You know, I haven't always agreed with the direction Blizzard's taken with DIII, but I tried to keep an open mind, and for the most part, I've developed a great deal of respect for what they're trying to do with the game. Even the colorful scenery and such is beginning to grow on me. When they implemented a deeply involved follower system, only to make it useless for all difficulties after normal, I scratched my head, sure, but whatever. Turns out they changed it back anyways. The moon physics, ok, it's a little juvenile, they might be taking the "awesome" thing a little over the top, but hey, if it makes them happy, then I'm happy. Jay Wilson's boyish excitement about making things bounce 25 feet in the air and stay there for 5 seconds was endearing if nothing else...
But this is fucking pathetic.
Scrap it, don't even revise. It's garbage. "Temple aesthetic?" WHYGODWHY
-
- sneakywombat
- Registered User
-
Member for 14 years, 7 months, and 22 days
Last active Tue, Nov, 8 2011 13:19:42
- 0 Followers
- 110 Total Posts
- 3 Thanks
-
Oct 6, 2011sneakywombat posted a message on Diablo III in SpaceYea. If it's worth doing, and it's worth doing for like 8 years, it's worth doing right. I cast my vote with the majority here: the moon physics sucks. It sucks a lot. And I think it sort of undercuts the very point they're trying to make.Posted in: News
I love the idea of physics, and of making your character feel like an over-the-top demigod. That's a design philosophy I can get behind. The problem is that as things stand now, that's not the case at all.
But if enemies float daintily down after being launched, it gives the impression that they don't weigh all that much and are easily thrown around. I then feel like I'm fighting a zombie army of 98-pound-weaklings, and suddenly my character's great feats of strength no longer impress me as much. Turning up the gravity and making enemies land with a loud thud would actually increase the effect that it seems they're going for.
Bashiok's reply seemed a little noncommittal in regards to this. This one seems like a no-brainer to me. It seems like common sense that this is really the only thing to do.
As well, I agree about the way the slip-and-slide ground physics. These are issues that should be corrected. -
Sep 6, 2011sneakywombat posted a message on Diablo III Beta Client LeaksThat's awful sweet of you to post my little leak. I wouldn't go so far as to call it a "storyline leak," being as it's kind of my personal extrapolation to an extent, but I guess it's not *too* much of a leap of faith, and it's nice all the same. One thing's for sure, it's going to be an interesting ride.Posted in: News
-
May 17, 2011sneakywombat posted a message on The Follower BluesPosted in: News
Well yea. There's a few points we might just have to agree to disagree on, but I think we can relate at least in the arena that it would be better to err on the side of caution in terms of ensuring that mercenaries don't become overpowered. I'm just of the school of thought that there's always a happy medium.Quote from Jackzor
But who says that you should have an NPC by your side in the first place? Especially if theres very few, very complicated ways of making it so you don't rely on them. If part of the Blizzard design mentality for D3 is that you are on a level way above a normal person, which it clearly is, and clearly was even before this announcement, then clearly the followers don't fit in very easily. And lets not forget that, given the problems with the D2 hireling system, it wasn't entirely obvious that it would return for D3. It was always a condition of if Blizzard could find a new way to implement them. And as much as you might theorycraft ideas you think just maybe might work, it hasn't worked in a lot of games for a reason. And it most certainly hasn't worked in a way that makes the player feel personally more power. Even people who have liked hireling systems would have to admit that having to worry about the survival of a weak NPC isn't fun.
So, instead of fine tuning a system that, as I said in my last post, could easily shift in either direction (as in useless or too useful) just based on a person discovering a build, Blizzard made it help the 'newbies' and encourage them to go online. As much as people have argued that choice makes the system useless, and even an insult, those new players are ultimately a large part of the reason Blizzard is able to make the game. After all, they do make up for a lot of the sales. And lets not forget that, if the follower system does end up promoting online play, we would all benefit.
As maka said, hardcore players ultimately make up for most of the hours played in a game, and as such they deserve recognition. For all we know, not allowing the follower system into the endgame is a favor to us. It means that Blizzard won't have to nerf any of your favorite skills because it got attached to some cheap follower build and was declared overpowered. You won't get screwed in the last few seconds of a boss fight because Diablo decided to target your follower and you suddenly don't have a reliable heal (or something of that sort.)
If the follower system was going to inherit any of the problems of the D2 hirelings, I know I sure as hell wouldn't want it there. I think thats something we can mostly agree on. But thats just a really hard thing to do. I'm not saying Blizzard isn't up to the challenge or that its not a possibility for the future. In fact, it would be an obvious target for an expansion or even a content patch (if they are going to do anything like that.) That being said, the fact that they weren't able to devise some incredible system where followers are both not essential and optional isn't an atrocity.
