I haven't played the first game. Only had a go at the second installment. I didn't use much of alchemy which made battles more challenging but also more fun. To be perfectly honest though, the only reason i didn't use it was because i kept forgetting! If they go with the same balance in the game, I would say you won't have to worry too much about it. The new big feature in Witcher 3 is the open world system which is new to the series and which I am quite excited about. Hopefully they will find a good balance for quests and loot- especially loot variety which i usually find very lacking in most games in this category. Usually too much focus is geared towards questing which gets old quite quickly if there isn't some great treasure at the end of it.
Dark Souls had a really awful PC port if you wanted to use mouse and keyboard. I used my ps3 controller so it was all good.
But yes, its successor is being treated with much more care on all platforms.
- Registered User
Member for 8 years, 11 months, and 12 days
Last active Sun, Feb, 23 2014 22:48:31
- 21 Followers
- 2,073 Total Posts
- 148 Thanks
Feb 21, 2014Greetings Cowking.Posted in: Off-Topic
Ya, no release date confirmed as yet. However all interviews I have watched as of now regarding the game and the developers point to a 2014 release date. I'm not too bothered if it gets delayed to be honest. Dark souls 2 is the one I am really looking forward to.
Jan 13, 2013"We’ve also made it so that pet damage is no longer reflected back to the player."Posted in: Diablo III General Discussion
That's another hundreds of hours of gaming time for me.
I am so easily pleased.
Diablo 3 was made for me.
And i loled hard at this-
The resurrection timer in Hardcore remains unchanged.
Jan 4, 2013Posted in: Off-Topic
So your argument is because a largely disarmed population isn't causing gun crime, a largely armed population would do the same with the onset of legislation? I know you can't be this ignorant. You realize how guns are taken away and exactly how these people react to it. What do you make of the calculus involved there? Do you think it's worth averting disasters (which have other more preeminent causes, as I articulated before) by creating more violence on a daily basis in the form of enforcing such a law?
No, actually i don't realize it. Why don't you elaborate further- specifically how you think the people will react and how there will be more violence as a result of this law? You can skip this part by reading below by the way. No such calamity will ever happen. That is just pure end-of-the-world-apocalypse logic.
Maybe it's time you read and consider more carefully? You do realize i had already taken note of you not possessing guns and poked fun at it. I am clearly referring to the Amercian population here. If there is anything you do not understand please free to ask instead of being needlessly accusatory.
I don't have a gun, so again, your ad hominem is a wasted straw vestige of an argument.
You are being sadly very ignorant on this matter. Please go educate yourself. Just a simple article to start off-
It seems all you know revolves strictly around the US. There is actually a whole world out there with the same species and thus comparable behavior traits.
Again the same thing.
Your only "struggle," for the future appears to be demanding that everyone give their uniformed bothers and sisters increasingly larger amounts of control over their daily lives. If you find this balance of power between the individual and central authority to be illusory, I invite you to wake up to the world around you.
This keeps being repeated throughout your posts, adding fluff but with absolutely zero substance. This is what I was referring to as paranoia and irrationaly fear since you haven't given a single concrete piece evidence or even constructed a proper and logical argument that would support your pro-gun stance and negate the gun control laws. Those dark hints you've been dropping about government control amounts to nothing more than conspiracy theory and if you are into that kind of thing, you cannot be helped and I will certainly not change your mind.
Howevever, change needs to start somewhere as has been shown in the UK where national tragedies have pushed the needed legislation in place. Same thing has occured in Australia where the change has been more recent and with just as much effectiveness.
And no, the population in neither countries has gone crazy like you keep fearing when their toys were taken away from them nor have their governments turned like the regime in Syria or N.Korea.
Jan 3, 2013You find it amusing?Posted in: Off-Topic
Is it also amusing that there are currently no dead school kids here in the UK because somebody flipped?
No dead movie goers or dead shoppers?
You know what, i can definitely get used to this degree of comfort.
You don't want to let go of your guns out of irrational fear. Simple as that.
Comparing with the UK is completely valid because it is still human beings that are involved and history of gun ownership is utterly irrelevant.
We need to consider the legacy for the next generation. I would rather not leave them in the climate of an imaginary power balance strugggle that you currently think exists.
Jan 2, 2013Posted in: Off-Topic
This is what paranoia reads like.
What you ask for when you so mock anyone against gun laws, is for guns to be used by the state. Not simply against the criminals who would use their guns (legal or otherwise) against us. Not simply against those "rednecks," who currently defend their right to own such a weapon. But to be used against the body of the entire nation. Prohibition of the means of murder in the hands of private citizens is laughable when the most prevalent group of murderers on earth wear blue or green uniforms and march under the orders of the state itself.
