In Diablo 2 there are a few things that can only be done in towns:
1. You can sell items you don't want in towns
2. It's your main source of quests
3. You can identify items for free with deckard cain
4. You can gamble
5. You can browse and buy new gear from vendors
6. You can recruit a mercenary companion
I wanted to place 'the town is a safe haven where you can craft, manage inventory, gear and talents without fear of dying,' BUT that's not really true. If you clear a floor in diablo 2 you're pretty safe to manage your character.
I remember an old blue post saying they want to emphasize towns as a 'safe zone,' but how do you think they're gonna do that? Will there be respawn timers for mobs outside of towns in diablo 3 so you don't feel really 'safe' outside? Will all these Diablo 2 town-only features carry over to diablo 3?
Theres no point in having a timer on mobs, if everything is dead then its time to make a new game.
Towns will work the same way as in D2, TP's are out in D3, they will probably add some caravans(aka: checkpoints) in the map, but these are in the wilds, so you can be attacked/pwned/npcs killed/pk'd(hope so). The towns being the only safe zone.
Get real, folks, the diablo you all knew is dead, a few years ago i said right here in this forum that D3 had a pretty good chance of being blizzard first bust (i was flamed to death ofc), and what you know, its not even beta and its already looking that way.
I'm not sold that there will be respawning, but I don't see it being a bad fit necessarily. "Time to make a new game" is a flaw in the system: having to browse through half-cleared games just to find a place you can play is not a feature; and having to find a game made without your quests already done by creator in past games, was a huge flaw that I expect corrected at least. Although this was a loooong time ago, respawning was also something the D2 team wanted to implement but could not figure out how to do efficiently.
If a dungeon floor was empty of players for a certain time frame such as say 15 minutes, I could easily see them "resetting" the zone - in fact that approach makes the servers MORE efficient since it can just forget the state you put the dungeon in. Unlike a MMO they don't have to track what respawns exactly when and where. However that approach would still leave cleared floors you are currently on as "safe" as anything else... which I don't see a problem with unlike the OP.
I'm going to guess and say no way in hell. That is not going to happen. The game is based around rooms and remaking rooms whenever you run out of monsters to kill, that is how it worked in D1 and D2, not through MMO style respawning. This is the sort of thing that goes along with the isometric camera, the tons of loot, and other things that are essential if you want to make a Diablo game.
I wholeheartedly disagree. Some limited monster respawning could certainly make things more interesting, I despise how there will never be not even a single monster everywhere you went before unless you, uh, "save & quit" and come back..? That always broke the flow of the game to me. What if I want to just continue fighting in this area? Why do I have to save & quit and come back?
I'm not saying they should respawn in 5 minutes. And the respawning could be something different, too (like it is in D2 when you quit and come back).
So yeah, no, this is not at all -essential- to a Diablo game. Thats just such a mindset some people have that nothing can be changed because thats how it was before.
It is essential for me, otherwise it wouldn't be Diablo anymore. You can have your opinion.
I remember reading in an old interview or something that they want to make the room recreation better flowing. You press a button and the game resets, keeping everyone in the game that wants to participate, so you never have to leave the game. I think these kinds of resets is a much better way to handle respawning enemies than having them respawn automatically based on a timer or whatever.
Another advantage is that it is somehow more realistic. You reset the world to a previous state, so wouldn't that logically mean that everything, including the condition of monsters, are reset to a state of "alive"? Or the other way around: Respawning makes no sense at all. You have killed everyone in the Cathedral, you leave for 15 min, then suddenly it is filled with cultists again. Wtf!
So it is definitely not only nostalgia (which really should be separated from things that makes Diablo, Diablo), even if that plays a part as well, but also realism and that it is a better system imo. I prefer manual resets in front of automated respawns.
Respawning implies that more monsters moved in, from other places or from corner you missed, etc. Since the world is such a mess its no mystery that there could be so many more hidden around corners.
If you want to get into a realist talk with me about that: respawning monsters is WAY more realistic than leaving for 1 second and getting back (or pressing a Reset button), and then oh gee, the entire area is now populated again!
I have nothing against D1's system though, that is one you clear an area its permanent. Thing is I just hate the way its reset in D2. I'd rather have one (no respawn/reset at ALL) or the other (respawn), not you press a reset button to have them come back. That has no feeling, no charm, and breaks any sorts of immersion to the game I have.
Won't re-spawning decrease your sense of achievement?
