DiabloFans

He's not being rude. He's saying what you presented is almost unreadable. It is unpleasant to try to read. You need to use things like paragraphs, capitalization, or spacing between separate ideas if presenting in a non-paragraphical format. Even bold or colors if you want to go the extra mile to be pleasing to the reader. I find your topic idea to be interesting, but I didn't even try reading a single sentence based on the presentation. Based on your post above, I would have to assume you don't speak English well. But after seeing your reply it looks like you just don't give a shit about using your words correctly.

I know this is a shocking thing to say on the internets, but communication still does require some base amount of effort when using writing.

Quote from Belloc

In that case, are there any games with similar gameplay but have an actual end-game that isn't specifically about farming loot?



It sucks, because I'm apparently one of the few people that likes Diablo's storyline, which I don't really expect to see in other point-and-click ARPGs. I like the story, I like the gameplay, I just don't like the focus on endlessly acquiring gear. What game should I be playing?

Well, there only a few types of "end-games" out there for games. For about half of games, the end game is the credits. You get 8-50 hours of playtime, then you've completed the game. This is enough to justify a $30-$50 game in most cases.

For games without end, there are a few different types.
There are games with the solo play nonexistent or limited, which focus solely on competition - League of Legends, Counterstrike, etc. These games have no real end-game, because the game doesn't change much in structure from first play-through to expert play-through. There are some hybrids here, but the solo play is usually pushed to the side rather quickly (Starcraft).
MMOs generally focus on team-play and combining efforts in order to provide essentially just a slowed-down version of what an ARPG does. You're still grinding for loot forever, it just comes less often and has more "depth" in what is required to get to that loot. These generally have trimmed down storylines, which are often simply ignored anyway.
Sandbox games, like GTA are another option, they generally have good storylines, but the "end-game" isn't really anything more than what the name describes.. a place to play around in endlessly, likely without any real feeling of progress.

To answer your question specifically, there generally are NOT story-focused games that don't end. It simply wouldn't make sense. It sounds to me like you should be playing a good action game like Shadows of Mordor. Great gameplay, good story, tons of fun and interesting mechanics, and you cap out your stats/items at around 40 hours played. After that you play until you're bored, then move on.
If you think there should be a game you can play hundreds of hours, and still not be doing the same thing for hundreds of hours.. well those don't exist. The closest thing would be the competitive PVP games, because the content/nature of the game is mostly decided by player actions.

No loot tables. Flippin' teenagers man. I have trouble believing rational adults buy into this loot table conspiracy theory.

FYI, if you believe there are preset loot tables for each game, please put it in your sig. Then I can easily filter my reading to ignore every post from people with such ridiculous notions.

In case you missed it... http://us.battle.net/d3/en/forum/topic/12880358320#8
In case you're of the opinion that Blizzard blues lie blatantly to "trick" you... I have nothing to help you. Wait a few years and you'll look back on your opinions as silly and probably a bit childish.

Back on topic, I agree, it's to keep people from twinking alternate characters to ridiculous levels. I think it makes sense, although I wouldn't mind a bump, to 1k or something.

ITT - Worthless, sad cheaters defending cheating. Others pointlessly pointing out the obvious low character and moral value of said cheaters. Repeat.

Totes. I would hazard a guess that far less than half the people that would read your post, will watch your video. My wild guess is maybe 10%.

I know I didn't. (Although honestly, I was already sure they were rubbish because of the misspelled title, nothing personal.)

Here's an example filled description that may not help anybody, but will make a few people that already understand it go "Yea, duh!".

Diminishing returns is an artificial applied effect on the results of adding more of something. It is not the inherent nature of a second 20% modifying the net sum less of a percentage than the first 20%.

For example (NOT diminishing returns): 100% + 20% = 20% gain. 100% + 40% = 40% gain. You measure against the base, not the modified value. It's obvious that 140% is not 20% more than 120%, but that is NOT diminishing returns. If you think so, it's because you partially understand the idea, but think you get to decide what the phrase means.

