On May 09 2012 14:04 skyR wrote: What are you talking about lol? Naturally playing the game will get you into the next difficulty even if you decide to skip as much as you can. I highly doubt Blizzard is as stupid as you make them out to be since they do this for WoW as well.
"We have hard level requirements for difficulty levels, though, so no shortcuts there."
That's what I'm talking about. I don't want to have to wait several levels before I can keep progressing if I am good enough to beat the content I'm facing.
This blizzard response was in response to someone asking if a level 1 could get rushed into nightmare. The "hard" imo just means its a real cap rather than a "soft" cap (being denied access vs too difficult).
Dont worry you and your friend will probably not get blocked if you do the game normally. Maybe you'll get blocked a bit before inferno since it requires to be at the level cap of 60.
Chances are, the difficulty will stop them long before the level cap. Sure, you can burn through the beta content and get to skeleton king by level 4 or something, but after normal mode, monsters actually pay attention to you and hurt.
I'm hoping I won't hit a gap when I play the game through on release day. Hitting a wall because of difficulty is fine, but I'm not OK with the game telling me that I have to be a certain level in order enter a certain area. That sort of thing is ridiculous. If the area is too hard I'll find that out by going in to that area and getting crushed.
Most of these caps that Blizzard have in games are there because the general public are casual and horrible at the game, and I don't want my progress to be slowed down because most people are bad and can't do it.
Come on now, you can't honestly compare them not letting you go into NM at level 3 to "slowing down your progress". Whatever else they are, Blizzard is certainly not a collection of idiots. They understand that people are going to want to play their game in extreme ways, and they're just going to prevent the ways that aren't actually playing the game.
On May 09 2012 19:32 eluv wrote: Come on now, you can't honestly compare them not letting you go into NM at level 3 to "slowing down your progress". Whatever else they are, Blizzard is certainly not a collection of idiots. They understand that people are going to want to play their game in extreme ways, and they're just going to prevent the ways that aren't actually playing the game.
And I never was, where the fuck did you get that from? I'm saying I hope there is not a gap I will hit by beating content Blizzard don't think I should be able to beat yet.
Blizzard has proven to cater to the casuals time and time again by putting dumb restrictions on where you can go based on level or gear. Take a look at WoW for example, you can't even do heroic instances using the LFG tool once you hit level 85 because you need "better gear."
Doesn't matter if I make up for a lack of gear with actually being significantly better than 99% of the other idiots who play WoW, I have to wait and run normal instances for almost a week before I have reached the item level some dumbass at Blizzard says is appropriate.
I know the Diablo development team is different from the World of Warcraft or Starcraft one, but they are Blizzard after all.
On May 09 2012 20:03 SolHeiM wrote: And I never was, where the fuck did you get that from? I'm saying I hope there is not a gap I will hit by beating content Blizzard don't think I should be able to beat yet.
Well we already know there will be one, as Jay Wilson said that Inferno is only for lvl 60s. But I'm pretty sure the NM/Hell level caps are only for ridiculous cases like getting boosted, not for people who simply play a bit more efficient and try to level fast by skipping most of the mobs but still actually play the game.
Oh btw the heroic gear thing in WoW you can remove by buying some blue pvp gear on the AH, then reselling it once you got enough gear from heroics.
On May 09 2012 20:03 SolHeiM wrote: And I never was, where the fuck did you get that from? I'm saying I hope there is not a gap I will hit by beating content Blizzard don't think I should be able to beat yet.
Well we already know there will be one, as Jay Wilson said that Inferno is only for lvl 60s. But I'm pretty sure the NM/Hell level caps are only for ridiculous cases like getting boosted, not for people who simply play a bit more efficient and try to level fast by skipping most of the mobs but still actually play the game.
Oh btw the heroic gear thing in WoW you can remove by buying some blue pvp gear on the AH, then reselling it once you got enough gear from heroics.
It's been stated there is an XP penalty for killing mobs who are higher or lower than your level, which means that while you can be rushed through content by a higher level player (but not beyond any single difficulty) you won't get extra XP, so it's actually more beneficial to run the content by yourself or with people of the same level. But you can join a higher level player's game as a low level character and try to fight Azmodan or whatever at level 1 for instance, as I understand it.
