Alright so i watched the video and i understood everything. I played the beta and it is really easy, this was expected because i am fully aware that it is only a tiny part of the whole product and meant to be an introduction. But the question that is bothering me how hard is diablo 3 gonna be, will we get wiped at nightmare/hell?
And if you don't remember diablo 2 lod on nightmare was quite challenging at around A3 you didn't have a chance if you hadn't skilled your char properly and were already using decent gear, melee chars were completly useless without really nice stuff but even sorcs/trapsins had a hard time killing travi if they the enemys were immune and you didn't waste 1 hour grinding out Baalruns on normal to get to a higher level.
But even with all that said it was still possible for everyone to finish the game if they just kept playing. But for diablo 3 they keep telling us that it will be super hard and only the best of the best can finish it, they obviously have to say it is gonna be really hard to make the game interesting for hardcore players.
The question i have is: What do you think, how many people will beat the full game, that means to kill the final boss on inferno difficulty? /E to make it more clear, i was not talking about players that drop the game after a week because they think its boring i am rather talking about players that keep playing at least a few months.
Poll: How many % of people will beat the game?
Hard, 6-20% (146)
34%
Insane, 0-5% (95)
22%
Mediocre, 21-49% (89)
21%
Casual, 80-100% (59)
14%
Easy, 50-79% (38)
9%
427 total votes
Your vote: How many % of people will beat the game?
It's going to be less than 5% like every other game. The majority of players will finish the game and than not even touch the higher difficulties or quit somewhere inbetween. I think you're overestimating the skill level or dedication for the general gaming population...
I think they want everyone to be able to get to 60 (max level) if they put time into it. Inferno on the other hand is supposed to be the real challenge I think.
On April 24 2012 09:08 skyR wrote: It's going to be less than 5% like every other game. The majority of players will finish the game and than not even touch the higher difficulties or quit somewhere inbetween. I think you're overestimating the skill level or dedication for the general gaming population...
This. When it comes to D2, all of my friends haven't got past barely beating nightmare. I never beat hell either but am on my way after picking the game up again a couple months ago.
maybe my questions wasn't optimal, i was rather wondering how many % of the active players can beat it and how many will stay forever in inferno act1 because they are just not good enough. I edited this into the OP
@ happyness all the people i used to play with could at least beat hell in multiplayer and most of them were able to make at least decent chars. Not everyone could make or waste enough time to get a really good char that was top tier but most of them could at least beat hell reasonably well getting cheap mans gear for example a good IK Barb(mediocre set item) could kill almost everything on hell.
e: i personally think like 10-15% will beat the game and kill the final boss on inferno. Maybe some will leech a better group or some will have to grind forever or use realy money but i don't think that it is going to be so ridicilous hard that only 0-5% will beat it.
"to make it more clear, i was not talking about players that drop the game after a week because they think its boring i am rather talking about players that keep playing at least a few months."
I would love to say 1% cause I want the game to be as hard as possible, but I feel fitting your description of including only people that stick with it for a few months it will be closer to 80-100%. If you add in everyone that quits the game after a week or two probably much closer to 50%.
I hope they keep it hard. like 15% beat it or something(of active players not those that just leave). Maybe less. I think they can get away with it more in diablo than an MMO like wow or whatever because they want people to see all the content. with the 3 other difficulties they can really treat inferno as just for those who want an insane challenge.
WoW is such an easy game yet the players that actually beat heroic raid content is no where close to 5%, yet alone 10%. Unfortunately I can't think of any other example that's better since I don't play RPGs.
If you're somewhat competent, it isn't hard to figure out what is needed to beat the encounter. The hard part usually is the RNG in gearing up. Blizzard keeps saying it'll take months to beat Inferno so this implies that it's going to be very gear dependent.
I guess if you count the active player base, yes it'll be very high since you only have the hardcore players remaining, the newcomers, and some casuals.
Most people will finish Normal no problem. Expect 50% of that drop off after Nightmare, 20% can finish hell, and 3-4% will run inferno. I am not a hardcore D2 player, so I never touch Hell pass Act 2. I am planning to play D3 slow and thorough, maybe reach Inferno in the course of a year or so.
Heh, most gamers don't even finish their games(Really, look at some Steam stats and it will blow your mind how much of a minority people who beat their games is)
On April 24 2012 10:18 windsupernova wrote: Heh, most gamers don't even finish their games(Really, look at some Steam stats and it will blow your mind how much of a minority people who beat their games is)
I'd go with 1% will try inferno.
Casual will probably be around 30% at most.
true, even really easy games sometimes only 70% of players have the first achievement that is usually kill 100 enemys. And really hard games almost nobody finishes it the first achievment in super meat boy is get(not beat) a single warp zone what is really easy you can get the first warpzone really early and only 68.2% have this. And only 6.7% beat the light world and only 1.9% beat the dark world. But in developer interview edmund mc millen said if a player keeps playing untill a certain point it is very likely that they will beat the whole thing (roughly a third of people that beat the light world also beat the darkworld).
So well iam not sure what to think about d3 anymore i confused myself and it was very effective
Well what i think was the most common case for D2 was, players keep playing until they find an area with all imunes and can't kill everything, wonder what the fuck is thiss and quit the game beceaus they don't want to create another char.
so with this aspect gone, i think maybe about 20%.
but again i depend on what beat you mean, you beat D2 after baal hell, or after uber tristram ?
Not even 10% of WoW players finish the heroic raids... but on the other hand these raids require not only you to be talented but for 9 of your friends to be good at the game as well. From what I understand, inferno difficulty can be beaten by yourself (so says blizzard). Therefore, the amount of people that will beat it, even if it is REALLY REALLY HARD, will be way more than WoW.
90% of people won't even play inferno, imo. Over 50% will probably just finish the game on normal and be done with it, and a significant number of buyers, say around 20%, won't even finish the game at all - on any level (not because it's difficult, just because of attention span and time constraints). I actually think the number we are looking at is around 1-2%.
The devs keep dropping little hints that it might be months til someone beats inferno, I would honestly be surprised if it lasts 2 weeks, to the point of taking it as a challenge to myself of doing it before then, while still maintaining my busy life style. Now sure the vast majority of players will quit the game long before even seeing the end of the 2nd or 3rd difficulty but don't underestimate gamers as a whole just because of a casual majority.
I've seen videos of the developers discussing the difficulty, and it looked like inferno will actually be ridiculously hard, the devs themselves died several times on the first big pack, so I think it will be a very small amount of players who actually make it through inferno, you will probably need to farm items quite a bit to get through it.
Hell, d3 overall is actually harder for casuals than most gamers realize. We all whine about how easy the beta was, yet I know people IRL who actually had problems taking down the Skeleton King because they didn't know how to kite properly etc.
On April 24 2012 14:55 NotSorry wrote: The devs keep dropping little hints that it might be months til someone beats inferno, I would honestly be surprised if it lasts 2 weeks, to the point of taking it as a challenge to myself of doing it before then, while still maintaining my busy life style. Now sure the vast majority of players will quit the game long before even seeing the end of the 2nd or 3rd difficulty but don't underestimate gamers as a whole just because of a casual majority.
If the game is beaten in under two weeks, you're basically saying that normal is about 24 hours long and the other three difficulties won't be that much longer so gear is basically useless and there is no complexity in the bosses (tank & spank). Let's not mention that the person doing this would have to be on a polyphasic sleep cycle.
Sure it won't be as hard as SSC, TK, firefighter, or yogg but it's not going to be as easy as you make it out to be lol...
In other words, the game is shit if it's beaten in under two weeks.
Blizzard was pretty adamant in saying that all parts of the game are able to be done solo and there are a lot of skilled players with no one around them appropriately skilled. So comparing WoW to D3 in a difficulty manner might be difficult.
I try not to include people that play a game once on normal and then buy a new game in any discussion involving difficulty. But Blizzard supposedly is trying to turn those guys into repeat players to enrich the community, which is admirable.
Usually I just involve the "top" 30 percent. Doubly so since a lot of people are attracted to D3 by proxy of WoW, and for very many people WoW was not only there first RPG or MMO, but there first video game in general. Im not sure I expect a lot out of them anyway.
Im thinking there will be a higher number of people that start nightmare rather than drop off at normal...
The game has turned into an MMO and you know how mmos work... people will spend countless hours. There's also more incentives into leveling because of more items/pvp/gold/cash/etc. People really care for aesthetics.
So it's hard to tell at the moment for me... because D3 isn't really like other MMOs where its like an open world.
There will be people that drop off, but I think D3 will get more popular as PVP will be more refined/competitive. Competition + Self indulgence + friendly raids sounds good to me.
I think it all depends if it's gonna be as hard as Hell Unleashed mod. The only thing I didn't like of that mod was the constant grinding of useless inferior units clogging the space in certain places (tal'ra'sha tombs).
Other than that I'm hype that is going to be extremely difficult.
On April 24 2012 17:30 Lokian wrote: Im thinking there will be a higher number of people that start nightmare rather than drop off at normal...
The game has turned into an MMO and you know how mmos work... people will spend countless hours. There's also more incentives into leveling because of more items/pvp/gold/cash/etc. People really care for aesthetics.
So it's hard to tell at the moment for me... because D3 isn't really like other MMOs where its like an open world.
There will be people that drop off, but I think D3 will get more popular as PVP will be more refined/competitive. Competition + Self indulgence + friendly raids sounds good to me.
Blizzard is offically not supporting PvP as far as balance is concerned so how competitive it is remains to be seen.
They won't make the game too hard, because of all these terrible WoW-Casuals. They can't make Inferno that hard that you can it only play with one build and perfect stats.
I'm gonna go all the way with this game and I wasn't even a hardcore D2 player. Hell difficulty was the most fun in Diablo 2 since it combined powerful skills, items and monsters. It felt more rewarding than normal or nightmare.
On April 24 2012 18:17 Kaesebrot wrote: They won't make the game too hard, because of all these terrible WoW-Casuals. They can't make Inferno that hard that you can it only play with one build and perfect stats.
Literally no one would think it was fun if they seriously had a mode where you had to use a specific build and perfect stats, their whole design goal is to allow customization...
Also casual is too broad of a category that opposes hardcore or professional.I consider myself a casual SC2 player being in master's league but playing 40 minutes a day on average.
The percentage of players that beat the game will depend on the time period until the first ladder wipe, if one takes place.
The percentage will be low, since there will be patches as well. From what I have seen, Inferno will also be to a substantial extent a gear check, and gear can and will be tweaked in patches. How much tweaking will be needed also depends on the quality of the testers that Blizzard has used. This to me is a bit of an unknown: how good are the testers? Are there strats that they missed? Are they good enough to actually really test what good Diablo players can do? If a strat pops up that can be used to beat Inferno reliably, I fully expect patches to address it. Hammerdins would be nerfed.
On April 24 2012 18:54 Reasonable wrote: The percentage of players that beat the game will depend on the time period until the first ladder wipe, if one takes place.
On April 24 2012 18:54 Reasonable wrote: It is "what %" not "how many %"
Also casual is too broad of a category that opposes hardcore or professional.I consider myself a casual SC2 player being in master's league but playing 40 minutes a day on average.
The percentage of players that beat the game will depend on the time period until the first ladder wipe, if one takes place.
unlikely becaue people buy gear with real money, there would be a huge outcry, the reason why they decided to reset d2 was because literally everyone could get top equip enigma/coh/infinty and after you had most of that stuff including a full ivnentory all you were doing is trying to improve your stuff, change pc skiller with 3x life with 4x lifers and so on it was boring for the hardcore players and it was annoying for scrubs to get wiped in literally any PvP game and/or doing no dmg vs "perfect equipped chars".
But in d3 they said they will design it so you have to farm forever to get top level top tier gear and if you are done with one there are 5 more to go and if you are done with that there is also hardcore so enough motivation because in d3 every char seems to be somewhat equally good.
On April 24 2012 14:55 NotSorry wrote: The devs keep dropping little hints that it might be months til someone beats inferno, I would honestly be surprised if it lasts 2 weeks.
I made a bet with a friend that inferno will be beaten in the first 48 hours after release. I plan to play A LOT during the first few days and I don't think I'll take any more than a day per difficulty - so 4 days.
I used to do a few speedruns for certain games and managed a fairly close time for the D2 record (0:58m to beat normal) so for some of the extreme players, inferno won't last long.
Well if you finish the game on normal difficutly that's it for me. I've beaten the game. You can't call it dedication if you finish it on the hardest difficulty you know. The reward you get from finishing on hardest isn't that great imo.