I mean you murdered everybody in the place. You'll want to gloat a bit then move to another area for some more massacre. Imagine you just go back after 10-15 minutes and see all those suckers back just laughing and jeering at you.
D1 and D2 did it right. It gave you a sense of progression and 'completion'. D1 more than D2 obviously because everybody just stays in their grave. But I dunno...it also decreases re playability to some extent. Some areas you would want to visit again but are just pointless since there is no one to explode into bits of flesh and bones.
And so D2 came with the game reset feature which kept the sense of 'achievement' while in-game and playing and for next time you would want to revisit some areas by filling it up with fresh new victims.
Ideal would be by the time the bottom of the dungeon is cleared, the top floor has respawned... however it was mentioned they had some plans to discourage repeatedly farming the same area over and over. Not sure how they will achieve that.
I think I kind of agree with FoxBat. We all know farming, for both items and experience, is going to be in any game of this genre no matter what, especially online. Might as well cut down on game list clutter, and pointless game remaking, if they can just respawn. If not, you're just adding more hassle for the player over an issue that cannot be removed, and you're making it more annoying for the rest of us trying to find specific games but cluttering the screen with "baalsucksbalz-013" games.
Get real, folks, the diablo you all knew is dead, a few years ago i said right here in this forum that D3 had a pretty good chance of being blizzard first bust (i was flamed to death ofc), and what you know, its not even beta and its already looking that way.
For one, I want a MAIN town in the game, like Caldeum. Maybe have somewhat bigger towns throughout the game but have one central town dominating. One thing Diablo 2 did not do well in my opinion was make Lut Gholein feel big enough. It was just too small for my taste. I was Caldeum to be ENORMOUS, like having stairs to a market and then having a huge complex of houses, etc. I also like the idea of having trade caravans coming in from around the world letting you buy things.
But I also want some kind of sieges going on during the towns that are in enemy territory (Horragath for example). Even though you were in the middle of a war in that town, I wanted to see demons hit the side of the wall and have the archers hit them from atop the wall. It would add mroe feeling to the game in my opinion.
I remember an old blue post saying they want to emphasize towns as a 'safe zone,' but how do you think they're gonna do that? Will there be respawn timers for mobs outside of towns in diablo 3 so you don't feel really 'safe' outside? Will all these Diablo 2 town-only features carry over to diablo 3?
What emphasizes the towns being a safe zone in D3 is that they'll be harder to get back to. You'll no longer simply be able to just instantly appear in town whenever you want to (right?) and this will make you regard the town more as the safest of all places to be. It's a good thing, really. It makes you not take the town as for granted as we always have in D1 and D2. It will now be like, you're in town, enjoy the moment of rest while you can.
It's officially stated that acts (unfortunely!) will work like D2.
Jay Wilsom said in a interview that their first plan was to make a large open world with several quests, dungeons and places to explore in a no linear fashion. But as they progressed in development their changed their mind for some unknown reason.
I wish D3 had a more open world phylosophy =[
[quote name='deathMars' date='26 June 2010 - 11:51 PM' timestamp='1277589063' post='535064'
But I also want some kind of sieges going on during the towns that are in enemy territory (Horragath for example). Even though you were in the middle of a war in that town, I wanted to see demons hit the side of the wall and have the archers hit them from atop the wall. It would add mroe feeling to the game in my opinion.
[/quote]
Hey I agree here, I really enjoyed the sense that you were apart of some sort of bigger war, I don't no if its been said, but I'd like to see towns in a more acting role other than selling and buying.... That you need to defend the town from attacks take part in sieges,,, loose the battle and the town is changed.... Could be interesting change to hardcore play,,, suppose there is allot that could be done here..
,,,,
Act's might work like in D2, but that doesn't mean that they have to work exactly the same. You might not have an open world, you might travel through cutscenes etc, which makes it like D2 in that aspect. It doesn't have to be that way in every aspect though.
I know and i agree. Actually, somehow, I'm sure that it will work quite different.
I'm just saying that the acts itself will exist and it's how the game progress. If theres one or many towns, or if the game will not be linear inside the own act noone's know.
I think this is totally possible and a great idea. Imo each act should like somehwat like a wow area but with better design. I mean, like 2~4 towns (with a large one), some quests to do in many side areas and a "main" chain of quests wich leads you to out of the act. Imo not even the area levels should be linear. For exemple, Act 2 could have some areas and quests that requires a act 3 or even act 4 character. Imo a minimal backtrack in any game is positive, it adds a feeling of familiarity with the areas.