In D2, there just wasn't at all. It didn't happen often, but I remember a couple times there where my mercenary was actually killing things even more efficiently than I was, and THAT definitely speaks of a broken system. I almost wonder if some of this might just be panic because the merc system failed so spectacularly. But that's another story for another day.
I think mainly my issue is a personal one: that even if it does solve the problem (which it seems it will pretty handily), it feels like a hollow victory for me at least, especially because the system shows such promise in comparison to its predecessor.
And I think that's really the crux of it. If they had done something similar in the Diablo II expansion (diminishing merc value towards endgame), I probably wouldn't complain as much (or at all), because the merc system in D2 was pretty clumsy and certainly not nearly as intriguing. The process of creating the followers was clearly much more thoughtful and evolved, and its overall a more interesting system, so it seems an awful waste to lose it.
Also, I'm with you, I expect they'll continue to tweak the numbers and play with it, perhaps making them more relevant in patches or whatever. -
May 17, 2011sneakywombat posted a message on The Follower BluesPosted in: NewsQuote from Jackzor
Again, even if you completely removed MF from followers and make them useful in Hell, you're still making it the easiest way to get loot. It will still be easier to SP with a follower than to get gear through any other means. Even if you ramp up the difficulty, you still have to increase difficulty and decrease loot gain in a perfect way to make it so that SP with a follower isn't the best way to get loot. Or you can just ensure that its a nonissue by making them what they currently are.Quote from sneakywombat
Followers have 'x' hitpoints and 'y' amount of damage, coupled with 'z' magic find. To my mind, this is just a rather inelegant solution to the problem of MF. A better one could simply be to place a penalty on those MF numbers (as in resistances in Nightmare/Hell D2) without destroying them completely. You could make Mercenaries useful, but nonessential by simply having 'x' hitpoints increase without substantially increasing 'y' damage, or vice verse.
I'm sure Blizzard had plenty of iterations where mercs were available in co-op or higher difficulties, and it just ended up too chaotic or too hard to balance. If you allow followers in Hell, that will lead to the kinds of builds we saw in D2 where they're entirely reliant on the follower. Theres simply no way to avoid it considering the insane amount of possible builds in the game. So instead of going through all that balancing, Blizzard made them only usable in normal as a way to get people who just pick up the game and play SP Normal (which, again, is the majority of players) to play multiplayer.
Well, you make a lot of good points, and I don't even disagree that the substance of what you're saying is true... I still just think it's a bit silly, is all.
OF COURSE you're going to kill things a little quicker if you have someone else helping you, even if they're underpowered. That's inherent in any game system, no matter what you do.
What I'm saying is that I think it's a bit of a fanatical and excessive step to scrap followers in the endgame because you think they might give you some sort of edge.
You don't hear anyone complaining about characters being too reliant on gear. What if I want a gear-free build dammit? I don't want it to be even slightly harder for me if I choose to walk out there naked. You see where I'm going with this?
Not a peep about characters being too reliant on their skills. Still waiting to hear about characters being too reliant on the services that artisans can provide. Why?
Because these are systems that are built intimately into the mechanics of the game. And for better of for worse, so is the follower system. To make an entire system (which undoubtedly had months of work poured into it) void itself a third of the way into the game is simply bad problem-solving, and it's just plain silly.
I'm not saying that we should recreate Diablo II's merc system here. Something is dreadfully wrong when you can't win the game without hiring help. I definitely think that needed major revision as well. But not THIS major. The solution I underlined would make it so your follower would be useful, but unnecessary. I think that's a fair compromise to everyone, honestly, because at the end of the day, it SHOULD be harder if you choose to venture out there all by your lonesome than if you had someone watching your back, amirite? -
May 15, 2011sneakywombat posted a message on The Follower BluesPosted in: NewsQuote from Cyber_Cheese
Quote from sneakywombat
This is actually the first thing I've heard about Diablo 3 that I really don't like. Matter of fact, it actually kind of makes me angry. What is the point of implementing a follower system and placing that much time and work into it, if the followers become obsolete in the following two difficulties?
I know there's a large crowd that doesn't feel like the followers should be a crutch, and that's fine, but making them completely useless seems like it's going a step too far.
I for one almost exclusively play singleplayer in Diablo 2, and I kind of like having that mercenary around, even in the endgame, and while I agree with the people that say the follower shouldn't be a crutch, I also think it's counterproductive to invest that much effort into a system that becomes completely useless in the higher difficulties.
Am I in the minority here? Thoughts?
it's because you misunderstand the point of the followers, check out the PGGC earlier in this thread
@Nekrodrac, man i love that acronym
I don't think I have misunderstood anything, if I may be so bold. I simply think it's an extreme solution to a relatively easy problem. It's nothing but numbers, at the end of the day.