On April 24 2012 19:41 Mondieu wrote: Well if you finish the game on normal difficutly that's it for me. I've beaten the game. You can't call it dedication if you finish it on the hardest difficulty you know. The reward you get from finishing on hardest isn't that great imo.
A large part of Diablo is item hunting. You get the best gear at the hardest levels.
Blizzard know their audience. They've been designing raid encounters for organised groups of the best raiders in the world for years, and recently they've mostly taken ~2 weeks (after unlocking) to beat. An exception being the most recent raid tier, where they made an encounter (Spine) that absolutely brickwalled the entire world to the point where people basically said "nerf this or it will never be beaten".
The main difference with Diablo is that unlike Wow, there's no "expected" level of gear for the encounters. You can always get (much) better gear just from grinding the monsters you can already kill, and so you can always improve your power - unlike Wow, where you can hit the best gear possible relatively quickly, and if the content isn't doable in that gear you're fucked.
tl;dr - Blizz knows exactly how good the best gamers in the world are, and they are probably much better than you. They're designing the game so that even those guys will take weeks to beat inferno, I wouldn't expect to beat it in 4 days.
We'll find out. I wager whatever peoples initial guesses, chop 50% playtime off it. There'll always be that one guy. I'm not expecting FFXI Chains of Promethia difficulty, but at least something challenging I hope.
I made a bet with a friend that inferno will be beaten in the first 48 hours after release. I plan to play A LOT during the first few days and I don't think I'll take any more than a day per difficulty - so 4 days.
I used to do a few speedruns for certain games and managed a fairly close time for the D2 record (0:58m to beat normal) so for some of the extreme players, inferno won't last long.
lol, it doesn't matter how "extreme" you are, if some difficulty setting is a gear check, you'll need to farm and not just run through it. And it's pretty obvious how they want casuals to finish game on normal, and everyone else to play further. My guess would be a month to beat inferno although that's totally dependant on that if someone is going to buy gear or just farm everything on it's own
On April 24 2012 20:08 bLah. wrote: lol, it doesn't matter how "extreme" you are, if some difficulty setting is a gear check, you'll need to farm and not just run through it. And it's pretty obvious how they want casuals to finish game on normal, and everyone else to play further. My guess would be a month to beat inferno although that's totally dependant on that if someone is going to buy gear or just farm everything on it's own
I bet the average quality drops will be more than enough for inferno for some players.
I'll eventually try record some inferno runs with less than optimal items (maybe whites only) and one day try armor-less too. I suspect that will be close to impossible, but you never know.
On April 24 2012 20:08 bLah. wrote: lol, it doesn't matter how "extreme" you are, if some difficulty setting is a gear check, you'll need to farm and not just run through it. And it's pretty obvious how they want casuals to finish game on normal, and everyone else to play further. My guess would be a month to beat inferno although that's totally dependant on that if someone is going to buy gear or just farm everything on it's own
I bet the average quality drops will be more than enough for inferno for some players.
I'll eventually try record some inferno runs with less than optimal items (maybe whites only) and one day try armor-less too. I suspect that will be close to impossible, but you never know.
If you've seen any of the videos where they showcase higher difficulties you'd see that if you have bad armor you get 1 shotted. Not sure what kind of skill you think you have, but nothing can save you if you just get 1-2 shotted
On April 24 2012 19:41 Mondieu wrote: Well if you finish the game on normal difficutly that's it for me. I've beaten the game. You can't call it dedication if you finish it on the hardest difficulty you know. The reward you get from finishing on hardest isn't that great imo.
I think you misunderstand what the word dedication means. It is the exact other way around, finishing it at the hardest difficulty level is precisely what defines dedication. And the reward is a personal sense of achievement I guess (plus the best loot in the game).
Secondly, but I guess this is more open for debate, I think that beating the game is something else than finishing the game. For me, finishing the game is like finishing the storyline of the game (completing normal mode), so playing through all the acts till the end and unlocking nightmare is finishing normal. Then finish nightmare, then finish hell. For me, beating the game is 100%ing the game: finishing the game on the hardest difficulty (inferno) + doing all sidequests/achievements etc. (but I guess finishing inferno counts as beating the game pretty much).
On April 24 2012 20:08 bLah. wrote: lol, it doesn't matter how "extreme" you are, if some difficulty setting is a gear check, you'll need to farm and not just run through it. And it's pretty obvious how they want casuals to finish game on normal, and everyone else to play further. My guess would be a month to beat inferno although that's totally dependant on that if someone is going to buy gear or just farm everything on it's own
I bet the average quality drops will be more than enough for inferno for some players.
I'll eventually try record some inferno runs with less than optimal items (maybe whites only) and one day try armor-less too. I suspect that will be close to impossible, but you never know.
If you've seen any of the videos where they showcase higher difficulties you'd see that if you have bad armor you get 1 shotted. Not sure what kind of skill you think you have, but nothing can save you if you just get 1-2 shotted
I really hope it will be that hard as you say/previous videos showed - but I doubt it.
On April 24 2012 20:08 bLah. wrote: lol, it doesn't matter how "extreme" you are, if some difficulty setting is a gear check, you'll need to farm and not just run through it. And it's pretty obvious how they want casuals to finish game on normal, and everyone else to play further. My guess would be a month to beat inferno although that's totally dependant on that if someone is going to buy gear or just farm everything on it's own
I bet the average quality drops will be more than enough for inferno for some players.
I'll eventually try record some inferno runs with less than optimal items (maybe whites only) and one day try armor-less too. I suspect that will be close to impossible, but you never know.
If you've seen any of the videos where they showcase higher difficulties you'd see that if you have bad armor you get 1 shotted. Not sure what kind of skill you think you have, but nothing can save you if you just get 1-2 shotted
He also mentioned 1 day per difficulty, which to me sounds really foolish. Unless im misreading his post, of course. Normal would be real fast, i am extremely doubtful that i would spend a full day there. But im expecting this amount of time to increase drastically with the increasing difficulty. Unless Blizz screws up hardcore (which is unlikely, from what we've seen), Inferno won't be beaten solo by some guy playing by himself in 4 days. Organized groups of rotation playing (8 hours/day/person to ensure top quality performance), and gear pooling (~20 chars pooling gears into 4 chars), i can reasonably expect them to finish Inferno in 4 days. Of course, if they are the internal testers and have finished the game before, knowing perfectly what to do, this amount of time will decrease a little, but not by much.
All in all, im looking at MaReK's posts as pretty much idle boasts in order to try to look cool/ lengthen e-peen. Seeing as we do not have much information on the game and it's difficulty at all, these kind of statement is mostly junk.
Regarding the other guy who posted about "finishing" the game, i believe that a Diablo game is considered "finished" once you have beaten the highest difficulty (personally, i would say to beat it solo, but im sure some will disagree). As we already know, Normal is pretty much something you and your baby little sister is s'posed to be able to beat. The meat of the game (items, higher levels, more challenging monsters, gameplay) is in the later difficulties, so finishing normal is far from finishing the game, as far as i am concerned.
@Condor I disagree with the Achievement part. Some people just don't care about frivolous things like getting achievements, and rather prefer just playing the game, beating up monsters to doing mundane tasks in order to complete pre-set objectives. I would say finishing Inferno would qualify as "beating the game". Cos again, Achievements most often are just mundane tasks rather than challenging ones (though im sure there are/will be exceptions)
On April 24 2012 14:55 NotSorry wrote: The devs keep dropping little hints that it might be months til someone beats inferno, I would honestly be surprised if it lasts 2 weeks.
I made a bet with a friend that inferno will be beaten in the first 48 hours after release. I plan to play A LOT during the first few days and I don't think I'll take any more than a day per difficulty - so 4 days.
I used to do a few speedruns for certain games and managed a fairly close time for the D2 record (0:58m to beat normal) so for some of the extreme players, inferno won't last long.
D2 is a lot easier to abuse than D3. In D2 you could buy temporary power in the form of potions, charged items and high level items (Since in D2 items in general didn't have a level requirement). Also in D2 you had certain places with disproportional amount of special mobs to farm and some skills were really abusable. Without that to abuse progressing much faster than they intended will be almost impossible. As long as you don't deal more damage than anyone else you won't progress much faster than anyone else either.
Its the same as how D2 is a lot harder to abuse than D1.
Diablo 2 was close to unbeatable in single-player Hell in the later patches anyway (beat hell with a Sorc after a lot of MF runs, no luck with a Barb tho). Even if Inferno is the same difficulty level, I'm content with that.
In MP it was easier because of all those realm-only runewords, but single-player Hell was the beast.
It's not really speculation. It's pretty much common sense you won't beat the game in 4 days and Inferno won't be do-able with your average drops. -__-
On April 24 2012 14:55 NotSorry wrote: The devs keep dropping little hints that it might be months til someone beats inferno, I would honestly be surprised if it lasts 2 weeks.
I made a bet with a friend that inferno will be beaten in the first 48 hours after release. I plan to play A LOT during the first few days and I don't think I'll take any more than a day per difficulty - so 4 days.
I used to do a few speedruns for certain games and managed a fairly close time for the D2 record (0:58m to beat normal) so for some of the extreme players, inferno won't last long.
D2 is a lot easier to abuse than D3. In D2 you could buy temporary power in the form of potions, charged items and high level items (Since in D2 items in general didn't have a level requirement). Also in D2 you had certain places with disproportional amount of special mobs to farm and some skills were really abusable. Without that to abuse progressing much faster than they intended will be almost impossible. As long as you don't deal more damage than anyone else you won't progress much faster than anyone else either.
Its the same as how D2 is a lot harder to abuse than D1.
Good points Klockan, but it will only be a matter of time until D3 becomes highly abused too, like every other mass-played game I suspect.
@skyR - it's also common sense that Blizzard wouldn't make inferno only beatable with a optimal build and optimal items. There will be a massive amount of leeway in both areas to still make it beatable...
The problem imo with most people playing diablo is that most think that Diablo is just the same game with 3 dificulties that got revealed once you beat the game. But the fact that every new dificulty apear only after the very end of the last one, i take it as a pure continuation of the game. In fact the adventure never get more boring despite you keep visiting familiar places, and similar looking enemies. The game is totally new, monsters from act 1 in hell are much harder that their counterparts from nightmare act 4 and so. Same for weapons and items you can find. Most are much better and the exp you got is much better too.
And here comes the best part: for the "difficulty" fans out there, the game finally become awesome. It transmute from a hack and slash game into (imo) a really action strategy game. You can't fuck arround in hell (maybe with the best items, but you have to be kinda uber-fan/harcore to took THAAAT time to get class S items with those crappy drop%), or your dead. But everithing is posible without the sickest equipment, and decent skill placement, and good plan for every fight (yeah, sometime you just need a few more levels, that's why it's called HELL in DIABLO)
So, tl dr: Imo it is just one long game with 3 "big acts", adequately called: "normal" (should be something like earth, or ez-pz), nightmare and hell. Edit: Hell is not easy, but is an excelent and rewarding challenge, AND at the same time, not that hard (single player). However with the uber bosses, then it got into really hard mode.
On April 24 2012 21:32 MaReK wrote: Good points Klockan, but it will only be a matter of time until D3 becomes highly abused too, like every other mass-played game I suspect.
@skyR - it's also common sense that Blizzard wouldn't make inferno only beatable with a optimal build and optimal items. There will be a massive amount of leeway in both areas to still make it beatable...
No one said it was unbeatable nor did anyone say that it would only be beatable with perfect builds and items. You're changing the subject from it being beaten in four days to it being beaten.
On April 24 2012 21:29 skyR wrote: It's not really speculation. It's pretty much common sense you won't beat the game in 4 days and Inferno won't be do-able with your average drops. -__-
You certainly made it sound like it was unbeatable without great gear.
I still stand by my opinion that there will be players that beat it in a matter of days.
I guess our definition of average drops are different. I definitely don't think that a character with blues will beat inferno... if that's the case, we all might as well go back to WoW.
There's a chance I may never finish inferno, simply because I will likely play every class through first. I may even have 5 characters through he'll level, even, and by the time I have played through the content 15 times I may burn myself out. But maybe not. I'm more hard core into gaming than a lot of my friends, though, so I wouldn't expect any of them to make it through nightmare.
On April 24 2012 14:55 NotSorry wrote: The devs keep dropping little hints that it might be months til someone beats inferno, I would honestly be surprised if it lasts 2 weeks.
I made a bet with a friend that inferno will be beaten in the first 48 hours after release. I plan to play A LOT during the first few days and I don't think I'll take any more than a day per difficulty - so 4 days.