The problem is not guns (per say) but the rotten gun culture supported by the second amendment. Where else among the top democracies in the world do you see such rampant gun violence?
Doesn't matter whether you wear blue or green uniform because if the other side has guns, it becomes a survival game. Shoot first and ask questions later because your life is on the line.
There are some powerful magical runes here in the UK. We usually call them gun control laws. And you know what? They kinda work...
And how, my dear, do you believe the evil of guns is to be eradicated from the face of your beloved nation? Do you think legislatures will write magical runes upon the parchment of a new constitutional amendment and cast the vile concoctions of metal, plastic, and carbon fiber into the dark abyss from whence they came? Do you believe that no man, woman, or child will be beaten, shot, tortured, or jailed over increasing questions of firearm legality?
I know, that's shocking.
You are surviving without guns? My goodness...Rambo would be proud of you.
I will concur with you that nobody is made the safer by arbitrarily doling out guns or security guards carrying guns. However, the ignorance subsumed within the argument that the private ownership of guns is the root of all violence, or that the prohibition therein would make the world a better place... that is simply inexcusable. I don't own any guns. But I will be damned if I join the chorus of sophists convincing a frightened nation of parents and students that the answer to their problems is disarming legal gun owners and empowering the most corrupt and deadly gun owners in our society: criminals, law-enforcement, and the military.
Or maybe they not attacking you because they assume you have a gun? Currently, people who have trained in firearms and combat with possibly some killing experience are hesitating and doubting their abillity to murder you because you might have a rifle in your basement.
True jungle out there.
My admiration for all the US members on this site has just climbed a notch higher. I did not realize that each day you guys post here might be your last. Keep the fight and battle alive my brothers.
As soon as the UK stops having such tight gun control laws and it seizes oppressing its citizens, i will buy a gun and join the fight. As long as people don't shoot back at me that is.
Dec 22, 2012The second amendment is crucial because:Posted in: Off-Topic
And remember- if you are a good guy, you will be able to do this:
So yes, let's give everybody guns and make the world a safer place.
Also kudos to those absolute badasses who procted their students. True heroes.
Nov 15, 2012UK not US.Posted in: Off-Topic
Had a research internship over summer holidays which i decided to focus on. Back at school now. We have like two and half weeks off december-january and then back at it again.
And yes, you are right, WD has been my choice way before playing. Will probably play with all chars on normal before trying to get to the higher difficulties and level.
I just found wirt's original leg with the wizard I am playing. It has its own description but listed as a blue item. Does it have any hidden use?
Nov 14, 2012Ya, have busy with school.Posted in: Off-Topic
I just finished the game (on normal) with the WD. It was real fun. I will probably do another character before i tackle the higher difficulties.
Fascinating how they made each level-up so meaningful. Me gusta.
- To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Mar 15, 2012Nekrodrac posted a message on Diablo III Launching May 15 – Digital Pre-Sales NOW OPENHOLY FUCKING SHIT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Posted in: News
OH MY GOD. I had to check if it's April fool's day first.
Anyway i waited so long to post this song.
Oct 24, 2011Posted in: News
Yes. And then they lived happily ever after. Best fairy tale ever!Quote from vl
lol let it go already. She's good looking and has a nice body. Women never use those attributes to advance, especially in a costume contest...
For the record, it's not just women who use looks. It's part of us- something natural. What you are failing to get is- determining what 'going over the top' constitutes is pretty subjective. For example many will see boobs and legs on the tyrael chick before anything. Since it is a costume contest, one might easily assume that her costume had too much emphasis on her (fine) figure instead of say, creativity behind her presentation.
I think you may be on to something.Quote from Deena
What exactly is it that you're hoping for? It can be hard enough to bring a costume life when you've got plentiful resources, and it's even harder when you've got limited to no gameplay access and just concept art. These characters aren't designed with real life things in mind, like gravity or how to make it stay on your body.
I admire every costume that walked the stage this year because they all put in the time and effort and then had enough balls to get up on a stage in front of thousands of people and a live TV stream.
I happen to see all humans engaging in cosplay as absolutely fucking idiotic- most ending up as pale and unflattering imitations of fictional characters. I however commend them for their sheer guts in ridiculing themselves in this manner. It will be interesting to see how many end up with Alzheimer in old age- you know, just so they can forget what an absolute ass they were earlier in their lives.
Now if only you were the costume designer, this show might have been saved.
Sep 14, 2011Posted in: NewsQuote from Nektu
This can also be said about the crossbow's in D2. A stripped down rifle? Did it negatively effect the diablo universe of D2? I don't think so.
