DiabloFans

I actually don't want a Secret Cow level. Why? Because I want Blizzard to be original for once. They haven't had an original idea since SC (you can't count D2 cuz it's a sequel and WoW is everything but original). "Secret Cow Level." Been there, done that, abused it to no end. I'd like to see something else better that is secret and hard to find not to mention, as the guy said in the interview, something that you can't abuse like the Cow Level was (why even call it secret anymore?). And besides, the Secret Cow Level was a joke from the original Diablo and it's lost meaning cuz there's people today who play Diablo 2 and have never even picked up Diablo 1 and even then, they wouldn't be privy to the "inside joke."

So long as there's no Secret Cow level and for damned sure no Secret Murloc Level, I'll be a happy man (though that doesn't mean I don't want something secret in the game for some comedy relief) Maybe a Secret Zergling Level? ROFLMAO! Or better yet, a secret level completely populated by those exploding suicide guys from Act 5 or something stupid like that.

But please, no re-hashed old ideas....be original Blizzard...

Quote from "Daemaro" »

That was exactly my point.

If in the Diablo world people can reload a bow in .2 seconds then why can't someone reload a handcannon faster than normal also?

Do you even know how to reload a handcannon?

You realize that you cant just pour in some random amount of gunpowder, deftly shove a metal ball in, stick a wick back into the rear of the gun, and then lite it, aim and try to be ready for the discharge all in a matter of the scant moments needed for action RPG gameplay?

First off, you have to put in THE RIGHT amount of gunpowder or you'll end up blowing the gun up in your hands. Second you have to pack down the gunpowder so there are no loose pockets in the barrel. Next you have to take a metal ball and pack it into the gun. Might I add, these metal balls aren't perfectly round so they have to be inserted with a special stopper to help propel the ball. Next you have to again pack the ball down. Now you light the wick and try to aim it as best you can and brace yourself for a very powerful concussive blast. After all this effort, you can only hope that you just hit something important.

Oh ya, I failed to mention. A wonderful by-product of firing an early-era handcannon was they produced MASSIVE mounts of white smoke so basically, you fire once, and you can't see anything unless there is a mighty breeze that comes by and removes your nice smoke screen.

Now, repeat that process again, as fast as you can. Even if you were magically enhanced, it goes beyond the realm of possibility and into the realm of "Comeon...there's got to be a better way to kill someone than this..." Hell, if the guy can move THAT fast to make the gun effective, it would be best to just take a flippin' dagger and run that fast and just stab everyone in the neck. It would save a lot of grief...

I'll give you an accurate argument why Guns should not be added into Diablo 3.

Assuming they are going to make "gun evolution" the same as it was in our history, then the first gunpowder powered weapons will be cannon-type weapons. As with everything evolutionary in technology, it goes from big to small. So lets say at the end of the war, Larzak produces the first prototypes of what we would call a land cannon. Twenty years pass, cannons have evolved an accelerated rate to a point where they are more capable of being used by an individual soldier (this actually took hundreds of years for it to go from Cannon to Rifle but I digress). So now we've got the most primitive hand cannons and matchlock rifles/pistols as well as more effective and advanced fullsize cannons. Both rifle and pistol are one shot weapons and are specifically designed to be fired once and dropped in favor of a standard sword/pike/mace/or so on (though you can take the minute or so needed to reload but you would end up dead on the battlefield, assuming your enemy is charging your position, which they most likely are...). The effective killing range of the very first rifles were laughable at best. You practically had to be within spitting distance of your enemy in order to have any chance of hitting them fatally. The only really effective design that came out was DaVinci's Wheel-Lock Pistol which brought about perfect firing (no firing failures) and the ability to have a pre-loaded weapon that fires with only one hand.

So basically, given the time for development (which I'm giving an extremely generous boom in inventive thought for our barbarian friend) you now have the famous DaVinci pistol at your disposal and a couple useless matchlock rifles and the always effective Cannons. As good as the DaVinci pistol was, it was a one-shot weapon that would take too long to reload in battle. Also the effective killing range of the DaVinci pistol was about 3-5 feet in front of you. So basically, you had to get face to face with your enemy (or come up from behind).

