On April 22 2012 13:36 skyR wrote: Splitting into two groups doesn't make it less fun, it actually makes it more fun when people have actual roles and things are actually progressing at a fast pace. If you're a leecher or slowpoke than I guess it would be less fun since you won't be getting carried anymore.
Having a party size of eight would be stupid. It would be an absolute clusterfuck on the screen, the majority of the people are going to lag / crash and end up being useless. Mobs scale up in dmg / health so engagements would be impossible or take a very long time if someone has to go afk or is in town looking at stuff.
Well it worked very well in diablo and diablo 2. What about when you have five friends that have a lan party planned the weekend of release. There is one person who is the odd man out.
Who is blizzard to decide for me and my friends what is fun or not? If we want to and my computer can handle why disallow 8 man groups.
It didn't work at all in Diablo II, eight player parties were so uncommon in the game. The game wasn't even balanced for eight.
Allowing for eight players in Diablo III is going to result in eight player games being too easy or overtuned. Just look at WoW as an example, raids were overtuned and than Blizzard figured out that tuning for a raid of 25 people with common sense is dumb and nerfed them to oblivion so that it could be completed with less than 25 players.
Your argument doesn't work because it applies to every cap. If there was a eight player cap, the nine player group would complain. If there was a ten player cap, the group with eleven would complain. If you can't rotate or divide into groups than that's unfortunate.
I figured you would say that but most of the time I would think you would side with precedent, rather than change.
The difficulty just scaled with the number of people in your group. Maybe 8 people groups were uncommon for you but I know I will be missing it.
Most people say World of Warcraft was better when it was first released also. You always hear people say how much more fun/ harder vanilla was in comparison to now(that has to do more with raids though but still)
Vanilla was only harder in the sense that it required more players. More players meant more dumbasses so more chance for error. The boss mechanics didn't get complex until late AQ and Naxx. Let's not forget there were no tokens so epics weren't handed out for free and RNG played a much larger role in loot.
Having more players or being harder does not equate to more fun automatically. I'm sure there are a few individuals that enjoy overtuned encounters or carrying dead weight but the majority don't.
If you were part of a good guild (read top 100?) RNG never played a factor in obtaining loot. Vanilla was more challenging compared to modern day WoW because gear didn't just fall into your lap and leveling a character to max level actually meant something.
On April 22 2012 13:36 skyR wrote: Splitting into two groups doesn't make it less fun, it actually makes it more fun when people have actual roles and things are actually progressing at a fast pace. If you're a leecher or slowpoke than I guess it would be less fun since you won't be getting carried anymore.
Having a party size of eight would be stupid. It would be an absolute clusterfuck on the screen, the majority of the people are going to lag / crash and end up being useless. Mobs scale up in dmg / health so engagements would be impossible or take a very long time if someone has to go afk or is in town looking at stuff.
Well it worked very well in diablo and diablo 2. What about when you have five friends that have a lan party planned the weekend of release. There is one person who is the odd man out.
Who is blizzard to decide for me and my friends what is fun or not? If we want to and my computer can handle why disallow 8 man groups.
It didn't work at all in Diablo II, eight player parties were so uncommon in the game. The game wasn't even balanced for eight.
Allowing for eight players in Diablo III is going to result in eight player games being too easy or overtuned. Just look at WoW as an example, raids were overtuned and than Blizzard figured out that tuning for a raid of 25 people with common sense is dumb and nerfed them to oblivion so that it could be completed with less than 25 players.
Your argument doesn't work because it applies to every cap. If there was a eight player cap, the nine player group would complain. If there was a ten player cap, the group with eleven would complain. If you can't rotate or divide into groups than that's unfortunate.
I figured you would say that but most of the time I would think you would side with precedent, rather than change.
The difficulty just scaled with the number of people in your group. Maybe 8 people groups were uncommon for you but I know I will be missing it.
Most people say World of Warcraft was better when it was first released also. You always hear people say how much more fun/ harder vanilla was in comparison to now(that has to do more with raids though but still)
Difficulty didn't scale in Diablo 2. The only thing that scaled was monster HP, and the frequency of monster spawns. Monsters with 8 times the HP (actually I think it was more like 5.5 times HP?) are not fundamentally any harder, they just take 8 times the punishment.
However, more people make the group exponentially more powerful. In D2, stacking different paladin auras + barb shouts + druid HotO + necro Amp damage meant that every member of a party could be doing maybe 2-3 times their normal damage. So the overall damage output of an 8 player party was equivalent to maybe 20+ individual players, survivability was through the roof thanks to stacking HP buffs, and all the while the monsters were not any more dangerous at all.
So, they probably decided that 4 people was the most you can get in a party that doesn't "break" the game via the exponential scaling of players in a party.
EDIT: Personally, the only times I ended up in a D2 game with more than 4 people was in public blood/baal runs, and those will not be missed. I would have like the limit to have been 5 instead, but there's always gotta be some limit somewhere. If they'd made the limit 5, someone else would be complaining "it would have been perfect if they'd made the limit 6".