On May 09 2012 20:03 SolHeiM wrote: And I never was, where the fuck did you get that from? I'm saying I hope there is not a gap I will hit by beating content Blizzard don't think I should be able to beat yet.
Well we already know there will be one, as Jay Wilson said that Inferno is only for lvl 60s. But I'm pretty sure the NM/Hell level caps are only for ridiculous cases like getting boosted, not for people who simply play a bit more efficient and try to level fast by skipping most of the mobs but still actually play the game.
Oh btw the heroic gear thing in WoW you can remove by buying some blue pvp gear on the AH, then reselling it once you got enough gear from heroics.
It's been stated there is an XP penalty for killing mobs who are higher or lower than your level, which means that while you can be rushed through content by a higher level player (but not beyond any single difficulty) you won't get extra XP, so it's actually more beneficial to run the content by yourself or with people of the same level. But you can join a higher level player's game as a low level character and try to fight Azmodan or whatever at level 1 for instance, as I understand it.
I don't remember exactly what it's like, but the exp penalty is a couple of levels higher or lower, and I think if you group with people who are above or below that level range, you get a penalty as well. But don't quote me on the last one, because I don't really know.
There are no act restrictions, only difficulty restrictions yes.
On May 09 2012 20:03 SolHeiM wrote: And I never was, where the fuck did you get that from? I'm saying I hope there is not a gap I will hit by beating content Blizzard don't think I should be able to beat yet.
Well we already know there will be one, as Jay Wilson said that Inferno is only for lvl 60s. But I'm pretty sure the NM/Hell level caps are only for ridiculous cases like getting boosted, not for people who simply play a bit more efficient and try to level fast by skipping most of the mobs but still actually play the game.
Oh btw the heroic gear thing in WoW you can remove by buying some blue pvp gear on the AH, then reselling it once you got enough gear from heroics.
It's been stated there is an XP penalty for killing mobs who are higher or lower than your level, which means that while you can be rushed through content by a higher level player (but not beyond any single difficulty) you won't get extra XP, so it's actually more beneficial to run the content by yourself or with people of the same level. But you can join a higher level player's game as a low level character and try to fight Azmodan or whatever at level 1 for instance, as I understand it.
I don't remember exactly what it's like, but the exp penalty is a couple of levels higher or lower, and I think if you group with people who are above or below that level range, you get a penalty as well. But don't quote me on the last one, because I don't really know.
There are no act restrictions, only difficulty restrictions yes.
In D2, the exp penalties were for monsters more than 5 levels above or below you.
I really wouldn't worry too much about this, if you recall the D2 caps were 25 for NM and 40 for hell, and only speedrunners got anywhere close to those. Most people finished normal at 34-37 depends on on how much you skip.
Even that question you quoted is specifically answering "is it possible to rush people". It didn't mention any gating of content.
On May 06 2012 15:33 NeoLearner wrote: So, these guys do 18k damage per hit in Act 1 Inferno and 170k damage in Act 4 Inferno? Ok, now I understand why Blizzard said we will need to spend some time in each of the acts to gear up.
The highest quality health potion heals 12.5k health. So as an estimated guess, let's say we have around 50k life. With a damage reduction of, ballpark figure, 80%, we have an equivalent amount of hitpoints of 250k. Which means it's not quite a one hit kill, but it's going to be pretty damn close... I think our chars will need to be skilled more like hardcore builds if we want to get through Inferno.
If we would use the equipement as is now, we have a damage reduction of around 50%. This is based on the r = [0.02A/lv] / [1 + 0.02A/lv] formula. Health is around 25k. This, together with a ~10% dodge chance, this means an effective health total of around 55k. Clearly within 1 hit-kill range.
I guess that's what you get for focussing all your equipement-bonusses on DPS (ake intelligence)
On May 09 2012 19:32 eluv wrote: Come on now, you can't honestly compare them not letting you go into NM at level 3 to "slowing down your progress". Whatever else they are, Blizzard is certainly not a collection of idiots. They understand that people are going to want to play their game in extreme ways, and they're just going to prevent the ways that aren't actually playing the game.
And I never was, where the fuck did you get that from? I'm saying I hope there is not a gap I will hit by beating content Blizzard don't think I should be able to beat yet.