I used to do a few speedruns for certain games and managed a fairly close time for the D2 record (0:58m to beat normal) so for some of the extreme players, inferno won't last long.
D2 is a lot easier to abuse than D3. In D2 you could buy temporary power in the form of potions, charged items and high level items (Since in D2 items in general didn't have a level requirement). Also in D2 you had certain places with disproportional amount of special mobs to farm and some skills were really abusable. Without that to abuse progressing much faster than they intended will be almost impossible. As long as you don't deal more damage than anyone else you won't progress much faster than anyone else either.
Its the same as how D2 is a lot harder to abuse than D1.
Uhh, yes they did.
In normal mode no items had level requirements, magical suffixes had them though but being able to equip really strong white gear at low level helps a lot. A level 5 barbarian can equip a weapon with 13-30 damage, nothing in D3 comes close to that and in D3 damage is easier to come by than in D2. Then the nightmare/hell items had level requirements matching what you need to get into said difficulties mostly to prevent twinking lowbies with them. In D3 you get gear for your level all the time, so there is no use trying to get act 2 gear in at act 1 levels since you wont be able to use it while in D2 you could run past things to get better gear.
On April 24 2012 14:55 NotSorry wrote: The devs keep dropping little hints that it might be months til someone beats inferno, I would honestly be surprised if it lasts 2 weeks.
I made a bet with a friend that inferno will be beaten in the first 48 hours after release. I plan to play A LOT during the first few days and I don't think I'll take any more than a day per difficulty - so 4 days.
I used to do a few speedruns for certain games and managed a fairly close time for the D2 record (0:58m to beat normal) so for some of the extreme players, inferno won't last long.
D2 is a lot easier to abuse than D3. In D2 you could buy temporary power in the form of potions, charged items and high level items (Since in D2 items in general didn't have a level requirement). Also in D2 you had certain places with disproportional amount of special mobs to farm and some skills were really abusable. Without that to abuse progressing much faster than they intended will be almost impossible. As long as you don't deal more damage than anyone else you won't progress much faster than anyone else either.
Its the same as how D2 is a lot harder to abuse than D1.
Uhh, yes they did.
Not in plain old vanilla D2. You could wear sojs at level 1 for their lightning damage
On April 24 2012 21:50 skyR wrote: I guess our definition of average drops are different. I definitely don't think that a character with blues will beat inferno... if that's the case, we all might as well go back to WoW.
I'd like to see someone beating heroic raids in WoW in blue gear ^^ wow had pretty nice progression (except in wotlk which was easymode) so I believe it will be the same here.
Thing with progression is that it has to be constant, you shouldn't stop and try to kill same boss for months, but some hours need to be invested. Since inferno is going to be whole game on lvl 60+ that's really alot of content and lots of bosses so they can make some nice progression where ending of inferno can be really hard and where great gear is going to be needed.
They really don't need to tailor everything for casuals. Casual players won't care for inferno all that much, they'll play normal, then some co op in nightmare, they won't invest that many hours nor do they even want to finish a game so many times.
On April 24 2012 14:55 NotSorry wrote: The devs keep dropping little hints that it might be months til someone beats inferno, I would honestly be surprised if it lasts 2 weeks, to the point of taking it as a challenge to myself of doing it before then, while still maintaining my busy life style. Now sure the vast majority of players will quit the game long before even seeing the end of the 2nd or 3rd difficulty but don't underestimate gamers as a whole just because of a casual majority.
If the game is beaten in under two weeks, you're basically saying that normal is about 24 hours long and the other three difficulties won't be that much longer so gear is basically useless and there is no complexity in the bosses (tank & spank). Let's not mention that the person doing this would have to be on a polyphasic sleep cycle.
Sure it won't be as hard as SSC, TK, firefighter, or yogg but it's not going to be as easy as you make it out to be lol...
In other words, the game is shit if it's beaten in under two weeks.
You're comparing the a game where the difficulty comes from you having to rely on 24 other people to one that is only your self, you're setting yourself up for a big disappointment.
On April 24 2012 14:55 NotSorry wrote: The devs keep dropping little hints that it might be months til someone beats inferno, I would honestly be surprised if it lasts 2 weeks.
I made a bet with a friend that inferno will be beaten in the first 48 hours after release. I plan to play A LOT during the first few days and I don't think I'll take any more than a day per difficulty - so 4 days.
I used to do a few speedruns for certain games and managed a fairly close time for the D2 record (0:58m to beat normal) so for some of the extreme players, inferno won't last long.
Yea I probably overestimate it a good bit but I was thinking more for myself as at the time I'll be starting a new fight camp and have a bunch of other stuff going on so I'll probably be very limited on game time, so overshot to 2weeks just to be safe.
On April 24 2012 23:52 NotSorry wrote: You're comparing the a game where the difficulty comes from you having to rely on 24 other people to one that is only your self, you're setting yourself up for a big disappointment.
Thing is that both games rely heavily on gear, you can be the most skilled player in the world if the boss 2 shots you -> you're dead. thing with diablo is that you will be able to buy top items so it's gonna be faster for those people while in wow items are bind on pickup. But i seriously doubt that blizz will make a game where you'll be able to beat inferno without buying gear in under 100h of gameplay on your first run. 50h like some suggest would be silly, that would mean 100-150h for casuals which is like 3 months. So 3 months to finish everything and then more than a year of whining when's expansion gonna come out? I seriously doubt it
On April 24 2012 23:42 skyR wrote: Ulduar was insanely overtuned, I don't know what you're talking about.
well ok, couple of bosses in ulduar and lich king hc were hard, rest wasn't as hard as other expos, but that's not a point. wow progression isn't as fast as people would like to believe and it takes weeks to clear a tier. Gear is important and that system allows developers to make nice progression system. There's no way that someone will just get normal magic items and run through inferno
On April 24 2012 23:52 NotSorry wrote: You're comparing the a game where the difficulty comes from you having to rely on 24 other people to one that is only your self, you're setting yourself up for a big disappointment.
Thing is that both games rely heavily on gear, you can be the most skilled player in the world if the boss 2 shots you -> you're dead. thing with diablo is that you will be able to buy top items so it's gonna be faster for those people while in wow items are bind on pickup. But i seriously doubt that blizz will make a game where you'll be able to beat inferno without buying gear in under 100h of gameplay on your first run. 50h like some suggest would be silly, that would mean 100-150h for casuals which is like 3 months. So 3 months to finish everything and then more than a year of whining when's expansion gonna come out? I seriously doubt it
On April 24 2012 23:42 skyR wrote: Ulduar was insanely overtuned, I don't know what you're talking about.
well ok, couple of bosses in ulduar and lich king hc were hard, rest wasn't as hard as other expos, but that's not a point. wow progression isn't as fast as people would like to believe and it takes weeks to clear a tier. Gear is important and that system allows developers to make nice progression system. There's no way that someone will just get normal magic items and run through inferno
You realize in wow all world firsts came from people using "shit" gear on their first clears compared to people in 1st tier guilds that had to farm gear off the few bosses they could kill for a few weeks before getting to the end progress. So there is a lot more leeway than you give credit to for player skill. Boss 2 shots you there were plenty that did, just meant bring more healers or more tanks to rotate with to keep the damage spread while trading cooldowns or kite him.
On April 24 2012 14:55 NotSorry wrote: The devs keep dropping little hints that it might be months til someone beats inferno, I would honestly be surprised if it lasts 2 weeks, to the point of taking it as a challenge to myself of doing it before then, while still maintaining my busy life style. Now sure the vast majority of players will quit the game long before even seeing the end of the 2nd or 3rd difficulty but don't underestimate gamers as a whole just because of a casual majority.
If the game is beaten in under two weeks, you're basically saying that normal is about 24 hours long and the other three difficulties won't be that much longer so gear is basically useless and there is no complexity in the bosses (tank & spank). Let's not mention that the person doing this would have to be on a polyphasic sleep cycle.
Sure it won't be as hard as SSC, TK, firefighter, or yogg but it's not going to be as easy as you make it out to be lol...
In other words, the game is shit if it's beaten in under two weeks.
You're comparing the a game where the difficulty comes from you having to rely on 24 other people to one that is only your self, you're setting yourself up for a big disappointment.
On April 24 2012 14:55 NotSorry wrote: The devs keep dropping little hints that it might be months til someone beats inferno, I would honestly be surprised if it lasts 2 weeks.
I made a bet with a friend that inferno will be beaten in the first 48 hours after release. I plan to play A LOT during the first few days and I don't think I'll take any more than a day per difficulty - so 4 days.
I used to do a few speedruns for certain games and managed a fairly close time for the D2 record (0:58m to beat normal) so for some of the extreme players, inferno won't last long.
Yea I probably overestimate it a good bit but I was thinking more for myself as at the time I'll be starting a new fight camp and have a bunch of other stuff going on so I'll probably be very limited on game time, so overshot to 2weeks just to be safe.
If you think that WoW is difficult solely due to the coordination of twenty five players than you're simply ignorant. Even though the game is majority of the time overtuned or overnerfed, the game still requires you to be somewhat competent, unfortunately that's not the case for a lot of people.
There are dozens of elements that exist in WoW, D3, and every other RPG. It's just part of the game.
If there is gear progression than obviously certain encounters will be dependent on gear level which will require farming.
It doesn't matter if the encounter is solo or in a group of 25, you're going to have to learn the encounter first. If there are multiple phases than you must be a fucking genius if you one shot it on the hardest difficulty or it could be that the game is just terrible. Are Diablo III encounters going to be as complex as Yogg+0? Probably not but you're kidding yourself if you think you can walk into Inferno and expect to kill it in one or two attempts.
On April 24 2012 23:52 NotSorry wrote: You're comparing the a game where the difficulty comes from you having to rely on 24 other people to one that is only your self, you're setting yourself up for a big disappointment.
Thing is that both games rely heavily on gear, you can be the most skilled player in the world if the boss 2 shots you -> you're dead. thing with diablo is that you will be able to buy top items so it's gonna be faster for those people while in wow items are bind on pickup. But i seriously doubt that blizz will make a game where you'll be able to beat inferno without buying gear in under 100h of gameplay on your first run. 50h like some suggest would be silly, that would mean 100-150h for casuals which is like 3 months. So 3 months to finish everything and then more than a year of whining when's expansion gonna come out? I seriously doubt it
On April 24 2012 23:42 skyR wrote: Ulduar was insanely overtuned, I don't know what you're talking about.
well ok, couple of bosses in ulduar and lich king hc were hard, rest wasn't as hard as other expos, but that's not a point. wow progression isn't as fast as people would like to believe and it takes weeks to clear a tier. Gear is important and that system allows developers to make nice progression system. There's no way that someone will just get normal magic items and run through inferno
You realize in wow all world firsts came from people using "shit" gear on their first clears compared to people in 1st tier guilds that had to farm gear off the few bosses they could kill for a few weeks before getting to the end progress. So there is a lot more leeway than you give credit to for player skill. Boss 2 shots you there were plenty that did, just meant bring more healers or more tanks to rotate with to keep the damage spread while trading cooldowns or kite him.
You clearly never played WoW based on this dumbass reply.
You realize that all the world firsts came from people with amazing gear? 4H only took so long because of gear... Saph only took so long because of gear... Patchwerk was always done last because of gear... and there are plenty of other encounters with absurd DPS or tank requirements.
You can't simply bring more tanks and healers because there wouldn't be enough DPS.
Let's not forget that guilds that are attempting for world firsts actually have to think and solve the encounter... lolol think, a concept too hard for most people. Googling a strategy is not available to you.
I have my doubts that everybody will even finish the game on normal. Blizzard employees have said time and again that later in the game it will be quite hard (abt 15-20 trys maybe) to beat some late game bosses!
You could have worded the poll a lot better. Took me a while to figure out what you were asking. Why ascribe words such as "Hard" and "Insane" to the poll options? It makes it sound like a difficulty level in the game rather than describing the overall difficulty of the game.
For all the people comparing WoW with D3: don't. D3 is more about reactionary and solo skill. WoW is more about getting that clusterfuck of a group organized, de-dramataized and knowing the pattern of a fight (ie. don't stand here during phase 2).
