|
On February 02 2012 16:47 Reasonable wrote:Show nested quote +On February 02 2012 05:41 rezoacken wrote:
Not enough space to stock a bit more items data ?
In 2012 ?
Really ? What a joke. Blizzard is not Google, alright Storing is not a problem, but accessible storage is a problem. Networking a large amount of HDD space with high bandwidth connection is very very costly. I'm sure you don't want to wait 3-5 seconds every time you open your stash, do you? Bash didn't go into technical aspects, but the truth is the bandwidth is still a precious commodity in 2012, even if the actually HDD space is nearly unlimited.
Aaaaand, finally. Someone reasonable has spoken up. Everyone else pointing fingers saying, "no, you don't know what you're talking about!" and such, well, you don't know what you're talking about.
|
On February 03 2012 00:57 Artrey wrote:
Seriously, that's ridiculous. I had 10+ full accounts in my prime times.. and that was without duping or botting... I realize that stacking makes it better but there is also new stuff to store...
And I hope they implement that earring thing! I had 3 accounts full of hc pvp ears in 1.09...
sorry but in my opinion it is not blizzard's business if some people go nuts and play 24/7
|
On February 02 2012 04:41 Sek-Kuar wrote:
This is becoming interesting... Every couple days, we lose one or more features or something is restricted or nerfed in size.
I just hope final version will have at least 3 playable character classes and at least 2 acts.
Marketing. Promise things to get people interested (ex : Siege Breaker fight in 2008 with the death animations) then remove them or keep them for an expansion costing as much as the original (Mystic, stash area probably) or just remove them entirely (nephalem cube, stat and skill distribution, etc).
They are progressively making Diablo 3 worse. It's sad.
Next up : Skill system revamp : Removed runestones!
|
On February 03 2012 00:57 Artrey wrote:Edit: Show nested quote +The change basically cut the total stash storage from 350 spots to 210 (105 pieces of equipment) 210 slots.. 105 equipment items.. One Character in D2 had 88. That means one mule account had 704. Even calculating with the worst possible size (8), it's basically the same, a lot more for small items. Seriously, that's ridiculous. I had 10+ full accounts in my prime times.. and that was without duping or botting... I realize that stacking makes it better but there is also new stuff to store... And I hope they implement that earring thing! I had 3 accounts full of hc pvp ears in 1.09...
For muling accounts you also get 10x60(30 items) character space. So 300 more.
Still with over 2100 ears you are clearly an extreme case and its probably better if you are unhappy and x-million peaple have no server-queue. Not because you kill people but because extreme cases are by definition very rare.
And if the playerbase drops or the game is not very successfull we get our betabags back.
|
Yeah for a plain mule account.. But the 10 slots for play characters will not cut either. You can not even have each class of each sex in softcore and hardcore. You can not have multiple pvp builds "ready" without swapping skills, runes and gear. It just feels wrong having to buy a full account just for a few more slots. 10 Chars is nothing for any non casual hc player... I think every serious player (like people that register on a diablo forum) had 3-4 accounts...
I am surely more extreme than others about diablo, but I am surely not alone. There are still thousands of die-hard Diablo fans which are going to be disappointed. If you make slots and bags buyable for a $ each, casuals will not do it just for the sake of having them... Nobody can argue that there is a valid technical reason to limit us like this... you are surely not getting server queues because of a few kbyte per player...
|
On February 03 2012 01:39 Tula wrote:Show nested quote +On February 02 2012 07:05 Assault_1 wrote:On February 02 2012 06:45 Tula wrote:
3) Considering that Blizzard cannot charge for the battlenet (at least without loosing a ton of buisness) that service needs to be provided almost for free, or at least covered within their profit margin from buying the box. you forgot their main source of revenue, taking a cut off each transaction in the auction house this game will probably make more money for them than WoW I am not so sure how much that will actually bring in. We don't know how high the cut is and in addition they will accrue quite a few additional costs to administer the RMAH properly (and keep it secure from hack attempts). It might make more money than WoW for a short period of time, but frankly I seriously doubt that this game will come even close to WoW in the long run. Consider how many users will not use the RMAH much, if at all. I might spend the money on the box for the game, and maybe i will trade around inside the game, but frankly i am not planning to spend a single real dollar in the Auction House, and almost every gamer i know plans to do the same. Yes there are some people who want it (the same people who bought Gold in WoW obviously) and will use it, but compared to the millions of subscribers in WoW who pay a monthly fee i don't think the revenue from the RMAH will come close.