Yes, you might get a quest in Act 3 to deliver something from a town in Act 3 to a town in Act 1. So you first have to travel to the town in Act 3, then take a waypoint back to Act 1 where you will find a new path that takes you to a new town. This will also make the game very easy at first, with perhaps 1 or 2 paths, and then add complexity in the form of new areas as you progress.
Although this might not really fit with the word "Act" as in a segment of the storyline. I don't really mind it, but it sounds a bit wrong to travel back and fourth between acts, a bit like traveling backwards and forward in time.
You right, but i thought as those content are not execly "lore canon".
Like add a dungeon in Act I that requires level 30 to be cleaned. It's almost like a uber event or MedianXL special quests. Imo those content greatly improved the game.
It would be alot easier if they changed the name 'act' to 'area'. Imo Diablo could turn into a PERFECT game if they add a little more non linear content in the formula !
I understand, but this just complicated. Imo, if act marks a "serie of events" then it's a useless concept. Why divide a game in "acts" if they do not divide the game in something relevant ?
I mean, something have to CHANGE between act 1 and 2. If it's not the space, what is it?
In D2 what defines acts is essentially the place pluss the monsters and quests there.
Even through I like D2 lore, i find it just a secondary part of the game.. thats why i think it is weird the define things based on plot. Maybe is just me, since i've kinda a "mechanical" opnion about Diablo series (in my head Diablo and rpgs in general is just a fremakework, a running mechanic were people can mess around. It's almost like a math model were you can use your creativity and get crazy results, like a sorc doing 10k+ damage with a melee attack).
I think the best idea would be to make resets like they do dungeons in wow. Make every wp a dungeon u load into, so they can be reset with monsters and reset map with new random set-up. If u are in a party together in an area say like burial grounds, said area is called (Burial grounds 1) anyone else isn't in the said party they are in (" " 2) and so on. You reset the Burial grounds u are in currently remove u from said burial grounds and makes the next set number. Say u are joining the server and u want to play with ur friend in burial grounds 1. When u first join in it ask would u like to join (Burial grounds 1) (Burial grounds 2) and so on. So there are groups u can join within said server u are in. After 5 mins of players are not in said subgroup it disappears to save on server memory and what not. The "town" would be ur safe zone where u can acces said wps and different said groups( (Burial grounds 1)(Burial grounds 2) and so on) when u join a game.
Now by doing this u arent making tons of useless servers to spam up the list in bnet. Making sub instances or dungeons in one server will keep it more tidey and a lot more appealing to chars instead of quiting game just go to another server to do the same damn thing. You can have multiple ppl in one server say making different difficulties in one server, like Hell Burial grounds and reg Burial grounds in the same game.
I think this is a fantastic idea if it doesn't take too much server memory to do these said things. I hope they make things easier instead of harder. No reason to digress!!
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
1. You can sell items you don't want in towns
2. It's your main source of quests
3. You can identify items for free with deckard cain
4. You can gamble
5. You can browse and buy new gear from vendors
6. You can recruit a mercenary companion
I wanted to place 'the town is a safe haven where you can craft, manage inventory, gear and talents without fear of dying,' BUT that's not really true. If you clear a floor in diablo 2 you're pretty safe to manage your character.
I remember an old blue post saying they want to emphasize towns as a 'safe zone,' but how do you think they're gonna do that? Will there be respawn timers for mobs outside of towns in diablo 3 so you don't feel really 'safe' outside? Will all these Diablo 2 town-only features carry over to diablo 3?
Towns will work the same way as in D2, TP's are out in D3, they will probably add some caravans(aka: checkpoints) in the map, but these are in the wilds, so you can be attacked/pwned/npcs killed/pk'd(hope so). The towns being the only safe zone.
Of course, this is all speculation..
If a dungeon floor was empty of players for a certain time frame such as say 15 minutes, I could easily see them "resetting" the zone - in fact that approach makes the servers MORE efficient since it can just forget the state you put the dungeon in. Unlike a MMO they don't have to track what respawns exactly when and where. However that approach would still leave cleared floors you are currently on as "safe" as anything else... which I don't see a problem with unlike the OP.
I wholeheartedly disagree. Some limited monster respawning could certainly make things more interesting, I despise how there will never be not even a single monster everywhere you went before unless you, uh, "save & quit" and come back..? That always broke the flow of the game to me. What if I want to just continue fighting in this area? Why do I have to save & quit and come back?
I'm not saying they should respawn in 5 minutes. And the respawning could be something different, too (like it is in D2 when you quit and come back).