Diminishing return example:

"Every 10% after the first has a 10% diminishing return": 100% + 10% = 110%. 100% + 20% = 119%. 100% + 40% = 134%. Diminishing returns usually indicate that at some point the return will be diminished to a point it doesn't add anything if the trend continues. 100% + 90% = 154%. 100% + 100% = 155%. After +100%, each 10% would add less than 1% to the base.

This should be a lesson to the Diablo community in general. Remember how you wanted offline mode? (And yes I realize there's a small minority that wanted a completely separate offline mode where you can't ever show off your characters online, but that's not what most wanted)

Quote from ThyHoneyComb

next ?

Your ideas are bad and OP.

Next?

Quote from rigz79

I guess what I'm saying is that I don't like the one shot kill as the way to stop your progress. One shotting to stop you is not a matter of skill it becomes a matter of luck. Like alot of other people say the higher greater rifts are all about RNG and if your "lucky" enough to not get the jailor effect or to have a maps mob density be poor and so on and so fourth.

However I would much prefer it based on a skill perspective somehow. Honestly I don't know what the solution is, however the system that's currently in place, while it "works" to a point it's fundamentally flawed in my opinion. What's the point of having a pinnacle if no one can reach it. Like someone said earlier at GR 40+ you potentially have mobs that will kill you from off the screen. There in no skill in that it's all luck based.

OK... but One-shotting is NOT how they stop your progress. They stop your progress by making it timed. You could, I guarantee, change your items and build around to have 2x+ the survivability you have now.. easily.. no matter what your build is. Then you would NOT get one shot by things that one-shot you now. You get one-shot because the way to get the farthest is to have as much damage as you can squeeze in until you're JUST ABOUT getting one-shot. It would be less fun to do less damage, and it may not even be practical, because at some point, it doesn't matter that you don't get one-shot, because you won't kill stuff fast enough to not die from it anyway.

You get one-shot because you're trying to ride the line of "How much damage can I possibly do". Because of that, there is no possible way they can make you NOT on the verge of getting one-shot, because you'll just lower your survivability for more damage until you're right back at the edge.

In short, you can change your build to be FAR more defensive, and you will not get one-shot any more. You WILL run out of time, because you need to ride the edge to get as far as you are now, but that's a choice you're making. You are CHOOSING to be on the verge of being one-shot, you don't have to, you just won't get as far. That's the limit of where skill can take you - to where you die from bad luck because there's nothing left to improve. And that point has to exist.

Maybe if I still didn't capitalize sentences or spell very well, this would be downright amusing. What age is that? I think 7 according to Weird Al.

http://youtu.be/8Gv0H-vPoDc

Perhaps someone can explain the joke to someone simple like me? Is it some sort of inside reference to something in pop culture? Because as far as I can see it's just a crappy faked image with no substance beyond that and a waste of the forum's eyeballs.

Taking far to long to come out.

Quote from igorkrnic

it is ok to write if you are showing some build, but why write some thoughts about something when he already spoke it

@topic, I agree, I just wanted to check out monk monky set change and I can not do it because this cue thing

I don't know about the rest of the community, but I absolutely hate it when people speak their thoughts in videos instead of text. I can't watch videos at work and so it immediately locks me out of conversations.

On-topic: Yeah, this PTR community buff is ending very soon. Are people going to complain? Yes. Are people already always complaining about literally everything? Yes.

Diablo 3 has one of the shittiest fan-bases that I've ever seen. You can see it in the Reddit threads, you can see it on Diablo Fans, and you can see it on the official forums. They're always complaining. Nothing is ever going to stop them from complaining. So, is it really so bad if they complain for a week or two about the PTR drop rate? No.

Quote from Aegore

I play on console version so it may be different than PC but I have been seeing an increase in the amount of players online at any given time. I can always find a game with other players on any difficulty. Also, people keep playing this game because of its replayability due to the fact that no experience within the game is ever the same since all the maps/mobs are randomly generated. I've played since D2 and D3 is still a game I keep coming back to because of its varied content and experiences.

