We know their reasoning, and we think it's stupid. That's why we're posting. Not because we want bosses to be 'the way to go' but because we want bosses to feel meaningful. We want bosses to be a reasonable option. I'd love to be able to mix it up - do boss runs one day do act 2 runs another do secret <blank> level another...
Etc.
But this system removes the ability to include bosses in that rotation of 'things to do' and that makes me truly sad.
As far as non-super-unique rares go there were really only a couple of combos that were even difficult. MSLE, con/fe/gloam+con... those are really the 3. Any other rare and there were THOUSANDS of other rares were really cake.
You must have a bad memory because, conviction, LE, FE, Amp damage, Fanat, Conc, Extra strong, extra fast, and immunes made A LOT of super uniques a bitch to deal with, ESPECIALLY considering D3 isn't going to have ridiculously overpowered gear and the best gear isn't stupidly easy to obtain because there hopefully won't be duping or bots.
Bosses were significantly easier than a lot of super uniques and you trying to justify there just being "a few among thousands" is an incredibly naive statement.
We know their reasoning, and we think it's stupid. That's why we're posting. Not because we want bosses to be 'the way to go' but because we want bosses to feel meaningful.
"We"? You mean you 14%? Sorry, but us 70% are more important, "we" win, because we like bosses not being worth farming and we are by far the majority.
This is not D2, so saying bosses were easier than rare mobs in D2 means nothing toward D3. Bosses in D3 (as far as I can tell) will be more difficult considering they are adding more complex mechanics.
I think bosses SHOULD be a more difficult fight and should reward you equally.
I can see a lot of players skipping boss fights because their spec is not designed for bosses and they don't feel like switching everything, so instead of killing the boss at the end of the dungeon, they just leave because it is less rewarding to kill the boss rather than just leaving and making a new game to find more rare mobs.
Obviously everything we are debating about is pretty much all speculation considering we have no clue on how long bosses will take vs rare mobs and how difficult rare mobs will be to find. maybe bosses can drop up to 8 items while a rare mob can only drop 5, and this would even them out? Who knows...BUT if bosses do take longer to kill and have a lower drop rate for good items, the system needs to be fixed.
I think what a lot of us "No" people are trying to say is that we liked killing bosses, and if they make bosses less rewarding, it's pretty much the same situation as in D2 except the opposite. Where people would be clearing acts and skipping bosses.
I think they are trying to make a system so that you can just kill everything and have it all be equally rewarding, including bosses, and I think that is all what we really hope for.
We know their reasoning, and we think it's stupid. That's why we're posting. Not because we want bosses to be 'the way to go' but because we want bosses to feel meaningful. We want bosses to be a reasonable option. I'd love to be able to mix it up - do boss runs one day do act 2 runs another do secret <blank> level another...
Right you think a system that you've never played or tested out or even experienced a real boss (Leroic is only a mini boss) is stupid.
There are many of us who are not in one camp or another. But based on previous experience with Blizzard's products and given how they more than any other developer constantly reiterate & refine their gameplay to make all their games FUN, we have confidence in Blizzard. Or at the very least their ability to fix their errors.
Its one thing to suggest concerns, its quite another to defend your position SO STRONGLY on a game you have not even played, a system you've never tested, solely because you think the theory of the system does not sit well with you.
I think they are trying to make a system so that you can just kill everything and have it all be equally rewarding, including bosses, and I think that is all what we really hope for.
That is EXACTLY what I hope for.
I want to be able to log in, think to myself 'what do I want to kill today' and not feel like I'm restricted in how I answer that question based off of bad loot mechanics.
Edit: @Emyln, the defense seems strong because it really bothers me to watch people be 1) Selfish and 2) Illogical at the same time. Logic would dictate that a system that allows all hard monsters to be equally rewarding based off of the time it takes to kill them would be fun for everyone by allowing everyone to choose what they wish to do and be rewarded for it, but people are saying that such a system would negatively impact them somehow - which is illogical.
Selflessness would dictate that people would be happy if others were ALSO able to have fun as long as it didn't take away from their own, but people are saying that they'd rather that other people are NOT allowed to have fun because they want their way to be the only way - which is selfish.