Followers have 'x' hitpoints and 'y' amount of damage, coupled with 'z' magic find. To my mind, this is just a rather inelegant solution to the problem of MF. A better one could simply be to place a penalty on those MF numbers (as in resistances in Nightmare/Hell D2) without destroying them completely. You could make Mercenaries useful, but nonessential by simply having 'x' hitpoints increase without substantially increasing 'y' damage, or vice verse.
Of course, this is but one hypothetical solution to it, and it's definitely not even the best, but at the very least, it would present you with the option to tailor your play to choose to have them or not have them without substantially affecting the gameplay in any truly significant way.
What I'm essentially saying is that I do think there's a way to keep everybody happy, and I just don't necessarily think that their proposed solution is the best way to do it, that's all. -
May 15, 2011sneakywombat posted a message on The Follower BluesThis is actually the first thing I've heard about Diablo 3 that I really don't like. Matter of fact, it actually kind of makes me angry. What is the point of implementing a follower system and placing that much time and work into it, if the followers become obsolete in the following two difficulties?Posted in: News
I know there's a large crowd that doesn't feel like the followers should be a crutch, and that's fine, but making them completely useless seems like it's going a step too far.
I for one almost exclusively play singleplayer in Diablo 2, and I kind of like having that mercenary around, even in the endgame, and while I agree with the people that say the follower shouldn't be a crutch, I also think it's counterproductive to invest that much effort into a system that becomes completely useless in the higher difficulties.
Am I in the minority here? Thoughts? -
Sep 2, 2009sneakywombat posted a message on Has the Tetris Inventory and Magic Find Returned?Posted in: News
Well, I think removing Identification would pretty much render the usefulness of Cain's function obsolete, except to give you tidbits of advice/backstory, so I doubt that they will do this.Quote from "edwith" »Has anyone noticed:
When you scroll over an item it compares the item to the one you have equipped. Well I am sure you all have but it raises the question, how do you know what is on the item? In D2 we had to identify items, are they throwing the identification system out the window or is it possible it will take a more 'lore' based approach like Bauldurs Gate?
Also it looked like the shields and such only took up 2 spots instead of 4-8 on the grid. This could me carrying more overall which would still allow them to cap carrying capacity to weight, with more allowable due to strength or some other stat.
The grid system is very unique to the Diablo series and I am glad it is making an appearance again. No grid systems work like in Bauldurs Gate (1&2) but the emphasis on those games is not so much killing things and looking for items (Magic Finding.) Even if they have a killer story that takes hours to complete the replay ability of Diablo games comes in magic finding, which I personally think the grid system works quite well for. - To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
0
0
JW commented that they don't worry too much about balancing for low-level characters, since the majority duel at max level, but I don't think the team should neglect it entirely, lest certain character classes simply have an easier time than others.
I understand the idea of making the first difficulty a kind of tutorial, but the monsters, and most particularly bosses, should be adjusted to provide a challenge to the level the character is supposed to be, otherwise the entire leveling system is kind of arbitrary.
Since it's such an easy fix, I don't understand why they don't just go ahead and do it.
1
But this is fucking pathetic.
Scrap it, don't even revise. It's garbage. "Temple aesthetic?" WHYGODWHY
0
0
I love the idea of physics, and of making your character feel like an over-the-top demigod. That's a design philosophy I can get behind. The problem is that as things stand now, that's not the case at all.
But if enemies float daintily down after being launched, it gives the impression that they don't weigh all that much and are easily thrown around. I then feel like I'm fighting a zombie army of 98-pound-weaklings, and suddenly my character's great feats of strength no longer impress me as much. Turning up the gravity and making enemies land with a loud thud would actually increase the effect that it seems they're going for.
Bashiok's reply seemed a little noncommittal in regards to this. This one seems like a no-brainer to me. It seems like common sense that this is really the only thing to do.
As well, I agree about the way the slip-and-slide ground physics. These are issues that should be corrected.
0
0
0
0
Many of you have guessed that the 3 Primes will merge into one being. While I can neither confirm nor deny that this part is true, there is a bit of the "prophecy" which seems to lean in that direction as well, so you kuhrazy kids may be onto something.
Generally, monster prefixes and suffixes now tend to relate to their enchantments. Joy.
It's all there, item prefixes, suffixes, locations, monsters, even some bonus stuff.
Apparently somewhere in there, there's a "battle for ponies."
....Your guess is as good as mine. In any event, I'll let some other folks look over this now. I'mma go have a sandwich. Have a good day, all!
2
AGAIN. I MEAN IT.
YOU'VE BEEN WARNED.
LAST CHANCE....
OK, here you go:
This doesn't have the official stamp of approval, but a hack of d3.exe has surfaced this morning containing a LOT of information on D3. I've spent the day combing through it, and I'll paint out the story in broad strokes:
You begin by rescuing Cain and killing Skeleton King in order to reach the meteor. Once there, you find out that the meteor is actually a man, referred to in the leaks so far as a "Stranger."