The thing about the console versions is that they are practically brand new. It makes perfect sense that a recent/new release would see steadily increasing player numbers. Doubly so for the XBONE and PS4 versions, since they just received a major patch (2.1).

The one thing I don't understand is that many complainers don't seem to understand economics. They want more content but they don't want to pay for it. WoW has constant content updates because users effectively pay the employees salary via the monthly subscription. And don't go on about how WoW subscriptions pay for Diablo. If WoW ceased to exist tomorrow how would Blizzard pay employees salary and thus give users more content? Yes, a downloadable content model is an option but there needs to be revenue. Yes, an expansion pack generates revenue but that takes time. Ok, I'm off my soapbox, bash away.

Well, consider this: Patch 2.1 was a free patch -- we didn't have to pay for it. It introduced leaderboards and Grifts. Now, I understand that Grifts are, essentially, a minor update of regular rifts, (which is why I don't consider it to be much of a content update), but leaderboards are a pretty large undertaking. There was also the greed realm, which included a brand new boss fight.

Like I said: We didn't pay for patch 2.1, but it still included new content. With that in mind, what's to stop Blizzard from putting in a Boss-rush mode?

Think about it: Boss-rush is more competitive than Grifts could ever be, since you're fighting established bosses with established mechanics -- no randomness. It makes perfect sense for this mode to be implemented. I can't imagine it would take much more in the way of development resources than Grifts did, or even the Realm of Trials.

But, no, it's a suggestion for new content that doesn't involve repeatedly farming loot for the sole purpose of farming more loot, so your average Diablo 3 forum poster is never going to support the idea. That, apparently, isn't the kind of game that Diablo 3 is, right D3 community?

So, we're going to continue having forum posters complaining about how "the popularity of this game dropped so dramatically" and how "were heading back into the "dark age" of diablo 3 again." In fact, the most insightful part of DeboSc2's comment was his last line, "Oh well not like im gonna stop playing LOL". It sounds to me like DeboSc2 is a Diablo fan. Well, naturally Diablo fans aren't going to quit playing, because Diablo fans are fans of endless grinding and farming. The problem, though, is that the majority of people buying this game aren't Diablo fans -- they're gamers. I'm willing to bet that more people have bought and quit this game due to the grinding nature than are still playing it.

Come on RoS is only about 6 months old and seasons was just added. Diablo 3 is not an MMO.

What is more needed is more gear options and hopefully some better and more affixes for all gear types. We also need to tweak more in the skills since most players are only using a few skills.

Adding more areas will not do that much since a few hours of playing it people will state we need more.

Quote from DFslet

It seems to be Wave lvl - 3 = lvl of key, for soloplay. -5 for duo, -7 for trio, -9 for 4 men parties. This means i need to reach wave 55 in groups. And that is impossible.

If that's true, that's a great change. Kills two birds with one stone (both only apply to a fresh season).

1) Influence of RNG regarding ONE specific rift greatly reduced because you can no longer get a grift key that qualifies for a top position directly through the trials. You have to beat several grifts in a row to reach a top spot. No more spamming of potential rank 1 grifts until you get Zombies/Conduit.

2) Solo player disadvantages slighlty reduced. I don't want to write so much about this, there was a thread about this some days ago. The point is, if you play strictly solo, you can't have your gems much higher than 40 (give or take). Yet you compete with people with lvl50 gems because they "abused" the much easier multiplayer grifts to do so. Which is still very much possible, but now you also have to play through those grifts instead of only leeching high entry keys through trials. Thus that disadvantage is only slightly reduced.

I'd much rather see the same grift lvl at the top of both the solo and the 4 player leaderboards. But that balance act is probably impossible

So basically you're a WD that is mad that you're no longer the strongest class and you're throwing a temper tantrum about it. Got it. Thanks.

Have to agree here, screw leaderboards, I want a fun game.