Will be a nice change to actually get to play the game how/where I want and not be forced to farm a certain boss for months because I want that shiny new helm, plus the random element of spawns makes it all a lot more exciting when one does show up
As I said before, if balanced right (which is super easy to do for Blizzard unlike for example balancing spells etc), I see no big advantage for one over the other. In fact, I would just farm levels and finish them with the boss in softcore play. In hardcore, with the above set up, I would ALWAYS farm only the bosses, because with bosses I know what fight I'm getting into. It allows me to choose my resistances, attack and defense skills and gear, specifically tailored to the boss I intend to farm.
Good post Tek, but don't worry, there will still be at least 3-4 people who don't seem to grasp this concept and will continue to complain and say that their side isn't being seen.
Tek... champs - minimum 4-5 per floor of every dungeon - have distinct random modifiers that can come in varieties of ridiculously easy to ridiculously hard but you can see which it is and easily avoid the latter - also, as per current content and EVERY SINGLE KNOWN game in the genre, have much much much lower health so even if they have difficult modifiers are still generally quicker to kill. Have no scripting at all save at the most basic level which makes them VERY predictable once you know which modifiers they have.
Bosses - require clearing at least 2-3 dungeon floors to get to even one, have way inflated health, have distinct scripts and epic effects that make them more interesting to fight. And bosses being 'predictable' is entirely dependent upon the quality of the AI. If the AI is well designed, the mobs may have say 10 abilities they can use but you can't be sure which they'll use when.
I'm sorry, but except for the most RARE sets of modifiers, I don't forsee champions being slower OR harder than bosses on inferno. Even with the 'predictability' of the boss, if it's well designed it can still be a challenge. Look at the Ninja Gaiden series. Once you'd fought a boss once yuou knew what it was going to do. But that didn't mean you could kill it every time because things were designed well.
Not only that but if they DO design it so that you run into 15-20 sets of mobs who are SIGNIFICANTLY harder than the boss BEFORE the boss I'll be highly - HIGHLY disappointed. In fact that might be enough to seriously reduce the fun value of the game. If there is ONE or TWO sets of modifiers that can spawn randomly that make the mobs insane, that's different, but if the AVERAGE champion is harder than a boss it will make the game very anti-climactic. VERY VERY anticlimactic.
It's like War in the North - which just came out so the reference is relevent. About 20 minutes before you fight the final boss you have to fight two trolls and like 4-5 other enemies in a sort of time sensitive situation. All normal enemies. They were VASTLY more difficult than the boss. DRAMATICALLY more difficult. And it almost completely ruined the satisfaction of finishing the game. Because the boss was such a pushover.
Bosses are SUPPOSED to be the most difficult - that is why they're the boss. If the boss is a pushover and some random enemy who just wanders his halls aimlessly is so much stronger than him - WHY IS HE STILL THE BOSS?
Am I the only one who feels like we reached a consensus a long time ago yet we keep posting the same stuff over and over and over and... KIRBY NOW!
There was an unspoken consensus long before this thread started.
This is obviously the smart decision, and what the vast majority of the playerbase wants.
The poll says it all, and in fact the poll is likely biased in favor of the "BAD" due to the sample.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Do you want to get scammed? Perhaps a nice keylogger?
"Just google "diablo 3 gold guide" and magical rainbow covered demons will assault your eyes."
And I'm convinced you haven't read a single word in a single post I've made. You make comments that are saying things that are the complete opposite of what I've posted and making it sound like you got those ideas from me... which I can't fathom at all.
What I'm describing is a philosophy designed by logic. You go through a dungeon and get to the end, and what you want is an epic encounter that really pushes you to the limit. That is how it SHOULD be in an RPG. Anything else just leaves you disappointed.
I've played hundreds of RPGs and action-RPGs. The ones that felt the best were always the ones where the major enemies(ie. bosses) were epic and somewhat challenging. Things like Final Fantasy games - the final Kefka fight or Zeromus. Things like Diablo 1 - Diablo was harder than almost anything in the game, so was the Butcher. Things like Ninja Gaiden where the end bosses have abilities that one-shot you. Those are the ones where you feel the most satisfied playing them.
