you are saying is actually limiting diversity. If you only play with the 5 different classes, you don't know what combinations the rest can produce. This is not WoW where you are stuck with the trinity system and the only way to be effective is to stupidly ultra specialize, this game maybe we'll actually be able to design parties properly.
What combination is best will depend on builds, synergy between builds, and balance errors.
EDIT: Oh, and one more thing.
You will not be able to do Ironman in DIII. The reason it's possible in DII is because of hte manner in which Diablo II implements "difficulty". In any properly balanced stats game, you'd die somewhere in the middle of Normal no matter how good you are.
You also won't be able to farm potions like an idiot. Re-farming removes any difficulty the game could possibly have had.
I have lead quite a few WoW raids, and I believe diversity is always key. Depending on the raid/fight, some classes bring a lot more to the table, and since Cata has merged quite a few buffs that degree of impact is lessened, but I believe we both can recognize that some classes' absence are felt very heavily.
Which leads to exclusion and preference of some classes over others despite Blizzard's stance of "bring the player not the class".
We DO NOT need this in Diablo. Hell, we do not even need this in WoW. WoW did a horrible job with that in terms of preference of some classes over others.
In a game that's not balanced in an artificial way (trinity is very artificial), class diversity is not as important, so the comparison is invalid all together.
-That there won't be people who want to make five man teams with all classes represented (I'm one of those people)
-That excelling at classes and having diversity is more important than gear
As it thoroughly disproves both of those things. The videos in that link are amazing btw.
It doesn't disprove what he said, you're just attaching yourself to semantics.
There's always someone who likes something, there are people who like to watch paint dry, and there's rule 34. This doesn't really change the fact that the amount of these people is very, very small.
From what I've seen nobody does ironmans except people who played DII for a very long time and became very bored of the core game. Same goes for people who will assemble teams. The majority of the people will play solo with strangers, or just solo, and they will play with whatever ends up.
In fact, what you are saying is actually limiting diversity. If you only play with the 5 different classes, you don't know what combinations the rest can produce. This is not WoW where you are stuck with the trinity system and the only way to be effective is to stupidly ultra specialize, this game maybe we'll actually be able to design parties properly.
What combination is best will depend on builds, synergy between builds, and balance errors.
EDIT: Oh, and one more thing.
You will not be able to do Ironman in DIII. The reason it's possible in DII is because of hte manner in which Diablo II implements "difficulty". In any properly balanced stats game, you'd die somewhere in the middle of Normal no matter how good you are.
You also won't be able to farm potions like an idiot. Re-farming removes any difficulty the game could possibly have had.
Good that I can always count on you to both know everything and have no problem e-slapping people with your atrocious opinions. Good to know.
People didn't think ironman's were possible in Diablo II, so you might want to quiet down before you eat your words later on. Die somewhere in the middle of normal? Lmao. Oh and health orbs pretty much make an iron man even more possible, seeing as how you won't need to farm them any more often, as they'll be dropping at a pretty consistent rate from enemies. Please link your Arts and Technology degree, or quit asserting random strangeness that you can't back up.
Your argument about bring the player not the class is a very tired and asinine one. Blizzard says this all the time, and then continues to design into gameplay class-specific traits that make different classes more desirable for certain situations. There is nothing wrong with this. It's called DIVERSITY. How can you possibly say that's not important? You really think it would be good if every class had the exactly similiar abilities that allowed them to handle every situation the same? If you can't say yes, then your comments about diversity are moot. Have you played post-NGU SWG? If not, maybe that's the game for you. Everyone is a healer, a single target dps, and an aoe dps class *thumbs up* Go knock yourself out.
You are one of those whiny kids that thinks every class should be exactly the same in all regards of strengths and weaknesses. This company has never striven to do that, so why are you trying to chain them down in that regard? On the other hand, just like its two predecessors, this game will be solo-able so guess what? It doesn't mean a damn thing if one class has advantages over another because they're all designed to be able to finish the game without help.
Comparing party making to watching paint dry is so erroneous I won't even approach arguing with you, because you've already removed the point of doing so.
Uh no... what I'm saying in now possible way can possibly be limiting diversity... Can you multiply? The possible combination's of classes possible with a 5 player cap is exponentially (literally) bigger than that of 4. Maybe you don't always want to play with one of each, but please go ahead and sit there and tell me that I'm somehow stupid for holding the opinion that it is both nice and important to have the OPTION of having one of each class. I'm sure you will anyway.
And then you go on to further contradict yourself by first asserting that most people will play solo or in small parties, then with a short interlude explaining that my ideal number of a player cap is impossibly limiting diversity, you say that somehow four players will help us design a proper party balance. If most players are playing solo or in pick-up groups... then why would they be worried about designing that perfect party?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I think finding 5 people, one of each class, and getting them all to join a game at the same time is a very unlikely scenario. WoW is a great case study for that. If you've ever lead a raid you know what I'm talking about.
But that aside, what would this actually give you? Since class balance won't really be essential to success, given each class can solo the game.. I think once a group figures out what role each player will be serving, and starts getting into combat, people will almost instantly forget what the other classes are, specifically, instead only thinking about what their role is.
