Agree. "Easy" and "hard" does not fit. You can do better, Blizzard!
I agree that the names could be a bit more creative. Miles, you were probably on the right track, I can agree with doing it Normal, Nightmare, Hell, then the new ones...
Then again, even if "Easy" sounds too tame, according to what the post says, you don't have to play on Easy. You can start a Crusader on Torment if you like. See how you fare, ;-)
Agree. "Easy" and "hard" does not fit. You can do better, Blizzard!
I agree that the names could be a bit more creative. Miles, you were probably on the right track, I can agree with doing it Normal, Nightmare, Hell, then the new ones...
Then again, even if "Easy" sounds too tame, according to what the post says, you don't have to play on Easy. You can start a Crusader on Torment if you like. See how you fare, ;-)
I'll probably start my Crusader on Hard just out of stubbornness, especially with pargon 2.0.
Like I've said in other threads, I acknowledge that's it's not THAT big of a deal. Who cares about the difficulty format or names, as long as the game is fun?
I'm just the kind of person that lets those little, insignificant things bug me the most. I'll get over it once I can get my hands on the game.
Unlike the previous tiered difficulty system, though, players are not required to defeat the game on a lower setting in order to unlock a higher difficulty setting.
This is one of the things I was saying in my post from a few weeks ago. That they should let people play on any difficulty they choose, instead of requiring each difficulty to be played through individually. This way, players have more ways to customize the difficulty to how they want, and 3 additional difficulty settings than they had in the past...BUT they don't HAVE TO play through the entire game four whole times in order to unlock all the areas.
Very smart move. I like it, :-)
What can I say man, you called it.
I still think it's pointless change for the sake of change, but at least now the debates can end.
Only a slight degree, that's why I didn't pull the whole quote. Wasn't my idea, I just hinted on a tiny piece.
I was anticipating them keeping Monster Power, as an extra additional aspect of tuning difficulty, though if they're going to make it a six difficulty system, a ten tier system to fine tune seems like a lot. Plus, and I think this is key...
With six difficulty settings, it tends to offer more incentive for players to push themselves to a harder setting. With 10 Monster Power levels, people are more likely to find their "sweet spot". Like my Monk's sweet spot is MP7...he dies a little bit here and there, but for the most part, grinding and farming isn't stupidly frustrating and is very profitable. With fewer tiers of difficulty, I may have to sustain on a level that's a bit too easy for a bit, but that higher tier is still out there.
Meanwhile, it's more than only 3 that D1 and D2 had, where I could wallow forever in Nightmare and never get the items I'd need for Hell difficulty.
The FAQ states "Similar to the way the tiered settings and Monster Power work in Diablo III, higher difficulty levels present more powerful enemies who will potentially reward players with more powerful loot! Unlike the previous tiered difficulty system, though, players are not required to defeat the game on a lower setting in order to unlock a higher difficulty setting." This seems to imply that the new system will replace the current Normal, Nightmare, Hell, and Inferno modes, as well as the Monster Power system. This would mean refining what was previously 40 selectable difficulties into just 6.
*creates level 1 Crusader*
*jumps into pulbic Inferno game*
But seriously, are "character levels" going away? You get one main up in Paragon, say, level 80, and now all of your character can just completely skip to end game gear/modes?
Well, if that's true (I doubt it is), then HELL YES! Leveling is a pox, a plague on gaming today, a time wasting hamster wheel that prevents people from playing and having fun. They learned this w/ the new WoW expac, they should learn that lesson for Diablo.
So while a brand new Level 1 character will likely not be "end game" strength, they will be able to hit the ground running with additional Core Stats, reduced cooldowns, a boost to Crit Chance and Dodge, higher MF, etc.
No they wont. They wont get access to the account wide paragon bonuses until they hit lv 70.
*creates level 1 Crusader*
*jumps into pulbic Inferno game*
But seriously, are "character levels" going away? You get one main up in Paragon, say, level 80, and now all of your character can just completely skip to end game gear/modes?
Well, if that's true (I doubt it is), then HELL YES! Leveling is a pox, a plague on gaming today, a time wasting hamster wheel that prevents people from playing and having fun. They learned this w/ the new WoW expac, they should learn that lesson for Diablo.
So while a brand new Level 1 character will likely not be "end game" strength, they will be able to hit the ground running with additional Core Stats, reduced cooldowns, a boost to Crit Chance and Dodge, higher MF, etc.
No they wont. They wont get access to the account wide paragon bonuses until they hit lv 70.
They actually do, new characters can allocated Paragon Points directly from Level 1.
*creates level 1 Crusader*
*jumps into pulbic Inferno game*
But seriously, are "character levels" going away? You get one main up in Paragon, say, level 80, and now all of your character can just completely skip to end game gear/modes?
Well, if that's true (I doubt it is), then HELL YES! Leveling is a pox, a plague on gaming today, a time wasting hamster wheel that prevents people from playing and having fun. They learned this w/ the new WoW expac, they should learn that lesson for Diablo.