Obviously, Blizzard has been touting their "improved game action" and "continual stream of fighting" so having a gun that literally takes over a minute (if you're lucky) to reload isn't a very good choice for a game. Considering gunpowder first arrived in England in 1247 and it wasn't until DaVinci got around to it in 1509 that it became a more practical weapon, some 262 years later, it's completely impractical from a technological standpoint for guns to be implemented in a practical manner 20 years after the events of Diablo 2.


Now you might see cannons out in the environment and might get to set one off to open up a path, but you won't see guns become any sort of actual player weapon. Assuming Blizzard want's to keep weapons technology in the realm of "Ok, I can buy that that could be there" you will more than likely not see a gun in Diablo 3.

Quote from "illinvillain29" »

I want to fight Drognan!!

rofl....I wanna beat the tar outta Warriv.....that sonamagun keeps trying to jack my items whenever I xfer....

Him and Cain...I swear he identifies my SOJ's, swaps them and says "There you go, here's your 25 naggle..."

"no Cain...it was an SOJ, I saw it as you ID'd it..."

"No it's a 25 naggle...take it and like it ba ba ba bitch!"

"What did you say Cain?!"

"YOU HEARD ME!!! You wanna take this to the Blood More?"

"Ya I do, lets go!"

"Sure thing ni ni ni n00b!"

-BoneCold has been slain by Deckard Cain-

"GG NO RE n00b!"

"Dammit Cain! You freakin' auto aimed!!"

"Too bad, see ya n00b, thanks for the SOJ"

-Deckard Cain leaves the game-


...


Ya...I have alot of repressed anger...

that would be a solid laptop, however wait a bit because nVidia will be releasing the new 9800M graphics cards pretty soon

oh well, too bad, so sad. People will rage-quit, just means less assholes on D3 then.

how can you have a Diablo boss poll and not include....wait a minute...what is that guys name...it's on the tip of my tongue....oh ya, DIABLO?!?!

Quote from "Krauser" »

LMAO! Yahoo answers?! Like I said, it doesn't work like that - the CPU's work together efficiently but not at a rated combined speed. Hence why a single core processor at 3.0 GHz will outperform a dual-core processor at 3.0 GHz in a single threaded environment. If you think your 1.7 GHz Dual-Core runs at 3.4+ you've got another thing coming son, there's also something called OVERHEARD. The cores are designed to handle separate applications rather than loading x amount of your CPU(one total CPU not core) on your entire CPU on one thread thus being more efficient. You're thinking, "hey I have two cars going at 100 mph, so 100x2 = 200" The cores DO NOT FUSE to produce double the frequency that's just not possible. Here's a pro tip, I recommend you look at Anandtech/Tomshardware/hardforum if you're really interested in learning something.



Send me your e-mail in PM, I have a build for you under $900 that kills that HP.

You are partially incorrect in your first statement.

Let's say we take a Core 2 Duo E6600 (a Dual Core Processor) that runs at 2.4 Ghz. Now lets take another Core 2 Duo E6600 that runs at 2.4 Ghz and disable one of the two cores. Now we hypothetically have two identical processors as far as architecture goes (which makes a VERY big difference). Now, in single threaded applications, clock for clock they will perform identically. However, if you increase the core clock of the single core E6600 to 3.0 Ghz but leave the Dual Core E6600 at 2.4, then the single core will slightly outperform the dual core in single threaded applications.

Now, If you were to take that same dual core and increase the core clock to 3.0 Ghz and reduce the speed of the single core back to 2.4 Ghz, the dual core will outperform the single core in single threaded applications same as the other did at the same clock speed. It is all relitive to the speed of the processor when it comes down to them being of the same archetype.

Also, and this is a no brainer, throw a multi-threaded application into the mix and the Dual Core processor will win out by a large margin.

