Tell me that there are no pre-orders again please:P
Also, you PvErs get what you want while we PvPers dont get anything we want. You cant understand our disappointment in this because you cant PvP or just simply dont enjoy it. Blizzard just wants us to grind gear and sell on AH as Groaning said, just to make more money. This is fast becoming a game about something else than what fans wants. I agree with Groaning to a 100% and all his opinions makes perfect sense. Couldnt have described things better myself. Whats wrong with giving players more options? And yes, D2 lasted(even today) because of PvP for sure, i did alot of it myself. I think blizzard saying "we dont have infinite budget or time" is just a very lame excuse for dismissing alot of player options. I mean they made an arena with LMS then they just threw it in the garbage. They used their time and money to produce that and chose to throw it to the side. Its all just bullshit right now and its making me extremely sad. People say "stop whining", what would you do if you didnt get what you want and like the most of the game? Would you buy it? Would you like it? I honestly doubt that. PvP is attractive in loads of ways, even PKing ofcourse. Atleast give us options instead of saying "no u wont be able to do that.. there wont be options for you". If they gave people options they would get a wider crowd of players for sure. Now, im getting tierd of writing about this just because people dont see the point and honestly i dont care of what others thinks. You get your piece of the cake, we PvPers dont. Why should we buy the game? What will keep us interested in the long run? Come up with a good reason if you can.
Oh and yes PvP is inplemented in a TDM way, that sucks... yeah.. it does.
I'm pulling this from the PvP poll, since it's exactly the same discussion going on there.
You think that one of the largest, most successful game companies, that has teams of professional people doing target market analysis and huge amounts of sales data know less about what the people they are selling to want... than someone that randomly posts here? I see.
Edit: Also, that site has preorders for Diablo 3 for 360 and PS3... Yeah, a reliable retailer to be sure. Preorder something that's not even announced.
Expect the PvP meta game to grow in size and competitiveness over time. Just like in WoW, it will eventually play a much larger role in the game's growth.
-Good PvE experience (i dont mind that)
-Good co-op system
Ok so far.
-Nothing to look forward in end game other than grinding gear and selling on RMAH so they can profit from it
-Very restricted PvP, if you can even call it PvP
What? There will be inferno mode, which I expect to be hard and therefore fun, and you have pvp. You have. P.v.p. PvP is in the game. There will never not be an option to not be able to play pvp (maybe a lvl restriction if you're too low?). You most certainly can call it pvp. its one team of players vs another (and a player vs a player if they have a 1v1 bracket). That is the VERY DEFINITION of pvp.
-Restricted options in how you have to play the game
Yes, being able to play pvp or pve is very restrictvie. I wish i could do pvf, or pvd (player vs faerie and player vs developer). Oh, or whack-a-mole. Is there a D3 bejewelled? I definitely want in on that. DIABLOVILLE!?!?!?!? YESSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS
-A good veriety of spells and skills including the rune system
Okay.
-Crappy rune system where the runes are completely random in both runetypes and affixes
They have 2 systems currently, the one where the rune drops and you can see its type, and the socket-to-identify one that is getting some kind of an uproar. I hope they eventually settle on the latter with the ability to re-roll the rune. They haven't decided which to go with yet.
-Decent customization, coloring armors and investing in runes in our spells and configuring our banners etc.
-Good crafting system
You missed the part where possibly none of your complaints about the game will be actually in the game. The beta hasn't even been released yet... Also, the pvp system may be just fine for a launch pvp system, but as the game progresses and time goes by, patches will be announced as well as expansions. None of the systems are 100% complete because thy have to make it through beta. Just wait for release to decide whether or not the game is or is not what you want.
PantheraOnca: I know there is PvP in the game you dont have to tell me that. What you do have to tell me is why the current PvP system is so damn good in your eyes. There is NOTHING competetive with it, blizzard even stated so. They dont want any competetive feel in the game at all. All they want you to do is to grind till your eyes bleed, get the best gear and kill monsters faster and boost your friends. --> repeat --> gets boring --> nothing to do
How is fighting equally rated (i.e. skilled and geared) players NOT competitive?
