On May 04 2012 00:18 The Irate Turk wrote: so the consensus is pretty much that because the devs have the constraint that the game has to be soloable, and because you do not have to co-ordinate 25 people (which is difficult to do in itself), that one GUARANTEED way they can make it difficult is by making you require gear to progress.
I think my use of difficult above is wrong. It wouldn't make it difficult, just time consuming.
Think about it this way, if you were somehow able to have a BiS geared out character in D3, you could defeat inferno quickly np, but it's getting that BiS which is going ot be the challenge, not the boss encounters.
You overstate the importance of gear. Most T11 heroic bosses were cleared in blues and greens as epics weren't really available.
And there is no way that Diablo 3 will be that hard, T11 is probably the hardest raid tier, it took over a month before the world first.
From this I gather that the content was released on 7th December and it took 8 days to down their first heroic kill, and just under 7 weeks to complete everything on heroic.
Not quite two weeks.
Heroic raids are accessible only after the normal is cleared.
So the first week of heroics started on Dec 13.
A player in WoW has 17 slots. So they would have had 55 epic pieces, and 25*17 = 425 gear slots to fill (with the rest blues and greens) on the week of Dec 13. With nearly all gear as blues and greens they cleared 6 heroic bosses.
And as I've already said T11 took over a months to clear, and it was I think the longest raiding tier.
As you can check, less than 3% of all raiding guilds have cleared T11 even today.
On May 04 2012 00:30 paralleluniverse wrote: So the first week of heroics started on Dec 13.
A player in WoW has 17 slots. So they would have had 55 epic pieces, and 25*17 = 425 gear slots to fill (with blues and greens) on the week of Dec 13. With nearly all gear as blues and greens they cleared 6 heroic bosses.
And as I've already said T11 took over a months to clear, and it was I think the longest raiding tier.
Sure,
And with Firelands they did every HC boss in two days then Rag took 3 weeks
The gear they had was better when they started this (full epics with set bonuses vs greens and blues without set bonuses for T11)
We are talking the best of the best here.
All I am saying is without the co-ordination problem, the only way they can make it take long is through requiring gear, and it is in their interest to do this.
On May 04 2012 00:30 paralleluniverse wrote: So the first week of heroics started on Dec 13.
A player in WoW has 17 slots. So they would have had 55 epic pieces, and 25*17 = 425 gear slots to fill (with blues and greens) on the week of Dec 13. With nearly all gear as blues and greens they cleared 6 heroic bosses.
And as I've already said T11 took over a months to clear, and it was I think the longest raiding tier.
The gear they had was better when they started this (full epics with set bonuses vs greens and blues without set bonuses for T11)
We are talking the best of the best here.
All I am saying is without the co-ordination problem, the only way they can make it take long is through requiring gear, and it is in their interest to do this.
And as I keep saying gear isn't that big of a deal, as seen in T11.
As this debate is now completely pointless I will stop.
I'll be back on May 18 (or sooner) when I've been proved correct.
On May 04 2012 00:45 paralleluniverse wrote: It is a virtual impossibility that Diablo 3 won't be cleared within the first week. As I said, my prediction is within 4 days, but even that is probably a conservative guess.
I will be sure to bump this 5 days after release to prove how full a sh*t you are. Inferno will not be beaten in 4 days.
I'm not sure. There will naturally be people waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay ahead of the pack but right now I have no idea what that wlil translate to in terms of speedy finish.
Two weeks? A month?
I think physically racing through the game itself won't be a problem and might take a couple/ few days until you get to Inferno mode (it depends on how big the game is, how quickly you can level etc)
A dev said he was lvl 55 when he finally finished NM (i.e. he was wiping a lot and really had to outlevel it to progress), which implies that getting to lvl 60 will be trivial, as I'm sure even if you are the worst of the worst you can grind 5 levels in Hell.
I think the real game will start when people start hitting Inferno, and the people who make the quickest progress through Inferno might not necessarily be the first ones to get there. I think Inferno will change a lot of things and people will have to start making much more conservative/ slow and steady builds to progress.
So getting lvl 60? Two days? Three? Sure, that will be the easy part.
Finishing Inferno, I really have no way of knowing because I honestly think the devs will make it very dependent on gear, so it depends on how quickly you can gear up. Especially given Act 1 is lvl 61 mobs, Act 2 62 etc, and each Act has its own tiers of armour.