Blizzard has proven to cater to the casuals time and time again by putting dumb restrictions on where you can go based on level or gear. Take a look at WoW for example, you can't even do heroic instances using the LFG tool once you hit level 85 because you need "better gear."
Doesn't matter if I make up for a lack of gear with actually being significantly better than 99% of the other idiots who play WoW, I have to wait and run normal instances for almost a week before I have reached the item level some dumbass at Blizzard says is appropriate.
I know the Diablo development team is different from the World of Warcraft or Starcraft one, but they are Blizzard after all.
Not really applicable in this case. Blizzard added the ilvl requirement to the Heroic LFG tool to protect people from casuals. While you could probably run any of the heroics as a fresh 85 just fine, the vast majority of fresh 85's are scrubs who, if they are trying to tank or heal, will drag your group down with their terrible gear and terrible skill. By adding in the ilvl requirement, they require the scrubs to at least have decent gear to get matched up with you.
I really think you're making a big deal over nothing with regards to D3. These restrictions are in place to keep people from getting rushed through difficulties, not confine them to some arbitrary level range for a difficulty. If you can beat the difficulty by a certain level using completely legitimate methods, and they don't let you into the next difficulty because of some arbitrary level restriction, then that's just bad game design. And we can say whatever we want about Bnet 0.2, but when it comes to game design Blizzard doesn't fuck up like that.
On May 07 2012 14:22 ryseungoo wrote: Can someone explain to me the fascination with difficulty that's widespread on every D3 forum? There was barely any mechanical skill required to play Diablo 2. The hardest part of the game is literally fighting the UI to drop pots into the belt. Diablo 3 is looking to be the same way, just grinding for gear and having fun. I just don't understand this fascination since if they actually implemented gameplay requiring precise precision, timing, and fast reactions, 99% of the gamers would get stuck and not enjoy the game.
Well d2 came out around 10 years ago. Most have been playing that long ... when d2 came out it was doign things peopel really hadn't seen that much before. But now there are hundreds of games with those behaviors. I am bored of them ... so i have to play through the game TWICE (probably 3) before i get the hard behaviours? So i now have to spend almost 50 quid on a game and then devote enough time for 2 play throughs just so that it is interesting?
I am sorry but WOW has corrupted your soul if you think games are about grind. Games are about solving problems and reaching goals, but if those goals are meaningless and trivial then why play them?
Your point about getting stuck is good, that is about game design. Games used to have difficulty levels ... did you ever play doom on nightmare? It was described as 'not even fair' it was great fun, and it wasn't even fair. Now a difficulty level is another way of saying welcome to the next level down ... ie if each act has 4 parts and there are 4 acts then level 1 of the 2nd easiest difficulty should really be called level 17 - because that is precisely what it is in effect. IE you ahve been sold a game with 1/4 of the content it should have from the start or alternatively you are playign a game that has its intersting content tucked away for the tiny % that can be arsed to play it through 3 times with the same char.
What do you want? 8 hours of sheer fucking awesomeness or 24 hours of meh followed by 8 hours of well thats cool but im kinda bored of this now? Because by the time i got to the end of skyrim i was playing simply to finish - 40 hours of a game and i am getting bored (unless it has replayability by playing *against people* - because people add depth through creativity).
Personally I'd much prefer 8 hours of awesomeness and have people knocking down blizz doors for more content.
However i suspect 8 will be more like 16 ... so 16 hours of awesomeness vs 48 meh followed by 16 not quite so meh?
Honestly, don't even buy the game. If you have already, why do you complain? Your arrogance towards the game and the content are painful enough to listen to. Most people are perfectly content with the fact that they start off 'easy' to learn their abilities, their class, etc. Once they reach hell, it's prolly going to be challenging enough. Sure, once you create an alt, it'll be a cakewalk all the way to inferno maybe, but that's why you'll complete content way faster. People have done 17 minute skelly king runs from lvl1 with nothing to start off with.
And if all this turns you off so much, then this genre is not for you. It's not just D3, it's any game with 'gather loot, kill mobs', ESPECIALLY games with high replayability. A rare exception to this might be dark souls or demon's souls, and if that's what you want, then good for you. Either quit whining about it, because honestly, you are just nostalgic over old games, OR you're just over the genre. If you are, then I think your opinion has been heard. Clearly millions, myself included, are not.
