Now that's just silly. Those laser things have a completely inorganic feel, and just doesn't fit to replace hydras in an aesthetic sense. Sure, their combat mechanism makes more sense to help target ranged heroes as well as melee heroes, but it really doesn't feel right. I think there would be many different things you could do instead. For example, how about the hydras spawn randomly near heroes within a larger radius? If a ranged fighter is in combat with the team, but on the outer perimeter, there is a chance that the hydra will spawn next to him/her and the hydra will want to attack those closest to it. For extra madness, you could equip the hydras with laser eyes instead of shooting balls out of their mouths.
And? How is that wrong? I'm hating on them because I -believe- they don't give a shit about their players and what they do proves it for -me-.
Exactly why would I need proof to hate them? I don't need proof that the government is bad to hate it.
You need to break that mentality my friend. You know who else had that mentality? The Nazi's. You have a brain. I implore that you use it to do actual thinking, and not just have blind emotional fits founded on a baseless foundation.
Yes, in YOUR mind you think that they just fill their pockets which is founded upon no factual information or evidence. Which proves to me that your hatred is founded upon thin air which makes me think that you just want to blindly hate Blizzard on a game that you haven't even played yet. So logical!
Hah, yes, its completely illogical isn't it? Why, you don't have any proof yourself either. Guess what, its impossible to prove such things from our position. You're asking me to prove their intention.
Of course, not having that, what a perfect opportunity to try and shut me down for it.
Its logical to assume that a company with Activision in its name has added the money feature to *cough* make money, and not really for all the excuses they give us.
I'm not proving it, but you're not proving me the opposite either.
Yes, but I am not blindly hating an entity based on speculation. You are.
So if they get more profit, they'll have more money to through at resources to make more and better Blizzard games! What is the problem here? They aren't forcing your hand to pay for things, it's all up to you.
They made a decision to fill their pockets, a decision which will have an inevitable negative impact. This proves to me that they don't care about their players, and that is all I need to hate it.
Yes, in YOUR mind you think that they just fill their pockets which is founded upon no factual information or evidence. Which proves to me that your hatred is founded upon thin air which makes me think that you just want to blindly hate Blizzard on a game that you haven't even played yet. So logical!
It's still nothing like an MMORPG. MM meaning massive multiplayer, which if you consider the very small amount you will have per lobby to be massive, then I guess? Also, I can't think of any MMORPG out there that allows players to sell for real cash. In every other game, its the company whose selling gear for profit.
They're still getting profit, so I don't see the difference, except that they're giving a massive global incentive to do it more.
And I've seen room based games called MMOs. Rakion for instance.
So if they get more profit, they'll have more money to through at resources to make more and better Blizzard games! What is the problem here? They aren't forcing your hand to pay for things, it's all up to you.
Doing everything the fans are asking you to doesn't necessarily make your game good. Just saying.
Blizzard always took bold to controversial decisions that ended up working very well and were immitated by others after they succeeded.
Good lord people! Why are so many of you so opposed to change? You know, in an evolutionary sense, you would be the ones to die off first because you can't adapt to dynamic environments. ALSO, D3 isn't a MMORPG, and if you think it is, you clearly don't understand the definition thereof.
You know, in an evolutionary sense, those who adapt wrong to the environment die off even quicker.
Correct, but being able to adapt in the first place enables you to stand a chance for survival in a dynamic world.
Good lord people! Why are so many of you so opposed to change? You know, in an evolutionary sense, you would be the ones to die off first because you can't adapt to dynamic environments. ALSO, D3 isn't a MMORPG, and if you think it is, you clearly don't understand the definition thereof.
Hey guys, I had noticed in some of the new footage that there are times when weapons will be sheathed on the backs of our characters during combat. Does this mean that we can get "passive" stances for in-town, non-combative areas?
I was hoping for a newer version and better graphics to DII/LOD but I just don't think that DIII is it.
It looks like to me that they went out of their way to NOT make the chrs like DII.
I hope I am wrong but the only thing I see that resembles DII is just how dark they can make the game.
That was the only thing I hated about DII and the only thing they kept.
I hope I am wrong and I will be buying it but it just looks like a new game with the Diablo name on it.
maybe they should call it wowablo.
Are you seriously saying that you just want to play D2 again with better graphics? I don't even know how to respond to that...
DII>DIII already because the new auction house is rubbish. youll have more gold farmers and dupers than ever unless they compensate with crappy game mechanics like soul binding and crap like that.
ill look forward to buying all the top end gears and then pwning your ass in pvp.
edit: lemme take a few steps back before ppl get the wrong idea. in terms of release, d2 sounded much better than d3 so far. also, if u thought spam and bots were bad in d2, enjoy servers filled with bots. and before you say that 'they cant get bots and hacks in d3!!' they can and will; whether bots or sweatshop gold farmers.