Pretty much my thoughts.
I don't quite understand the attitude of no-guns anyway. Quite hypocritical to say that guns will ruin or negatively affect the diablo universe when you are getting an item that functions exactly the same as one.
Bleh. Some people are happier calling a fork a spoon. So be it.
Uh...you are agreeing with me? Because I did quote Scyber and said it reflected my opinion as well, meaning i don't have a problem with xbows though I still think they are guns in disguise.
Sep 14, 2011Posted in: News
Pretty much my thoughts.
I don't quite understand the attitude of no-guns anyway. Quite hypocritical to say that guns will ruin or negatively affect the diablo universe when you are getting an item that functions exactly the same as one.
Bleh. Some people are happier calling a fork a spoon. So be it.
Jul 18, 2011Are you like a freaking maniac or something?Posted in: News
Throughout this whole thing you are convinced that all or most players are on your side, along with blizzard. Yet you continue getting your panties in a mix over a hypothetical situation even though you are supposedly sure item selling store will never be in the game.
Like, I am 100% sure something won't ever happen but hey you know what, I will still rage about it. You've got some serious issues.
You jumped into the thread with that shitty attitude you know better than everybody when you simply don't.
None of my claims are false, you idiot. They cannot be- something you have yet to grasp. They are only for people to consider while you've been on this whole crusade about how you are absolutely right and I am wrong. There is plenty of messed-up material with what you've just written right now but I'll skip over it. I tried at one point in getting this deal level and explained a possibility, but dealing with maniacs become extremely boring after a while.
Jul 12, 2011Posted in: News
True. I have nothing more to add. I have explained why I understand the option of item-selling store. Our point of views are based on entirely different assumptions about the game and the influence of the store.
I didn't write those posts only so that you can understand them, although I would hope that the first step before replying is obviously understanding. I wrote them to show that you are wrong and so that people can argue against them, if they disagree with what I said. I see that you have nothing further to say or argue.
Someone is spending cash earned in real-life to buy virtual items is something foolish in my eyes. Cheating? That depends on the rules. If you notice the thread title- it says 'Future of item selling'. Neither me nor you know whether these rules will change or remain the same.
The fact that you or anyone else are unable to obtain a rare item in a legitimate way, within the rules of the game you agree to when making a B.net account, doesn't give you the right to cheat in order to get them. Buying and selling items is cheating.
In addition to referring to above reply, note that I've already given a few reasons why item selling/buying is actually so popular. The 'point' of the game does not change. The means do.
Your assertion people should be allowed to buy items because they are unable to legitimately obtain those items by trading is a direct endorsement for cheating. It is a complete antithesis to the whole point of the game.
Question- How do you detect bought items if these have been legitimately obtained?
Trading takes a lot of negotiating and bargaining skills, and if you are not skilled enough to trade up to the rare items you want, then you do not deserve them. And Blizzard will rightly ban cheaters who buy and sell these items for real money. They will continue to do this in D3 because it is the right thing to do. Allowing cheaters to run rampant and to take no action, would destroy the integrity of the game, as it becomes a cesspool of cheaters.
If your argument in support of cheating is: not everyone can have rare items, then my response is: too bad, learn to play.
It is relevant when considering gamers' behavior in relation to rare items- the reason why I mentioned it at all. It's in context.
Item duplication is completely irrelevant. It is a solved issue, no item has ever been duplicated in WoW.
Blizzard is sueing any item/gold sellers because the latter are making profit off their product. That's my take on this matter. Note that I'm not saying you are wrong but that I on the other hand very much doubt that Blizzard did this to promote the game instead of their profits.
Not only is it easy for me to say, it's easy for Blizzard to say too. Blizzard bans item and gold buyers, they ban maphackers, they sue item and gold sellers. They are correct to take this sort of action, because all of these examples undermine how the game is intended to be played. Not banning cheaters will give an unfair advantage to cheaters at the expense of legitimate players.
Cheaters need to be banned. Yes.
You've also completely dodged the core of my argument, justifying why cheaters need to be banned:
1) Their actions damage the economy.
2) The people they buy from are scammers, hackers, and Chinese gold farmers.
3) They undermine the core of Diablo as an item trading game.
4) Legitimate players do not want to play amongst a cesspool of cheaters.
The presence of a blizzard store makes the buyers normal players.
1)Damage to the economy and item trading is impossible to assess until the game is in operation. My assumption: The consequence of spending real-life money will act as a major deterrent for many from buying from store, especially since items are freely available in-game.