Imagine if it was structured so that even the front of the pack would need really high armour from Hell before they could do Act 1 Inferno, and then imagine you need to farm Act 1 before you can start making progress in Act 2.
I'm sure top teams will have people farming gear for them at all times, and they will have some kind of four player mechanics where they can use CC and AOE, but who knows what monster resists etc. will be in Inferno.
On May 03 2012 23:50 paralleluniverse wrote: Give me a break. Blizzard has virtually never buffed PvE content (unless it's fixing a bug).
And Blizzard isn't in the business of making games that are literally impossible. It will be beatable, and it will be beatable within 4 days. I'm sure 99.999% of the players aren't capable of beating it in 4 days, but the other 0.0001% will do it.
I also have no doubt that there will be endless whining on the forums about how hard inferno is, and that it needs to be nerfed (and it will). But this says more about how bad some players are, particularly since D3 is a casual magnet, than it says about how difficult the content is.
Do you accept that
1) If Blizzard wanted to, they could make it so that even the best of the best would need gear before they progress 2) This gear might not be ubiquitous 3) It is in their interest for the game to take as long as possible to beat so that i) people keep playing it ii) they get a greater return on their RMAH
They do the same for WoW. And WoW is harder. Yet WoW heroic raids get cleared in 2 weeks,
Uuuh, you keep saying WoW is harder.
How do you know this?
Because Diablo 3 is a casual game.
Because you do have to be 100% coordinated at the very cutting edge of wow on the hardest stuff they've done. If you didn't you really think guilds like paragon would take 600 attempts to beat ragnaros heroic.
And it's soloable.
Imagine how much faster it would take to clear WoW, if you didn't need to coordinate 25 players to execute the fight perfectly.
Imagine how much harder developers could make a game if they knew they didnt have to worry about tailoring stuff to be done by groups of 25 players who arent perfectly coordinated.
You have to be perfectly coordinated though - you think paragon would take 600 attempts to down heroic rag if they did not need perfect coordination?
No wow raid forces each player to do something even remotely as hard as this:
I think that very few wow top raiders would take less than 600 attempts before beating it and it is a solo game. If you gave that to wow players they would call it impossible. In gaming terms wow raiding is easy, the only hard part is finding 24 other players that are good on your server. A problem is that there are so many servers so the good players are spread out, would be a lot easier otherwise.
On May 03 2012 23:50 paralleluniverse wrote: Give me a break. Blizzard has virtually never buffed PvE content (unless it's fixing a bug).
And Blizzard isn't in the business of making games that are literally impossible. It will be beatable, and it will be beatable within 4 days. I'm sure 99.999% of the players aren't capable of beating it in 4 days, but the other 0.0001% will do it.
I also have no doubt that there will be endless whining on the forums about how hard inferno is, and that it needs to be nerfed (and it will). But this says more about how bad some players are, particularly since D3 is a casual magnet, than it says about how difficult the content is.
Do you accept that
1) If Blizzard wanted to, they could make it so that even the best of the best would need gear before they progress 2) This gear might not be ubiquitous 3) It is in their interest for the game to take as long as possible to beat so that i) people keep playing it ii) they get a greater return on their RMAH
They do the same for WoW. And WoW is harder. Yet WoW heroic raids get cleared in 2 weeks,
Uuuh, you keep saying WoW is harder.
How do you know this?
Because Diablo 3 is a casual game.
Because you do have to be 100% coordinated at the very cutting edge of wow on the hardest stuff they've done. If you didn't you really think guilds like paragon would take 600 attempts to beat ragnaros heroic.
And it's soloable.
Imagine how much faster it would take to clear WoW, if you didn't need to coordinate 25 players to execute the fight perfectly.
Imagine how much harder developers could make a game if they knew they didnt have to worry about tailoring stuff to be done by groups of 25 players who arent perfectly coordinated.
You have to be perfectly coordinated though - you think paragon would take 600 attempts to down heroic rag if they did not need perfect coordination?
No wow raid forces each player to do something even remotely as hard as this: + Show Spoiler +
I think that very few wow top raiders would take less than 600 attempts before beating it and it is a solo game. If you gave that to wow players they would call it impossible. In gaming terms wow raiding is easy, the only hard part is finding 24 other players that are good on your server. A problem is that there are so many servers so the good players are spread out, would be a lot easier otherwise.
Come now, bullet-hell type games like Blood Princess or Touhou is definitely more demanding on personal skills.