Games where you get to the boss like War in the North and the boss is a pushover just leave you disappointed.
If Blizzard makes the bosses in this game less than epic I GUARANTEE you the game will score poorly in reviews and will lose a lot of long-term players over it. GUARANTEE.
Oh, and I technically HAVE spent hours in the game. The beta is part of the game. A small part, but it's a lot more than '1 minute'.
Edit: NM I give up, I really do think he just read the last sentence of my last post rather then the actual discussion part and made his post as insultingly oversimplified as possible. Tek, I hope this makes you happy - I really do, I can't argue with your stubborn unwillingness to address an entire post - it's just not winnable. Grats, selective arguments win again.
I don't think it's nearly as complicated as we're making it out to be here. Blizz's goal is simple, farming diversity. How to do that? Evenly distribute drops throughout Sanctuary. Only way to do this? Unique monster drops. If anyone has another suggestion for achieving this goal I would like to hear it.
Boss battles are still meaningful. They can still drop sick gear but only on the initial quest kill. For those against, what is the appeal of running the same area/boss ad infinitum?
Hunter... what's the point of making it so that you CAN'T choose to farm bosses for a day and still get loot?
I'm not against making uniques meaningful, I'm against making bosses meaningless. I want to be able to get value-for-time no matter where I choose to play. I don't want to be going through say Azmodan's dungeon looking for rares, get to the door behind which he is and go 'well this is as far as it's worth it for me to go'.
I want to get to that door, go through it, kill him and have an equivalent reward based off of the time. If X boss takes 25 seconds, the average champion takes 50 seconds, and z boss takes 100 seconds then I want X boss to have half the droprate of a champion while Z boss has double the droprate. The rewards for bosses should not just be a blanket 'lower than champions' like it seems to be currently according to recent statements. The rewards should be equivalent based off of average time to kill. That's all.
If Blizzard sets boss drop rates equivalent (give or take) to unique drops then that's a huge incentive to do pure boss runs. It's like knowing exactly where a super unique is and hitting him 100% of the time. Again, this goes against their goal of farming diversity. Also, there are a huge portion of players that are completely oblivious to this knowledge and their first instinct would be to boss farm. Reducing boss drops will be necessary to break their D2 habits.
I think it's all about finding a balance. Obviously it would be ridiculous for bosses to drop nothing after the first kill but Blizzard doesn't want to encourage runs by making them too fruitful. To be fair, SK drops far more than the average unique mob in the beta. :\ We'll have to see what they settle on for retail.
Once again, I reference their goal of having players farm ALL areas - to the extent of nerfing certain areas that are over farmed. I don't know how else the D3 team could achieve this without nerfing boss runs directly and obviously.
The balance to it is that you can find 4-5 groups of rares/champs per floor so if you just RUSH to one boss you're only getting one where as if you just clear an area you're getting 4-5 per floor.
Tek... champs - minimum 4-5 per floor of every dungeon
No they don't actually, I've done many Skeleton King runs where I haven't encountered a single champ, yet for some reason the Skeleton King is always there and always guarantees me a blue.
have distinct random modifiers that can come in varieties of ridiculously easy to ridiculously hard but you can see which it is and easily avoid the latter
Opposed to bosses which are all really easy? And most champs weren't ridiculously easy in D2 for any character who wasn't decked out in top of the line gear (ie sorc's with infinity). As I explained above there were more troublesome modifiers than there were "ridiculously easy" mods, and a lot of them together made mobs very dangerous (Especially for Hardcore players). Throw in double and triple immunities and a lot of classes have an *extremely* difficult time with a large number of champs. Sure you could try and avoid certain mobs *if* you had the mobility (ie a sorc or enigma), but it was a lot more difficult if you played legitimately. It really sounds like you never played D2 legitimately Sel.
have much much much lower health so even if they have difficult modifiers are still generally quicker to kill.