2) Store means they won't have to do any of this and I believe that's what we were discussing about- the 'future' of item selling
3)If a person does not have the trading skills, they won't take this route and as you previously said, they do not even deserve that item which is on trade. Let's say that person goes to buy it in a store.
Another person who is skilled in trading comes along and gets your item(that person exists by virtue of assumption in (1). Now for that guy who bought his in a store with real-life money, the assumption that I make to determine his impact on future trading is that the spending of real-life money on that item will make said-person reluctant to part with it easily. Therefore trading won't be marred by a sudden influx of bought-items.
4)I agree(if they are cheaters as is defined by the rules in vigor at that time).
Let us stick to bought items and D3. I don't play SC2 nor heard of the maphack, so I have no idea what you are talking about here.
I've never claimed that cheaters are not having fun. But who is hurt? The fun they experience is derived from the unfair advantage they have over legitimate players, whether it's because they use a maphack to remove the fog of war in SC2, or because they win in PvP due to the items they have bought. In all these cases, their fun comes at the expense of legitimate and law-abiding players. Therefore, they should be banned, and Blizzard is of the same opinion.
Those 'law-abiding' gamers are to me simply people who enjoy farming and have the time for it. It's convenient for them to play the game this way. If you want to elevate them on a pedestal for it, that's your own business. I think I've already addressed the point of 'cheaters'.
You said there was no connection. I merely showed you one example where there was a connection. I'm not trying to win this argument but you were wrong there.
Do you seriously think this is something that will ever be repeated again in D3? As I've already said, duplicating items is a solved issue. When's the last time Blizzard paid attention to the WoW in-game economy for anything? Never, because the in-game economy is a free market, players can do whatever they want. Do you know what actually motivates the development of content? Blizzard's development schedule, staffing, and priorities, not the in-game economy.
From all the discussions on this board, most PvPers have prided themselves on their skill. While they have acknowledged the importance of items, I'm pretty sure D3 will have a wide range of that, so that the determinant of PvP will still primarily remain skill.
Then those who choose to spend the most real life money will be able to buy the best items, the most gold, the strongest PvP characters. Then the cheaters win, so I can see why this is an outcome you are in favor of.
And you can't buy skill with money. I can easily imagine all true PvPers getting even more thrill from beating a guy who bought his items, since this community tends to look really highly upon challenging encounters.
Hypocrite- a person who pretends to be what he is not
I suggest that you stop using words whose meaning you clearly don't understand. Your usage of the word "hypocrite" is completely out of context, it doesn't even apply here. How in any way does your response to what you quoted, even if it were true (which it isn't), show that I'm a hypocrite? Stick to using only words that you are capable of understanding.
That's the definition I got. And yes, I understand the meaning and it definitely applies to you. Feel free to continue to pretend you can't comprehend.
You have simply arranged (1) and (2) for your own convenience.
Again your unsophisticated thinking is not able to grasp the issue here. In D2, items already obtained in the game are illegally sold, call this (1). In what you're suggesting, D3 should have a store where Blizzard legally sells items and gear, not already in possession of any particular player, for real money, call this (2). You claimed that (1) didn't kill D2, but how then does this imply that (2) will not kill D3, when (1) is not the same as (2)?
Let me try-
(1) Item selling did not destroy D2.
(2) Item selling will not destroy D3.
Item selling can go with either-
(3) Item selling gives blizzard money
(4) Item selling gives black market money
Just the money going into different hands.
I don't see buying items as becoming rampant for reasons already mentioned. Furthermore Blizzard cannot detect bought items as far as I know so they wouldn't have been able to take any action anyway.
First difference: In (1), the transaction is illegal, and as a result legitimate players are not inclined to partake in such a sale. Only a small portion of players, cheaters, do this. In (2), the transaction is completely legal, so buying items can become rampant. The best way to remain competitive with item buyers is to buy even more items, since Blizzard will take no action against it.Second difference: In (1) the item is already in the game so such a transaction is harder to detect. In (2) the item is created out of nothing, and Blizzard will have a record of the items they've sold. As a result, a large amount of items will flood the economy at an uncontrollable rate, as opposed to (1) where they are controlled by a drop rate.
I've already explained the rationale of stores and how they could work. I believe I have nothing more to add.
If you have a valid argument why buying and selling items for real world money is not cheating, then please make it. Until then, I and many other players, are of the correct opinion that cheaters are a cancer that needs to be exterminated.
Your approach to this whole matter leaves much to be desired but understandable if you think the game will be unplayable should stores somehow be implemented.
That quote unfortunately makes Maka's assessment of you pretty accurate.
If you are in favor of vanity stores, we are not on the same side, we are mortal enemies.