I don't think many people would disagree that the hardest part of WoW is to find a group of 25 people that doesn't consist of a few morons. Even for established guilds, all you need is a few guys having a bad day, feeling stupid, sleepy, etc :3.. Skill-wise (what is expected from each person), i don't think it is really that demanding. In fact, i would argue that games like DotA takes more skill.
With Blizzard intentionally encouraging item selling, it would suite them best if the end game content is so insanely hard and require people to buy powerful items that would otherwise be extremely time consuming to try get by themselves, even if they pretty much dedicate their lives to playing D3. It should be significantly harder than LoD now that Blizzard can get a cut for people buying items.
I'm not too concerned with softcore. I'm reasonably certain that Inferno will be cleared in less than a week in softcore. The real challenge is hardcore. I'd stagger a guess maybe a few months for HC. Should be interesting.
On May 03 2012 23:50 paralleluniverse wrote: Give me a break. Blizzard has virtually never buffed PvE content (unless it's fixing a bug).
And Blizzard isn't in the business of making games that are literally impossible. It will be beatable, and it will be beatable within 4 days. I'm sure 99.999% of the players aren't capable of beating it in 4 days, but the other 0.0001% will do it.
I also have no doubt that there will be endless whining on the forums about how hard inferno is, and that it needs to be nerfed (and it will). But this says more about how bad some players are, particularly since D3 is a casual magnet, than it says about how difficult the content is.
Do you accept that
1) If Blizzard wanted to, they could make it so that even the best of the best would need gear before they progress 2) This gear might not be ubiquitous 3) It is in their interest for the game to take as long as possible to beat so that i) people keep playing it ii) they get a greater return on their RMAH
They do the same for WoW. And WoW is harder. Yet WoW heroic raids get cleared in 2 weeks,
Uuuh, you keep saying WoW is harder.
How do you know this?
Because Diablo 3 is a casual game.
Because you do have to be 100% coordinated at the very cutting edge of wow on the hardest stuff they've done. If you didn't you really think guilds like paragon would take 600 attempts to beat ragnaros heroic.
And it's soloable.
Imagine how much faster it would take to clear WoW, if you didn't need to coordinate 25 players to execute the fight perfectly.
Imagine how much harder developers could make a game if they knew they didnt have to worry about tailoring stuff to be done by groups of 25 players who arent perfectly coordinated.
You have to be perfectly coordinated though - you think paragon would take 600 attempts to down heroic rag if they did not need perfect coordination?
No wow raid forces each player to do something even remotely as hard as this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=70iFdnI-xfA&feature I think that very few wow top raiders would take less than 600 attempts before beating it and it is a solo game. If you gave that to wow players they would call it impossible. In gaming terms wow raiding is easy, the only hard part is finding 24 other players that are good on your server. A problem is that there are so many servers so the good players are spread out, would be a lot easier otherwise.
I'm not talking about wow being some 'hardest game' im talking about how the skill involved in wow and the dedication it takes to beat an encounter in comparison to something like d3 (which most likely will work in a similar way) and how it might be applicable.
The thread is about how inferno could be hard not which game out of the every game in the world is actually hard.
and the answer would be really who cares and why does it matter?
I am just sad that everyone agrees that the game will be dull (read one handed adventure) until inferno (or half way through hell) but then insist that yes the game will be amazing ... once you invest 30-50 hours into it.
On May 04 2012 00:45 paralleluniverse wrote: It is a virtual impossibility that Diablo 3 won't be cleared within the first week. As I said, my prediction is within 4 days, but even that is probably a conservative guess.
I will be sure to bump this 5 days after release to prove how full a sh*t you are. Inferno will not be beaten in 4 days.
Hahahah, 4 days is bullshit indeed. AT LEAST 1 week of playing non-stop, but most likely 1 week isn't even viable.
On May 04 2012 03:15 MrTortoise wrote: and the answer would be really who cares and why does it matter?
I am just sad that everyone agrees that the game will be dull (read one handed adventure) until inferno (or half way through hell) but then insist that yes the game will be amazing ... once you invest 30-50 hours into it.
I doubt it. I think the game could already become hard at nightmare/hell. But the requirements to survive in inferno are just 100 times as tough compared to nightmare/hell. I suppose nightmare/hell requires less farming to succeed. (but still will demand some skill)
On May 03 2012 23:50 paralleluniverse wrote: Give me a break. Blizzard has virtually never buffed PvE content (unless it's fixing a bug).