After here, the information becomes a bit more speculative, but I can tell you that Act I concludes in a place called the "Halls of Agony," ushering you into Caldeum, and Act II.
Act II seems to center around a boss character named "Saddle," by whom I assume they mean Belial. Act II ends in a place called the "Archives of Zoltan Kulle."
As well, there are numerous references to a character known as "Jumper," who appears to lead the cultists, near as I can tell. Act III, as many have already surmised, centers around Bastion's Keep and (obviously) concludes within the Arreat Crater.
For those who suspected that Act IV would take you into Heaven, it appears that you may be right. With location names such as the "Silver Spire," and "Gardens of Hope," there appears to be a blurring of the boundaries between Heaven and Hell. This is somewhat speculative, but from what I can surmise from what I've seen, the Great Conflict appears to collide with the mortal world at the conclusion of the game, which, incidentally, is also Bastion's Keep.
There's a bit more information, such as samples of dialogue and such, which you can review to your liking here:
http://wowbox.tw/d3/index.php
Enjoy, kids.
0
In D2, there just wasn't at all. It didn't happen often, but I remember a couple times there where my mercenary was actually killing things even more efficiently than I was, and THAT definitely speaks of a broken system. I almost wonder if some of this might just be panic because the merc system failed so spectacularly. But that's another story for another day.
I think mainly my issue is a personal one: that even if it does solve the problem (which it seems it will pretty handily), it feels like a hollow victory for me at least, especially because the system shows such promise in comparison to its predecessor.
And I think that's really the crux of it. If they had done something similar in the Diablo II expansion (diminishing merc value towards endgame), I probably wouldn't complain as much (or at all), because the merc system in D2 was pretty clumsy and certainly not nearly as intriguing. The process of creating the followers was clearly much more thoughtful and evolved, and its overall a more interesting system, so it seems an awful waste to lose it.
Also, I'm with you, I expect they'll continue to tweak the numbers and play with it, perhaps making them more relevant in patches or whatever.
0
Well, you make a lot of good points, and I don't even disagree that the substance of what you're saying is true... I still just think it's a bit silly, is all.
OF COURSE you're going to kill things a little quicker if you have someone else helping you, even if they're underpowered. That's inherent in any game system, no matter what you do.
What I'm saying is that I think it's a bit of a fanatical and excessive step to scrap followers in the endgame because you think they might give you some sort of edge.
You don't hear anyone complaining about characters being too reliant on gear. What if I want a gear-free build dammit? I don't want it to be even slightly harder for me if I choose to walk out there naked. You see where I'm going with this?
Not a peep about characters being too reliant on their skills. Still waiting to hear about characters being too reliant on the services that artisans can provide. Why?
Because these are systems that are built intimately into the mechanics of the game. And for better of for worse, so is the follower system. To make an entire system (which undoubtedly had months of work poured into it) void itself a third of the way into the game is simply bad problem-solving, and it's just plain silly.
I'm not saying that we should recreate Diablo II's merc system here. Something is dreadfully wrong when you can't win the game without hiring help. I definitely think that needed major revision as well. But not THIS major. The solution I underlined would make it so your follower would be useful, but unnecessary. I think that's a fair compromise to everyone, honestly, because at the end of the day, it SHOULD be harder if you choose to venture out there all by your lonesome than if you had someone watching your back, amirite?
0
I don't think I have misunderstood anything, if I may be so bold. I simply think it's an extreme solution to a relatively easy problem. It's nothing but numbers, at the end of the day.
Followers have 'x' hitpoints and 'y' amount of damage, coupled with 'z' magic find. To my mind, this is just a rather inelegant solution to the problem of MF. A better one could simply be to place a penalty on those MF numbers (as in resistances in Nightmare/Hell D2) without destroying them completely. You could make Mercenaries useful, but nonessential by simply having 'x' hitpoints increase without substantially increasing 'y' damage, or vice verse.
Of course, this is but one hypothetical solution to it, and it's definitely not even the best, but at the very least, it would present you with the option to tailor your play to choose to have them or not have them without substantially affecting the gameplay in any truly significant way.
What I'm essentially saying is that I do think there's a way to keep everybody happy, and I just don't necessarily think that their proposed solution is the best way to do it, that's all.
0
I know there's a large crowd that doesn't feel like the followers should be a crutch, and that's fine, but making them completely useless seems like it's going a step too far.
I for one almost exclusively play singleplayer in Diablo 2, and I kind of like having that mercenary around, even in the endgame, and while I agree with the people that say the follower shouldn't be a crutch, I also think it's counterproductive to invest that much effort into a system that becomes completely useless in the higher difficulties.
Am I in the minority here? Thoughts?
0