Because ive been waiting 10 years and can afford to? Im clearly not over the genre as i just completed torchlight on very hard with a HC vanquisher. I never even played it on normal or easy. Was a great game - lasted 20 hours and i am thankful for it not forcing me to take 60 hours by making me play easy and normal first (which once transcribed is normal, nightmare and hell).
My arrogance towards the game? That doesn't even make sense. I have only stated things that I know about - the things i don't know about are worries about it going from insanely easy to impossibly difficult in about 5 minutes. What i like is the arrogance of people that say the game will be perfectly pitched difficulty wise after playing a beta they agree is easy. That's like putting a ball on a sloped surface, it falling off and then putting it back on and expecting it to stay. THAT is arrogance my friend - or stupidity. I only wish they would say, 'you don't know that, I cannot comment' but no they go further ...
How long does it take you to learn a class and abilities? Do you want to measure that in playthroughs or hours? I'd be generous and say 1 hour - not 2-3 playthroughs. Its not like a musical instrument - which for most you can actually learn to play in about 8 hours - and a song too probably.
I b1337 here and on blizz forums as someone in blizz may agree and may want some ammo to beef things up.
On May 03 2012 21:46 paralleluniverse wrote: If you think Diablo 3 is going to be hard, you're deluding yourself.
WoW heroic raiding is hard. It takes the best guilds around 2 weeks to beat the new bosses, and even after six months after release, less than 1% of playerbase would even have a chance to see it.
Diablo 3 is made for casuals, much more so than WoW is.
I would bet $1000 that Inferno is cleared within 4 days of release.
If you think anyone (including you) knows exactly how hard Diablo 3 is going to be, you're deluding yourself.
Seriously, why make this post? WoW has had 8 years of content released. Some of it was very good, some very bad. Some of it extremely easy and some quite difficult. But for the most part, difficulty in WoW has always been getting a group with common sense together so that you can work as a team, not about the individual encounters themselves.
We haven't really seen anything from D3 past the Skeleton King or into other difficulties. All we have to go on is what Blizzard has said about Inferno, and they seem to think it is a massive gear check that will take people a considerable amount of time to clear. Do you have inside information we don't have?
On May 03 2012 21:46 paralleluniverse wrote: If you think Diablo 3 is going to be hard, you're deluding yourself.
WoW heroic raiding is hard. It takes the best guilds around 2 weeks to beat the new bosses, and even after six months after release, less than 1% of playerbase would even have a chance to see it.
Diablo 3 is made for casuals, much more so than WoW is.
I would bet $1000 that Inferno is cleared within 4 days of release.
If you think anyone (including you) knows exactly how hard Diablo 3 is going to be, you're deluding yourself.
Seriously, why make this post? WoW has had 8 years of content released. Some of it was very good, some very bad. Some of it extremely easy and some quite difficult. But for the most part, difficulty in WoW has always been getting a group with common sense together so that you can work as a team, not about the individual encounters themselves.
We haven't really seen anything from D3 past the Skeleton King or into other difficulties. All we have to go on is what Blizzard has said about Inferno, and they seem to think it is a massive gear check that will take people a considerable amount of time to clear. Do you have inside information we don't have?
In the end, I don't think any argument will convince you.
But luckily, we don't have to wait much longer.
All I can do is to explain to you why I'm convinced that Diablo 3 will be beaten within 4 days (I'd give it a 50% chance that it will be cleared within 2 days).
Firstly, Diablo 3 isn't a hardcore game, it's a casual game. Secondly, their insistence that Diablo 3 will be hard is merely a reaction to beta being easy. Thirdly, the hardest content Blizzard has released is WoW heroic raids and that's for the most extreme hardcore gamers out there, Diablo 3 isn't that type of game. And lastly, you don't give players enough credit, there is an intense global race to be first.
I wouldn't be surprised if less than 20% of players beat Inferno within the first 6 months, but that doesn't really say anything about the difficultly of inferno, it just says most players are casual. And if this were WoW, that 20% would be 1% or less. Within a month or two, most people who take the game with some moderate amount of seriousness would probably have beaten inferno.
