DiabloFans

Quote from "Father_tim" »

I Dont Know If Anyones Ever Posted This Before But Does Anyone Else Hope They Make More And Different Weps This Time I Mean Make Weps Look Different Not Just Have A Different Name And Attack.

Also What Kid Of Weps Do U Guys Wanna See In D3 And Plaese Dont Hesitate To Be Specific.



Also Dont Complain About My Caps The Key Along With The Shift Keys And All My Numba Pad Keys Are Broken To.

Should you take a look at the gameplay video, you will notice two axes being used by the Barbarian. Considering that both axes appear very similar in style and shape, one would almost expect them to utilize the same graphical sprite asset should they be reincarnated back into Diablo2. However for this game, both axes are distinct and separate in name, damage potential, as well as both utilize separate mesh models. Thus, should this trailer be any indication, one would find the prospect of a great variety of weaponry almost a certainty.

Quote from "d3r" »

redesigning health globes

How does one feel about keeping health globes as well as its functionality, but alter its appearance, specifically how it comes about? This could also be an opportunity to tackle another pressing issue many have with the game.

Let us assume a player had just destroyed one or more monsters. As they lay on the ground, its life-essence seeps out into the environment, and lingers immediately above the corpse. The appearance would be that of a red spectral object. A few seconds following the death, the essence flows towards a common point between all corpses, to which a globe is formed. As it does so, the corpse behind disappears. One would thus explain the disappearance with that of its essence flowing away to form a health globe. The appearance of the globe itself would not be the solid glowing red sphere many have come to question, but be more akin to the smoky health indicator as viewed in the HUD.

Thus, both the issues of globes feeling out-of-place, as well as disappearing corpses is tackled.

One may of course question how much of a hit PCs may take as a result of this solution. The answer can be viewed in the Witch-Doctor skills page. The video shows a similar scenario whereby the Witch-Doctor saps the life-force of his enemies, all successfully implemented without the prospect of a considerable PC hit.

Indeed, and a respectable suggestion it certainly was. Although, one could do well to leave out the ill-equipped Erectus, and introduce an alternate sub-human creature. Perhaps whatever species the Sasquatch is.

Perhaps the stress involved requires many to involve themselves in a great medieval-themed nerf-battle after hours, and to which the losing side would be required to stay further on for the dreary purpose of site updates and community involvement.

Although one may find it doubtless many are willing to depart with an exhorbant sum for the privilege of playing the game, one may also need to consider the scenario from a larger perspective.

The historical performance of the company show previous installments of the franchise to be considerably successful. Prices for both games back then were roughly on par with other games people were willing to pay for. Additionally, this sum also appeared to be acceptable to a vast number of teenagers. Both factors, with the inclusion of the ease at which one was able to play the game on their computers, were instrumental in the success of the entire franchise.

However, there is a slight difference with the current installment compared to all preceding it. The engine utilized will require a considerable amount of horsepower, one which may not be provided for from what one considers a 'typical' computer. Most integrated graphic solutions provided to customers are incapable of running even years old games on an adequate level. It is very likely one will be required to do a a graphics hardware upgrade in the very least.

Thus, should one take such a scenario into account, one would not only expect Blizzard to not depart from the established affordability route, one would also expect them to consider their prices factoring in upgrades many customers may be required to make.

However, this does not mean the company will not have its fair share of profits from such a major project. As stated by many here, Blizzard will undoubtedly release a 'Collectors Edition'. One then has to wonder what could possibly be included in the edition that could warrant a considerable increase in price. A brief look of the games main page would reveal that to be the map of Sanctuary. As with other RPGs, having a more detailed, richly colored, and beautifully textured world map of the entire Diablo universe printed on soft cotton cloth, would be incentive enough for many to make the purchase. Wise forward thinking on the part of Blizzard, considering they could have just as well have developed the game without it, and it would still have sold particularly well.

One hopes however, that additional treasures will be provided to purchasers. For example, these two spectacularly rendered faux-gold coins:

Quote from "DiabloBarnes" »

http://www.blizzard.com/diablo3/community/


D3 adds the story of the Barbarian figurine.

So it is indeed confirmed by Blizzard themselves then, the Barbarian is in fact standing atop Diablo. Considering its indistinguishable resemblance to the Cinematic video, one but has to conclude that the triple mouthed creature is Diablo himself. An interesting turn of events. One now has to wonder what brought about the change in his appearance.

Quote from "blizter" »

Other way around, oh I see, it makes you ordinary.

-normal person, you




-us, inferior being

Indeed it makes one, such as myself, with the willingness to discuss things in a mature manner 'ordinary'. But one would not describe everyone else as 'inferior' friend, that would be your description. For were I to do so, one would not put up with discussing anything with such beings, would I? One does not appreciate being force-fed words one had not intended friend.

Quote from "Daemaro" »

I can appreciate the want for better grammar and discussion, but there is really no reason for all this "one" business.

No one has ever talked like that, not even in the 1800's did people use the word "one" that much.

Well, pardon my peculiar speech processes friend :rolleyes:.