I strongly believe that the positive benefit of having all 5 classes in the same game is far outweighed by the potential negative impact that is clearly informing Blizzard's decision of a 4-player cap.
-Thomas Jefferson
While plausible, I think there's no way you can tangibly support that.
On the other hand, I have on my side the fact that Blizzard is good at designing diversity into classes, and therefore, however many classes are missing, that diversity is lessened by that much.
I have lead quite a few WoW raids, and I believe diversity is always key. Depending on the raid/fight, some classes bring a lot more to the table, and since Cata has merged quite a few buffs that degree of impact is lessened, but I believe we both can recognize that some classes' absence are felt very heavily. For instance, I was in a raid for a couple months that didn't have any druids. That put a high degree of "don't fuck it up" for all encounters, since we didn't have a get out of jail free card battle rez.
Of course, none of us know exactly how the classes in Diablo III will interact just yet. Diablo II was decidedly not a team of cooperation based game when it came to necessity, simply because, as you said, it was designed so that people can solo it. However, that potential was there, and if you think either of the following things:
-That there won't be people who want to make five man teams with all classes represented (I'm one of those people)
-That excelling at classes and having diversity is more important than gear
Then I suggest you follow up with this article:
http://www.gossipgamers.com/diablo-2-hardcore-naked-ironman-style/
As it thoroughly disproves both of those things. The videos in that link are amazing btw.
A. That point comes a single player slot lower than the amount of classes in the game.
B. That the difference between 4 and 5 players will be that drastic in either direction.
We DO NOT need this in Diablo. Hell, we do not even need this in WoW. WoW did a horrible job with that in terms of preference of some classes over others.
In a game that's not balanced in an artificial way (trinity is very artificial), class diversity is not as important, so the comparison is invalid all together.
It doesn't disprove what he said, you're just attaching yourself to semantics.
There's always someone who likes something, there are people who like to watch paint dry, and there's rule 34. This doesn't really change the fact that the amount of these people is very, very small.
From what I've seen nobody does ironmans except people who played DII for a very long time and became very bored of the core game. Same goes for people who will assemble teams. The majority of the people will play solo with strangers, or just solo, and they will play with whatever ends up.
In fact, what you are saying is actually limiting diversity. If you only play with the 5 different classes, you don't know what combinations the rest can produce. This is not WoW where you are stuck with the trinity system and the only way to be effective is to stupidly ultra specialize, this game maybe we'll actually be able to design parties properly.
What combination is best will depend on builds, synergy between builds, and balance errors.
EDIT: Oh, and one more thing.
You will not be able to do Ironman in DIII. The reason it's possible in DII is because of hte manner in which Diablo II implements "difficulty". In any properly balanced stats game, you'd die somewhere in the middle of Normal no matter how good you are.
You also won't be able to farm potions like an idiot. Re-farming removes any difficulty the game could possibly have had.
Good that I can always count on you to both know everything and have no problem e-slapping people with your atrocious opinions. Good to know.
People didn't think ironman's were possible in Diablo II, so you might want to quiet down before you eat your words later on. Die somewhere in the middle of normal? Lmao. Oh and health orbs pretty much make an iron man even more possible, seeing as how you won't need to farm them any more often, as they'll be dropping at a pretty consistent rate from enemies. Please link your Arts and Technology degree, or quit asserting random strangeness that you can't back up.
Your argument about bring the player not the class is a very tired and asinine one. Blizzard says this all the time, and then continues to design into gameplay class-specific traits that make different classes more desirable for certain situations. There is nothing wrong with this. It's called DIVERSITY. How can you possibly say that's not important? You really think it would be good if every class had the exactly similiar abilities that allowed them to handle every situation the same? If you can't say yes, then your comments about diversity are moot. Have you played post-NGU SWG? If not, maybe that's the game for you. Everyone is a healer, a single target dps, and an aoe dps class *thumbs up* Go knock yourself out.
You are one of those whiny kids that thinks every class should be exactly the same in all regards of strengths and weaknesses. This company has never striven to do that, so why are you trying to chain them down in that regard? On the other hand, just like its two predecessors, this game will be solo-able so guess what? It doesn't mean a damn thing if one class has advantages over another because they're all designed to be able to finish the game without help.
Comparing party making to watching paint dry is so erroneous I won't even approach arguing with you, because you've already removed the point of doing so.
Uh no... what I'm saying in now possible way can possibly be limiting diversity... Can you multiply? The possible combination's of classes possible with a 5 player cap is exponentially (literally) bigger than that of 4. Maybe you don't always want to play with one of each, but please go ahead and sit there and tell me that I'm somehow stupid for holding the opinion that it is both nice and important to have the OPTION of having one of each class. I'm sure you will anyway.
And then you go on to further contradict yourself by first asserting that most people will play solo or in small parties, then with a short interlude explaining that my ideal number of a player cap is impossibly limiting diversity, you say that somehow four players will help us design a proper party balance. If most players are playing solo or in pick-up groups... then why would they be worried about designing that perfect party?