WoW is/was a 1+ Billion revenue, there is no way the RMAH will compete. It will make millions I'm sure of it but it will in no way come close to the big cash cow WoW is.
|
I say Were gonna be able to pay for extra storage space soon.
|
They could just make us pay some gold for the slots. That would at least add to the gold-sink mentality Blizzard is going for with Diablo III.
|
ITT: People who assume way too much. You have no idea how the items are stored and accessed, don't pretend you do.
Blizzard has the numbers and made a decision based off those numbers. Blizzard knows what they are doing, they are just trying to play it safe for now. If storage space is bad, then they will increase the stash size.
Going off what we have seen so far, microtransactions aren't Blizzards thing, at least not for gameplay altering things. Gold sinks yes but not money sinks.
|
On February 03 2012 06:32 Nilrem wrote:
They could just make us pay some gold for the slots. That would at least add to the gold-sink mentality Blizzard is going for with Diablo III. You do need to pay gold for slots.
|
somebody tell me, what is a shared stash exactly ?
|
Since Blizzard is trying to do as much as posseble to get rid of low, crappy items in AH, so when having 3 slots you obviously can't sell less as much equips.
|
On February 03 2012 07:12 [F_]aths wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2012 06:32 Nilrem wrote:
They could just make us pay some gold for the slots. That would at least add to the gold-sink mentality Blizzard is going for with Diablo III. You do need to pay gold for slots.
Herpa Derp, forgot about that haha. Have not extended my stash in a while so I sort of forget about it. Like, since I maxed out the Crafting, I had to rethink for a moment what the max level for it was.
|
On February 03 2012 07:20 krzych113 wrote:
somebody tell me, what is a shared stash exactly ?
Storage area between characters. So you put something in on your wizard and it's available to your barbarian. The old way in d2 involved mule characters and silly trade scenarios to move something to another character.
To me not being in the beta, it seems ok. They reevaluated their starting requirements so it's not a huge deal. There's already tons of storage and if it's an issue in the future they can always extend it later on.
|
I'd like to see the specs of Blizz' servers. 
|
Ridiculous. I hope they increase the storage because this not only smells like Blizzard wants more profit at the cost of gameplay and player options, but also because its quite small. I want to collect all the runes in game and the stash is only 210 squares now...
|
On February 03 2012 20:01 Overpowered wrote:
Ridiculous. I hope they increase the storage because this not only smells like Blizzard wants more profit at the cost of gameplay and player options, but also because its quite small. I want to collect all the runes in game and the stash is only 210 squares now...
Yes, very ridiculous because you can't stack runes at all. We know that because Blizzard hasn't said anything about stacking runes and because of that we know that we can't stack runes at all.
Get a grip Blizzard!
|
Is it done to force people to use the new AH ?
|
1. More RMAH use
2. In the future probably there will be some drop that increases your stash size and that item can be sold in RMAH = paid services on RMAH
Not saying it is a good or bad thing but when you have a RMAH in the game the use of it will be more than just armor and weapons. Blizzard is putting the RMAH in the game and any functionality in the game will of course be affected by the presence of RMAH.
|
On February 03 2012 21:31 kuresuti wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2012 20:01 Overpowered wrote:
Ridiculous. I hope they increase the storage because this not only smells like Blizzard wants more profit at the cost of gameplay and player options, but also because its quite small. I want to collect all the runes in game and the stash is only 210 squares now... Yes, very ridiculous because you can't stack runes at all. We know that because Blizzard hasn't said anything about stacking runes and because of that we know that we can't stack runes at all. Get a grip Blizzard!
Runes are still under development, and might not turn out to be items at all. A theory about this can be read here for example ; http://diablo.incgamers.com/blog/comments/additional-non-item-runestones-evidence
On February 06 2012 16:39 papaz wrote:
1. More RMAH use
2. In the future probably there will be some drop that increases your stash size and that item can be sold in RMAH = paid services on RMAH
Not saying it is a good or bad thing but when you have a RMAH in the game the use of it will be more than just armor and weapons. Blizzard is putting the RMAH in the game and any functionality in the game will of course be affected by the presence of RMAH.
Except there is no RMAH on HC, nice try.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