And Blizzard isn't in the business of making games that are literally impossible. It will be beatable, and it will be beatable within 4 days. I'm sure 99.999% of the players aren't capable of beating it in 4 days, but the other 0.0001% will do it.
I also have no doubt that there will be endless whining on the forums about how hard inferno is, and that it needs to be nerfed (and it will). But this says more about how bad some players are, particularly since D3 is a casual magnet, than it says about how difficult the content is.
Do you accept that
1) If Blizzard wanted to, they could make it so that even the best of the best would need gear before they progress 2) This gear might not be ubiquitous 3) It is in their interest for the game to take as long as possible to beat so that i) people keep playing it ii) they get a greater return on their RMAH
They do the same for WoW. And WoW is harder. Yet WoW heroic raids get cleared in 2 weeks,
Uuuh, you keep saying WoW is harder.
How do you know this?
Because Diablo 3 is a casual game.
Because you do have to be 100% coordinated at the very cutting edge of wow on the hardest stuff they've done. If you didn't you really think guilds like paragon would take 600 attempts to beat ragnaros heroic.
And it's soloable.
Imagine how much faster it would take to clear WoW, if you didn't need to coordinate 25 players to execute the fight perfectly.
Imagine how much harder developers could make a game if they knew they didnt have to worry about tailoring stuff to be done by groups of 25 players who arent perfectly coordinated.
You have to be perfectly coordinated though - you think paragon would take 600 attempts to down heroic rag if they did not need perfect coordination?
No wow raid forces each player to do something even remotely as hard as this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=70iFdnI-xfA&feature I think that very few wow top raiders would take less than 600 attempts before beating it and it is a solo game. If you gave that to wow players they would call it impossible. In gaming terms wow raiding is easy, the only hard part is finding 24 other players that are good on your server. A problem is that there are so many servers so the good players are spread out, would be a lot easier otherwise.
I'm not talking about wow being some 'hardest game' im talking about how the skill involved in wow and the dedication it takes to beat an encounter in comparison to something like d3 (which most likely will work in a similar way) and how it might be applicable.
The thread is about how inferno could be hard not which game out of the every game in the world is actually hard.
They are saying that a singleplayer game can't be as hard as wow raiding since a singleplayer game only requires 1 person. I argue that such isn't the case. The hardest games we got are single player games and I'd argue the reason is because people are more accepting of severe challenge when they are playing alone than when they are playing with friends. Diablo 3 can be harder than the hardest of wow raiding while still being a singleplayer game, that is the point. Designing such encounters is trivial, just add a lot of must dodge abilities that goes off randomly which requires a reaction time of ~0.3 seconds, with it proccing on average every few seconds. Add a few of these, make them target all players in the group and make the act of avoiding each of them different. Also make them intensify as the time goes on forcing you to kill the boss within a timelimit. There, you got a diablo boss which is harder than almost any raidboss in wow and having such a boss is even plausible.
On May 04 2012 03:15 MrTortoise wrote: and the answer would be really who cares and why does it matter?
I am just sad that everyone agrees that the game will be dull (read one handed adventure) until inferno (or half way through hell) but then insist that yes the game will be amazing ... once you invest 30-50 hours into it.
Hmm, who were those people ??
I was sure i read a fair amount of people saying that they had fun whilst playing the Beta, and expect to have even more fun come official launch. I am one of them. (At the very least, flailing around in BetA was way more fun than (hypothetical) running around D2 Normal up to Blood Raven, even up to Grisworld (for me n me friends, at least)..)
On May 03 2012 23:50 paralleluniverse wrote: Give me a break. Blizzard has virtually never buffed PvE content (unless it's fixing a bug).
And Blizzard isn't in the business of making games that are literally impossible. It will be beatable, and it will be beatable within 4 days. I'm sure 99.999% of the players aren't capable of beating it in 4 days, but the other 0.0001% will do it.
I also have no doubt that there will be endless whining on the forums about how hard inferno is, and that it needs to be nerfed (and it will). But this says more about how bad some players are, particularly since D3 is a casual magnet, than it says about how difficult the content is.
Do you accept that
1) If Blizzard wanted to, they could make it so that even the best of the best would need gear before they progress 2) This gear might not be ubiquitous 3) It is in their interest for the game to take as long as possible to beat so that i) people keep playing it ii) they get a greater return on their RMAH
They do the same for WoW. And WoW is harder. Yet WoW heroic raids get cleared in 2 weeks,
Uuuh, you keep saying WoW is harder.
