Originally Posted by (Blue Tracker / Official Forums)
"We aren't looking to make the game any easier, we're shooting for Diablo II difficulty more or less for normal. It's an easy ramp up, pretty much anyone regardless of if they've ever played a game before or not can get in and start clicking on monsters and kill them with little trouble.
Then you have the new difficulty levels that unlock, and the game really forces you to move beyond the "easy to learn" portion and into the "difficult to master".
Actually some of the things that made/make Diablo II extremely difficult later on are usually due to bugs or design/balance issues, so it's hard to compare overall difficulty at those later difficulties with a completely new game. But in short, no, we're not planning on the game being any "easier". We've only said that we're shooting for a similar difficulty ramp in normal mode.
There are currently no plans to require more than one person to complete any areas of the game."
Then you have the new difficulty levels that unlock, and the game really forces you to move beyond the "easy to learn" portion and into the "difficult to master".
Actually some of the things that made/make Diablo II extremely difficult later on are usually due to bugs or design/balance issues, so it's hard to compare overall difficulty at those later difficulties with a completely new game. But in short, no, we're not planning on the game being any "easier". We've only said that we're shooting for a similar difficulty ramp in normal mode.
There are currently no plans to require more than one person to complete any areas of the game."
Some combinations just got nasty.
But also that's more of a balance issue like he said.
Yes. It just got to be too much and ridiculous. Balance was definitely somewhat of an issue in the game.
EDIT: In my humble opinion, of course.
It all felt extraordinarly powered to the right angles. Normal was simple, most of the time, but still took a lot once you got into further acts.
Nightmare really ramped it up. You truly felt like the monsters were powerhouses and you were struggling.
Then, in Hell, literally, it was all or nothing. Death was right around the corner constantly, and you were struggling in constant battle even with just one or two enemies. I especially loved Hell difficulty in the chaos sanctuary, it was always heads or tails. Crazy battle, massive damage.
Then you got tons of good gear, and higher levels, and it was hard to imagine playing on any difficulty except Hell... Then you'd get hit with Iron Maiden, and my Barb would dish out 4k damage or more and kill himself...
Edit:
I think the Diablo 2 balance worked perfectly, as did Diablo 1's. IF they make Diablo 3 differ, it wont be the same series in my opinion. I don't care if some of Diablo 2's difficulty came from bugs, I loved it.
-Lj
dude thats funny!
-this is for all the people with barbs in D2:
i know all of u that this pertains to know about that "special feeling" u get when ur WW through a crowd after having IM on u. ur watchin ur barb WWing away but ur health is already out. the only thing u can do is say, "fucking iron maiden....damnit..."
thats the only thing i just HATED about it. lol
definitely man. i agree. that shit would be badass
What I think it boils down to is hard counters vs soft counters. Immunities are hard counters and resistances are soft counters. People don't want to be rendered completely impotent because then there really is no point in playing.
Also, the idea of changing the types of monsters you fight is a great one! It would be significantly more work for the developers, but it sure would beat fighting skeletons of every color!
yeah i agree. i think wut would be good in Diablo3 would be if all the monsters had better resistances to things than others, but not completely immune; therefore, it would be hard to kill them but it would actually be possible for anyone.
No I'm all for nasty situations where you have a pretty low chance of survival but some situations you had no chance to survive. Like the Blunderbore with extra fast/magic immune you teleport in and are stunned until death basically.
It's just that some combinations were pretty crippled. As long as there is a survivability rate high enough that I can play through without having to close the game and start back up to get rid of the monster than I don't mind. Unfortunately there were times in Hell I had to do this.
That's pretty broken and I think it says a lot about balance if you have to close the game and reopen it just to avoid that monster. Like I said I don't think difficulty is a problem, I think game play imbalances are. As long as I can eventually kill the monster I have no problem dying time and time again.
Every difficulty was the same exact stuff, just even harder... Tell me, how the hell are they supposed to increase difficulty without putting more immunities and whatnot on monsters? Then it'd REALLY be plain to just go from normal to hell difficulty with the monsters a bit stronger and nothing else.
What did you guys expect? A walk through the park? It's HELL Difficulty. If the game isnt giving you HELL when you play it, then its a poor title for a difficulty.
For everyone -bitching- about how "Difficult" all your immune monsters were... You dont HAVE to play Hell difficulty. I swear to god, I am the only one in this whole thread so far who actually liked what they did with the difficulty and hasnt outright whined and bitched about it.
Edit: Survivability rate? It's called gaining levels. That gives you your survivability. I mean, I think I read someone complaining that the Iron Maiden curse made him have to take Hell in Hell difficulty one step at a time... My god? What the hell? That's supposed to be a bad thing? "It was the hardest difficulty in the game and the curses made me have to take my time to beat it!"
There are other ways to increase difficulty than just slapping on immunities. For instance, as one user suggested, you could actually add different deadlier monsters as the difficulty increases.
Other options include:
1) Giving the monsters better AI. Farcry 2 did this and it worked out pretty well.
2) Giving the monsters different special moves. Something akin to heroic mode for WoW.
3) Make the monsters more aggressive and see you further away.
If you sit down and think about different solutions, I'm sure you'll find that immunities aren't the only answer... certainly not the most FUN answer and this being a game, that is what should be considered first, no?
And how am I supposed to level when I can't procede in the game without getting passed that monster? That's pretty broken and I think it says a lot about balance if you have to close the game and reopen it just to avoid that monster. Like I said I don't think difficulty is a problem, I think game play imbalances are. As long as I can eventually kill the monster I have no problem dying time and time again.
What did you guys expect, though? It is "HELL" Difficulty. If the game isnt giving you "HELL" when you play it, then its a poor title for a difficulty... Lots of hell in Diablo, eh?
Also, about how difficult all the immune monsters were... You dont have to play on the Hell difficulty to get the full game, really. So I don't think that is a valid point.
The game of Diablo and Diablo 2 are entirely about gaining levels. And via those levels, your character becomes much stronger to combat the burning legions. Without a higher level character, I'm sure Hell difficulty will always remain a "pain" in the ass... Or... A Hell in the ass?
I don't ever actually recall having to do just that unless I was like, undergeared or too low level to be there really in the first place though.
Undergeared not really, low level I guess that depends on how you view it.
I'd play through on solo and by the time I reached Hell there was at least one occurrence like that.
To me I think you should be able to make a solid play through on single player in order for it to be balanced. Sure there will be some parts you may die 8+ times or more attempting but it shouldn't be to where I have to get rid of the monster by reloading the game to get through.
Of course that's my opinion though.
But I mean, a lot of single player roleplaying games have all kinds of challenging elements, whereas Diablo doesnt and cant as a hack n' slash.
I really dont think most of you are sitting down and looking at the fact the only real difficulty in Diablo were the enemies. Its not like you had to deal with horrible difficulty in every part of the entire acts. It was just, on occasion, some mobs would be too hard to take down, and, with that, an instant remedy - to level - was given. I don't think that really merits saying Diablo 2's difficulty system was messed up, or monsters shouldnt be immune. I do agree there can be other systems rather than just pure immunity, but, I mean, difficulty isnt supposed to change gameplay... Its just making the monsters "harder" by adding more layers on defense/protection onto them. If you stray too far, you end up having a different game with each difficulty.