I hope d3 inferno will be so hard that it will take me weeks of hard work only to progress a bit. I want this game to stop me from finishing for at least a year of hardcore dedicated gaming...I played hard in WoW (I ranked myself number 1 and 2 on many hardcore bosses during WOTLK) as resto shaman healer....and god..I felt WoW was just a faceroll...we were always dying because of bad players. I want Diablo3 to be so hard that bad players cant even get past act1 in inferno.Also, I want high level gear on those last acts in inferno that can't be collected in hell or act1 inferno...so it becomes rewarding to play those difficulties...Also, when I am speaking of high level gear, I mean gear that have a sick different looking with awesome stats! Then it will be pvp time! I just hope they will add a ladder or elo system to PvP so it becomes competitive!
I feel that the difficulty of Inferno will be due to the extreme life and damage of normal mobs. Imagine if every monster took as long to kill as Leoric.. what happens when there are 20 of them swarming you? Definitely, Inferno will be a gear check. If it wasn't the devs won't make such outrageous claims. These claims are probably due to the fact that it takes so long to craft gear that it good enough to run Inferno with.
On April 25 2012 00:38 NotSorry wrote: Feel free to google Blood Legion if you doubt my wow credits.
Who cares about a newly formed guild when he talks about raids many years old? The four horsemen in vanilla was the toughest raidboss ever made in WoW history. It took 7 weeks until that boss was defeated by Death and Taxes. Death and Taxes were an insane guild by the way, they had so many members that they could run concurrent raidgroups and thus gear up the large amount of tanks needed much faster than anyone else.
On April 25 2012 01:17 Heh_ wrote: I feel that the difficulty of Inferno will be due to the extreme life and damage of normal mobs. Imagine if every monster took as long to kill as Leoric.. what happens when there are 20 of them swarming you? Definitely, Inferno will be a gear check. If it wasn't the devs won't make such outrageous claims. These claims are probably due to the fact that it takes so long to craft gear that it good enough to run Inferno with.
Imagine fighting Leoric if each of his summons where as strong as he is. That is when I understand that I can't do it, when the enemy summons stuff faster than I can kill them.
I seriously have to laugh when people compare WoW and Diablo 3. You dont have to learn bosses in Diablo 3 like you did in WoW. Any half competent group will breeze through inferno, if its also solo-able. And they said coop is optional so yeah my estimate for inferno last boss kill is maybe 1 week. Prob even faster.
On April 25 2012 01:34 Kenpark wrote: I seriously have to laugh when people compare WoW and Diablo 3. You dont have to learn bosses in Diablo 3 like you did in WoW.
How do you know that? Imagine if each of Leorics skeletons had 4k health instead, then you would be forced to make Leoric kill them himself or you would quickly get swamped in skeletons and thus killed. You wouldn't know that the first time and it would take a while to perfect, especially since the strikes he uses to kill his skeleton buddies would one shot you, so you would have to lure all the skeletons close to him, then quickly run away. I'd wouldn't be surprised if this is exactly how he plays on harder difficulties and that this is the reason why they give you an achievement for doing it.
On April 25 2012 01:34 Kenpark wrote:Any half competent group will breeze through inferno, if its also solo-able. And they said coop is optional so yeah my estimate for inferno last boss kill is maybe 1 week. Prob even faster.
When you play solo you have a companion and everything have less health. I'd say that the hardest way to play is 2 man, but if it is easier to play 4 or 1 isn't as easy to say, probably depends on the boss.
It baffles me how ignorant some of you are. I guess this isn't worth discussing anymore and we'll just find out in four weeks whether Blizzard is the dumbass or you're the dumbass.
Look likes this Kenpack guy play too much WoW and give WoW boss too much credit. As a person who play WoW from the beta day, got (2nd kill of Nefarion in BWL on my server) till the end of fireland heroic. I can assure you that WoW is a casual game except for top guilds
Also, I don't know if you aware of this but when a person join a diablo game, all monster health is increased by 75%. So a group of 4 people will not fight the same monster that the one that solo does. One week for inferno last boss, lol. You need level 60 with hell gear in order to even do act 1 in inferno..I doubt there is any person on earth that can do that in one week.
I don't know why people compare WoW with Diablo. WoW is more about getting a group of 10/25 man together than anything else. Just give me random 25 people that will play consistanly 5 hours a day I will give you every heroic there are in WoW.
On April 24 2012 14:55 NotSorry wrote: The devs keep dropping little hints that it might be months til someone beats inferno, I would honestly be surprised if it lasts 2 weeks, to the point of taking it as a challenge to myself of doing it before then, while still maintaining my busy life style. Now sure the vast majority of players will quit the game long before even seeing the end of the 2nd or 3rd difficulty but don't underestimate gamers as a whole just because of a casual majority.
If the game is beaten in under two weeks, you're basically saying that normal is about 24 hours long and the other three difficulties won't be that much longer so gear is basically useless and there is no complexity in the bosses (tank & spank). Let's not mention that the person doing this would have to be on a polyphasic sleep cycle.
Sure it won't be as hard as SSC, TK, firefighter, or yogg but it's not going to be as easy as you make it out to be lol...
In other words, the game is shit if it's beaten in under two weeks.
You're comparing the a game where the difficulty comes from you having to rely on 24 other people to one that is only your self, you're setting yourself up for a big disappointment.
On April 24 2012 14:55 NotSorry wrote: The devs keep dropping little hints that it might be months til someone beats inferno, I would honestly be surprised if it lasts 2 weeks.
I made a bet with a friend that inferno will be beaten in the first 48 hours after release. I plan to play A LOT during the first few days and I don't think I'll take any more than a day per difficulty - so 4 days.
I used to do a few speedruns for certain games and managed a fairly close time for the D2 record (0:58m to beat normal) so for some of the extreme players, inferno won't last long.
Yea I probably overestimate it a good bit but I was thinking more for myself as at the time I'll be starting a new fight camp and have a bunch of other stuff going on so I'll probably be very limited on game time, so overshot to 2weeks just to be safe.
If you think that WoW is difficult solely due to the coordination of twenty five players than you're simply ignorant. Even though the game is majority of the time overtuned or overnerfed, the game still requires you to be somewhat competent, unfortunately that's not the case for a lot of people.
There are dozens of elements that exist in WoW, D3, and every other RPG. It's just part of the game.
If there is gear progression than obviously certain encounters will be dependent on gear level which will require farming.
It doesn't matter if the encounter is solo or in a group of 25, you're going to have to learn the encounter first. If there are multiple phases than you must be a fucking genius if you one shot it on the hardest difficulty or it could be that the game is just terrible. Are Diablo III encounters going to be as complex as Yogg+0? Probably not but you're kidding yourself if you think you can walk into Inferno and expect to kill it in one or two attempts.
On April 24 2012 23:52 NotSorry wrote: You're comparing the a game where the difficulty comes from you having to rely on 24 other people to one that is only your self, you're setting yourself up for a big disappointment.
Thing is that both games rely heavily on gear, you can be the most skilled player in the world if the boss 2 shots you -> you're dead. thing with diablo is that you will be able to buy top items so it's gonna be faster for those people while in wow items are bind on pickup. But i seriously doubt that blizz will make a game where you'll be able to beat inferno without buying gear in under 100h of gameplay on your first run. 50h like some suggest would be silly, that would mean 100-150h for casuals which is like 3 months. So 3 months to finish everything and then more than a year of whining when's expansion gonna come out? I seriously doubt it
On April 24 2012 23:42 skyR wrote: Ulduar was insanely overtuned, I don't know what you're talking about.
well ok, couple of bosses in ulduar and lich king hc were hard, rest wasn't as hard as other expos, but that's not a point. wow progression isn't as fast as people would like to believe and it takes weeks to clear a tier. Gear is important and that system allows developers to make nice progression system. There's no way that someone will just get normal magic items and run through inferno
You realize in wow all world firsts came from people using "shit" gear on their first clears compared to people in 1st tier guilds that had to farm gear off the few bosses they could kill for a few weeks before getting to the end progress. So there is a lot more leeway than you give credit to for player skill. Boss 2 shots you there were plenty that did, just meant bring more healers or more tanks to rotate with to keep the damage spread while trading cooldowns or kite him.
You clearly never played WoW based on this dumbass reply.
You realize that all the world firsts came from people with amazing gear? 4H only took so long because of gear... Saph only took so long because of gear... Patchwerk was always done last because of gear... and there are plenty of other encounters with absurd DPS or tank requirements.
You can't simply bring more tanks and healers because there wouldn't be enough DPS.
Let's not forget that guilds that are attempting for world firsts actually have to think and solve the encounter... lolol think, a concept too hard for most people. Googling a strategy is not available to you.
If we're gonna compare to Wow, there are 2 big differences we should remember.
1. Wow is actually pretty quick to gear up in. Bosses are guaranteed to drop items appropriate to the content, and usually the drop rate of each specific item is around 1/6 or 1/7.
2. Wow gear had a very hard upper cap for each class, and once you reached best in slot you basically hit a ceiling for damage/survivability
Now look at D3.
1. D3 drops are never guaranteed to even happen, when they drop they will usually be crap. You need to get a base item that's useful, then the quality has to be good, and then you have to roll decent affixes, and get decent rolls on the numbers. Look at how rare good crafted items were in D2 - you could literally count them on one hand (and admittedly they got duped massively, but at least you know they were duped because they had the same well known name).
It will take a massive amount of drops to get even "decent" gear where you could reach the minimum threshold for a new difficulty - far harder than the day or 2 of farming guaranteed drops you needed in WoW to gear up for a new tier.
2. D3 has such a high (pretty much unreachable) gear ceiling compared to WoW's. They don't need to balance the next act of content against the gear you just did the current act in, because you can always get better gear in the current act.
Similarly, this is why they never need to nerf the content. In Wow, you'd hit your gear ceiling and if you weren't good enough, you'd never beat a fight and then you'd go on the forums and bitch at Blizzard til they nerfed int. In D3, you suck it up and either farm more gear or get better.
On April 25 2012 01:51 Caphe wrote: Look likes this Kenpack guy play too much WoW and give WoW boss too much credit. As a person who play WoW from the beta day, got (2nd kill of Nefarion in BWL on my server) till the end of fireland heroic. I can assure you that WoW is a casual game(save the vanilla and early TBC).
Also, I don't know if you aware of this but when a person join a diablo game, all monster health is increased by 75%. So a group of 4 people will not fight the same monster that the one that solo does. One week for inferno last boss, lol. You need level 99 with hell gear in order to even do act 1 in inferno..I doubt there is any person on earth that can do that in one week.
I don't know why people compare WoW with Diablo. WoW is more about getting a group of 10/25 man together than anything else. Just give me random 25 people that will play consistanly 5 hours a day I will give you every heroic there are in WoW.
It will be pretty hard to get 39 levels above the maximum regardless of time limit.
On April 25 2012 01:51 Caphe wrote: Look likes this Kenpack guy play too much WoW and give WoW boss too much credit. As a person who play WoW from the beta day, got (2nd kill of Nefarion in BWL on my server) till the end of fireland heroic. I can assure you that WoW is a casual game(save the vanilla and early TBC).
Also, I don't know if you aware of this but when a person join a diablo game, all monster health is increased by 75%. So a group of 4 people will not fight the same monster that the one that solo does. One week for inferno last boss, lol. You need level 99 with hell gear in order to even do act 1 in inferno..I doubt there is any person on earth that can do that in one week.
I don't know why people compare WoW with Diablo. WoW is more about getting a group of 10/25 man together than anything else. Just give me random 25 people that will play consistanly 5 hours a day I will give you every heroic there are in WoW.
It will be pretty hard to get 39 levels above the maximum regardless of time limit.
Ooops. whatever I meant max level. Will edit my post accordingly.
On April 25 2012 00:38 NotSorry wrote: Feel free to google Blood Legion if you doubt my wow credits.
Who cares about a newly formed guild when he talks about raids many years old? The four horsemen in vanilla was the toughest raidboss ever made in WoW history. It took 7 weeks until that boss was defeated by Death and Taxes. Death and Taxes were an insane guild by the way, they had so many members that they could run concurrent raidgroups and thus gear up the large amount of tanks needed much faster than anyone else.
New formed guild? You do realize we got the 9th world kill on KT in Naxx40 and only a day or so behind D&T on 4H which was a gimmick fight with terrible RNG rather than the ultimate challenge you seem to think it was.
On April 25 2012 00:38 NotSorry wrote: Feel free to google Blood Legion if you doubt my wow credits.
Who cares about a newly formed guild when he talks about raids many years old? The four horsemen in vanilla was the toughest raidboss ever made in WoW history. It took 7 weeks until that boss was defeated by Death and Taxes. Death and Taxes were an insane guild by the way, they had so many members that they could run concurrent raidgroups and thus gear up the large amount of tanks needed much faster than anyone else.