It's certainly more competitive than joining random duel games. It is approximately as competitive as private leagues, only with a much bigger player selection. And if you are very skilled, it may be more competitive due to that increased player base so that you will be able to fight against more people like yourself.
Does the game not saying "You're #1000 out of 1,000,000 players, THAT MEANS THIS GAME IS COMPETITIVE!" change anything? Does it affect the quality of the matches? Are you getting matches against different people because your rating is public? No.
Now, it might make it initially harder to set up leagues with skill parity if the MMR is non-viewable, but over time, that will work itself out.
Hell, there might be achievements or titles unlockable once you break a certain rating, we don't know. If you're interested in competition to show off, the current pvp system may be lacking.
If you're interested in competition to have challenging matches, then current system is perfectly fine.
-Nothing to look forward in end game other than grinding gear and selling on RMAH so they can profit from it
-Very restricted PvP, if you can even call it PvP
What? There will be inferno mode, which I expect to be hard and therefore fun, and you have pvp. You have. P.v.p. PvP is in the game. There will never not be an option to not be able to play pvp (maybe a lvl restriction if you're too low?). You most certainly can call it pvp. its one team of players vs another (and a player vs a player if they have a 1v1 bracket). That is the VERY DEFINITION of pvp.
Okay, I haven't read the rest of this discussion. But this post makes you look like a narrow minded fan-boy. Just sayin'.
they are a business so yes, they do have a budget and time windows to hit. they have stockholders to answer to.
Time windows? They had 11 (eleven) years(at least 8 of which could/should have been spent developing Diablo 3). Budget, sure, but they've had more than enough time...
How is fighting equally rated (i.e. skilled and geared) players NOT competitive?
I think you are missing the fact that they aren't balancing the classes for pvp. That in it's own is what makes the current pvp system no more than a light hobby. If you take pvp seriously with obvious balance issues, you will be forced onto the most OP class, and probably fight nothing but the same OP class.
Have you ever played a player versus player game before?
I think you are missing the fact that they aren't balancing the classes for pvp. That in it's own is what makes the current pvp system no more than a light hobby. If you take pvp seriously with obvious balance issues, you will be forced onto the most OP class, and probably fight nothing but the same OP class.
Have you ever played a player versus player game before?
I think you're missing the fact that it is a Sisyphean task to balance all the possible combinations of builds for a single class, let alone the possible permutation of class compositions. How do you expect one build to be superior to all 2 trillion or however many builds there will be. You don't think there will be at least 1 build from each class that will be able to hard-counter, and many that will be able to soft-counter whatever your Holy-PvP-Superiority-Batman build happens to be.
D2 wasn't balanced for pvp and "everybody" "loved" it.
Have YOU ever played a pvp game? Which ones are PERFECTLY balanced? How many of those are also considered RPGs?
I've played RTS, FPS, MMO, and MOBA games, and at least dabbled in pvp for all of them.
About the pvp system. I think it will have the opposite effect of what they actaully want. With this new aproach it will just be farming the noobs. If the poor players respawn right away then you just kill them repeativly, instead of fighting the good players...
If you actually think this, you must not be aware of how a matchmaking system works.
Basically, the more you win, the higher your rating, the higher the rating you have, the higher the rating of the people you are matched against.
So lets say you get matched against some bad pvpers at the start, because everyone starts off with a given rating. You gain a bunch of points stomping on these bad players so now your rating is significantly higher than there's. You then get matched up with people of approximately the same rating, which means they've won about as many games, which means they are approximately equal to your skill and/or gear.
The system doesn't really care how you won, only that you won, and what the difference in rating is between the two of you (MMR will be more accurate sooner with smaller teamsizes, but with larger teams will eventually be accurate for that as well). The if you have a vast lead on someone in rating, you'll get a small rating boost when you win, and they'll lose a small amount. On the other hand, if you have a large rating lead and lose, the points lost by you and gained by the other person are increased proportionately to the rating difference.