This is the "problem" so to speak with Dual and Quad cores. Most programs as well as upcoming programs are written and optimized only for Single and Dual core (or single threaded, and dual threaded) processors. What this means is if you have a Dual Core and it tires to run a single threaded application, it will run it only as fast as one of it's cores can push it through. However, the second core will attempt to break the application data into "two" in order to turn the single thread into dual threads in order to increase the processing speed, but because the application is not optimized for this, you will not see very much of a performance increase from this action.

Now, since there are very few programs that are optimized for Quad cores (except for industrial applications) you more often than not are having two wasted cores. Granted, Quad and more cores are the way of the future, it is not currently so for the present. If you took a 3.0 Ghz Dual core processor and ran a dual threaded application and took another 2.4 Ghz Quad core processor and ran the same program, the Dual core will outperform it by a slight percentage. And the same can be said for a single threaded application, however a new game like Diablo 3 will be optimized for more than one core. I can safely say this with no knowledge of the Diablo 3 requirements because it would simply be stupid to do otherwise.

Is it better to get a Dual Core over a Quad Core? Possibly. If all you plan to do is play video games, you will want the highest clocked Dual Core processor out. If you plan on doing more than video games, possibly video encoding, AUTO CAD, or some other intesive application, then you will want a Quad Core, however it would be wise to get the fastest Quad Core avalible if you go the Quad route.

Will your system be horrendiously slow because it has a Quad Core? Absolutely not! It will still be blazingly fast. Intel is the way to go right now in the Dual and Quad core processor markets. What matters more, however, is your Graphics Card performance. It's good to have a very fast Processor, but it is no good if you're running Integrated Graphics. I advocate a well balanced system. A good processor (Intel 2.66Ghz- 3.16Ghz), a good amount of ram (3-4 GBs), a decent sized hard drive (250-500 GBs), and an appropriate graphics card for your viewing screen.

Your Graphics Card performance will be capped and/or hindered by the size of your monitor. If you have a lower resolution monitor (1280x1024 or lower) then you will see no benifit from buying an expensive graphics card like the Geforce GTX280 because it will be limited by the size of your screen. The same applies for if you use a high resolution Monitor (1680x1050 or higher) because if you have a cheap little graphics card like the Geforce 9500, it won't be able to display the graphics at playable frame rates because it is having trouble keeping up rendering all those pixcils.

If you have a Low to Mid resolution monitor, I recommend getting one (1) of the following: (in order of cheapist to most expensive with each card faster than the next)

Nvidia:
9600GSO
9600GT
9800GT
9800GTX

ATI:
HD3850
HD3870
HD4850
HD4870


For High Resolution Monitors, you can either get one or dual or even tri and quad video cards (multiple cards via: SLI or Crossfire)

Again, each card is ordered cheapist to most expensive with the first card being slowist and last card being fastist

Nvidia:
9800GTX (can go up to tri-sli)
9800GX2 (dual cards for quad-sli)
GTX260 (can go up to tri-sli)
GTX280 (can go up to tri-sli)

ATI:
HD4850 (can go up to Crossfire-X which is 4 cards)
HD4870 (can go up to Crossfire-X which is 4 cards)
HD4870X2 (can Crossfire with 2 cards, not released yet)





I will not get into the pros and cons of multiple graphic solutions because this is a budget oriented discussion.

DarkMagicc, I highly recommend that you be VERY careful with what people tell you about computers. I assure you that a lot of people that think they know a lot about computers actually know very very little and are only telling you second hand, recycled information as well as some propeganda. Intel would very much want you to buy their brand new super-expensive quad cores even if all you want is a cheap yet well balanced and moderately performing system. If you want to be set right, I recommend checking out www.maximumpc.com and reading any of their articles on budgit PC's and attempt to learn as much as you can before you take the dive into buying a new computer, or possibly building your own computer.

If you have any questions, feel free to send me a Personal Message and I will attempt to do my best to set you straight with good knowledge.

Quote from "blizter" »

Errr.. you are underestimating him, he knows that. That was not the point of his post, the point of is post was to say that a fixed percentage won't work because of all the diversity of the monsters, you really need to do it by hand.

did you even bother to read my previous post? The best way to do it is with an alternate animation, not a skill you have to trigger. Blizzard is trying to avoid useless or underused skills this time around and having an extremely limited "finishing" skill would fall into that category.