So yeah, no, this is not at all -essential- to a Diablo game. Thats just such a mindset some people have that nothing can be changed because thats how it was before.
If you want to get into a realist talk with me about that: respawning monsters is WAY more realistic than leaving for 1 second and getting back (or pressing a Reset button), and then oh gee, the entire area is now populated again!
I have nothing against D1's system though, that is one you clear an area its permanent. Thing is I just hate the way its reset in D2. I'd rather have one (no respawn/reset at ALL) or the other (respawn), not you press a reset button to have them come back. That has no feeling, no charm, and breaks any sorts of immersion to the game I have.
I mean you murdered everybody in the place. You'll want to gloat a bit then move to another area for some more massacre. Imagine you just go back after 10-15 minutes and see all those suckers back just laughing and jeering at you.
D1 and D2 did it right. It gave you a sense of progression and 'completion'. D1 more than D2 obviously because everybody just stays in their grave. But I dunno...it also decreases re playability to some extent. Some areas you would want to visit again but are just pointless since there is no one to explode into bits of flesh and bones.
And so D2 came with the game reset feature which kept the sense of 'achievement' while in-game and playing and for next time you would want to revisit some areas by filling it up with fresh new victims.
Ideal would be by the time the bottom of the dungeon is cleared, the top floor has respawned... however it was mentioned they had some plans to discourage repeatedly farming the same area over and over. Not sure how they will achieve that.
But I also want some kind of sieges going on during the towns that are in enemy territory (Horragath for example). Even though you were in the middle of a war in that town, I wanted to see demons hit the side of the wall and have the archers hit them from atop the wall. It would add mroe feeling to the game in my opinion.
Siaynoq's Playthroughs
Jay Wilsom said in a interview that their first plan was to make a large open world with several quests, dungeons and places to explore in a no linear fashion. But as they progressed in development their changed their mind for some unknown reason.
I wish D3 had a more open world phylosophy =[
But I also want some kind of sieges going on during the towns that are in enemy territory (Horragath for example). Even though you were in the middle of a war in that town, I wanted to see demons hit the side of the wall and have the archers hit them from atop the wall. It would add mroe feeling to the game in my opinion.
[/quote] Hey I agree here, I really enjoyed the sense that you were apart of some sort of bigger war, I don't no if its been said, but I'd like to see towns in a more acting role other than selling and buying.... That you need to defend the town from attacks take part in sieges,,, loose the battle and the town is changed.... Could be interesting change to hardcore play,,, suppose there is allot that could be done here..
,,,,
I know and i agree. Actually, somehow, I'm sure that it will work quite different.
I'm just saying that the acts itself will exist and it's how the game progress. If theres one or many towns, or if the game will not be linear inside the own act noone's know.
I think this is totally possible and a great idea. Imo each act should like somehwat like a wow area but with better design. I mean, like 2~4 towns (with a large one), some quests to do in many side areas and a "main" chain of quests wich leads you to out of the act. Imo not even the area levels should be linear. For exemple, Act 2 could have some areas and quests that requires a act 3 or even act 4 character. Imo a minimal backtrack in any game is positive, it adds a feeling of familiarity with the areas.
You right, but i thought as those content are not execly "lore canon".
Like add a dungeon in Act I that requires level 30 to be cleaned. It's almost like a uber event or MedianXL special quests. Imo those content greatly improved the game.
It would be alot easier if they changed the name 'act' to 'area'. Imo Diablo could turn into a PERFECT game if they add a little more non linear content in the formula !
I mean, something have to CHANGE between act 1 and 2. If it's not the space, what is it?
Even through I like D2 lore, i find it just a secondary part of the game.. thats why i think it is weird the define things based on plot. Maybe is just me, since i've kinda a "mechanical" opnion about Diablo series (in my head Diablo and rpgs in general is just a fremakework, a running mechanic were people can mess around. It's almost like a math model were you can use your creativity and get crazy results, like a sorc doing 10k+ damage with a melee attack).
Now by doing this u arent making tons of useless servers to spam up the list in bnet. Making sub instances or dungeons in one server will keep it more tidey and a lot more appealing to chars instead of quiting game just go to another server to do the same damn thing. You can have multiple ppl in one server say making different difficulties in one server, like Hell Burial grounds and reg Burial grounds in the same game.
I think this is a fantastic idea if it doesn't take too much server memory to do these said things. I hope they make things easier instead of harder. No reason to digress!!