Do you need strategy to succesfully complete Diablo games at the highest difficulty? i didnt play Diablo 1 or 2... I want a challenge when i play with friends. Ofc the strategies don't need to reach the depth of world of warcraft strategies for example but it's very sad if strategy is non existant.
On April 23 2012 08:51 Mczeppo wrote: Do you need strategy to succesfully complete Diablo games at the highest difficulty? i didnt play Diablo 1 or 2... I want a challenge when i play with friends. Ofc the strategies don't need to reach the depth of world of warcraft strategies for example but it's very sad if strategy is non existant.
Normal has been confirmed it'll be pretty straightforward and fairly easy, but nightmare and hell, you cannot expect to run forward and smash everything in your path.
On April 23 2012 08:51 Mczeppo wrote: Do you need strategy to succesfully complete Diablo games at the highest difficulty? i didnt play Diablo 1 or 2... I want a challenge when i play with friends. Ofc the strategies don't need to reach the depth of world of warcraft strategies for example but it's very sad if strategy is non existant.
Normal has been confirmed it'll be pretty straightforward and fairly easy, but nightmare and hell, you cannot expect to run forward and smash everything in your path.
In my experience, if the boss fights are anything like Diablo 2, there won't be much strategy. You had to learn to dodge projectiles and spells. Thats probably as much strategy there was.
Probably really stupid question... is there any way to hotkey different skills for your left and right click (like the F-keys in Diablo 2?)
I know you can turn on elective mode and put whatever you want wherever you want, but you are still limited to your finite number of skill slots, and shifting through menus to change things on the fly, which is kind of annoying =\
When mousing over an item it tells you the gain/loss of stats, such as +2.2 damage.
My question is, does this +2.2 damage take into account everything? Base damage of weapon, damage gained from strength/intellect on item, damage gained from attack speed? Does it take into account the damage you may lose if its a 2 handed weapon and you aren't going to be able to use your offhand anymore?
On April 23 2012 12:00 Chewbacca. wrote: When mousing over an item it tells you the gain/loss of stats, such as +2.2 damage.
My question is, does this +2.2 damage take into account everything? Base damage of weapon, damage gained from strength/intellect on item, damage gained from attack speed? Does it take into account the damage you may lose if its a 2 handed weapon and you aren't going to be able to use your offhand anymore?
I think..... Base damage of weapon, damage gained from strength/intellect on item, damage gained from attack speed? Yes, as everything is expressed as damage per second.
Does it take into account the damage you may lose if its a 2 handed weapon and you aren't going to be able to use your offhand anymore? No, from what I could tell the the calc is done from staight slot swaps. Meaning if you are currently dual wielding and mouse over a 2H weapon, it will only compare against the weapon in your main hand. I may be completly wrong though.
On April 23 2012 12:00 Chewbacca. wrote: When mousing over an item it tells you the gain/loss of stats, such as +2.2 damage.
My question is, does this +2.2 damage take into account everything? Base damage of weapon, damage gained from strength/intellect on item, damage gained from attack speed? Does it take into account the damage you may lose if its a 2 handed weapon and you aren't going to be able to use your offhand anymore?
I think..... Base damage of weapon, damage gained from strength/intellect on item, damage gained from attack speed? Yes, as everything is expressed as damage per second.
Does it take into account the damage you may lose if its a 2 handed weapon and you aren't going to be able to use your offhand anymore? No, from what I could tell the the calc is done from staight slot swaps. Meaning if you are currently dual wielding and mouse over a 2H weapon, it will only compare against the weapon in your main hand. I may be completly wrong though.
At least from what I saw, it does take into account both items:
On April 23 2012 07:56 dmfg wrote: EDIT: Personally, the only times I ended up in a D2 game with more than 4 people was in public blood/baal runs, and those will not be missed. I would have like the limit to have been 5 instead, but there's always gotta be some limit somewhere. If they'd made the limit 5, someone else would be complaining "it would have been perfect if they'd made the limit 6".
5 feels logical because it allows you to party with 1 of each class. Though I suppose that would put them in the awkward position of questioning whether to up the cap to 7 or 8 when they add classes in the expansion. If they cap it at 4 now, they can leave it there and not cause any raised eyebrows when the expansion arrives.
I'm currently playing D2 via Plugy in the most recent version, but as I do not have any decent items, I'm struggling very much using a Zealot / Smiter.
On April 23 2012 19:18 Rhaegar99 wrote: Is the items you can craft the same for everyone? assuming same level and everything.
I am not 100% sure in the current version but a couple months ago players did not get the same recipes. I can test this out again later and i'll update this comment.
EDIT: It appears that everyone now gets the exact same recipes from leveling up their Blacksmith.
EPT
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/VGgCw.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/HmI6r.jpg)
