|
On February 06 2012 17:38 Urbz wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2012 21:31 kuresuti wrote: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-evidenceShow nested quote +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.
True but normal mode > hc mode in terms of players and thus priority and importance (specially considering lot of the money going into Blizz pockets for future development comes from RMAH if not almost all).
Again I'm not saying it is a bad decision from Blizz. I actually like the decision *hides under a shelter in case RMAH haters are going to flame me know*.
If I was working at Blizz as a game designer and we just decided with going with RMAH I would sure as hell base a lot of decisions around the fact that we have RMAH.
Instead of "paid services" have things that drop that can be sold at RMAH. Bigger stash size, pets that loot gold etc.
The stash size is a win-win. They don't need to have the same storage capacity and they can in the future have items that increases stash size that sells on RMAH.
And HC... well tough luck. HC will always be prio 2 after normal mode where RMAH is at.
|
So while you guys are discussing about whether bandwidth might be a real issue or not, let me ask something else:
If i want to transfer 10 items from char A to char B, if i can put 5 items in shared stash i need to switch characters four times to do so (log in A, store 5, log in B, take 5, log in A, store 5, log in B, take 5).
So now they change it to only have 4 items in shared stash. Now if i want to transfer 10 items, i have to relog 8 times?? and that's supposed to reduce server load? idk but that just sounds wrong, like they're shooting themselves in the knee with this Oo
|
On February 06 2012 20:55 MisterD wrote:
So while you guys are discussing about whether bandwidth might be a real issue or not, let me ask something else:
If i want to transfer 10 items from char A to char B, if i can put 5 items in shared stash i need to switch characters four times to do so (log in A, store 5, log in B, take 5, log in A, store 5, log in B, take 5).
So now they change it to only have 4 items in shared stash. Now if i want to transfer 10 items, i have to relog 8 times?? and that's supposed to reduce server load? idk but that just sounds wrong, like they're shooting themselves in the knee with this Oo
I don't know if you misunderstood the whole post, or I'm misunderstanding you 
But we're talking about item slot TABS, not slots afaik. So less tabs, with the same amount of slots.
Meaning you can just put all your items in the stash np.
(sorry if you didn't mean that)
|
On February 06 2012 20:46 papaz wrote:Show nested quote +On February 06 2012 17:38 Urbz wrote:On February 03 2012 21:31 kuresuti wrote: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-evidenceOn 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. True but normal mode > hc mode in terms of players and thus priority and importance (specially considering lot of the money going into Blizz pockets for future development comes from RMAH if not almost all). Again I'm not saying it is a bad decision from Blizz. I actually like the decision *hides under a shelter in case RMAH haters are going to flame me know*. If I was working at Blizz as a game designer and we just decided with going with RMAH I would sure as hell base a lot of decisions around the fact that we have RMAH. Instead of "paid services" have things that drop that can be sold at RMAH. Bigger stash size, pets that loot gold etc. The stash size is a win-win. They don't need to have the same storage capacity and they can in the future have items that increases stash size that sells on RMAH. And HC... well tough luck. HC will always be prio 2 after normal mode where RMAH is at.
Maybe so but still all the available items will be the same in both modes, there should be no special items exclusively for SC/HC.
Aswell as being stated that they will increase the stash-size again in the future if it looks like it will be needed, wether or not we'll have to somehow pay for this no-one knows, time will tell as always. So assuming "the worst" is just baseless assumption at this time.
That said, the pack-rat that i am would not mind chipping in some for more stash-size but i will refuse to buy extra mule accounts though because after many hours of muling on D2 i will never want to go back to that again, ever.
I do think however any of this is why they changed this, and do believe Blizzard is just honest and wants to prevent big problems at release. They know their stuff, as real fans should know by now.
Diablo III will turn out great and we'll be playing it for a long time and no-one will remember things like pre-release changes and delay by then.
|
On February 06 2012 21:00 imPermanenCe wrote:Show nested quote +On February 06 2012 20:55 MisterD wrote:
So while you guys are discussing about whether bandwidth might be a real issue or not, let me ask something else:
If i want to transfer 10 items from char A to char B, if i can put 5 items in shared stash i need to switch characters four times to do so (log in A, store 5, log in B, take 5, log in A, store 5, log in B, take 5).