How do you know this?
Because Diablo 3 is a casual game.
Because you do have to be 100% coordinated at the very cutting edge of wow on the hardest stuff they've done. If you didn't you really think guilds like paragon would take 600 attempts to beat ragnaros heroic.
And it's soloable.
Imagine how much faster it would take to clear WoW, if you didn't need to coordinate 25 players to execute the fight perfectly.
Imagine how much harder developers could make a game if they knew they didnt have to worry about tailoring stuff to be done by groups of 25 players who arent perfectly coordinated.
You have to be perfectly coordinated though - you think paragon would take 600 attempts to down heroic rag if they did not need perfect coordination?
No wow raid forces each player to do something even remotely as hard as this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=70iFdnI-xfA&feature I think that very few wow top raiders would take less than 600 attempts before beating it and it is a solo game. If you gave that to wow players they would call it impossible. In gaming terms wow raiding is easy, the only hard part is finding 24 other players that are good on your server. A problem is that there are so many servers so the good players are spread out, would be a lot easier otherwise.
I'm not talking about wow being some 'hardest game' im talking about how the skill involved in wow and the dedication it takes to beat an encounter in comparison to something like d3 (which most likely will work in a similar way) and how it might be applicable.
The thread is about how inferno could be hard not which game out of the every game in the world is actually hard.
They are saying that a singleplayer game can't be as hard as wow raiding since a singleplayer game only requires 1 person. I argue that such isn't the case. The hardest games we got are single player games and I'd argue the reason is because people are more accepting of severe challenge when they are playing alone than when they are playing with friends. Diablo 3 can be harder than the hardest of wow raiding while still being a singleplayer game, that is the point. Designing such encounters is trivial, just add a lot of must dodge abilities that goes off randomly which requires a reaction time of ~0.3 seconds, with it proccing on average every few seconds. Add a few of these, make them target all players in the group and make the act of avoiding each of them different. Also make them intensify as the time goes on forcing you to kill the boss within a timelimit. There, you got a diablo boss which is harder than almost any raidboss in wow and having such a boss is even plausible.
Isn't that how Wow's hard fights are (generally) designed though? I have to say, i agree with you. Designing a difficult game definitely isn't hard. Keeping the game both challenging and fun is, however, very difficult. It's even harder when you want to make it fun for more than just a specific group of players (e.g those "elite veterans", some of whom tend to feel that the game needs to be designed around their preference because they are an elite veteran.. i'm not talking about any1 in particular, just an example).
In an action rpg you have to move around and target things with the cursor at the same time (kiting is actually fun). Enemies can launch a wide number of aoes, missiles, and other projectiles for you to dodge or engage. Enemies can actually surround and block you. Also there are just more elements of randomness to the genre.
WoW is easy because of the mechanics. Its easy to target enemies and its easy to dodge effects that require you to move around. From there its mostly just a rotation of abilities and having to cast other abilities when a certain event that you should be expecting occurs. The hardest part of that game is getting a group of people together who are good at games that will play every time during the week for months on end. Then having to play the same stupid encounter when someone makes a silly mistake or that 1 guy in your guild fucks up. But as an individual the game is SUPER easy. If it were actually hard shit would never get done because there are too many people and chances for messing up.
WoW content is designed for everyone to see eventually. They need to please their subscription base so they will nerf everything to accommodate a percentage of players who they feel should be able to enjoy a difficulty/content. Heroics were ment for "hardcore" players but there is a LARGE range of "Hardcore" players. This is why some guilds can destroy content while being under geared. In WoW I did all of the "super hard" raiding content besides the original 4 horsemen (which was a fight that asked for 8 active tanks in your guild) in that game until I quit in WotLK. Never was any of the content "hard" it was about managing people who were making mistakes and banging your head against a 'brick wall' of EASY until everyone stopped making those mistakes. In diablo there are no set roles or people to answer to. Meaning they could tune the game to test you without having to punish 39/24/9 other players when you fail.
I am curious what inferno will bring for a player like me who enjoys RPGs but finds them too easy. I feel like an action RPG has potential to be incredibly hard and challenging but its all up to how blizzard decides to tune it. Im positive that I will beat this game fairly fast. What is actually important is what kind of challenges does the content have when you're geared?
EPT