If they weren't immune then yea, but you also have to realize that they could kill YOU a lot quicker (again, through legitimate play)
Bosses - require clearing at least 2-3 dungeon floors to get to even one
you don't have to clear the floor, in fact if you know where the only guaranteed good loot drop is (ie a boss), you will beeline your way there and kill any champs you find on the way. People won't spend their time clearing a floor "hoping" to find a champ when they know for sure where one is.
have way inflated health, have distinct scripts and epic effects that make them more interesting to fight. And bosses being 'predictable' is entirely dependent upon the quality of the AI.If the AI is well designed, the mobs may have say 10 abilities they can use but you can't be sure which they'll use when.
So you want to make bosses like champs only with prettier effects? it's a lot harder to make epic, scripted events when the boss you're fighting has a large pool of random effects so that's not going to fly. Bosses have never been as random, and even *if* they made bosses with a pool of abilities to choose from in order to increase their difficulty in order to "allow" Blizzard to give them good drops, that just makes bosses *the* best places in the entire game to farm which means EVERYONE who wants to farm is now forced to farm bosses because they are consistent, easy to find and always drop good loot.
I'm sorry, but except for the most RARE sets of modifiers, I don't forsee champions being slower OR harder than bosses on inferno.
Guess you didn't play D2 much OR read my previous few posts. You are wrong on this.
Even with the 'predictability' of the boss, if it's well designed it can still be a challenge.
No it won't because of their boss philosophies. They want bosses to be somewhat challenging, but MORE than that they want boss fights to be cool and epic with giant monsters and crazy effects. Challenge for bosses takes backseat to cool experiences.
Look at the Ninja Gaiden series. Once you'd fought a boss once yuou knew what it was going to do. But that didn't mean you could kill it every time because things were designed well.
I dont' know what ninja gaiden series you're talking about, but the nes bosses were just annoying. Very difficult to avoid patterns did not make for cool or epic encounters. Besides, talking about Ninja Gaiden, that was one of the MOST difficult nes series, and it wasn't just the bosses that made it difficult.
Not only that but if they DO design it so that you run into 15-20 sets of mobs who are SIGNIFICANTLY harder than the boss BEFORE the boss I'll be highly - HIGHLY disappointed.
Well they aren't designing it like that so don't' worry about it. It's random, random is random. Like I said WITH AN EXAMPLE FROM DIABLO 3, a lot of the times you don't even run into a single champ doing a Skeleton King run
If there is ONE or TWO sets of modifiers that can spawn randomly that make the mobs insane, that's different, but if the AVERAGE champion is harder than a boss it will make the game very anti-climactic. VERY VERY anticlimactic.
there were a lot more than one or two sets in D2. Diablo and Baal were both huge pushovers in D2, hell lister, gloams and dolls were all more challenging than Baal while Obliv Knights, Iron Maiden, De Seis and Lower Resist were all more challenging than Diablo. Did that make those bosses VERY VERY anticlimatic for you?
It's like War in the North - which just came out so the reference is relevent. About 20 minutes before you fight the final boss you have to fight two trolls and like 4-5 other enemies in a sort of time sensitive situation. All normal enemies. They were VASTLY more difficult than the boss. DRAMATICALLY more difficult. And it almost completely ruined the satisfaction of finishing the game. Because the boss was such a pushover.
Sounds like a terrible game in general. Just checked Metacritic and you're comparing Diablo 3 to a game with an average metacritic score of 65? I'd be willing to bet War in the North has a lot more problems than easy boss fights..
Bosses are SUPPOSED to be the most difficult - that is why they're the boss. If the boss is a pushover and some random enemy who just wanders his halls aimlessly is so much stronger than him - WHY IS HE STILL THE BOSS?
Obviously not according to D2 and D2 was wildly successful!
I have NEVER done a single floor of ANY dungeon where I didn't see at least AT LEAST two sets of champions or rares in the beta. Not ONCE. Not a single even FLOOR much less dungeon. In fact the one time I only ran into two I was shocked because I normally see 4 or more per floor.
