DiabloFans

What's with the end-game in games these days being just the game, but on a harder difficulty (or similar)? Why can't they add in a real end-game aspect to the game instead of just this recurring copy paste bullshit?

Same for D2, until the introduced Über D and the pandemonium events, which were/are great IMO.

I just hope we get a version of the Secret Cow Level. If we don't, I'm afraid I may hurt somebody. Somebody whose name rhymes with May Filson...

Once upon a time, Diablo 3 was released. The End.

key...get (:

Quote from PantheraOnca

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?

Quote from peasofme

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...

Quote from PantheraOnca

-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'.

Quote from Winged

Seeing as they have limited time and money, choices have to be made on where they can put their effort into.

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.

I understand that having the servers run the elements on the game that give you items and experience is beneficial to prevent hacking and cheating. I'm all for that. But not when they decide that you must have an internet connection for even single player.

The way I see it, they want to force everybody that plays the game online, so that they have a chance some of those who would have been offline 100% of the time might see the auction house, and might spend some $$. No offline mode means everyone who plays will have access to the AH, means more money.

One strong reason I propose that they should release an offline single-player/lan mode for the game (such as existed in Diablo II) is so that people can play without an internet connection (internet is expensive these days). Besides, I don't care if a few people cheat and hack the single player aspect of the game, it will have no effect on the battle.net aspect. Assuming they have enough control in the online mode to prevent it. Perhaps though it's because there is a slim chance of somebody hacking on battle.net (that there will be regardless of single-player or no single-player) that they want to minimize the opportunity to exploit the game or find ways to exploit it.

My overall opinion is that they need to include a single-player/lan system like they did with Diablo II.

If worse comes to worse I guess I'll have to buy a laptop and go to a coffee shop to play Diablo 3 eh? I don't like the thought that I can't play if my internet goes out.

Oh nice, now I can make money when I play the game. And if I'm good, it can become a full time thing.

and to those pessimists going on about "why play at all, they let you purchase stuff rather than earn in", just don't use the f'n system. We had the same thing is Diablo II, why let that ruin your D3 experience? Or are you playing for the sole aspect of "I played for hours and found something before you hahahahahahahaha trolololol?" Buncha candy-asses...

And as for pvp, I do think they should work on it and give it backing. I mean, I know tournaments are going to be set up regardless of official backing or not (assuming you can make your own match and it's not some random bs). Sure, pvpers can buy items, but those are the same items that other people found (no different than Diablo II). You can spend a few bucks to save a few hours from my point of view...

It's not like they will put Über Epic items on for $500 that are 50x more powerful than you can find in the game... They will be putting items on that you can find in the game yourself, and buying them is purely for convenience.

How dare you blizzard. You should be ashamed. I wanted to be first to play beta...

Quote from Winged

I obviously speak for the majority of the Diablo community when I say, Getting a lvl 14 Gem should be very difficult, and reward the player for it. I feel at most, they should let the lvl 6 gems drop, but very rarely. As rare as prefect gems did in D2 would be about right.

You are dead wrong.

Let's say you can get 50 lvl 6 gems per hour of play. (which is ridiculous to be honest, the game would be more about picking items up and combining them then anything else) To go from a lvl 6 into 14, you would need 6561 gems. At 50/hour, it would take 131.22 hours of play to get a single gem.

Now let's go with what you want (you masochist you), "as rare as perfect gems did in D2". What was that then, about 5 perfect per hour of play, depending on what you were doing? You'd need 1312.2 hours just to get one gem. 54.675 days of playing straight (with no sleep, or anything BUT playing D3) for one gem. A full year of playing (again with no sleep, or anything else) would only yield 6.675 gems. Let's add some sleep and other-things time into that, shorten our play time down to 6 hours per day. 218.7 days for 1 gem. Basically, you'd be lucky if you got a gem after playing the game for a year, 6 hours a day.

That's just not realistic. People would probably kill themselves trying to get the damn thing... Seriously.

Okay, but none of the numbers really matter much if we don't know how often the gems will drop. Can we expect 4-5 top level gems per hour of play, or just 1? The rate of gem dropping will have a direct affect on how long it takes to make the radiant star. If you can get lvl 7 gems, and need 2000 to get the radiant star, I'd expect at least 30-40 per hour... That's still put you at 50 hours of play just to obtain one radiant star gem. And for something like that, it's be more of a thing on the side, I would never play to try to obtain the gem, rather, just drop 'em in a stash until I have enough. And then, actually combining them to get the radiant star when I have enough will be nothing more than a literal grind... And unless gems stack, or you have some kind of infinite bag for them, you going to have to combine them as you get them, or there is no possible way to obtain as many as you need.

I'd expect us to be able to find up to lvl 9 gems, probably as a frequency of 9-10 lvl 9's per hour (hopefully with some kind of gem storage bag, that holds infinite gems, as to not waste our inventory). So that's ~25 hours of play to obtain one. That way casual gamers can obtain one by themselves realistically in a few weeks, and hardcore in a few days.

Perhaps they should increase the drop rate for set items that correspond to any you currently have? And instead of dropping set items identical to what you have, change it into a piece you don't already have.

IE: I already have IK boots, need belt, yet I get 2 more pairs of boots over 100 runs...

Quote from ScyberDragon

Maybe if you strategized more you wouldn't need to just spam potions

Would take longer to make 'strategies' to avoid the use of potions. And if you count running away from them while hitting them with a blizzard or something, that doesn't count as a 'strategy', because then running in and standing there using potions would also count as a 'strategy'.

Quote from ScyberDragon

You can't say that the ancients was just standing there and spamming potions. You had to plan out who you were going to attack first and who to avoid. With radament, you had to balance out fighting off the other skeletons and going after him.

Actually, I can, cuz I did, stand there, and use potions, while they died by my wrath. With Radament, I just owned his oversized ass, then the other skellies near to him died. That's the most effective way of killing the skellies...


My only hope for d3 is that we get a decent opportunity to actualy formulate strategies, better then spaming potions, or 'running and gunning'...

Quote from milanv

Quote from Stalker7d7

Having to think and strategize to kill them? No. Having to use a lot of potions? Yes.

not even for duriel a little bit?

That was a joke right? Cuz he took a lot of potions...especially on hell...

Don't even think about bringing the Übers into this discussion.