Honestly this pointless discussion grow tiresome. It has hardly anything to do with the thread at hand. The OP made it clear himself that he would rather prefer his thread dead than have a meaningful discussion take place. Thus, in order to prevent further discussion degeneration, I shall depart from this place. Should any of you wish to subject yourself to logical, well-thought out, and reasoned discussions, simply PM me. My box is empty, and it hungers for questions. I shall try my best to answer such which any of you may have.

Good day friends.

Quote from "blizter" »

So it makes you non-ordinary.

-You




-normal people.

It would be the other way around friend. Serious discussions require a grounded sense or reality, one that does not require loud declarative words and profuse use of exclamation-marks.

Quote from "Umpa65" »

Quit saying one!!!!!!!!!!!!it doesn't raise your appearance intellectually, nor does it make the discussion seem more intelligent, it just seems like most are discussion and then you come out of nowhere with "one should" "one would" etc, stop using one rofl

You confuse the intentions of such manner of speaking friend. As has been stated, the intent is not to merely 'appear' or 'seem' intelligent, but to place discussions at an alternate level of ordinary threads. Should one take but a brief look at some of these barely indistinguishable spewings, one notices that unless one mixes in a concoction of quasi-hatred and half-truths, one would not expect an answer nor any serious discussions from anyone else.

It took but one logically thought out post from myself to induce one such serious discussion in your thread friend. So rather than berate and criticize an individuals manner of speaking, one in which cannot be helped, one should really be thanking me for infusing life into ones own dead thread, and especially for not resorting to immature name-callings and other lesser forms of discussions.

Good day friend.

Quote from "Hnokki" »

How should death be handled in D3?

What kind of penalties should there be? Experience loss? Gold loss? Durability loss? Something entirely different?
How harsh should these penalties be?

Would you prefer corpse runs like in D2, or respawns in town?

Perhaps a choice could be given to players as to what would happen should their life be extinguished. Option A would have them and their belongings transported back to a nearby town, minus any experience points and gold they may have acquired on their character. Option B would have the player resurrected back in town, with no gold or experience loss, but with their corpse situated next to monsters that killed them.

Players would be required to weigh the benefits and downsides of both options depending on the situation they are under.

One may find far more positive reception, and considerably reduced immature spewings, should one post this into the General Art forum:
http://www.diablofans.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=31


How does one feel about a monsterous God of a creature residing in the abyss of great rifts of the earth? One would imagine such a creature to be made partially of rock, waking every 5000 years and using its smooth curved forehead as a battering ram against the great walled cities of civilization. It's titanic sharpened forearms crush all which stands above itself, reducing once proud structures to rubble. Since one, such as myself is a great fan of UO, one thus calls this creature the Lord of the Abyss.

For example:

Her legs are an issue, but perhaps one could consider that since they are spread apart wider than a typical creature, one could say they were left out for comparative reasons.

This is of particular interest to me. One wonders why a comparison is being made with the Mistress of Pain:

http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b319/eefen_beefen/Diablo3-ArtworkTrailer_US001_0035.jpg


One assumed, from a rapidly quick initial glance upon release, that this creature was about the same size as a typical Goatman. Comparing it to Ms. Pain however, reveals it to be considerably larger. One then wonders whether this is a Boss-type creature...

Quote from "Daemaro" »

Thats because the "opposing side" (one person), couldn't provide a reason why it was any less logical than a vast amount of things the Diablo world.


I don't know about everyone else but I've looted gems off of some pretty weak monsters.

I like the idea of gem mines though. All the more places to adventure, the better.



The description by the way was here:
http://www.diablofans.com/forums/showpost.php?p=318151&postcount=23

As previously mentioned, it was not the magical aspect of the structure that was in contention, nor was it an issue to begin with. The argument produced was not an unreasoned one. But perhaps one might do well to mention it again. As stated, gem-shrines are a virtually effortless endeavor, unbalanced by the rewards it delivers. One finds this to also be the case for your counterargument, chestboxes. The primary reason to support such an argument is that one finds monsters do not typically guard such structures, with the obvious exception of a few. Should one find a few that happen to spawn nearby, they are relatively easy to deal with. With the ease at which one is able to acquire gems and similar rare items, one cannot come to any other satisfactory conclusion than such was an unworthy exercise.

Concerning the 'description', actually I was referring to a certain name being called by a certain individual.

Quote from "Daemaro" »

I don't know about you but I've never walked outside of town and just found a gemshrine laying there. I had to kill many things to find one. Thus it's fairly acquired.

We've already decided that within the confines of Sanctuary it's logical. If you want to stick to your opinion that's fine.

The decision made was not between those on opposite sides of the argument, it was made as a one-sided affair. Thus, one cannot consider such, a conclusive nor satisfactory end to the argument. You may of course choose to end it there for yourself, however one, such as myself, would prefer to continue this discussion.

One hopes however, that certain unwarranted 'descriptions' are kept away from said discussions.

As it currently works in the previous installment, one may not encounter them immediately outside towns, but it does not mean such a scenario does not occur. In most cases, such shrines are unguarded, and sometimes within locals containing monsters that are easily dispatched. With such an arrangement, one cannot conclude this to be a fair acquisition.

In order to make it so, such structures either need to be removed, or be relocated in places that are immediately adjacent to one or more monster spawns. Should gem-mines take such a route, it would be a fair, logical, and balanced solution to this issue. One finds no fault in that.