In Diablo 2 the hardest mobs typically were the bosses. Mobs like Lord DeSeis, Duriel, the guy at the Hellforge, etc.
Bosses don't just refer to the one guy at the end of each act, they refer to any harder-than-average mob who is always there.
I can't think of anyone harder than that one superunique in the fake tombs of Tal Rasha - if you got the wrong modifiers on him he was immune to nearly everything and highly highly resistent to anything he wasn't immune to.
And the only set of modifiers that killed me quicker than Diablo was MSLE. Some of the others were tough, but only MSLE really EVER gave me pause. Or casters who had the -resist aura. Those two were the only ones that were tough for me - and I played PURIST so I didn't trade AT ALL only used the items I found myself. Meaning I had none of those rare runewords. My sorc was in entirely mf gear - and while she couldn't kill lightning immunes - she never had troubles with dying to most champions unless they were one of the above. Neither did my smite paladin who used the +resist shield runeword(you kno0w the one using like ral ort and tal or whatever it was) btw, my hammerdin(again no runewords), my necro, or my amazon. None of whom had 'the best gear ever'. They were all in decent gear, but none were decked out in top level runewords or perfect items. They were all just using the random stuff I found on meph runs.
I don't know what game YOU were playing really. Now I quit back when uber-diablo was the only 'uber'. So perhaps things changed after that. But back in those days the bosses were harder than all but the most difficult rares.
And champions in D2 were RIDICULOUS pushovers. So I edon't know what you're on.
On paper it seems to solve the whole "We dont want boss runs to be the best way for items" situation. However, going back on previous Diablo games, most of the act bosses had several rare groups of mobs associated with them on their levels.
I have NEVER done a single floor of ANY dungeon where I didn't see at least AT LEAST two sets of champions or rares in the beta. Not ONCE. Not a single even FLOOR much less dungeon. In fact the one time I only ran into two I was shocked because I normally see 4 or more per floor.
That's funny, because I did about 10 SK runs the other night and only ran into one champion.
In Diablo 2 the hardest mobs typically were the bosses.
Incorrect.
And the only set of modifiers that killed me quicker than Diablo was MSLE.
Really, you never came across anything like a fanat/convic/extra strong/cursed pack as a melee character? Those are pretty f'n scary and deadly.
But back in those days the bosses were harder than all but the most difficult rares.
And champions in D2 were RIDICULOUS pushovers. So I edon't know what you're on.
I could ask you the same question as you have VASTLY different memories of Diablo 2 than me.
Darkphenom... most of the examples you give of 'rares' that were harder than bosses WERE bosses. People like Lord DeSeis are bosses.
Well, at least with this example I can point out how you are exactly wrong.
there were a lot more than one or two sets in D2. Diablo and Baal were both huge pushovers in D2, hell lister, gloams and dolls were all more challenging than Baal while Obliv Knights, Iron Maiden, De Seis and Lower Resist were all more challenging than Diablo. Did that make those bosses VERY VERY anticlimatic for you?
Of 7 examples only 2 were bosses, I guess when you think 2 of 7 is most I can see why you think the things you think.
I was simply trying to point out things that were more difficult than act bosses (And all of my examples still hold true for that).
Bottom line, if Bosses have equal or better chance to drop loot boss runs *will* become the best source of loot (because dungeon + boss kill > dungeon without boss kill). Then you've just forced people to Boss runs for loot and that's bad.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Etc.
But this system removes the ability to include bosses in that rotation of 'things to do' and that makes me truly sad.
You must have a bad memory because, conviction, LE, FE, Amp damage, Fanat, Conc, Extra strong, extra fast, and immunes made A LOT of super uniques a bitch to deal with, ESPECIALLY considering D3 isn't going to have ridiculously overpowered gear and the best gear isn't stupidly easy to obtain because there hopefully won't be duping or bots.
Bosses were significantly easier than a lot of super uniques and you trying to justify there just being "a few among thousands" is an incredibly naive statement.
"We"? You mean you 14%? Sorry, but us 70% are more important, "we" win, because we like bosses not being worth farming and we are by far the majority.