Jul 9, 2011Posted in: News
Thanks for the publicity, hun.
I want everyone to read Nekrodrac's post quoted here.
You should do theater. You have a natural talent for drama.
You won't make a very good detective though. Your suspicions are crappy. I can reply to all of your so-called arguments but unlike you I have identified from where our perceptions differ and have thus explained to you why I can understand the rationale of a store. Of course I now know you do not have the ability to understand anything beyond your opinion.
1) I suspect the reason you didn't directly reply to all of my points is partly because there are some for which you can't.
2) The legitimate way to get those rare drops after being continually screwed with the RNG is buy trading up to them.
You see, you can't understand anything. Rare items are RARE. That's how the game is designed which also means that only a minority will get them, however much trading there is. So what will happen to the rest, eh? Damn you are so clueless, it's pathetic. If trading was so easy, why would people ever want to spend real-life money on items? Make some sense already besides your cheating melodrama. Seriously, I'm starting to doubt you even have a brain, nevermind a functioning one.
And ya SOJs were all totally genuine. So much that people were selling them by the hundreds.
Be careful- you could overdose on excess self-rightenousness. Oh yeah blizzard, ban them! So easy- i mean in your fairy world it must be. I'm sure all the righteous gamers who spend their days farming/trading items instantly recongize duped or bought items and must feel all heart-broken and all.
3) If part of the playerbase wants to approach the game by buying items, Blizzard correctly bans them, because they are cheaters, their actions damage the economy, the people they buy from are scammers, hackers, and Chinese gold farmers, they undermine the core of Diablo as an item trading game, and because legitimate players do not want to play amongst a cesspool of cheaters.
Oh the tragedy!!!
If playing the way the game is meant to be does not provide the most fun, players will find a way around. I am sure none of us skipped content here. I mean how could we possibly have done something so aweful(and against the game's philosophy) and yet enjoyed the game?
4) Buying your way to the best items is cheating, it's not playing the game the way it is intended. Nor should it be the way the game is intended because striving for the best items by running content and trading is the core of Diablo gameplay.
Impossible right? Oh man, seriously, get a clue.
Ya I know, selling SOJs and the appearance of Uber Diablo were PURELY coincidental.
5) You mentioned in-game economy in relation to Blizzard spending money on patching and developing content for the game. There is no connection. Blizzard doesn't gather data to see that the average price of a SOJ is 50,000 gold, and decides as a result of this that it's time to release a new dungeon, or make a patch to nerf the Wizard because she's overpowered, or open an item and gear selling store.
Such empathy warms my heart.
6) Yes, some people want to pay the game by buying and selling items, and those cheaters should all be banned.
Circumventing only for those choosing to do so. And there are good reasons for many to skip trading and some content(impossible to circumevent all content). I already mentioned that spending real life money for items that can be freely obtained will continue to be the deterrent for most people.
7) The core and soul of Diablo is an loot and item trading game. Buying items circumvents the need to run content or trade, therefore it destroys the game.
You are one incredible hypocrite. Whether it is legal or not, it's almost impossible to detect items that are bought, especially if they have been originally otained in a legit manner. So these stores will continue to EXIST. If the existence of such a store can't ruin a game, it can't ruin anything legal or not.
8) You've failed to grasp the fundamental difference between D2 and the D3 you're suggesting. D2 survived because item buying and selling is illegal. D3 will not survive if item and gear selling is legal, because it will have essentially no point when cheaters can simply buy the best gear for real life money, legally.
9) It is now apparent to me that you are a cheater, or at least a sympathizer of cheaters. Thus, I have no respect for you.
I have never cheated in D2- unless you count using mods in single player offline as cheating. But I try my best to understand all parties, something you are uncapable of.
The best you can do is label people apparently. Good luck with that.
Jul 9, 2011Alrighty then. First of all I understand my magnificent sense of humor has been kind of off-putting to you. I do apologize.Posted in: News
As a result I will try to keep matters as formal as possible in this post. However I am afraid I will have to do you the discourtesy of not replying directly to what you posted. My excuse is that I have grasped much of your standpoint. So instead of going back and forth on how I am right and you are wrong, and vice-versa, I will try to explain to you my standpoint and why item-selling stores won't be the end of D3.
Before we proceed, let's consider this famous statement made by this famous person-
Half a game is defined as how the creators designed it and the other half how the players will approach it.
Item selling has been around since D2 and it has been a reasonably successful and lucrative business albeit illegal. From here, we have identified that a market exists for this type of transaction.
Now while it is easy to jump the gun and cry- cheaters!, let's examine the following scenario-
This is entirely from my experience, though I'm hoping that when others read this, they will support this case with their own stories.