This in effect makes players of equal skill play each other. Will noobs get stomped on at first? sure. But then their rating will be lower and they'll only get matched with other noobs. At the same time, really skilled players will rocket up the ratings until they reach a rating level where they fight similarly skilled players, at which point their rating stablizes and they fight equally (well) skilled players.
At no point will a super high rated individual be matched against a noob (with the exception of possibly teaming up with someone who is not rated and fighting another team who's average rating is the same as the non-rated and high-rated player's average rating).
Another possible exception would be massive queue times, which would loosen whatever the threshold in the system is for "close enough to match together." I.E someone with a 3000 rating will likely never fight someone with a 1500 rating, but they may fight someone with a 2800, 2600, 2400, etc. rating if they've been queued up for 5, 10, 15, and so on minutes.
@Panthera, remember that the default mode (and perhaps only) is not duels, but team deathmatch. He's talking about the fact that the guy with the lousiest dodging skills on the team will be the target all the time, and because they respawn quickly, will be out there fast to give the enemy team more free points. If matchmaking works well then we shouldn't see too wide a disparity in skill between players on a team very often, but it's still likely that it will often be a winning strategy to identify the weakest link on the team and keep smashing them over and over. For the remaining players then, it may feel more like a race to farm the opponent's weak guy faster, since two skilled players playing cautious/defensive will lose thanks to their third guy.
I don't know that this is a huge problem, but it definitely changes the game mechanics away from the counterstrike "it pays to be sneaky/cautious as hell" towards a quake-style run and gun fragfest.
@Panthera, remember that the default mode (and perhaps only) is not duels, but team deathmatch. He's talking about the fact that the guy with the lousiest dodging skills on the team will be the target all the time, and because they respawn quickly, will be out there fast to give the enemy team more free points. If matchmaking works well then we shouldn't see too wide a disparity in skill between players on a team very often, but it's still likely that it will often be a winning strategy to identify the weakest link on the team and keep smashing them over and over. For the remaining players then, it may feel more like a race to farm the opponent's weak guy faster, since two skilled players playing cautious/defensive will lose thanks to their third guy.
I don't know that this is a huge problem, but it definitely changes the game mechanics away from the counterstrike "it pays to be sneaky/cautious as hell" towards a quake-style run and gun fragfest.
I would be pretty surprised if they didn't offer a 1v1 queue.
When isn't identifying the weakest link on a team the winning strategy? I mean, after a while either the weakest links will learn to dodge, or they will be matched with similarly rated teams with one or more weak links as well.
Additionally, there will be a time where the weakest link is dead and there are no "weak links" to target, so what happens then? does the winning team just stop and wait for the respawn, or do they try to press their advantage? Maybe those still standing are so much better than their teammate that its better to run and wait for the respawn, but if the skill/gear disparity is so high, I don't see how those 2 couldn't have taken 1 or more of the other team down in exchange for their weak link.
I don't think the pvp matchmaking system is going to take win/loss into account, actually. I think it's based more on some gear calculation as well as story progression and obviously level. Jay Wilson talked a little bit about how there is no rating system like there is in WoW with different tiers based on success in the arena.
Also, as for balance, I've been playing fighting games for quite a few years and have gotten pretty serious about them. I can tell you perfect balance is the last thing a competitive game needs. Each class needs to have strengths and weaknesses, and needs to have the ability to counter other characters. If one character is viewed strongest in the game, people will develop strategies to deal with that power.
And if you think Blizzard is dumb enough to allow spawn killing, I don't think you're giving the development team enough credit.
I don't think the pvp matchmaking system is going to take win/loss into account, actually. I think it's based more on some gear calculation as well as story progression and obviously level. Jay Wilson talked a little bit about how there is no rating system like there is in WoW with different tiers based on success in the arena.
I think the story progression "rating" is for quick join pve games. I don't see how story progression has any relevancy to pvp.
It doesn't have any relevancy to PvP beyond putting people who are at similar points within the story or gear progression against each other. And for a pvp system that isn't supposed to be taken seriously, it's a fine matchmaking system. Whether or not I agree with it is a different story, but Jay Wilson said in the press event interview that there would be no arena rating system.