So now they change it to only have 4 items in shared stash. Now if i want to transfer 10 items, i have to relog 8 times?? and that's supposed to reduce server load? idk but that just sounds wrong, like they're shooting themselves in the knee with this Oo I don't know if you misunderstood the whole post, or I'm misunderstanding you But we're talking about item slot TABS, not slots afaik. So less tabs, with the same amount of slots. Meaning you can just put all your items in the stash np. (sorry if you didn't mean that)
oh haha yeah, my fuckup ^^ mixed up slots with tabs. Also i completely ignored that diablo had "big" items that use up multiple slots, way to fail. i shouldn't post right after breakfast i guess^^ first finish waking up next time.
|
I play SinglePlayer Diablo2 with Plugy, so I have a shared stash with ~1,4 million pages for all my characters. I've been gathering items for years now. Some of the 10x10 pages are filled with rare/crafted amuletts/rings (i.e. 100 rare items which have the highest number of stats). Along with 5-10 pieces of each Unique, Setitems, Runes, hell, whatever you can find in the game. Basically thousands(!) of rather unnecessary items, just because I can.
My shared stash size is 208kB on my HD.
Even if I assume that an item in Diablo3 needs double the data than an item in D2, this is ridiculous. I mean, it's 2012. My google email account offers 7677MB for "free" (yeah, they collect some data...). Ofc these MBs don't need to be loaded at once into the server RAM etc, but seriously, item data doesn't need space. At all.
The more they reveal about D3, the less I want to play it. PoE looks good though 
|
On February 07 2012 06:12 griD77 wrote:I play SinglePlayer Diablo2 with Plugy, so I have a shared stash with ~1,4 million pages for all my characters. I've been gathering items for years now. Some of the 10x10 pages are filled with rare/crafted amuletts/rings (i.e. 100 rare items which have the highest number of stats). Along with 5-10 pieces of each Unique, Setitems, Runes, hell, whatever you can find in the game. Basically thousands(!) of rather unnecessary items, just because I can. My shared stash size is 208kB on my HD. Even if I assume that an item in Diablo3 needs double the data than an item in D2, this is ridiculous. I mean, it's 2012. My google email account offers 7677MB for "free" (yeah, they collect some data...). Ofc these MBs don't need to be loaded at once into the server RAM etc, but seriously, item data doesn't need space. At all. The more they reveal about D3, the less I want to play it. PoE looks good though
As a beta tester in both games, PoE is baddddd. I'm hoping they make some major changes as in theory the game sounds great. However, as of this moment D3 (as expected) completely mops the floor with PoE.
|
Smaller stash? Can't keep all this stuff around, may as well sell in on RMAH and buy it back later if I need it. I wonder who profits off that?
|
Its so sad how these major changes are still happening for a game that you'd think would be well thought out over the course of 10 years.
|
On February 07 2012 09:20 DMKraft wrote:
Smaller stash? Can't keep all this stuff around, may as well sell in on RMAH and buy it back later if I need it. I wonder who profits off that?
Conspiracy theorists like yourself!
|
They should have started it at 2 slots...
Then "heard the community" and upped it to 3...
And be called amazing for a week.
|
On February 07 2012 06:12 griD77 wrote:I play SinglePlayer Diablo2 with Plugy, so I have a shared stash with ~1,4 million pages for all my characters. I've been gathering items for years now. Some of the 10x10 pages are filled with rare/crafted amuletts/rings (i.e. 100 rare items which have the highest number of stats). Along with 5-10 pieces of each Unique, Setitems, Runes, hell, whatever you can find in the game. Basically thousands(!) of rather unnecessary items, just because I can. My shared stash size is 208kB on my HD. Even if I assume that an item in Diablo3 needs double the data than an item in D2, this is ridiculous. I mean, it's 2012. My google email account offers 7677MB for "free" (yeah, they collect some data...). Ofc these MBs don't need to be loaded at once into the server RAM etc, but seriously, item data doesn't need space. At all. The more they reveal about D3, the less I want to play it. PoE looks good though
You're stash contents are stored on your local drive. D3's stash will be stored online and will need to be retrieved every time you access or look at the stash. This is the issue they are talking about. Not having to store it but rather having to "serve" it over and over (You are basically downloading that 208kb or whatever number you want every time).
|
I don't see anything wrong with proper limits to the amount you can hold in your stash.
Inventory space management is a strong component to a good RPG imho. It forces you to make decisions. You can't just horde everything or if you really want to, it will be a pain.
|
so the game gets nerfed because blizz makes terrible decisions about its framework
if the game wasnt entirely on their servers and always played ont heri servers this would not be a problem.
good job blizzard
|
Look at it the bright side, maybe a year after the game is released blizzard can "easily" expand the stash again - assuming the do not mind adding new rows into their DB...
|
On February 09 2012 09:20 willoc wrote:Show nested quote +On February 07 2012 06:12 griD77 wrote:I play SinglePlayer Diablo2 with Plugy, so I have a shared stash with ~1,4 million pages for all my characters. I've been gathering items for years now. Some of the 10x10 pages are filled with rare/crafted amuletts/rings (i.e. 100 rare items which have the highest number of stats). Along with 5-10 pieces of each Unique, Setitems, Runes, hell, whatever you can find in the game. Basically thousands(!) of rather unnecessary items, just because I can. My shared stash size is 208kB on my HD. Even if I assume that an item in Diablo3 needs double the data than an item in D2, this is ridiculous. I mean, it's 2012. My google email account offers 7677MB for "free" (yeah, they collect some data...). Ofc these MBs don't need to be loaded at once into the server RAM etc, but seriously, item data doesn't need space. At all. The more they reveal about D3, the less I want to play it. PoE looks good though You're stash contents are stored on your local drive. D3's stash will be stored online and will need to be retrieved every time you access or look at the stash. This is the issue they are talking about. Not having to store it but rather having to "serve" it over and over (You are basically downloading that 208kb or whatever number you want every time).