So while a brand new Level 1 character will likely not be "end game" strength, they will be able to hit the ground running with additional Core Stats, reduced cooldowns, a boost to Crit Chance and Dodge, higher MF, etc.
No they wont. They wont get access to the account wide paragon bonuses until they hit lv 70.
They actually do, new characters can allocated Paragon Points directly from Level 1.
But if they choose not to they're not forced to.
That's the first time I've heard this. Do you have a link to this source?
I'm still waiting for a pet class where the pets are beefy and powerful and deal 90% of the damage for the character. Some mite think this now so fun... But to me. I want this. I want my pets to distory everything for me and I sit in the background casting enhancement spells on them that only last a few seconds but give them the damage boosts or allow them fire damage. Spells like this could also be casted on other characters would be an intersting character I think... Anyway I want a class like that... I know the new class that is coming out will be cool but I feel the Barb did good enough job at being a Physical class with Magic abilities.
I'm sure not many will aggree with me on this but its what I would like to see...
I'm still waiting for a pet class where the pets are beefy and powerful and deal 90% of the damage for the character. Some mite think this now so fun... But to me. I want this. I want my pets to distory everything for me and I sit in the background casting enhancement spells on them that only last a few seconds but give them the damage boosts or allow them fire damage. Spells like this could also be casted on other characters would be an intersting character I think... Anyway I want a class like that... I know the new class that is coming out will be cool but I feel the Barb did good enough job at being a Physical class with Magic abilities.
I'm sure not many will aggree with me on this but its what I would like to see...
I would like to see it again, but not quite to the extent that the necro was in D2. Whether they bring back the necro or allow the WD to spec into it, I'd like to see pets have the option to be a much larger portion of your damage. Maybe 40-50% instead of 90%.
Difficulties are revamped: Now are Easy, Normal, Hard, Torment, Demonic, Apocalypse
Sigh...such pointless name changing. What was wrong with Nightmare and Hell?
These are the new names for the MP level replacements, not the difficulty modes. I'm actually under the impression there is no longer any actual difficulty modes like before. And it's all just one mode with multiple MP levels (these new names) that unlock with level.
Even so, they could have kept it as, for example: Normal, Nightmare, Hell, Inferno, Torment, Apocalypse. (Not a fan of "demonic", that's too generic in a game that's all about demons to begin with.)
My point is they are changing something that didn't need to be changed. Change the format if you must, but why change the names?
Diablo should not have an "Easy" mode. That's just....wrong.
Have you ever heard the expression "to call a spade a spade"? Because easy mode is just what MP0 is.
Difficulties are revamped: Now are Easy, Normal, Hard, Torment, Demonic, Apocalypse
Sigh...such pointless name changing. What was wrong with Nightmare and Hell?
These are the new names for the MP level replacements, not the difficulty modes. I'm actually under the impression there is no longer any actual difficulty modes like before. And it's all just one mode with multiple MP levels (these new names) that unlock with level.
Even so, they could have kept it as, for example: Normal, Nightmare, Hell, Inferno, Torment, Apocalypse. (Not a fan of "demonic", that's too generic in a game that's all about demons to begin with.)
My point is they are changing something that didn't need to be changed. Change the format if you must, but why change the names?
Diablo should not have an "Easy" mode. That's just....wrong.
Have you ever heard the expression "to call a spade a spade"? Because easy mode is just what MP0 is.
Have you ever heard the expression "don't sweat the small stuff"? Yeah, I always had trouble with that one. It's the small things that bug me the most. It's fine if you don't agree.
I had a hunch they would change how the difficulties work because a new act would break the current level flow. Not only that, but how powerful would Act 1 Nightmare monsters be, if you can go there after Act 4 Normal (no-expansion) and Act 5 Normal (expansion) and the two guys can play together.
If they want to keep the "Farm at any place, it's all the same difficulty" of the current Inferno, there's certainly two difficulties that distribute makes the whole game the same level. One makes everything lv63 (current Inferno), another makes everything lv70/73 (expansion's Inferno).
The current difficulties level ranges range are 1-30, 30-50 and 50-60. The normal one shouldn't be changing, other than the end-point due to act 5, but for compatibility with no-expansion people, let's ignore it. There's a need of at least one more difficulty to fill the 30-60 gap, possibly 2. And I'm not touching on the 60-70 gap. Just level on inferno? No idea.
There's also the console version to consider. We have Easy, Normal and Hard there.
With all that considered, these new difficulties seems plausible and interesting, but we'll need more confirmation to be sure of anything.
Oh, for names, they may be using all-new names to avoid translation name clashes (Hell and Inferno means the same in Portuguese for example.), and names changing meaning.
If you're breaking the "Normal then Nightmare then Hell" tradition, you may as well break the naming tradition.