This is my gaming post patch 1.10 on D2 lord of destruction: I have leveled between 7-8 toons to level 75. I then proceeded to farm for the stone of jordan with ALL of these characters respectively. I seem to recall from reading a few guides that nightmare(?) Andy was the best boss. However I alternated between different best-farming places with at least 3 of these characters. Another point to note, one of the characters had over 700% MF while most of the others averaged 400%. I still managed to find and kill Andy in less than a minute. Between these characters I had totaled well over 200 runs.
Results- I have never obtained a stone of jordan though I collected a variety of other unique rings. It could be that I have just been really unlucky if not for the fact that I have heard a lot of similar stories. Then when duping came in and there were so many SOJs that the uber diablo event was created to address this issue, I understood that luck wasn't much of an issue here really.
Now the designers (and the very lucky players) of the game might argue that the rarity of an item is what makes it worthwhile to get which is an alright philosophy if people actually have the required patience to achieve this goal. The problem here is that inevitably only a small minority of (lucky!) players will legitimately acquire the rarest of items.
A good portion won't and it will not be due to their lack of skill or patience but that the roll of the dice simply didn't favor them.
So here we suddenly find ourselves in a position where skill verily doesn't count. And this is what causes players to turn towards a less direct way of obtaining items. For in their minds there is really no reason as to why they didn't obtain x and y items when they've spent the same amount of time as the guy who's showing off next door with all his gear.
This one of the ways how the market for item-selling eventually builds itself. Of course it is only part of it since there are people who simply view farming as an extremely unpleasant facet of the game and just want the gear that will maximize the power of their skills which will give them the thrill they are seeking. Yet another group sees PvP as their main way of having fun and going again through the process of farming to ready their characters becomes way too tedious and they look for the short-cut.
The thing is that all of this has been happening since D2 but it wasn't in the open. The point though is that players have created that market and it's a certainty that this market will be here in D3.
Some items in D3 are going to continue to be rare to keep the experience of finding one as exhilarating as it were in the previous games which will give rise to the situation(s) I described above.
Let us switch sides for a moment and see this whole matter from the game creators point of view-
We create a game. We tailor the experience of adventuring around looting and confronting monsters and other players.
We see that while we made all items (freely) available in-game, some of are actually going out of their way to buy them from third parties and they are making a decent amount of money too out of it.
If that's how part of the player base wants to approach the game, why not give them the option and we make the money instead?
You'll see that I regard item-selling stores as more of a natural response from blizzard rather than contrived attempt at making more money.
I also wish to impress upon you another point- item-buying is unlikely to become rampant or out-of-control. I suspect the same group of people who bought items in D2 will be the ones buying gear for D3- that is those who can afford it and are willing to exchange time(spent farming) for money.
The other group (probably the majority of D3 players) will find money a very strong deterrent to acquiring items through the store when these are available freely in-game.
I mentioned in-game economy because that is the only thing in my eyes that can be truly affected and from which you can actually collect quantitative data to examine trends and results.
You mentioned soul, integrity, fairness of game all of which are abstract/subjective and arbitrary concepts that I unfortunately cannot relate to. So I was not trying to evade any of your points but rather bring it to a level where our arguments can be more objectively compared.
End note- Item selling has been here since D2. Some players want to play the game this way- whether you offer them this choice through legitimate means or not.
D2 survived. D3 will too whether those stores are official or illegal. The decision for how to acquire these items will be made within the same mind-frame in either case except that in the former one, the money goes to the company who created the game. And you've already shown you know how the game can be improved with more money.
Jul 6, 2011Posted in: News
You still haven't stated a valid way in which more money will lead to improvements to D3 such that it is worth playing, while an item and gear selling store is operating.
Come on now. Let's be serious for a moment. You want me to say what specifically more money can do to improve D3 with the presence of a store when I have never played the game? If that is what it takes to make my argument valid, we'll need to wait a couple of years after release, see how the in-game economy is fairing and then only will we be able to resume this discussion. Since this is not a viable option, the next best thing is to be rational about the situation. What does a game need to be better? More frequent patches and content perhaps?
How do the latter come into existence? Magic? I doubt it.
It's well-known fact that it is usually gnomes and elves at blizzard who work tirelessly through the night, away from human eyes, to make it possible. More money means
-that blizzard can now buy more candy for the gnomes and elves that are hired from Santa Claus to do the work
-and has also a stronger incentive to give us 'regular' updates.
I said it in my first post- this is not an automatic course of action but a probable one.