Quote from "Daemaro" »

How would they regulate WHEN to do a finishing move.

Sure you could say 10% hp = finishing move. That's fine for medium range monsters. Something with say 20hp that's 2hp. When are you ever going to get something to 2hp?

A boss like Baal has 26,000hp in normal, 117,000hp in nightmare, and 493,000hp hell. So when you use a finisher on hell Baal he'd have 49,300. That's a lot of hp for someone to just finish him off at.

Then there is monsters with LOTS of hp. Something in hell mode with like... 20,000hp, thats 2000hp left that you kill the monster at.



It kind of seems like a cop out.

You're underestimating the power of a computer. Diablo games have always been all about math and math being computed at lightning fast speeds. Basically, the instant you click, the computer has already done the calcualtions needed to reduce the monster HP by a certain amount, whether you hit or not, what effects go off, etc and all that is happening to you in real time is the game animating what the computer already knows about. All it has to do is be scripted so then when a killing blow is calculated: alternate animation is used.

That simple

Quote from "TH3N00S3" »

I was thinking the exact same thing. There would need to be some sort of penalty to keep from spamming it.

actually, all that needs to be done is have a special alternate animation for whatever skill you just used (whirlwind, basic swing, whatever) that would play when you're about to kill the monster. It doesn't necessarily have to be a "finishing skill" that is only available when the monster is at 5% health but just a random animation that only plays when you're about to kill something "big". It can be focused down to work only against named monsters (showing my EQ days here, Named meaning unique monsters) and that regular monsters just get the standard treatment (after all, smushing a fallen shouldn't require the effort of a finishing move)

anyway, I'm glad that was brought up because that was the most anti-climactic thing about Diablo 2 was you beat the tar out of Baal and you just swing normally and he keel's over.

Or better example: the other day I was helping a friend do Ubers and after beating the tar out of Meph, we both died, came back, and I killed Meph with one hammer =\ Kinda makes you feel like "oh...thats it?"

Granted after seeing all the animations 500 times we'll all get tired of it and it wont be special anymore but for the first 500 times, that'll be very satisfying

rofl...good one

uggh...again people with no artistic knowledge jumping at nothing...those are tool marks from photoshop, not some stupid Easter egg for you to find and ponder over and ultimately hurt yourself in frustration over...

as a response to some earlier posts about Blizzard not going to care about 50,000 signatures.

Think of it this way: lets say those 50,000 people manage to resist not buying Diablo 3. And lets assume that tax is non existent and Diablo 3 retails at an even 50 dollars a piece. Blizzard stands to lose 2.5 million dollars if those disgruntled fans that would otherwise buy the game, dont. Granted, Diablo 3 is going to sell well over a million copies in the US alone, and that is 50 million dollars, but still, 2.5 isn't chump change either. They're going to want to reach as many people as they can to get them to buy their product. Thats why they're making the game the way it is right now with easier to use skills, health globes, flashy graphics and animation, because they want to appeal to as many audiences as they can as well as grab people who wouldn't normally pick up a PC game (console noobs).

I assure you, they aren't going to completely redirect the art theme of Diablo 3, however, they will refine it to an extent in hopes to please those 50,000 people.

...

oh come on!

can we honestly stop with the BS jumping at shadows for hints that don't exist?

artists write notes on their rough conceptual drawings all the time! I do it myself for christ's sake. And that drawing in particular is about as rough as you can get with notes written all over it. The drawing itself was sketched in light pencil, darkened up with a 5B pencil or something, and then painted in photoshop. The guy wasn't trying to hide information for Diablo addicts to find, he simply drew a conceptual drawing and got lucky blizzard wanted it to be shown on the website.

jesus whats next? you gonna start playing the audio track in the gameplay trailer backwards to find hidden demonic messages? Too late, already been done with D1 and it came back that Blizzard was only telling us to brush our teeth and eat our vegitables.