I would really doubt that any of you who say you wont pay a monthly fee would stick by that statement.
As for me, if they charged a monthly fee for d3 - than I would aspect strong enforcement on no hacking or duping as well as updates and additions to d3 on a regular basis. If this was the case than I would gladly pay with a smile for a montly fee.
As for those who dont agree - do you aspect blizzard to maintain a game for a long period of time while receiving no additional revenue for it? And really how much would it cost? - you pay lets say 50 for the game and lets say 120 a year to play it. Are you serious that you cant find 120 bucks (10 bucks a month) to play d3 for a year? How many years do you plan on playing d3? 10? Like most people probably for a few years and probably not every single month for those years. So if it costed me lets say 290 (2 years at 120 bucks a year plus the 50 for the game) bucks for d3 to have a great game for 2 years with no hackers no duping and updates on a regular basis - I wouild gladly pay the 290 bucks. But thats just me.
Just imagine what blizzard would accomplish with continued revenue with d3. Battlegrounds, guild areas, expansions, strict no hacking policies, payed gms, anything would be possible with continued revenue. I think what we all can agree on is that what we dont want is to pay a monthly fee and get no benefit from it but I really really doubt that would ever happen when it comes to a great company like blizzard.
- Registered User
Member for 13 years, 4 months, and 21 days
Last active Tue, Dec, 2 2008 21:28:41
- 0 Followers
- 13 Total Posts
- 0 Thanks
Oct 11, 2008I agree in some respects of what you have stated kaleban.Posted in: Diablo III General Discussion
I think having more than 5 in a game like d3 will cause unwanted results - like balancing issues with monsters as well as items.
However I do agree that many developers are dumbing down there game for carebears as well as for consoles. I dislike consoles and I dislike game companies making games for both genres.
I too only played hardcore setting. It sounds to me we both need a game that challenges us and I strongly feel that having the game capped at 4 will increase that difficulty. It would be easier for blizzard to balance the game for 4 players than it would be for 8 or more.
No matter what they decide to do with d3, I just hope it gets released because as for myself - I find there is no real good game out there - im tired of playing wow because everything requires tons of players and half of them don't know what they heck they are doing. And any fps multiplayer has had so many carebears get involved that they dumbed it down so much that it no longer requires skill but luck.
I too am frustrated but I am very excited about d3 being in development and I cant wait for it to be released.
Oct 11, 2008Posted in: Diablo III General DiscussionI do not like the automatic distribution of attribute points. This is incredibly lame.
If this is true that points are distributed automatically - my first thoughts are that doesnt sound good. A huge part of the previous diablos was planning out your character points which leads me to the next quote.
I do not like the allowance for respeccing. It like to plan out a character and have to make good decisions that I will be penalized for later on. If I make a mistake, then that's just replayability. NO amount of respeccing comes without detriment to the games replayability. I think this is like WoW too.
I couldn't agree with you more - there should be NO respeccing allowed! Instead of creating multiple wizards or whatever specced differently now all I need is 1 character of each class and just respecc when I want to change it. This is not WOW, it doesnt take months to get a character to high level. No respeccing please.
But if what we just mentioned above goes through as it seems to stand - I can live with it but what I wouldnt be able to live without would be no hardcore setting, but as I have learned of yesterday - there is a hardcore setting!!:thumbsup: That was thee most important thing to me by far - it would of been a game changer for me.
Oct 11, 2008After some thought, I've concluded that having 4 will be a good thing - 5 may of been better because there are 5 classes but I can live with 4 because of the following reasons:Posted in: Diablo III General Discussion
1) Having 4 players max in a game will reduce lag. It will also encourage team work. I think blizzards main concern is that too many people created locked games which than intern stressed the servers becuase there were too many people in games of 1 or 2 people (1.2 avg). The main focus I believe is that people will have nothing to fear from pvp - meaning you wont be killed if you had no intention to fight - and secondly you will be able to be in a game that is full and still be able to solo. Previously, if a game became maxed out you had a heck of a time soloing the game - this is something I think they want to avoid.
2) Balancing - with the game limited to 4 blizzard can create and environment more tuned for 1 to 4 players. Basically - they can make the game more difficult and that is something we all want. Also, like I stated before - with the game limited to 4 - you can continue to solo any area in the game while the game is maxed out. That would not be the case if you had say a game of 6 or more players - it wouldnt balance out so well. Plus, items can be distributed much more easily from bosses and normal monsters in a 4 player game.
3) Environment - having more than 4 which has been suggested before will cause absolute chaos on the screen. As blizzard has stated they hope to make characters in d3 more powerfull than previous versions. As we have seen its going to have more enemies per area and much more of a blood bath. Having more that 4 would only increase the time inwhich the enemies die - as blizzard has stated they wish to create a fast pace action rpg.