It doesn't have any relevancy to PvP beyond putting people who are at similar points within the story or gear progression against each other. And for a pvp system that isn't supposed to be taken seriously, it's a fine matchmaking system. Whether or not I agree with it is a different story, but Jay Wilson said in the press event interview that there would be no arena rating system.
From the article with the JW group interview transcript:
Q: I know you mentioned that in the PvP arena there will be a matchmaking system that will pit you against players of your equal skill or gear level and that there will not be a number one team. Does that mean there is no ranking what so ever, there are no points attached to you PvP teams? And with the said, if there are points attached to PvP teams, can we have multiple teams so I can play with my friends who are terrible but I can have my hardcore team, I can do both?
A: There is no ranking. There is an invisible ranking that we use for matchmaking but it’s a per player basis. When you are on a team, we kind combine the rank together in a super smart way. The guy who does that is wicked smart. He works all of that out. But we don’t have a “I’m a 2200 rated player and therefore I am better than you as a 2100 rated player”. What we are focusing on is a more of a progression based system which is “I am a level 20 PvPer” which means I have played a lot of PvP.
So while you and I won't be able to SEE our ratings, I'm pretty certain based on that answer that the ratings exist.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I'm pulling this from the PvP poll, since it's exactly the same discussion going on there.
You think that one of the largest, most successful game companies, that has teams of professional people doing target market analysis and huge amounts of sales data know less about what the people they are selling to want... than someone that randomly posts here? I see.
Edit: Also, that site has preorders for Diablo 3 for 360 and PS3... Yeah, a reliable retailer to be sure. Preorder something that's not even announced.
And for PS3: http://www.webhallen...9461-diablo_iii
And for 360: http://www.webhallen...9460-diablo_iii
I don't think you can reference a site selling things that may never exist to prove anything.
What? There will be inferno mode, which I expect to be hard and therefore fun, and you have pvp. You have. P.v.p. PvP is in the game. There will never not be an option to not be able to play pvp (maybe a lvl restriction if you're too low?). You most certainly can call it pvp. its one team of players vs another (and a player vs a player if they have a 1v1 bracket). That is the VERY DEFINITION of pvp.
Yes, being able to play pvp or pve is very restrictvie. I wish i could do pvf, or pvd (player vs faerie and player vs developer). Oh, or whack-a-mole. Is there a D3 bejewelled? I definitely want in on that. DIABLOVILLE!?!?!?!? YESSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS
Okay.
They have 2 systems currently, the one where the rune drops and you can see its type, and the socket-to-identify one that is getting some kind of an uproar. I hope they eventually settle on the latter with the ability to re-roll the rune. They haven't decided which to go with yet.
Okay.
Dunno. :-p
11 years is limited time? And don't forget were talking about blizzard. The aspect of limited money for the development doesn't seem correct.
Seems to me someone high up has a thing for Diablo 3 being strictly PvE... Pitiful.
How is fighting equally rated (i.e. skilled and geared) players NOT competitive?
It's certainly more competitive than joining random duel games. It is approximately as competitive as private leagues, only with a much bigger player selection. And if you are very skilled, it may be more competitive due to that increased player base so that you will be able to fight against more people like yourself.
Does the game not saying "You're #1000 out of 1,000,000 players, THAT MEANS THIS GAME IS COMPETITIVE!" change anything? Does it affect the quality of the matches? Are you getting matches against different people because your rating is public? No.
Now, it might make it initially harder to set up leagues with skill parity if the MMR is non-viewable, but over time, that will work itself out.
Hell, there might be achievements or titles unlockable once you break a certain rating, we don't know. If you're interested in competition to show off, the current pvp system may be lacking.
If you're interested in competition to have challenging matches, then current system is perfectly fine.
Okay, I haven't read the rest of this discussion. But this post makes you look like a narrow minded fan-boy. Just sayin'.
Time windows? They had 11 (eleven) years(at least 8 of which could/should have been spent developing Diablo 3). Budget, sure, but they've had more than enough time...
I think you are missing the fact that they aren't balancing the classes for pvp. That in it's own is what makes the current pvp system no more than a light hobby. If you take pvp seriously with obvious balance issues, you will be forced onto the most OP class, and probably fight nothing but the same OP class.