I had a hunch they would change how the difficulties work because a new act would break the current level flow. Not only that, but how powerful would Act 1 Nightmare monsters be, if you can go there after Act 4 Normal (no-expansion) and Act 5 Normal (expansion) and the two guys can play together.
If they want to keep the "Farm at any place, it's all the same difficulty" of the current Inferno, there's certainly two difficulties that distribute makes the whole game the same level. One makes everything lv63 (current Inferno), another makes everything lv70/73 (expansion's Inferno).
The current difficulties level ranges range are 1-30, 30-50 and 50-60. The normal one shouldn't be changing, other than the end-point due to act 5, but for compatibility with no-expansion people, let's ignore it. There's a need of at least one more difficulty to fill the 30-60 gap, possibly 2. And I'm not touching on the 60-70 gap. Just level on inferno? No idea.
There's also the console version to consider. We have Easy, Normal and Hard there.
They could have just changed the level curve per difficulty to 1-35, 35-55, 55-70. For people already at level cap, they would need to use act 5 Hell to catch up before moving back to level 70 inferno. A lot less work than redoing the entire level up experience.
Not that it matters now, but its not nearly as big a deal as you make it out to be.
If you're breaking the "Normal then Nightmare then Hell" tradition, you may as well break the naming tradition.
Two wrongs dont make a right.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I agree that the names could be a bit more creative. Miles, you were probably on the right track, I can agree with doing it Normal, Nightmare, Hell, then the new ones...
Then again, even if "Easy" sounds too tame, according to what the post says, you don't have to play on Easy. You can start a Crusader on Torment if you like. See how you fare, ;-)
I'll probably start my Crusader on Hard just out of stubbornness, especially with pargon 2.0.
Like I've said in other threads, I acknowledge that's it's not THAT big of a deal. Who cares about the difficulty format or names, as long as the game is fun?
I'm just the kind of person that lets those little, insignificant things bug me the most. I'll get over it once I can get my hands on the game.
The FAQ states "Similar to the way the tiered settings and Monster Power work in Diablo III, higher difficulty levels present more powerful enemies who will potentially reward players with more powerful loot! Unlike the previous tiered difficulty system, though, players are not required to defeat the game on a lower setting in order to unlock a higher difficulty setting." This seems to imply that the new system will replace the current Normal, Nightmare, Hell, and Inferno modes, as well as the Monster Power system. This would mean refining what was previously 40 selectable difficulties into just 6.
No they wont. They wont get access to the account wide paragon bonuses until they hit lv 70.
They actually do, new characters can allocated Paragon Points directly from Level 1.
But if they choose not to they're not forced to.
That's the first time I've heard this. Do you have a link to this source?
Ha. Bagstone.
I'm sure not many will aggree with me on this but its what I would like to see...
I would like to see it again, but not quite to the extent that the necro was in D2. Whether they bring back the necro or allow the WD to spec into it, I'd like to see pets have the option to be a much larger portion of your damage. Maybe 40-50% instead of 90%.
( http://www.diablofans.com/topic/35494-new-battlenet-mockup/ )
( http://www.diablofans.com/topic/87920-suggestions-the-talisman-and-the-burning-hells-portals/ )
I kid, I kid.
Ha. Bagstone.
Ha. Bagstone.
D'oh. Well obviously it was good enough to fool me.
Pretty sure Loot 2.0 comes with the game's launch or when they shut down the AH.
Both of course could be on the same day.
Have you ever heard the expression "to call a spade a spade"? Because easy mode is just what MP0 is.
Have you ever heard the expression "don't sweat the small stuff"? Yeah, I always had trouble with that one. It's the small things that bug me the most. It's fine if you don't agree.
If they want to keep the "Farm at any place, it's all the same difficulty" of the current Inferno, there's certainly two difficulties that distribute makes the whole game the same level. One makes everything lv63 (current Inferno), another makes everything lv70/73 (expansion's Inferno).
The current difficulties level ranges range are 1-30, 30-50 and 50-60. The normal one shouldn't be changing, other than the end-point due to act 5, but for compatibility with no-expansion people, let's ignore it. There's a need of at least one more difficulty to fill the 30-60 gap, possibly 2. And I'm not touching on the 60-70 gap. Just level on inferno? No idea.
There's also the console version to consider. We have Easy, Normal and Hard there.
With all that considered, these new difficulties seems plausible and interesting, but we'll need more confirmation to be sure of anything.
Oh, for names, they may be using all-new names to avoid translation name clashes (Hell and Inferno means the same in Portuguese for example.), and names changing meaning.
If you're breaking the "Normal then Nightmare then Hell" tradition, you may as well break the naming tradition.
They could have just changed the level curve per difficulty to 1-35, 35-55, 55-70. For people already at level cap, they would need to use act 5 Hell to catch up before moving back to level 70 inferno. A lot less work than redoing the entire level up experience.
Not that it matters now, but its not nearly as big a deal as you make it out to be.
Two wrongs dont make a right.