I think bosses SHOULD be a more difficult fight and should reward you equally.
I can see a lot of players skipping boss fights because their spec is not designed for bosses and they don't feel like switching everything, so instead of killing the boss at the end of the dungeon, they just leave because it is less rewarding to kill the boss rather than just leaving and making a new game to find more rare mobs.
Obviously everything we are debating about is pretty much all speculation considering we have no clue on how long bosses will take vs rare mobs and how difficult rare mobs will be to find. maybe bosses can drop up to 8 items while a rare mob can only drop 5, and this would even them out? Who knows...BUT if bosses do take longer to kill and have a lower drop rate for good items, the system needs to be fixed.
I think what a lot of us "No" people are trying to say is that we liked killing bosses, and if they make bosses less rewarding, it's pretty much the same situation as in D2 except the opposite. Where people would be clearing acts and skipping bosses.
I think they are trying to make a system so that you can just kill everything and have it all be equally rewarding, including bosses, and I think that is all what we really hope for.
There are many of us who are not in one camp or another. But based on previous experience with Blizzard's products and given how they more than any other developer constantly reiterate & refine their gameplay to make all their games FUN, we have confidence in Blizzard. Or at the very least their ability to fix their errors.
Its one thing to suggest concerns, its quite another to defend your position SO STRONGLY on a game you have not even played, a system you've never tested, solely because you think the theory of the system does not sit well with you.
That is EXACTLY what I hope for.
I want to be able to log in, think to myself 'what do I want to kill today' and not feel like I'm restricted in how I answer that question based off of bad loot mechanics.
Edit: @Emyln, the defense seems strong because it really bothers me to watch people be 1) Selfish and 2) Illogical at the same time. Logic would dictate that a system that allows all hard monsters to be equally rewarding based off of the time it takes to kill them would be fun for everyone by allowing everyone to choose what they wish to do and be rewarded for it, but people are saying that such a system would negatively impact them somehow - which is illogical.
Selflessness would dictate that people would be happy if others were ALSO able to have fun as long as it didn't take away from their own, but people are saying that they'd rather that other people are NOT allowed to have fun because they want their way to be the only way - which is selfish.
Good post Tek, but don't worry, there will still be at least 3-4 people who don't seem to grasp this concept and will continue to complain and say that their side isn't being seen.
Bosses - require clearing at least 2-3 dungeon floors to get to even one, have way inflated health, have distinct scripts and epic effects that make them more interesting to fight. And bosses being 'predictable' is entirely dependent upon the quality of the AI. If the AI is well designed, the mobs may have say 10 abilities they can use but you can't be sure which they'll use when.
I'm sorry, but except for the most RARE sets of modifiers, I don't forsee champions being slower OR harder than bosses on inferno. Even with the 'predictability' of the boss, if it's well designed it can still be a challenge. Look at the Ninja Gaiden series. Once you'd fought a boss once yuou knew what it was going to do. But that didn't mean you could kill it every time because things were designed well.
Not only that but if they DO design it so that you run into 15-20 sets of mobs who are SIGNIFICANTLY harder than the boss BEFORE the boss I'll be highly - HIGHLY disappointed. In fact that might be enough to seriously reduce the fun value of the game. If there is ONE or TWO sets of modifiers that can spawn randomly that make the mobs insane, that's different, but if the AVERAGE champion is harder than a boss it will make the game very anti-climactic. VERY VERY anticlimactic.
It's like War in the North - which just came out so the reference is relevent. About 20 minutes before you fight the final boss you have to fight two trolls and like 4-5 other enemies in a sort of time sensitive situation. All normal enemies. They were VASTLY more difficult than the boss. DRAMATICALLY more difficult. And it almost completely ruined the satisfaction of finishing the game. Because the boss was such a pushover.
Bosses are SUPPOSED to be the most difficult - that is why they're the boss. If the boss is a pushover and some random enemy who just wanders his halls aimlessly is so much stronger than him - WHY IS HE STILL THE BOSS?
This is obviously the smart decision, and what the vast majority of the playerbase wants.