Have you ever played a player versus player game before?
I think you're missing the fact that it is a Sisyphean task to balance all the possible combinations of builds for a single class, let alone the possible permutation of class compositions. How do you expect one build to be superior to all 2 trillion or however many builds there will be. You don't think there will be at least 1 build from each class that will be able to hard-counter, and many that will be able to soft-counter whatever your Holy-PvP-Superiority-Batman build happens to be.
D2 wasn't balanced for pvp and "everybody" "loved" it.
Have YOU ever played a pvp game? Which ones are PERFECTLY balanced? How many of those are also considered RPGs?
I've played RTS, FPS, MMO, and MOBA games, and at least dabbled in pvp for all of them.
If you actually think this, you must not be aware of how a matchmaking system works.
Basically, the more you win, the higher your rating, the higher the rating you have, the higher the rating of the people you are matched against.
So lets say you get matched against some bad pvpers at the start, because everyone starts off with a given rating. You gain a bunch of points stomping on these bad players so now your rating is significantly higher than there's. You then get matched up with people of approximately the same rating, which means they've won about as many games, which means they are approximately equal to your skill and/or gear.
The system doesn't really care how you won, only that you won, and what the difference in rating is between the two of you (MMR will be more accurate sooner with smaller teamsizes, but with larger teams will eventually be accurate for that as well). The if you have a vast lead on someone in rating, you'll get a small rating boost when you win, and they'll lose a small amount. On the other hand, if you have a large rating lead and lose, the points lost by you and gained by the other person are increased proportionately to the rating difference.
This in effect makes players of equal skill play each other. Will noobs get stomped on at first? sure. But then their rating will be lower and they'll only get matched with other noobs. At the same time, really skilled players will rocket up the ratings until they reach a rating level where they fight similarly skilled players, at which point their rating stablizes and they fight equally (well) skilled players.
At no point will a super high rated individual be matched against a noob (with the exception of possibly teaming up with someone who is not rated and fighting another team who's average rating is the same as the non-rated and high-rated player's average rating).
Another possible exception would be massive queue times, which would loosen whatever the threshold in the system is for "close enough to match together." I.E someone with a 3000 rating will likely never fight someone with a 1500 rating, but they may fight someone with a 2800, 2600, 2400, etc. rating if they've been queued up for 5, 10, 15, and so on minutes.
I don't know that this is a huge problem, but it definitely changes the game mechanics away from the counterstrike "it pays to be sneaky/cautious as hell" towards a quake-style run and gun fragfest.
I would be pretty surprised if they didn't offer a 1v1 queue.
When isn't identifying the weakest link on a team the winning strategy? I mean, after a while either the weakest links will learn to dodge, or they will be matched with similarly rated teams with one or more weak links as well.
Additionally, there will be a time where the weakest link is dead and there are no "weak links" to target, so what happens then? does the winning team just stop and wait for the respawn, or do they try to press their advantage? Maybe those still standing are so much better than their teammate that its better to run and wait for the respawn, but if the skill/gear disparity is so high, I don't see how those 2 couldn't have taken 1 or more of the other team down in exchange for their weak link.
I don't think the pvp matchmaking system is going to take win/loss into account, actually. I think it's based more on some gear calculation as well as story progression and obviously level. Jay Wilson talked a little bit about how there is no rating system like there is in WoW with different tiers based on success in the arena.
Also, as for balance, I've been playing fighting games for quite a few years and have gotten pretty serious about them. I can tell you perfect balance is the last thing a competitive game needs. Each class needs to have strengths and weaknesses, and needs to have the ability to counter other characters. If one character is viewed strongest in the game, people will develop strategies to deal with that power.
And if you think Blizzard is dumb enough to allow spawn killing, I don't think you're giving the development team enough credit.
I think the story progression "rating" is for quick join pve games. I don't see how story progression has any relevancy to pvp.
From the article with the JW group interview transcript:
So while you and I won't be able to SEE our ratings, I'm pretty certain based on that answer that the ratings exist.