New formed guild? You do realize we got the 9th world kill on KT in Naxx40 and only a day or so behind D&T on 4H which was a gimmick fight with terrible RNG rather than the ultimate challenge you seem to think it was.
4h killed our guild, US horde first thaddius to dead guild.
4h killed many guilds it was fucking hell til the gimmick became obvious then it was just smashing your face into a brickwall of RNG and invisible void zones....
If you can beat the first 4-5 worlds in Super Mario Bros 3 (without the flute) then you have shown to have enough awareness, hand to eye ordination to beat any boss in WoW. As long as the other 24 people also posses the ability to get at least half way through a NES game. There is nothing in WoW that will require you to pull of some insane moves, like Akira in Virtua Fighter 4/5 and his insane 15 hit combos that pros can barely pull off.
I imagine Diablo 3 will be similar like that. Blizzard isent trying to make a ultra hard game like Battletoads or Ghosts n Goblins here. My hope is that they will overtune the hell out of inferno, and gradually balances it out while more and more people hit it. In Diablo 1 a common strat in the harder levels was to slowly pull fewest mobs possible, stand in the door way so that you are fighting only 1 mob at a time.
On April 25 2012 00:38 NotSorry wrote: Feel free to google Blood Legion if you doubt my wow credits.
Who cares about a newly formed guild when he talks about raids many years old? The four horsemen in vanilla was the toughest raidboss ever made in WoW history. It took 7 weeks until that boss was defeated by Death and Taxes. Death and Taxes were an insane guild by the way, they had so many members that they could run concurrent raidgroups and thus gear up the large amount of tanks needed much faster than anyone else.
New formed guild? You do realize we got the 9th world kill on KT in Naxx40 and only a day or so behind D&T on 4H which was a gimmick fight with terrible RNG rather than the ultimate challenge you seem to think it was.
But 4h obviously contradicts your statement that Diablo 3 will get beaten in a week since pro players are pro. No matter how good you are they can always throw in stuff that you need a lot of grinding to beat, 7 weeks is a lot longer than some thinks it will take for people to beat inferno and that was only a raid with a few bosses. Blizzard could easily put in bosses harder than 4h in inferno.
It seems to me the point is, everything is tuned to be solable, the only difference is, is as you have 2-3 more people with you they scale the bosses hit points and maybe damage. It will not be as hard as co-ordinating 10-40 people to do their tasks correctly, it will come down to your individual skill and maybe a gear check. That is why Diablo 3 can never be harder than WoW(In the boss fight sense), the only hard part would be lucking out and getting all your drops you need to gear you for the hardest mode. It isn't a bad thing, it will make the game enjoyable still.
edit: It might not take longer because you don't have to wait on other people to be ready, run back, and make a mistake that costs you the fight.
In D3 you can die, run back and get ready much faster, Kill the boss as many times as you want after you figure it out. RNG will be a bitch but hey, that is a dungeon slasher for you. ^^
Hardcore is going to be the tricky part, but that is just another difficulty that would make the game much harder than WoW and I will leave that alone.
On April 25 2012 04:18 NotSorry wrote: No, no they couldn't because it's single player, they can't possibly add a boss that requires 8 to 12 tanks to do.What do you not understand here.
They can however add bosses that requires similar amounts of gear farming. Also since it isn't 40 man they can add much more technical stuff and just like wow you are limited in your retries by the amount of gold you got. Most likely inferno will be a drain on your gold reserves forcing you to go back and farm hell.
On April 25 2012 04:23 Kralic wrote: It will not be as hard as co-ordinating 10-40 people to do their tasks correctly, it will come down to your individual skill and maybe a gear check.
But the things each one of those 40 persons did was trivial just because you needed to coordinate 40 persons. Smaller scale encounters can be tuned to have much more technical things.
The only reason 4h took any gear farming at all was because no guild had 8 to 12 tanks, at the very most a guild at 4, so they had to completely gear up new tanks from dps players or recruit cross server. It wasn't like 4h was a gear check like say Patchwerk was.
On April 25 2012 04:26 NotSorry wrote: The only reason 4h took any gear farming at all was because no guild had 8 to 12 tanks, at the very most a guild at 4, so they had to completely gear up new tanks from dps players or recruit cross server. It wasn't like 4h was a gear check like say Patchwerk was.
And you know what? None have any gear at all when D3 is released! If it took entire guilds several weeks to farm up a few tanks, why is it so hard for you to understand that farming items in D3 can take a while? The gear is capped in wow due to weekly lockouts. The gear is capped in diablo due to most dropped gear sucking so you have to do it over and over and over most times finding nothing.
On April 25 2012 04:29 NotSorry wrote: D3 doesn't have loot only on bosses that are on 1 week timers....it's obvious you're just trolling now
D3 don't have any mobs with guaranteed loot either. In wow there are mobs with the best loot just sitting there, you kill it you get the best loot. Not so in D3. At least in D2 you needed thousands of runs to get good gear. However good gear weren't needed anywhere so it didn't matter progression wise.
On April 25 2012 01:51 Caphe wrote: Look likes this Kenpack guy play too much WoW and give WoW boss too much credit. As a person who play WoW from the beta day, got (2nd kill of Nefarion in BWL on my server) till the end of fireland heroic. I can assure you that WoW is a casual game except for top guilds
Also, I don't know if you aware of this but when a person join a diablo game, all monster health is increased by 75%. So a group of 4 people will not fight the same monster that the one that solo does. One week for inferno last boss, lol. You need level 60 with hell gear in order to even do act 1 in inferno..I doubt there is any person on earth that can do that in one week.
I don't know why people compare WoW with Diablo. WoW is more about getting a group of 10/25 man together than anything else. Just give me random 25 people that will play consistanly 5 hours a day I will give you every heroic there are in WoW.
Same as the BL guy i've also been around top 3-25 guilds in the world from vanilla up to cata.
I will bet my life that if i give u 25(40) random people ( and i mean completely random ) even if they have knowledge of gaming you will never be able to beat.
TBC You would never even get pass the trash in SSC , not to mention the version of morogrim tidewalker with the reflecting water elementals ( very few guilds saw that ) Lady vashj prenerf Al'ar Solarian KT ( before healing aggro fix ) even after it... Not even gonna go into KJ and muru even after the interruption nerf.
WoTLK OS 10man 3 drakes up Freya after she got buffed after IS killed her HM 1st week 2min hodir Firefigther prenerf phase 1-2 Yogg 0 lights
But gratz on your server 2nd BWL kill , it seems you have alot of clue about diablo and wow. We can speculate alot about the true natue of how "hard" diablo 3 will be on inferno. But if its not massively overtuned like some bosses in WoW , i asure you it will be defeated under a week.
On April 25 2012 04:29 NotSorry wrote: D3 doesn't have loot only on bosses that are on 1 week timers....it's obvious you're just trolling now
Please go and find a Zod rune in Diablo 2 and return when you do. Hell, find just ANY high rune other than maybe Vex (since you can cube it from two Guls from da Hellforge). You have no idea how rare Diablo 2 drop really is.
I've had several D2 heroes on the realm and played regularly for almost 2 years, including maybe thousands of MF runs, and I've only ever found a Lo.
On April 25 2012 04:29 NotSorry wrote: D3 doesn't have loot only on bosses that are on 1 week timers....it's obvious you're just trolling now
Please go and find a Zod rune in Diablo 2 and return when you do. Hell, find just ANY high rune other than maybe Vex (since you can cube it from two Guls from da Hellforge). You have no idea how rare Diablo 2 drop really is.
I've had several D2 heroes on the realm and played regularly for almost 2 years, including maybe thousands of MF runs, and I've only ever found a Lo.
Except that that was on 1.09 , where high level runes had no use outside of ists/ber/ohm/zod On 1.13 where runewords matter my bot farmed 3-4 high level runes per 24h running lvl 95 areas.
I want to cry blood on Inferno. Hell I don't care if it rains fire on me and I lose health while breathing on Inferno. I want to feel hell, feel alive before I die. I want to be rewarded for making those motherfuckers of rare and champion mobs my bitch.
On April 25 2012 04:29 NotSorry wrote: D3 doesn't have loot only on bosses that are on 1 week timers....it's obvious you're just trolling now
Please go and find a Zod rune in Diablo 2 and return when you do. Hell, find just ANY high rune other than maybe Vex (since you can cube it from two Guls from da Hellforge). You have no idea how rare Diablo 2 drop really is.
I've had several D2 heroes on the realm and played regularly for almost 2 years, including maybe thousands of MF runs, and I've only ever found a Lo.
My friend had 24 bots running 24 hours per day for whole seasons and he never found a Zod. He did it to test, not to cheat. He had the highest legit smiter on realm as well. Drop chances are very very slim in Diablo 2, but that makes it good. I hope its the same for D3
On April 25 2012 04:29 NotSorry wrote: D3 doesn't have loot only on bosses that are on 1 week timers....it's obvious you're just trolling now
Please go and find a Zod rune in Diablo 2 and return when you do. Hell, find just ANY high rune other than maybe Vex (since you can cube it from two Guls from da Hellforge). You have no idea how rare Diablo 2 drop really is.
I've had several D2 heroes on the realm and played regularly for almost 2 years, including maybe thousands of MF runs, and I've only ever found a Lo.
Do you even realize how stupid your attempt at a counter argument is? You're suggesting that inferno will be impossible unless you can mf a high rune, that is just fucking shitty game design if that is in fact the case and has nothing to do with it being hard, just being a time sink gimmick.
In my ~10years of d2 I've personally found 3-4 HRs, my bots on the other hand have found countless HRs and every other item of value in the game several times over all of which I promptly sold on ebay or to 3rd party sites for duping.
On April 25 2012 04:39 TheBJ wrote: But if its not massively overtuned like some bosses in WoW , i asure you it will be defeated under a week.
From what they told us it seems that they thought it was massively overtuned and then they made it a lot harder. They most likely overestimate the time it would take for people to clear everything, yes, but I doubt that anything under a week will be done and then the guy doing it in that time will either need a large backing farming gear and gold for him or he need to have insane luck with loot, even considering the large amount of players playing.
Anyhow, I have thought a bit about this. For it to be possible to achieve with any class while still making it nontrivial you need to have both tank checks and dps checks. Tank checks comes naturally but dps checks are harder. If they only had tank checks you could run a party of 4 monks with auras and tanking gear/skill and be completely invulnerable to everything since they get insane resistance, dodge, armor and all of them got aoe heals. They could have WoW's enrage mechanics for example, putting a time limit on the encounter. Or having them spawn endless amounts of trash that you need to dps down before they overwhelm you. Imo they should just introduce enrage mechanics as a standard for every boss come nightmare or so.
On April 25 2012 04:29 NotSorry wrote: D3 doesn't have loot only on bosses that are on 1 week timers....it's obvious you're just trolling now
Please go and find a Zod rune in Diablo 2 and return when you do. Hell, find just ANY high rune other than maybe Vex (since you can cube it from two Guls from da Hellforge). You have no idea how rare Diablo 2 drop really is.
I've had several D2 heroes on the realm and played regularly for almost 2 years, including maybe thousands of MF runs, and I've only ever found a Lo.
Do you even realize how stupid your attempt at a counter argument is? You're suggesting that inferno will be impossible unless you can mf a high rune, that is just fucking shitty game design if that is in fact the case and has nothing to do with it being hard, just being a time sink gimmick.
In my ~10years of d2 I've personally found 3-4 HRs, my bots on the other hand have found countless HRs and every other item of value in the game several times over all of which I promptly sold on ebay or to 3rd party sites for duping.
All geargrinds are timesinks. The question is only how much of a timesink it is, the developer seems to think that the timesink is months for the most hardcore of gamers. You think that such a long timesink is unreasonable and thus believes that the timesink is a few days. Who should we listen to?
Also how many runes your bots get doesn't matter, your bots wont play D3, you will.
You're vastly underestimating trading, the rmah and 3rd party stores.
Unless they make some big revolutionary changes that have never been seen before in the gaming world, bots will be playing, just like they have been all of beta and still are plus the several duping methods.
I'm not convinced by this "it's single player and therefore easy" argument.
I'm expecting 4 player coop to be the way all the first kills happen, and I'm expecting solo to be the hardest way to play.
Since - every class has group wide buffs (most of which look like they'd be included in most builds) - every class has monster debuffs (again, many of which look like they'd be included in most builds)
I mean the monk alone with the runed Conviction aura increases the damage output of every member of the group by 24%, plus another 15% if he has the passive that buffs the party when he does his heal spell. Likewise, he can debuff every monster to reduce all damage by 25%.