The poll says it all, and in fact the poll is likely biased in favor of the "BAD" due to the sample.
"Just google "diablo 3 gold guide" and magical rainbow covered demons will assault your eyes."
And I'm convinced you haven't read a single word in a single post I've made. You make comments that are saying things that are the complete opposite of what I've posted and making it sound like you got those ideas from me... which I can't fathom at all.
What I'm describing is a philosophy designed by logic. You go through a dungeon and get to the end, and what you want is an epic encounter that really pushes you to the limit. That is how it SHOULD be in an RPG. Anything else just leaves you disappointed.
I've played hundreds of RPGs and action-RPGs. The ones that felt the best were always the ones where the major enemies(ie. bosses) were epic and somewhat challenging. Things like Final Fantasy games - the final Kefka fight or Zeromus. Things like Diablo 1 - Diablo was harder than almost anything in the game, so was the Butcher. Things like Ninja Gaiden where the end bosses have abilities that one-shot you. Those are the ones where you feel the most satisfied playing them.
Games where you get to the boss like War in the North and the boss is a pushover just leave you disappointed.
If Blizzard makes the bosses in this game less than epic I GUARANTEE you the game will score poorly in reviews and will lose a lot of long-term players over it. GUARANTEE.
Oh, and I technically HAVE spent hours in the game. The beta is part of the game. A small part, but it's a lot more than '1 minute'.
Edit: NM I give up, I really do think he just read the last sentence of my last post rather then the actual discussion part and made his post as insultingly oversimplified as possible. Tek, I hope this makes you happy - I really do, I can't argue with your stubborn unwillingness to address an entire post - it's just not winnable. Grats, selective arguments win again.
Boss battles are still meaningful. They can still drop sick gear but only on the initial quest kill. For those against, what is the appeal of running the same area/boss ad infinitum?
http://huntersc.tv
I'm not against making uniques meaningful, I'm against making bosses meaningless. I want to be able to get value-for-time no matter where I choose to play. I don't want to be going through say Azmodan's dungeon looking for rares, get to the door behind which he is and go 'well this is as far as it's worth it for me to go'.
I want to get to that door, go through it, kill him and have an equivalent reward based off of the time. If X boss takes 25 seconds, the average champion takes 50 seconds, and z boss takes 100 seconds then I want X boss to have half the droprate of a champion while Z boss has double the droprate. The rewards for bosses should not just be a blanket 'lower than champions' like it seems to be currently according to recent statements. The rewards should be equivalent based off of average time to kill. That's all.
I think it's all about finding a balance. Obviously it would be ridiculous for bosses to drop nothing after the first kill but Blizzard doesn't want to encourage runs by making them too fruitful. To be fair, SK drops far more than the average unique mob in the beta. :\ We'll have to see what they settle on for retail.
Once again, I reference their goal of having players farm ALL areas - to the extent of nerfing certain areas that are over farmed. I don't know how else the D3 team could achieve this without nerfing boss runs directly and obviously.
http://huntersc.tv
No they don't actually, I've done many Skeleton King runs where I haven't encountered a single champ, yet for some reason the Skeleton King is always there and always guarantees me a blue.
Opposed to bosses which are all really easy? And most champs weren't ridiculously easy in D2 for any character who wasn't decked out in top of the line gear (ie sorc's with infinity). As I explained above there were more troublesome modifiers than there were "ridiculously easy" mods, and a lot of them together made mobs very dangerous (Especially for Hardcore players). Throw in double and triple immunities and a lot of classes have an *extremely* difficult time with a large number of champs. Sure you could try and avoid certain mobs *if* you had the mobility (ie a sorc or enigma), but it was a lot more difficult if you played legitimately. It really sounds like you never played D2 legitimately Sel.
If they weren't immune then yea, but you also have to realize that they could kill YOU a lot quicker (again, through legitimate play)
you don't have to clear the floor, in fact if you know where the only guaranteed good loot drop is (ie a boss), you will beeline your way there and kill any champs you find on the way. People won't spend their time clearing a floor "hoping" to find a champ when they know for sure where one is.