Why should the data get send to me every time I look? I have RAM, so it will probably be once a session. And as I wrote before, the 208kB are for thousands of items, I'd be surprised if the itemdata from a full D3 stash would exceed 1/10 of that. Let's be generous and say it'll be 50kB for a full stash.
Just for comparision: Do you realize that the banner on top of this page is 33,x kB big?
Do you really think that technical issues/bandwith is a concern for those petty amounts of data, even if there are 100.000 concurrent users online in any given region? In a game that was designed to be a client/server application from the start?
I, for one, really think we are getting bullshitted.
|
On February 10 2012 08:13 Hikari wrote:
Look at it the bright side, maybe a year after the game is released blizzard can "easily" expand the stash again - assuming the do not mind adding new rows into their DB...
for the low price of $19.99
|
On February 07 2012 07:40 crms wrote:Show nested quote +On February 07 2012 06:12 griD77 wrote:I play SinglePlayer Diablo2 with Plugy, so I have a shared stash with ~1,4 million pages for all my characters. I've been gathering items for years now. Some of the 10x10 pages are filled with rare/crafted amuletts/rings (i.e. 100 rare items which have the highest number of stats). Along with 5-10 pieces of each Unique, Setitems, Runes, hell, whatever you can find in the game. Basically thousands(!) of rather unnecessary items, just because I can. My shared stash size is 208kB on my HD. Even if I assume that an item in Diablo3 needs double the data than an item in D2, this is ridiculous. I mean, it's 2012. My google email account offers 7677MB for "free" (yeah, they collect some data...). Ofc these MBs don't need to be loaded at once into the server RAM etc, but seriously, item data doesn't need space. At all. The more they reveal about D3, the less I want to play it. PoE looks good though As a beta tester in both games, PoE is baddddd. I'm hoping they make some major changes as in theory the game sounds great. However, as of this moment D3 (as expected) completely mops the floor with PoE.
I'm a tester for both games as well and the only difference I really see is that it's obvious blizzard has more money to put into their game. Yet PoE runs at 60fps on high settings where as I can only manage around 35 when in combat in diablo 3. I actually think PoE runs much better and looks better than diablo 3 at the same time, or at least seems to have a more powerful engine.
|
On February 15 2012 07:55 griD77 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 09 2012 09:20 willoc wrote:On February 07 2012 06:12 griD77 wrote:I play SinglePlayer Diablo2 with Plugy, so I have a shared stash with ~1,4 million pages for all my characters. I've been gathering items for years now. Some of the 10x10 pages are filled with rare/crafted amuletts/rings (i.e. 100 rare items which have the highest number of stats). Along with 5-10 pieces of each Unique, Setitems, Runes, hell, whatever you can find in the game. Basically thousands(!) of rather unnecessary items, just because I can. My shared stash size is 208kB on my HD. Even if I assume that an item in Diablo3 needs double the data than an item in D2, this is ridiculous. I mean, it's 2012. My google email account offers 7677MB for "free" (yeah, they collect some data...). Ofc these MBs don't need to be loaded at once into the server RAM etc, but seriously, item data doesn't need space. At all. The more they reveal about D3, the less I want to play it. PoE looks good though You're stash contents are stored on your local drive. D3's stash will be stored online and will need to be retrieved every time you access or look at the stash. This is the issue they are talking about. Not having to store it but rather having to "serve" it over and over (You are basically downloading that 208kb or whatever number you want every time). Why should the data get send to me every time I look? I have RAM, so it will probably be once a session. And as I wrote before, the 208kB are for thousands of items, I'd be surprised if the itemdata from a full D3 stash would exceed 1/10 of that. Let's be generous and say it'll be 50kB for a full stash. Just for comparision: Do you realize that the banner on top of this page is 33,x kB big? Do you really think that technical issues/bandwith is a concern for those petty amounts of data, even if there are 100.000 concurrent users online in any given region? In a game that was designed to be a client/server application from the start? I, for one, really think we are getting bullshitted.
Yes it is. Bandwidth/servers aren't as cheap as you (and everyone who complains about MMO monthly costs) think they are.
|
Sounds about like what I expect from modern-day Blizzard.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