Now I'm extrapolating a bit since I don't know the other classes, but if every class can buff the damage output of each player by 25%, and debuff the monster damage by 25%, that means that with 4 players, every player is doing 244% of normal damage and taking just 32% of normal damage.
I.e., your 4 players are as strong as about 10 individual players, and as tough as about 12 individual players.
Unless monster damage and HP scale exponentially with players (which they don't appear to do), coop is going to be a LOT easier than solo. And honestly, it was the same way in D2.
Speaking of overtuning inferno. They recent revised the way inferno scaled, they wanted more people to actually access inferno, so they made the levels of the monsters more gradual increase, instead of the static lvl61 across all 4 acts.
Now, many nerds are going "OMG THEY'RE ALREADY NURFIN TEH GAEM!!1111" actually they made act 1 and some parts of act 1 lvl61 mobs, while 3 and 4 are going all the way up to lvl65. :DDDD It will be awesome to see how hard things hit/scale. Point of reference is the highest healing potion, it heals for 12,500 hp http://us.battle.net/d3/en/item/mythic-health-potion
On April 25 2012 06:50 LoliKuma wrote: Speaking of overtuning inferno. They recent revised the way inferno scaled, they wanted more people to actually access inferno, so they made the levels of the monsters more gradual increase, instead of the static lvl61 across all 4 acts.
Now, many nerds are going "OMG THEY'RE ALREADY NURFIN TEH GAEM!!1111" actually they made act 1 and some parts of act 1 lvl61 mobs, while 3 and 4 are going all the way up to lvl65. :DDDD It will be awesome to see how hard things hit/scale. Point of reference is the highest healing potion, it heals for 12,500 hp http://us.battle.net/d3/en/item/mythic-health-potion
I think they said they wanted a sense of progression, and I think they specifically said that the difficulty in current Act 1 inferno is the same as the difficulty across all acts before the change (so they're making later acts harder, not early acts easier)
If you're somewhat competent, it isn't hard to figure out what is needed to beat the encounter. The hard part usually is the RNG in gearing up. Blizzard keeps saying it'll take months to beat Inferno so this implies that it's going to be very gear dependent.
On April 25 2012 06:50 LoliKuma wrote: Speaking of overtuning inferno. They recent revised the way inferno scaled, they wanted more people to actually access inferno, so they made the levels of the monsters more gradual increase, instead of the static lvl61 across all 4 acts.
Now, many nerds are going "OMG THEY'RE ALREADY NURFIN TEH GAEM!!1111" actually they made act 1 and some parts of act 1 lvl61 mobs, while 3 and 4 are going all the way up to lvl65. :DDDD It will be awesome to see how hard things hit/scale. Point of reference is the highest healing potion, it heals for 12,500 hp http://us.battle.net/d3/en/item/mythic-health-potion
I think they said they wanted a sense of progression, and I think they specifically said that the difficulty in current Act 1 inferno is the same as the difficulty across all acts before the change (so they're making later acts harder, not early acts easier)
maybe there are higher healing potions in the game - we don't know yet, bashiok said in his twitter the database hasn't been updated forever because it could spoil stuff but will be updated soon after the game is released.
So there could be healing potions that heal for 30k, so if you want to guess how hard mobs hit id rather go with defensive skills in the skillcalculator, diamond skin with the right rune can absorb 20k damage. How gear and everything will affect this value and how hard mobs really is something we probably have to find out by experience but i don't think a wizard that has the 20k defense buff activated is invincible especially because you can combine diamond skin with other defensive skills such as energy armor and the galvanizing wand passive. If you also go for gear that boosts your chance to crit a lot and use the critical mass passive you can use diamond skin all the time while regenerating 310hp/s
On April 25 2012 06:35 dmfg wrote: I'm not convinced by this "it's single player and therefore easy" argument.
I'm expecting 4 player coop to be the way all the first kills happen, and I'm expecting solo to be the hardest way to play.
Since - every class has group wide buffs (most of which look like they'd be included in most builds) - every class has monster debuffs (again, many of which look like they'd be included in most builds)
I mean the monk alone with the runed Conviction aura increases the damage output of every member of the group by 24%, plus another 15% if he has the passive that buffs the party when he does his heal spell. Likewise, he can debuff every monster to reduce all damage by 25%.
Now I'm extrapolating a bit since I don't know the other classes, but if every class can buff the damage output of each player by 25%, and debuff the monster damage by 25%, that means that with 4 players, every player is doing 244% of normal damage and taking just 32% of normal damage.
I.e., your 4 players are as strong as about 10 individual players, and as tough as about 12 individual players.
Unless monster damage and HP scale exponentially with players (which they don't appear to do), coop is going to be a LOT easier than solo. And honestly, it was the same way in D2.
I think that the best team to beat Inferno would be 4 monks. Mostly because they just need to stack one resistance stat and agility. Just one resistance since they use their highest value for all resistances, and agility gives lots of physical mitigation and damage with the +armor from agility passive. But then also because they have an aoe heal and 4 aoe buffs. With all of this stuff they should be the most invincible team you can create, basically able to tank way above their gear level while still dishing out the damage.
In D2 on hell diff some mobs are easy and others really hard. It all comes down to what type(s) of immunities they have. If monsters on inferno have several immunities that will ofc make it very hard without proper gear and skill distribution.
Many years ago in 1.09 I played mostly singleplayer with a javazon and I could clear the cow lvl in less than 5 mins. Ofc back then the javazon was insanely OP in the cowlvl. Still the highest rune I ever got from the damn cows was a Mal.
On April 25 2012 01:51 Caphe wrote: Look likes this Kenpack guy play too much WoW and give WoW boss too much credit. As a person who play WoW from the beta day, got (2nd kill of Nefarion in BWL on my server) till the end of fireland heroic. I can assure you that WoW is a casual game except for top guilds
Also, I don't know if you aware of this but when a person join a diablo game, all monster health is increased by 75%. So a group of 4 people will not fight the same monster that the one that solo does. One week for inferno last boss, lol. You need level 60 with hell gear in order to even do act 1 in inferno..I doubt there is any person on earth that can do that in one week.
I don't know why people compare WoW with Diablo. WoW is more about getting a group of 10/25 man together than anything else. Just give me random 25 people that will play consistanly 5 hours a day I will give you every heroic there are in WoW.
Same as the BL guy i've also been around top 3-25 guilds in the world from vanilla up to cata.
I will bet my life that if i give u 25(40) random people ( and i mean completely random ) even if they have knowledge of gaming you will never be able to beat.
TBC You would never even get pass the trash in SSC , not to mention the version of morogrim tidewalker with the reflecting water elementals ( very few guilds saw that ) Lady vashj prenerf Al'ar Solarian KT ( before healing aggro fix ) even after it... Not even gonna go into KJ and muru even after the interruption nerf.
WoTLK OS 10man 3 drakes up Freya after she got buffed after IS killed her HM 1st week 2min hodir Firefigther prenerf phase 1-2 Yogg 0 lights
But gratz on your server 2nd BWL kill , it seems you have alot of clue about diablo and wow. We can speculate alot about the true natue of how "hard" diablo 3 will be on inferno. But if its not massively overtuned like some bosses in WoW , i asure you it will be defeated under a week.
Three drakes 10 man was a joke, dunno what you're talking about. You just needed a competent OT and healers. But yeah otherwise I agree. My 1st guild crumbled at Patchwerk and the 2nd on pre-nerf Kael'thas. -.-
Regarding the time spent clearing Inferno: Just like in WoW there is a huge difference between the extremely hardcore and the "regular" hardcore. If it takes skilled gamers who play 16h per day more than 1 week, it will take the rest most likely 6 months, if they ever kill it at all. Unless Blizzard has really designed Inferno to be for the top 1% only, expect it to be cleared in days. And there's nothing wrong with that really, the most hardcore players know that content doesn't last as long for them as it does for others.
On April 25 2012 07:47 DaCruise wrote: In D2 on hell diff some mobs are easy and others really hard. It all comes down to what type(s) of immunities they have. If monsters on inferno have several immunities that will ofc make it very hard without proper gear and skill distribution.
Many years ago in 1.09 I played mostly singleplayer with a javazon and I could clear the cow lvl in less than 5 mins. Ofc back then the javazon was insanely OP in the cowlvl. Still the highest rune I ever got from the damn cows was a Mal.
Blizzard said they're removing mobs with immunities, there will be some with high resists, but no immunities.
On April 25 2012 08:10 Mastermyth wrote: Regarding the time spent clearing Inferno: Just like in WoW there is a huge difference between the extremely hardcore and the "regular" hardcore. If it takes skilled gamers who play 16h per day more than 1 week, it will take the rest most likely 6 months, if they ever kill it at all. Unless Blizzard has really designed Inferno to be for the top 1% only, expect it to be cleared in days. And there's nothing wrong with that really, the most hardcore players know that content doesn't last as long for them as it does for others.
Is the top 1% really that hard? Comparing it to Sc2 would be like mid masters since masters is the top 2% and look at how easy that is. In wow less than 0.1% saw the later stages of Naxx40, or the Sun Well.
On April 25 2012 08:10 Mastermyth wrote: Regarding the time spent clearing Inferno: Just like in WoW there is a huge difference between the extremely hardcore and the "regular" hardcore. If it takes skilled gamers who play 16h per day more than 1 week, it will take the rest most likely 6 months, if they ever kill it at all. Unless Blizzard has really designed Inferno to be for the top 1% only, expect it to be cleared in days. And there's nothing wrong with that really, the most hardcore players know that content doesn't last as long for them as it does for others.
Is the top 1% really that hard? Comparing it to Sc2 would be like mid masters since masters is the top 2% and look at how easy that is. In wow less than 0.1% saw the later stages of Naxx40, or the Sun Well.
Of players that were actually interested in seing the Sun Well the number was A LOT higher. Naxx40 was a different story though. No guild on my server got past the 4H.
On April 25 2012 08:10 Mastermyth wrote: Regarding the time spent clearing Inferno: Just like in WoW there is a huge difference between the extremely hardcore and the "regular" hardcore. If it takes skilled gamers who play 16h per day more than 1 week, it will take the rest most likely 6 months, if they ever kill it at all. Unless Blizzard has really designed Inferno to be for the top 1% only, expect it to be cleared in days. And there's nothing wrong with that really, the most hardcore players know that content doesn't last as long for them as it does for others.
Is the top 1% really that hard? Comparing it to Sc2 would be like mid masters since masters is the top 2% and look at how easy that is. In wow less than 0.1% saw the later stages of Naxx40, or the Sun Well.
Of players that were actually interested in seing the Sun Well the number was A LOT higher. Naxx40 was a different story though. No guild on my server got past the 4H.
I'm sure a lot more people saw Sun Well. But it boils down to people who were interested in the content. When BWL and ZG first came out a really small percentage of people saw the content. As time went by, more and more people cleared BWL and ZG. Now the content thats released right now, an expansion comes out within a year and thats not enough time for casual players to clear the high end stuff in WoW so it comes down to who is hardcore enough to finish the content when it actually matters (before the level cap goes up and the gear you once had is useless).
I honestly am more interested in how the RMAH and gold AH works out than the actual amount of time it takes to clear Inferno.
I agree that Inferno may be cleared in 2 weeks tops by someone with a bunch of money to blow, but for someone who decides not to invest any real money into the AH I think the few months benchmark is pretty reliable.
On April 25 2012 01:51 Caphe wrote: Look likes this Kenpack guy play too much WoW and give WoW boss too much credit. As a person who play WoW from the beta day, got (2nd kill of Nefarion in BWL on my server) till the end of fireland heroic. I can assure you that WoW is a casual game except for top guilds
Also, I don't know if you aware of this but when a person join a diablo game, all monster health is increased by 75%. So a group of 4 people will not fight the same monster that the one that solo does. One week for inferno last boss, lol. You need level 60 with hell gear in order to even do act 1 in inferno..I doubt there is any person on earth that can do that in one week.
I don't know why people compare WoW with Diablo. WoW is more about getting a group of 10/25 man together than anything else. Just give me random 25 people that will play consistanly 5 hours a day I will give you every heroic there are in WoW.
Same as the BL guy i've also been around top 3-25 guilds in the world from vanilla up to cata.
I will bet my life that if i give u 25(40) random people ( and i mean completely random ) even if they have knowledge of gaming you will never be able to beat.