Bots, hacks, and sweatshop farmers in D3 will surely be at a minimum, and thus their impact on the d3 global economy will be at a minimum. You always will have people trying to exploit the system no matter how it's structured so this is nothing new.
As for you just going and buying all the greatest weapons in D3, just know that this might cost you a pretty penny. But, if money isn't a problem for you, I do know that just going in and buying something without doing anything to earn it will inherently devalue it, utterly leaving you feeling unfulfilled after only a few minutes playing with your new toy. And if this hasn't been the case for you so far, it now will be because I have just planted the thought into your head. Just know, it's not the end result that matters, but the journey thereto.
I was hoping for a newer version and better graphics to DII/LOD but I just don't think that DIII is it.
It looks like to me that they went out of their way to NOT make the chrs like DII.
I hope I am wrong but the only thing I see that resembles DII is just how dark they can make the game.
That was the only thing I hated about DII and the only thing they kept.
I hope I am wrong and I will be buying it but it just looks like a new game with the Diablo name on it.
maybe they should call it wowablo.
Are you seriously saying that you just want to play D2 again with better graphics? I don't even know how to respond to that...
Their reasoning is that it's a slippery slope. They are designing the game to be optimal with 4 people. So if they bow to pressure and say, "ok, we'll do 5" then people we say "what the hell, just one more! I has 5 friends!" then it's up to 6, then 7.... where does it end? They have to draw the line somewhere and they drew it at 4 because Blizzard thinks they know what we want better than we do, and we have to afford the possibility that perhaps they do.
It ends, when the game doesn't mathematically make sense anymore. That is, you have the number of players, their actions, the rate of their actions, the monsters and their actions, rate of actions (also health, quantity, DPS, etc.), and when you compile everything to the point where the gameplay falls apart, then you have found the end. Take this also in conjunction with gameplay visual limits such as people saying that it looks to confusing after a while, and together you should be able to come up with a hard cut-off number of players. Within this hard cut-off number, you will have an optimal number of players, and that number is four. Since the maximum contains the optimal, the optimal cannot be the maximum.
I am sure they will announce the 5th class, as well as tell us more about the PvP multiplayer which is one of the more exciting aspects of the game for me. I think the release date of SC2 will be a strong indication of when diablo 3 will get released if you just look at the trends. Therefore, I believe d3 will get released just before, or just after blizzcon 2011.
0
0
0
0
0
You need to break that mentality my friend. You know who else had that mentality? The Nazi's. You have a brain. I implore that you use it to do actual thinking, and not just have blind emotional fits founded on a baseless foundation.
0
Yes, but I am not blindly hating an entity based on speculation. You are.
0
Yes, in YOUR mind you think that they just fill their pockets which is founded upon no factual information or evidence. Which proves to me that your hatred is founded upon thin air which makes me think that you just want to blindly hate Blizzard on a game that you haven't even played yet. So logical!
0
So if they get more profit, they'll have more money to through at resources to make more and better Blizzard games! What is the problem here? They aren't forcing your hand to pay for things, it's all up to you.
0
Couldn't have said it better myself!
0
Correct, but being able to adapt in the first place enables you to stand a chance for survival in a dynamic world.
2
0
It would be coooool.
0
Bots, hacks, and sweatshop farmers in D3 will surely be at a minimum, and thus their impact on the d3 global economy will be at a minimum. You always will have people trying to exploit the system no matter how it's structured so this is nothing new.
As for you just going and buying all the greatest weapons in D3, just know that this might cost you a pretty penny. But, if money isn't a problem for you, I do know that just going in and buying something without doing anything to earn it will inherently devalue it, utterly leaving you feeling unfulfilled after only a few minutes playing with your new toy. And if this hasn't been the case for you so far, it now will be because I have just planted the thought into your head. Just know, it's not the end result that matters, but the journey thereto.
0
Are you seriously saying that you just want to play D2 again with better graphics? I don't even know how to respond to that...
0
It ends, when the game doesn't mathematically make sense anymore. That is, you have the number of players, their actions, the rate of their actions, the monsters and their actions, rate of actions (also health, quantity, DPS, etc.), and when you compile everything to the point where the gameplay falls apart, then you have found the end. Take this also in conjunction with gameplay visual limits such as people saying that it looks to confusing after a while, and together you should be able to come up with a hard cut-off number of players. Within this hard cut-off number, you will have an optimal number of players, and that number is four. Since the maximum contains the optimal, the optimal cannot be the maximum.
THUS, the maximum should be five or six