I fin all this talk about Diablo 3 being hard, quite laughable. I have no doubt that inferno won't be a cakewalk, but that doesn't make it hard. When you wipe 4 hours a night, 3 nights a week, for a month, on the same boss, then we're talking hard.
I'd bet my ballsack that Diablo 3 won't be fully cleared for atleast 2 weeks. Anything prior to that is like running into a heroic with greens and blue items. And we aren't even talking about hardcore players yet. If we count hardcore in the game since that would seriously be the "hardest" difficulty then I estimate that the fastest clear would be three weeks. You can't even compare the amount of skill needed to play Diablo 3 on hardcore compared to WoW. WoW is a fucking cake walk. Your idea of Diablo 3 being a casual game is either ignorance (I'm guessing this one) or borderline retardation.
On May 03 2012 23:02 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.
Do you realise they have entire tiers of armour for the different acts in Inferno? They are clearly going to make it some kind of cockblock where you have to farm items a bit before you can survive.
You have no idea what you are talking about or you are trolling
On May 04 2012 01:02 The Irate Turk wrote: 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.
It's highly ironic that a WoW guild was the second to clear Inferno, they did it in less than 5 days, and yet the retort to people saying Inferno is too hard is to go back to WoW. It takes world-first WoW guilds about to 2 to 4 weeks to clear a new raid, a lot more than 5 days.
Before the launch of D3 there was a long thread on the forum about how hard Inferno is going to be. People were saying it was going to take months. The OP said that WoW was the hardest game around, and D3 would be easier. He was laughed downed. The joke's on them now. And the joke's on you.
I said it then, and I'll say it again now: You were wrong. You have severely underestimated the skill of the best players in the world.
On May 29 2012 04:36 The Irate Turk wrote: Blizzard messed up. They didn't deliver what they promised; the bosses were far too easy and the challenging content was too skippable.
which is easily fixed by making bosses have enrage timers (DPS check), some aoe damage mechanic (armor/HP/resist check), and some other mechanics that make fights more interesting and varied (skill check).
this way players will be forced to farm for better gear. the problem then becomes that since there are 5 classes in the game. there will be definitely be tiers in terms of which class is best at PvE. this is already apparent in current D3 Inferno, but it would be much much more magnfied if bosses actually became gear checks.
I think Blizzard should at least increase res cast time and durability loss on death as difficulty increase. up to ~9 deaths per boss attempt in a group seems way too lenient of a number to work with imo.
On May 29 2012 04:36 The Irate Turk wrote: Blizzard messed up. They didn't deliver what they promised; the bosses were far too easy and the challenging content was too skippable.
I am aware of how skillfull the gosu players are. I figured Blizzard would be too, given that they have all the data.
I mean I was on track to finish Inferno in under a week myself, and I am by no means world champion, so yes, I expected the game to be harder.
Good job on the prediction though, right for the wrong reason, broken clock is right twice a day etc etc
No, inferno isn't too easy. It's as hard as they wanted. If anything, judging from today's large gameplay post, it's going to get nerfed to be more survivable.
Have you looked at the QQ on the forums lately?
Inferno is just a jumble of cheesy 1-shot mechanics.
I was pretty much right for the right reason, that being, the game will be easier than WoW (it was cleared by a WoW world-first guild), that gear doesn't matter too much when you're skilled, and that some players are very very skilled.
From someone who's cleared inferno diablo, there are zero cheesy one shot mechanics. There are a few very apparent, televised one shot mechanics that you have at least a half second to avoid (see DH smokescreen videos), and everything else hits for less.
I have horrible survival gear as a wizard - 35k hp, 250 resist all, and nothing in act3 one shots me outside of obvious mechanics like siege breaker charge. Enraged demon tremor charges only hit me for 30k. 99.99% of inferno deaths are due to either player mistakes or extreme under gearing.
On May 29 2012 04:36 The Irate Turk wrote: Blizzard messed up. They didn't deliver what they promised; the bosses were far too easy and the challenging content was too skippable.
On May 29 2012 04:36 The Irate Turk wrote: Blizzard messed up. They didn't deliver what they promised; the bosses were far too easy and the challenging content was too skippable.
I am aware of how skillfull the gosu players are. I figured Blizzard would be too, given that they have all the data.