TBC You would never even get pass the trash in SSC , not to mention the version of morogrim tidewalker with the reflecting water elementals ( very few guilds saw that ) Lady vashj prenerf Al'ar Solarian KT ( before healing aggro fix ) even after it... Not even gonna go into KJ and muru even after the interruption nerf.
WoTLK OS 10man 3 drakes up Freya after she got buffed after IS killed her HM 1st week 2min hodir Firefigther prenerf phase 1-2 Yogg 0 lights
But gratz on your server 2nd BWL kill , it seems you have alot of clue about diablo and wow. We can speculate alot about the true natue of how "hard" diablo 3 will be on inferno. But if its not massively overtuned like some bosses in WoW , i asure you it will be defeated under a week.
I am not arguing that D3 is more difficult than WoW, cos that pointless since they are two difference games in 2 difference genre. I myself admire people in top guilds in WoW and follow their progress very closely, so I may be a bit over my head with 25/40 random people. How about 25/40 people that in diamond/Master in SC2? Just people good at gaming in general.
My point being, you cant compare the 2 games. D3 was design to end for people that only want to finish the story line, or it could be endless if you are hardcore and want to PvP, if so even running inferno hundreds of time is not gonna satisfied.
On April 25 2012 08:10 Mastermyth wrote: Regarding the time spent clearing Inferno: Just like in WoW there is a huge difference between the extremely hardcore and the "regular" hardcore. If it takes skilled gamers who play 16h per day more than 1 week, it will take the rest most likely 6 months, if they ever kill it at all. Unless Blizzard has really designed Inferno to be for the top 1% only, expect it to be cleared in days. And there's nothing wrong with that really, the most hardcore players know that content doesn't last as long for them as it does for others.
Is the top 1% really that hard? Comparing it to Sc2 would be like mid masters since masters is the top 2% and look at how easy that is. In wow less than 0.1% saw the later stages of Naxx40, or the Sun Well.
Of players that were actually interested in seing the Sun Well the number was A LOT higher. Naxx40 was a different story though. No guild on my server got past the 4H.
I'm sure a lot more people saw Sun Well. But it boils down to people who were interested in the content. When BWL and ZG first came out a really small percentage of people saw the content. As time went by, more and more people cleared BWL and ZG. Now the content thats released right now, an expansion comes out within a year and thats not enough time for casual players to clear the high end stuff in WoW so it comes down to who is hardcore enough to finish the content when it actually matters (before the level cap goes up and the gear you once had is useless).
Everyone saw Sunwell because they did that bullshit nerf that reduced every boss/unit's health in the raid dungeons by 30% and took away a lot of their abilities and the like a couple months before the release of WoTLK.
On April 25 2012 08:10 Mastermyth wrote: Regarding the time spent clearing Inferno: Just like in WoW there is a huge difference between the extremely hardcore and the "regular" hardcore. If it takes skilled gamers who play 16h per day more than 1 week, it will take the rest most likely 6 months, if they ever kill it at all. Unless Blizzard has really designed Inferno to be for the top 1% only, expect it to be cleared in days. And there's nothing wrong with that really, the most hardcore players know that content doesn't last as long for them as it does for others.
Is the top 1% really that hard? Comparing it to Sc2 would be like mid masters since masters is the top 2% and look at how easy that is. In wow less than 0.1% saw the later stages of Naxx40, or the Sun Well.
Of players that were actually interested in seing the Sun Well the number was A LOT higher. Naxx40 was a different story though. No guild on my server got past the 4H.
I'm sure a lot more people saw Sun Well. But it boils down to people who were interested in the content. When BWL and ZG first came out a really small percentage of people saw the content. As time went by, more and more people cleared BWL and ZG. Now the content thats released right now, an expansion comes out within a year and thats not enough time for casual players to clear the high end stuff in WoW so it comes down to who is hardcore enough to finish the content when it actually matters (before the level cap goes up and the gear you once had is useless).
Everyone saw Sunwell because they did that bullshit nerf that reduced every boss/unit's health in the raid dungeons by 30% and took away a lot of their abilities and the like a couple months before the release of WoTLK.
Oh yea the patch that made Ret pallies the highest dps in the game by some ungodly amount.
On April 24 2012 09:08 skyR wrote: It's going to be less than 5% like every other game. The majority of players will finish the game and than not even touch the higher difficulties or quit somewhere inbetween. I think you're overestimating the skill level or dedication for the general gaming population...
i think u dont realize how much blizzard has sold out.. the game will be pretty easy. i think 6-20%
Did D2 become a lot harder with the expansion? Because I played for a while around 2001-2002 and had very little problem doing anything with unoptimized builds and very little planning. I don't remember much trouble going through hell and I certainly wasn't hardcore.
I played though Hell twice in solo (non-hardcore) mode, but I wouldn't call myself good at it at all. The game certainly wasn't very hard, you just needed to spend some time in it. So yes, that meant doing some leveling before the final boss. Big deal.
I'll do the same with D3, I think. Or maybe skip insane if it's really that hard. But I'll take my time reaching it, i'm in no hurry at all...
On April 24 2012 09:08 skyR wrote: It's going to be less than 5% like every other game. The majority of players will finish the game and than not even touch the higher difficulties or quit somewhere inbetween. I think you're overestimating the skill level or dedication for the general gaming population...
i think u dont realize how much blizzard has sold out.. the game will be pretty easy. i think 6-20%
And I think your response might be part of an agenda that's blinding you from this aspect (where in others, I may agree).
That is, by a Diablo 2 standard and based on what was delivered in the OP's speech, Inferno as a whole appears more difficult than the average Hell run in LoD. However, I'm interested in why you may disagree if it's not a remote summary of all the ways in which Blizzard has let us down over the past few years, because I could discuss that at length to a different conclusion.
On April 24 2012 20:08 bLah. wrote: lol, it doesn't matter how "extreme" you are, if some difficulty setting is a gear check, you'll need to farm and not just run through it. And it's pretty obvious how they want casuals to finish game on normal, and everyone else to play further. My guess would be a month to beat inferno although that's totally dependant on that if someone is going to buy gear or just farm everything on it's own
I bet the average quality drops will be more than enough for inferno for some players.
I'll eventually try record some inferno runs with less than optimal items (maybe whites only) and one day try armor-less too. I suspect that will be close to impossible, but you never know.
If you've seen any of the videos where they showcase higher difficulties you'd see that if you have bad armor you get 1 shotted. Not sure what kind of skill you think you have, but nothing can save you if you just get 1-2 shotted
He also mentioned 1 day per difficulty, which to me sounds really foolish. Unless im misreading his post, of course. Normal would be real fast, i am extremely doubtful that i would spend a full day there. But im expecting this amount of time to increase drastically with the increasing difficulty. Unless Blizz screws up hardcore (which is unlikely, from what we've seen), Inferno won't be beaten solo by some guy playing by himself in 4 days. Organized groups of rotation playing (8 hours/day/person to ensure top quality performance), and gear pooling (~20 chars pooling gears into 4 chars), i can reasonably expect them to finish Inferno in 4 days. Of course, if they are the internal testers and have finished the game before, knowing perfectly what to do, this amount of time will decrease a little, but not by much.
All in all, im looking at MaReK's posts as pretty much idle boasts in order to try to look cool/ lengthen e-peen. Seeing as we do not have much information on the game and it's difficulty at all, these kind of statement is mostly junk.
Regarding the other guy who posted about "finishing" the game, i believe that a Diablo game is considered "finished" once you have beaten the highest difficulty (personally, i would say to beat it solo, but im sure some will disagree). As we already know, Normal is pretty much something you and your baby little sister is s'posed to be able to beat. The meat of the game (items, higher levels, more challenging monsters, gameplay) is in the later difficulties, so finishing normal is far from finishing the game, as far as i am concerned.
@Condor I disagree with the Achievement part. Some people just don't care about frivolous things like getting achievements, and rather prefer just playing the game, beating up monsters to doing mundane tasks in order to complete pre-set objectives. I would say finishing Inferno would qualify as "beating the game". Cos again, Achievements most often are just mundane tasks rather than challenging ones (though im sure there are/will be exceptions)
I somewhat disagree with your disagreement. My fiance who is also a bit of a gamer does not consider a game beaten until she has all the achievements. She's currently trying to get the rest of Dragon Age's achievements including the never die one. Beating a game without dying is a very legit achievement. I found Most of the SC2 single player achievements to be worth it. I still haven't beaten it on Brutal...but I am content with beating the game up through all the achievements on the hard playthrough. Truly beating a game is 100% clearing it, achieving max level, best gear and beating all bosses even the optional ones. Whether you think achievements are a part of that or not is ultimately up to you.
On April 25 2012 01:51 Caphe wrote: Look likes this Kenpack guy play too much WoW and give WoW boss too much credit. As a person who play WoW from the beta day, got (2nd kill of Nefarion in BWL on my server) till the end of fireland heroic. I can assure you that WoW is a casual game except for top guilds
Also, I don't know if you aware of this but when a person join a diablo game, all monster health is increased by 75%. So a group of 4 people will not fight the same monster that the one that solo does. One week for inferno last boss, lol. You need level 60 with hell gear in order to even do act 1 in inferno..I doubt there is any person on earth that can do that in one week.
I don't know why people compare WoW with Diablo. WoW is more about getting a group of 10/25 man together than anything else. Just give me random 25 people that will play consistanly 5 hours a day I will give you every heroic there are in WoW.
Same as the BL guy i've also been around top 3-25 guilds in the world from vanilla up to cata.
I will bet my life that if i give u 25(40) random people ( and i mean completely random ) even if they have knowledge of gaming you will never be able to beat.
TBC You would never even get pass the trash in SSC , not to mention the version of morogrim tidewalker with the reflecting water elementals ( very few guilds saw that ) Lady vashj prenerf Al'ar Solarian KT ( before healing aggro fix ) even after it... Not even gonna go into KJ and muru even after the interruption nerf.
WoTLK OS 10man 3 drakes up Freya after she got buffed after IS killed her HM 1st week 2min hodir Firefigther prenerf phase 1-2 Yogg 0 lights
But gratz on your server 2nd BWL kill , it seems you have alot of clue about diablo and wow. We can speculate alot about the true natue of how "hard" diablo 3 will be on inferno. But if its not massively overtuned like some bosses in WoW , i asure you it will be defeated under a week.
Depends on the game. Take 25 random FFXI players and they'll more than likely clear it no problem. WoW was never that difficult, at least compared to FFXI. I'd like to see WoW players try and take down Pandemonium Warden pre-nerf, Absolute Virtue pre-nerf, most of the Chains of Promethia missions pre-nerfs, Kirin, etc. all during the expansions they were set in. I doubt even a tenth of WoW players would even reach level 60, let alone 75/37 with merits pre-experience buffs.
WoW was a completely casual game. I played it for a few months and it was mind-numbingly easy and boring. Let's hope D3 is a bit more challenging.
On April 24 2012 23:42 skyR wrote: Ulduar was insanely overtuned, I don't know what you're talking about.
I thought it was perfectly tuned for all skill levels and ambitions. Ulduar is still considered to be the most balanced dungeon in WoW, and one the highest experiences in MMO history. But I am probably flavoring it with my own experiences.
I have like 7 more. Too bad wowmeter kept overwriting my world records instead of storing them because on Freya I beat my own world record like 7 times and Thorim like 3 times and no one beat my original record for like 8 weeks. i think at one time they did but no one wants to see my name 6 times on every list.
So you could say I had a blast.
Blizzard obviously has the potential to make games difficult and balanced but wrangling it out of them takes time and effort and the stars only align once every 5 years or so.
On April 25 2012 01:51 Caphe wrote: Look likes this Kenpack guy play too much WoW and give WoW boss too much credit. As a person who play WoW from the beta day, got (2nd kill of Nefarion in BWL on my server) till the end of fireland heroic. I can assure you that WoW is a casual game except for top guilds
Also, I don't know if you aware of this but when a person join a diablo game, all monster health is increased by 75%. So a group of 4 people will not fight the same monster that the one that solo does. One week for inferno last boss, lol. You need level 60 with hell gear in order to even do act 1 in inferno..I doubt there is any person on earth that can do that in one week.
I don't know why people compare WoW with Diablo. WoW is more about getting a group of 10/25 man together than anything else. Just give me random 25 people that will play consistanly 5 hours a day I will give you every heroic there are in WoW.
Same as the BL guy i've also been around top 3-25 guilds in the world from vanilla up to cata.
I will bet my life that if i give u 25(40) random people ( and i mean completely random ) even if they have knowledge of gaming you will never be able to beat.