As we all know - enemies grow stronger as each person enters the game.
I say we trust blizzards decision, I think we can all agree that 5 would of been the optimal choice but I'm pretty sure all of us can live with 4. Keep in mind we don't know all of the aspects of the game yet so even though I've listed what I believe is the reasons behind it; I could assure you there is many more reasons we don't even know yet.
As for my other thoughts: I am extremely thrilled to hear that Hardcore setting will be in the game! :thumbsup: Eliminating the hardcore setting would of been disasterous to me.
Oct 10, 2008I was thinking that 5 would be the perfect number but after reading the posts in this article - I agree that 4 does seem to be the perfect number and it will encourage people to play with each other more.Posted in: Diablo III General Discussion
I'm now very happy with the choice of 4.
I would of been saddened to hear if it was 8 or higher - there would of been too many issues with that - mostly balancing.
Oct 10, 2008Posted in: News & AnnouncementsWilson also announced that there will be a hardcore mode
My prayers have been answered. :thumbsup:
Wilson's last direction was to only enable a maximum of 4 players on bnet games
I was hoping for 5 but this works just as good.
Also very glad to hear that there will be 3 difficulty settings
Now the next thing I would hope to hear ----- Diablo III release date late 09
One can always wish.
Aug 9, 2008I would predict blizzard will stick with 8. I would be happy with that but I would personally prefer a max of 6.Posted in: Diablo III General Discussion
A big aspect to the game is that minions grow stronger as each player joins the game. As each player joins the game each minion has increased experience and a better drop percentage as well as being more difficult to kill.
I like the way that worked and I wouldn't want to see that change. Having games grow larger than 8 creates a whole lot of balancing issues and personally I would hate to see that my chances of getting a good item playing solo is like 1 in a billion when in a game of 20 its like 1 in 100,000. Let's keep the game size small and the reward possibiliies in reach even when soloing.
As for you pvpers - I understand your complaints, but I would hate to see a basic principle of diablo to change due to pvp. My only suggestion to blizzard is NOT to change the main concept of the game for pvpers but create a seperate server(s) for people to join and pvp to their hearts content. Maybe with a ranking system and possibly rewards - however the rewards should be like title - they should shy away from items rewards that impact the game itself. Also, I would suggest NOT incorporating this in the original release but in the expansion that would come soon after. We have already been waiting long enough for the game - adding any additional wait just for pvp would be horrible.
Jul 25, 2008I agree with the monthly fee.Posted in: Diablo III General Discussion
However, keeping the children out isnt much of a concern to me as long as there is a Hardcore setting!!!!!!! which is very important to me.
The other big reason stated is content and stopping hackers - which only makes sense with a small fee. I would say that it should be more like 10 bucks a month- however if you also subscribe to wow you should get like a 5 dollar discount off wow or vice versa - which means to subscribe to both would only cost 20 bucks.
I stopped playing d2 long ago because if you didnt log into your character in x amount of days your characters were deleted - once my chars were deleted I lost alot of motivation to play. If requiring a small fee stops blizzard from ever deleting your characters - im all for it!
Jul 10, 2008Anyone trying to sell the idea that d3 should have an auction house doesnt realize how much that would destroy the game.Posted in: Diablo III General Discussion
D2: Each time you ran a boss - its likely a unique would drop if not multiple uniques. The uniques that dropped typically were not that usefull if your running a boss over and over however the best part of d2 was that uniques did drop often. And not always off bosses but from any monster any where in the game - which is a very good feature.
If blizzard introduces an auction house system in d3 than balancing of unique drop rates would have to be monitored and reduced compared to d2, and this would ruin the game. Uniques would be so readily available and cheap in an auction house if d3 had the same drop rate as d2.
A player run economy is the only way to go for a game like diablo. A player run economy ofcoarse is much more difficult to trade in but thats the point. For the most part, most uniques were traded between friends and the rest were tossed which kept the number of uniques being traded in the game much less than compared to an auction house based system. Having such of an economy added a different type of trading sense like "sweet I just traded this for that". My main point is that d3 should stick with the concept of item for item trading and thats what a player run economy does. But I do agree that gold should have more of a value.
Another aspect of d2 which I liked is that items sold by npc's were random spec'ed and sometimes a great item to buy. I think d3 should make gold more usefull by adding more to this random items being sold by npc's. Maybe adding item types or traits of an item that can only be sold by npc's - maybe. Or maybe add some various new runes that only fit in purchased npc items - who knows but theres ways to get gold more valuable than adding an auction house.
- To post a comment, please login or register a new account.