I mean I was on track to finish Inferno in under a week myself, and I am by no means world champion, so yes, I expected the game to be harder.
Good job on the prediction though, right for the wrong reason, broken clock is right twice a day etc etc
No, inferno isn't too easy. It's as hard as they wanted. If anything, judging from today's large gameplay post, it's going to get nerfed to be more survivable.
Have you looked at the QQ on the forums lately?
Inferno is just a jumble of cheesy 1-shot mechanics.
I was pretty much right for the right reason, that being, the game will be easier than WoW (it was cleared by a WoW world-first guild), that gear doesn't matter too much when you're skilled, and that some players are very very skilled.
Inferno is easy. Believe me, I'm not remotely talented at this type of game and it's a breeze. I don't care about the QQ on the battlenet forums. Most players are complete morons who have no idea how to play the game. Ask anyone good and they will tell you the game is easy. You can't just rambo into Act 2/3 etc as though it is Normal mode.
The bosses are a joke. Are you telling me Maghda on Inferno is remotely approaching challenging?
On May 29 2012 04:36 The Irate Turk wrote: Blizzard messed up. They didn't deliver what they promised; the bosses were far too easy and the challenging content was too skippable.
I am aware of how skillfull the gosu players are. I figured Blizzard would be too, given that they have all the data.
I mean I was on track to finish Inferno in under a week myself, and I am by no means world champion, so yes, I expected the game to be harder.
Good job on the prediction though, right for the wrong reason, broken clock is right twice a day etc etc
You got owned. Talked a big game about how everyone who disagreed with you was trolling or stupid and then you were totally wrong.
gg kid
The only reason I was wrong is because Blizzard were too retarded to deliver on what they promised because they failed to test the game properly and because of incredible oversights. Are you able to follow this concept?
Imagine this if you will:
The company who makes WOW, which has some frightfully difficult encounters (Yogg Saron with 0 helpers, Lich King, Ragnaros etc. etc.), promises to make Diablo 3 so difficult it will take the best players months to finish.
It is also in their interest to make the game difficult so that they can capitalise on the RMAH.
Many more reasons than the above but I have already wasted enough time on this.
A rational person would take their word for it and expect a hard game to be shipped. Certainly one that is harder than what shipped on 15th May.
Take out combat rezzing, make the boss fights much more difficult and cockblocky, stop people from being able to skip ahead, and you have a much more difficult game. God knows why they messed up how they did, but they did.
I don't feel bad that I was wrong, but the dude who said it would be done in four days was correct because he was lucky, not because he had some kind of sagacious insight.
On May 29 2012 04:36 The Irate Turk wrote: Blizzard messed up. They didn't deliver what they promised; the bosses were far too easy and the challenging content was too skippable.
I am aware of how skillfull the gosu players are. I figured Blizzard would be too, given that they have all the data.
I mean I was on track to finish Inferno in under a week myself, and I am by no means world champion, so yes, I expected the game to be harder.
Good job on the prediction though, right for the wrong reason, broken clock is right twice a day etc etc
You got owned. Talked a big game about how everyone who disagreed with you was trolling or stupid and then you were totally wrong.
gg kid
The only reason I was wrong is because Blizzard were too retarded to deliver on what they promised because they failed to test the game properly and because of incredible oversights. Are you able to follow this concept?
Imagine this if you will:
The company who makes WOW, which has some frightfully difficult encounters (Yogg Saron with 0 helpers, Lich King, Ragnaros etc. etc.), promises to make Diablo 3 so difficult it will take the best players months to finish.
It is also in their interest to make the game difficult so that they can capitalise on the RMAH.
Many more reasons than the above but I have already wasted enough time on this.
A rational person would take their word for it and expect a hard game to be shipped. Certainly one that is harder than what shipped on 15th May.
Take out combat rezzing, make the boss fights much more difficult and cockblocky, stop people from being able to skip ahead, and you have a much more difficult game. God knows why they messed up how they did, but they did.
I don't feel bad that I was wrong, but the dude who said it would be done in four days was correct because he was lucky, not because he had some kind of sagacious insight.
If you want complicated bossfights go play WoW and get ready for the next expansion. Diablo will never have complicated boss fights.
EPT