Regarding the store, it's not so much the integrity of the game at stake here but the integrity of the gamer as a person. Because not everyone is willing to consider spending real-life money as one of the variables to their approach to the game. You can see it this way- if you have time to farm and luck is on your side, you don't need to spend money. In the other case, you always have the option to spend cash and save yourself time. One possible advantage(I'm only speculating) is a faster way to build a PvP character. You can argue it will be unfair but the counter to this is that you won't get someone in the arena until you feel they are ready, independent of how they acquired their gear.
As for the possibility of the in-game economy being affected, I'm assuming the range of items offered in the store will be limited. Other illegal sites can profit from that but my point is that blizzard can earn substantial revenue from selling a good range of gear so that if ever buying items from the store becomes common-place, there will still be items in the game that will have a high fetching price, thereby not completely invalidating your farming efforts. So I'm expecting the economy to adjust by itself. I know that bit was nowhere in your argument but I'm just considering the different aspects of the game that can be hit by the presence of the store.
The way Sixen worded his post made me interpret it as there being a market out there for buying items with real-life money. And these items make it into the game.
With a blizzard hosted store, that market will still exist but this time the game developers will benefit from it. Of course, there's always the issue of competitive prices but that's a whole another matter.
They key difference is that this time, it's in the open and not a backyard deal. If D2 was not broken due to that, I find it an exaggeration to claim that D3 suddenly will be unplayable because of the store.
You seemed to have completely missed the point. What you're talking about is continued support and development for the game. But I've already shown in my previous post, with examples of possible additional content, (requoted below) that once there is an item selling store operating, why the game wouldn't even be worth playing, let alone supporting.
Refer to above.
Additionally, D2, WC3, and SC2 didn't need continued revenue from an item-selling store. If your concern is that Blizzard requires continued revenue in order to support Diablo 3 into the future, then why don't you suggest a subscription model? While a subscription model may not be as popular as a pay-once game, at least it doesn't cause the game to be unfair the same way an item-selling store will. At least, everyone will still have equal access to the same content and gear. Compared to an item-selling store, a subscription model is also the lesser of the two evils.
In summary, there's no point in supporting a shit game through additional dungeons, features, systems, and content.
A shit game probably not. A good one, definitely yes.
Isn't a subscription model much more suitable for MMORPGs that have considerable server costs? I really can't see how the expenses involved in D3 would warrant one- which is why I deem a simple vanity store to be fair(your favorite word) as a form of constant revenue and why a subscription-based system never crossed my mind.
You think I'm the only person who would not play a game that is trivialized by players buying gear off a store? Look at the poll result. My claim was not that more money will not lead to more improvements. My claim was that more money generated from an item selling store will not lead to improvements, because the very existence of an item selling store causes irreparable damage: "I do not see how more money can possibly improve the game to the point it is worth playing, as long as an item-selling store is functioning".
I don't know, man. I would love to think the poll is representative of what the majority of players feel about the whole thing but I haven't seen anything so far that would suggest that the people who voted constitute a normative sample. I might be totally wrong though and only 400 or so people are going to play D3.
Also nobody knows the exact financial model D3 is going to be based on and the level of control the team has over it, in the case of imminent failure as you have predicted should item-selling stores form part the game. Best bet is to wait and see I guess.
True. Editing mistake on my behalf and I got things mixed up when I originally(first post I replied to you) quoted two of your posts- Sixen one and the other from Sabvre.
My post was directed at Sixen's news post (I even quoted it), in which he was clearly talking about an item and gear selling store, and not a vanity store, as he has a separate category for vanity stores. So why are you talking about vanity stores in a part of the discussion that is about an item and gear selling store? While the discussion of my response to Sixen's post is about an item and gear selling store, everything else is about selling vanity items.
It is also not clear to me why you've wrote this in response to what you've quoted, as it doesn't address or even relate to what is in the quote.
As I've stated before, there is no point in putting resources and money into a game that has been shitted on by an item selling store.
A game is not the same as a car. Vanity items are a core part of the game. They come with the game. It is not unusual for games to offer the entire feature set, all of the content, equally to everyone, in one transaction. This is how D2 and WC3 worked. Everyone buys the same game, everyone has the same access to all of the content, vanity or otherwise.
I do not regard vanity items as core of the game.
I'm not measuring anything for myself. I'm stating the obvious fact that people place different values on gear and vanity items, as measured by ones enjoyment of the game.
While most people would derive greater enjoyment in the game from getting a best-in-slot item compared to dying their headpiece purple, others may derive more enjoyment from the game from dying their headpiece purple, compared to getting a weapon upgrade that amounted to +1 stamina.