So you want to make bosses like champs only with prettier effects? it's a lot harder to make epic, scripted events when the boss you're fighting has a large pool of random effects so that's not going to fly. Bosses have never been as random, and even *if* they made bosses with a pool of abilities to choose from in order to increase their difficulty in order to "allow" Blizzard to give them good drops, that just makes bosses *the* best places in the entire game to farm which means EVERYONE who wants to farm is now forced to farm bosses because they are consistent, easy to find and always drop good loot.
Guess you didn't play D2 much OR read my previous few posts. You are wrong on this.
No it won't because of their boss philosophies. They want bosses to be somewhat challenging, but MORE than that they want boss fights to be cool and epic with giant monsters and crazy effects. Challenge for bosses takes backseat to cool experiences.
I dont' know what ninja gaiden series you're talking about, but the nes bosses were just annoying. Very difficult to avoid patterns did not make for cool or epic encounters. Besides, talking about Ninja Gaiden, that was one of the MOST difficult nes series, and it wasn't just the bosses that made it difficult.
Well they aren't designing it like that so don't' worry about it. It's random, random is random. Like I said WITH AN EXAMPLE FROM DIABLO 3, a lot of the times you don't even run into a single champ doing a Skeleton King run
there were a lot more than one or two sets in D2. Diablo and Baal were both huge pushovers in D2, hell lister, gloams and dolls were all more challenging than Baal while Obliv Knights, Iron Maiden, De Seis and Lower Resist were all more challenging than Diablo. Did that make those bosses VERY VERY anticlimatic for you?
Sounds like a terrible game in general. Just checked Metacritic and you're comparing Diablo 3 to a game with an average metacritic score of 65? I'd be willing to bet War in the North has a lot more problems than easy boss fights..
Obviously not according to D2 and D2 was wildly successful!
In Diablo 2 the hardest mobs typically were the bosses. Mobs like Lord DeSeis, Duriel, the guy at the Hellforge, etc.
Bosses don't just refer to the one guy at the end of each act, they refer to any harder-than-average mob who is always there.
I can't think of anyone harder than that one superunique in the fake tombs of Tal Rasha - if you got the wrong modifiers on him he was immune to nearly everything and highly highly resistent to anything he wasn't immune to.
And the only set of modifiers that killed me quicker than Diablo was MSLE. Some of the others were tough, but only MSLE really EVER gave me pause. Or casters who had the -resist aura. Those two were the only ones that were tough for me - and I played PURIST so I didn't trade AT ALL only used the items I found myself. Meaning I had none of those rare runewords. My sorc was in entirely mf gear - and while she couldn't kill lightning immunes - she never had troubles with dying to most champions unless they were one of the above. Neither did my smite paladin who used the +resist shield runeword(you kno0w the one using like ral ort and tal or whatever it was) btw, my hammerdin(again no runewords), my necro, or my amazon. None of whom had 'the best gear ever'. They were all in decent gear, but none were decked out in top level runewords or perfect items. They were all just using the random stuff I found on meph runs.
I don't know what game YOU were playing really. Now I quit back when uber-diablo was the only 'uber'. So perhaps things changed after that. But back in those days the bosses were harder than all but the most difficult rares.
And champions in D2 were RIDICULOUS pushovers. So I edon't know what you're on.
That's funny, because I did about 10 SK runs the other night and only ran into one champion.
Incorrect.
Really, you never came across anything like a fanat/convic/extra strong/cursed pack as a melee character? Those are pretty f'n scary and deadly.
I could ask you the same question as you have VASTLY different memories of Diablo 2 than me.
Well, at least with this example I can point out how you are exactly wrong.
Of 7 examples only 2 were bosses, I guess when you think 2 of 7 is most I can see why you think the things you think.
I was simply trying to point out things that were more difficult than act bosses (And all of my examples still hold true for that).
Bottom line, if Bosses have equal or better chance to drop loot boss runs *will* become the best source of loot (because dungeon + boss kill > dungeon without boss kill). Then you've just forced people to Boss runs for loot and that's bad.