And therefore, justifying selling vanity items as acceptable because gear is more important, as you seem to have done, fails because different players place different values on the importance of either.
It only fails if you see vanity items as core of the game and our views differ on this one.
I'm not even suggesting that Blizzard raise the price of D3, so I'm not sure why you came to the conclusion that the idea of predicting how much profit a store would generate would be unfeasible. I'm only saying hypothetically that raising the price is not as bad as any form of store, because it keeps the game fair.
This was an argument to point out the importance of fairness in a game.
You completely lost me on this one. You are not suggesting but you are saying hypothetically... Language barrier I fear.
Also you can't just randomly mention an idea if it is not even feasible which is I why I actually considered it as a possible alternative since our perceptions of fairness is different.
If you want that vanity item, and it was only available through a store, then there is no other way to have that item, therefore, by definition, you are forced to pay for it. There is no other way to legally acquire the item.
How is it "spoiled" to want everyone to have the same and equal access to all features of the game? It seems that it would be more "spoiled" for some players to get access to additional vanity items and customization features, just because they are willing to spend more real life money, as opposed to having all of this be obtainable by in-game means only.
Vanity is extra. Paying for extra is completely justifiable. Wanting extra for free is 'spoiled' to me.
This is an argument I've already debunked. Different players place different values on gear compared to vanity items as measured by their enjoyment of the game. I've even given 2 examples above. So it's unfair that some players can have unequal access to these vanity items. It's not always about ability to compete.
Refer to above reply.
Strange. I was pretty sure the perpetrator of any moronicity (yay for new word!) needs to be a moron, at least temporarily, until the act is done.
I called Sixen's argument as "moronic", I didn't directly call him a moron, this is different from what you've done. But this isn't related to the issues in this thread.
Excuse me if I am more direct.
Alright let's talk a bit about this fairness business.
I'm not being close-minded, I have considered the implications of any store and have come to the conclusion that they are all bad. The concept of fairness is a simple one: that everyone has equal access to all features of the game. This is not a new definition, I've been saying it in my previous thread. What is your problem with this? Why would you prefer that in order to get certain vanity items someone may want, that they be forced to pay for it through a store, or go without it?
Ultimately, D3 is a game, it is not real life, and therefore the amount of real life money you are willing to spend, above the core game that everyone buys should not come into the equation, nor affect ones enjoyment of the game. That is why I've stated that the strongest argument against any store is because it destroys fairness.
First of all I simply cannot stomach that notion of being 'forced' to get a vanity item if you want it. Just like the extra in a collector's edition that you have to pay more for, vanity items are the extra of the game. Should you feel you absolutely need it to enjoy the game, then you should pay for it.
D3 is not real life but the financial model will be based on real-life applications. Like, if you are willing to pay more, you are entitled for more. I partially agree with you that item-selling stores might probably have too much of a consequential disadvantage upon gameplay but as far as vanity items go, the whole playing field changes.
Obviously your perception will be different because of the importance you attribute to these, but understand that for some vanity is fluff and such a store generating revenue is hence perfectly alright.
Jul 6, 2011Posted in: NewsQuote from Rejuvyn
You buy a car. You are also expected to buy the extra tires if you want them. Vanity is extra.
Not to nitpick, but this is a terrible example. What if those tires were Azure Tires of Dexterity? Now some smirking Paladin who paid real money for them is going to round that curve *slightly faster than you*, and look better to boot (Azure tires DO look good with the right chassis color and Paladin aura).
Unfair advantage? You bet.
I think we should stick to the example in my previous post. A better sound system isn't going to make my car faster, handle better, or even look different. The only thing it will do is amuse me while I drive, and annoy the cop who pulls me over (and also irritate the guy holding the "Fight the Inequality!" sign over at the car dealership).
Allow me to return the favor.
A better sound system will make me enjoy my car more which is one of the arguments of paralleluniverse claiming that vanity items may play a substantial part in his appreciation of the game. So in the end while the car doesn't drive faster or handle better it all comes down to personal satisfaction which suddenly makes your analogy as bad (or worse) than mine.
However I do understand the basic principles behind an analogy, which is the reproduction of some highlighting feature of an idea/statement in a different, common and much more relatable medium.
Therefore in order to grasp this 'highlighting feature', you are required to make some level of compromise (which I didn't do when talking about the sound system just to illustrate my point) as to the actual details of the analogy. Why? For the simple fact that as soon as you over-analyze (nit-pick), you are doing so in a different context to the original idea and the analogy just won't hold. And that goes for the best analogies out there.
End note- debating on analogy specifics is definitely the low point of any discussion.
- To post a comment, please login or register a new account.