TBC You would never even get pass the trash in SSC , not to mention the version of morogrim tidewalker with the reflecting water elementals ( very few guilds saw that ) Lady vashj prenerf Al'ar Solarian KT ( before healing aggro fix ) even after it... Not even gonna go into KJ and muru even after the interruption nerf.
WoTLK OS 10man 3 drakes up Freya after she got buffed after IS killed her HM 1st week 2min hodir Firefigther prenerf phase 1-2 Yogg 0 lights
But gratz on your server 2nd BWL kill , it seems you have alot of clue about diablo and wow. We can speculate alot about the true natue of how "hard" diablo 3 will be on inferno. But if its not massively overtuned like some bosses in WoW , i asure you it will be defeated under a week.
Depends on the game. Take 25 random FFXI players and they'll more than likely clear it no problem. WoW was never that difficult, at least compared to FFXI. I'd like to see WoW players try and take down Pandemonium Warden pre-nerf, Absolute Virtue pre-nerf, most of the Chains of Promethia missions pre-nerfs, Kirin, etc. all during the expansions they were set in. I doubt even a tenth of WoW players would even reach level 60, let alone 75/37 with merits pre-experience buffs.
WoW was a completely casual game. I played it for a few months and it was mind-numbingly easy and boring. Let's hope D3 is a bit more challenging.
You are entitled to your opinion but I find it based on flawed evidence. If WoW was mind numbingly easy then you would not see only the top .2% of guilds completing content for months and months (in Ulduar top .02%). Instead you would see what happens with the games opening and introductory content (normal modes) which is that everybody clears everything all at once. But no we have a clear cut gradient at the highest levels.
If you played with a guild that never attempted anything hard then.... yes?
Why exactly are you people discussing the finer points of WoW raid tuning? Many of us have been there, some of us have played hardcore, and I think we all know that a) Blizzard is capable of designing challenging encounters and b) you can't compare a (single-player) action-RPG and a MMORPG. So please stop boasting with your intricate raid knowledge and your past accomplishment because frankly, they contribute little to nothing to the Diablo 3 difficulty discussion.
On April 24 2012 14:55 NotSorry wrote: The devs keep dropping little hints that it might be months til someone beats inferno, I would honestly be surprised if it lasts 2 weeks, to the point of taking it as a challenge to myself of doing it before then, while still maintaining my busy life style. Now sure the vast majority of players will quit the game long before even seeing the end of the 2nd or 3rd difficulty but don't underestimate gamers as a whole just because of a casual majority.
firefighter
What's that again? Mimiron Hardmode? God I loved that fight!
On April 25 2012 17:43 Shockk wrote: Why exactly are you people discussing the finer points of WoW raid tuning? Many of us have been there, some of us have played hardcore, and I think we all know that a) Blizzard is capable of designing challenging encounters and b) you can't compare a (single-player) action-RPG and a MMORPG. So please stop boasting with your intricate raid knowledge and your past accomplishment because frankly, they contribute little to nothing to the Diablo 3 difficulty discussion.
Its talking about the developing companies ability to make difficult content to begin with. By analyzing the past we find the cycle of the future.
On April 24 2012 14:55 NotSorry wrote: The devs keep dropping little hints that it might be months til someone beats inferno, I would honestly be surprised if it lasts 2 weeks, to the point of taking it as a challenge to myself of doing it before then, while still maintaining my busy life style. Now sure the vast majority of players will quit the game long before even seeing the end of the 2nd or 3rd difficulty but don't underestimate gamers as a whole just because of a casual majority.
firefighter
What's that again? Mimiron Hardmode? God I loved that fight!
That encounter was great. You can clearly see that some guy went "HOLY SHIT guys I got a great idea, fire on the floor......THAT MOVES!?" Was a perfectly tuned encounter, you didnt need to stack a certain class.
Heat seaking......heat. Too bad they added this mechanic to so many encounters as a fucking crutch.
On April 25 2012 17:43 Shockk wrote: Why exactly are you people discussing the finer points of WoW raid tuning? Many of us have been there, some of us have played hardcore, and I think we all know that a) Blizzard is capable of designing challenging encounters and b) you can't compare a (single-player) action-RPG and a MMORPG. So please stop boasting with your intricate raid knowledge and your past accomplishment because frankly, they contribute little to nothing to the Diablo 3 difficulty discussion.
Its talking about the developing companies ability to make difficult content to begin with. By analyzing the past we find the cycle of the future.
Except that every time WoW comes up in a D3 thread, there's no actual discussion. Just endless repetitions of
- "WoW is casual crap" - "Anyone could beat WoW with 25 random people" - "You have no clue, XYZ pre-nerf was super-hardcore" - "Actually it was well done because ..."
And after two or three pages have passed where everyone regurgitates statistics and numbers most people either already know or don't care about, people agree that both games can't really be compared or the discussion dies down ... only to be revived shortly after.
Everyone who has ever played a Blizzard game knows that they can design challenging content. Everyone who played WoW knows that there were things for everyone, from Hogger to Muru.
thing with diablo is that it has pretty low skill cap. of course best players will be better than casuals etc, but there really isn't all that much you can do. Only important thing is that you use right strategy for every encounter. Because of that reason, once someone manages to beat a boss and record that so everyone can see his strategy, other people will easily do it. That's why they will put some serious gear checks so that you can't just walk into inferno with blue magic gear and destroy everything, because that would mean that bunch of other people can do it and in that scenario everyone would clear a game in under a month and then start whining about new content. They don't want that. I'd say its surely gonna take 100+ hours of gameplay for people who don't just buy all their gear through rmah
Dont play 15 hours a day and it will last more than 2 weeks. How hard is that to understand. No game lasts forever unless you implement artificial hurdles to halt progress. Obviously some guy, somewhere, will beat it over the course of 1 week, given his supply of adult diapers and hot pockets. Personnally I dont want to be that guy. Let him have his brag post and cardiac arrest, I'll enjoy a slower pace, and life.
Looked around a bit on the gear, seems like a level 60 char decked out in inferno rares will have 4-7 times (depending on what tier of hell rares) the health of a level 60 char decked out in hell rares, not to mention the increase in armor and resistance. Gearcheck? Yup. Damage doesn't scale as much though, roughly 2-4 times the damage, but still...
On April 24 2012 23:42 skyR wrote: Ulduar was insanely overtuned, I don't know what you're talking about.
I thought it was perfectly tuned for all skill levels and ambitions. Ulduar is still considered to be the most balanced dungeon in WoW, and one the highest experiences in MMO history. But I am probably flavoring it with my own experiences.
I have like 7 more. Too bad wowmeter kept overwriting my world records instead of storing them because on Freya I beat my own world record like 7 times and Thorim like 3 times and no one beat my original record for like 8 weeks. i think at one time they did but no one wants to see my name 6 times on every list.
So you could say I had a blast.
Blizzard obviously has the potential to make games difficult and balanced but wrangling it out of them takes time and effort and the stars only align once every 5 years or so.
It's no doubt that Ulduar was one of the most amazing raids ever created but it's hard to deny that some of the encounters weren't overtuned since they got overly nerfed before kills started coming in regularly. Firefighter, 2min Hodir, Council come to mind.
Im kind of curious if D3 would have those starter builds for ladder to farm gears for (Blizz/orb cold sorc, Summon+CE necro, maybe javazon too) that doesnt really need gear to farm hard....TBH the nec was the only reason I was able to make it through hell d2 and get decent shit for my other characters. Since they are emphasizing on the game being hard Im not sure if no-gear is viable anymore.
On April 25 2012 21:45 padfoota wrote: Im kind of curious if D3 would have those starter builds for ladder to farm gears for (Blizz/orb cold sorc, Summon+CE necro, maybe javazon too) that doesnt really need gear to farm hard....TBH the nec was the only reason I was able to make it through hell d2 and get decent shit for my other characters. Since they are emphasizing on the game being hard Im not sure if no-gear is viable anymore.
Seeing as skills are weapon damage based, you WILL need gear to do anything. This wasn't the case in D2.
Ignoring all the wow e-peens swelling with pride and achievements, I'd find it really cool if it took long time before the game was beaten! Would feel like much more of an achievement once I got there myself then.
Hope it will not be too messed up by bots, duping etc though.
Hey man, for a gamer who likes to play games for fun at least 3 hours a day, it doesn't matter how many difficulties they create in games, it will always be easy to beat it. With higher difficulties comes better gear and seems the only thing that made a difference was the abuse of monster immunities. Seriously that forced multiplayer because no other way around to beat diablo game in hell or even nightmare when you meet your immunity dopplehanger,unless you're a mofo and have all sort of uber gear to fit every situation but again if you have that, you must've already finished the game on hell at least 100 times to get the runes.
Also higher difficulties should not only repeat the main story, but add more to the map, new bosses and such. Beating the game 3 times in a row doing the same stuff over and over is really boring and not encouraging at all for a casual gamer.
On April 26 2012 00:39 terranu1 wrote: Hey man, for a gamer who likes to play games for fun at least 3 hours a day, it doesn't matter how many difficulties they create in games, it will always be easy to beat it. With higher difficulties comes better gear and seems the only thing that made a difference was the abuse of monster immunities. Seriously that forced multiplayer because no other way around to beat diablo game in hell or even nightmare when you meet your immunity dopplehanger,unless you're a mofo and have all sort of uber gear to fit every situation but again if you have that, you must've already finished the game on hell at least 100 times to get the runes.
Also higher difficulties should not only repeat the main story, but add more to the map, new bosses and such. Beating the game 3 times in a row doing the same stuff over and over is really boring and not encouraging at all for a casual gamer.
Agree that it'd be cool if they made some small twists to the maps, quests, monsters and bosses on each difficulty. They don't have to write a new storyline, but some changes that make you stay awake.
On April 26 2012 00:39 terranu1 wrote: Hey man, for a gamer who likes to play games for fun at least 3 hours a day, it doesn't matter how many difficulties they create in games, it will always be easy to beat it. With higher difficulties comes better gear and seems the only thing that made a difference was the abuse of monster immunities. Seriously that forced multiplayer because no other way around to beat diablo game in hell or even nightmare when you meet your immunity dopplehanger,unless you're a mofo and have all sort of uber gear to fit every situation but again if you have that, you must've already finished the game on hell at least 100 times to get the runes.
Also higher difficulties should not only repeat the main story, but add more to the map, new bosses and such. Beating the game 3 times in a row doing the same stuff over and over is really boring and not encouraging at all for a casual gamer.
Agree that it'd be cool if they made some small twists to the maps, quests, monsters and bosses on each difficulty. They don't have to write a new storyline, but some changes that make you stay awake.
Monsters get more abilities as you increase the difficulty. They also get different abilities.
Normal: 1-2 abilities, not that dangerous (knockback).
Hell and Inferno: 4 abilities, very dangerous (lightning enchant, nightmare, molten, and cursed all on the same monster).
I don't know anything about the specifics, but Blizzard has said that a lot of monster abilities don't even show up until hell.
On April 26 2012 00:39 terranu1 wrote: Hey man, for a gamer who likes to play games for fun at least 3 hours a day, it doesn't matter how many difficulties they create in games, it will always be easy to beat it. With higher difficulties comes better gear and seems the only thing that made a difference was the abuse of monster immunities. Seriously that forced multiplayer because no other way around to beat diablo game in hell or even nightmare when you meet your immunity dopplehanger,unless you're a mofo and have all sort of uber gear to fit every situation but again if you have that, you must've already finished the game on hell at least 100 times to get the runes.
Also higher difficulties should not only repeat the main story, but add more to the map, new bosses and such. Beating the game 3 times in a row doing the same stuff over and over is really boring and not encouraging at all for a casual gamer.
Agree that it'd be cool if they made some small twists to the maps, quests, monsters and bosses on each difficulty. They don't have to write a new storyline, but some changes that make you stay awake.
Monsters get more abilities as you increase the difficulty. They also get different abilities.
Normal: 1-2 abilities, not that dangerous (knockback).
Hell and Inferno: 4 abilities, very dangerous (lightning enchant, nightmare, molten, and cursed all on the same monster).
I don't know anything about the specifics, but Blizzard has said that a lot of monster abilities don't even show up until hell.
I can't wait to have an elite mob teleport to me and then fear me to death. It will be amazing.
On April 26 2012 00:39 terranu1 wrote: Hey man, for a gamer who likes to play games for fun at least 3 hours a day, it doesn't matter how many difficulties they create in games, it will always be easy to beat it. With higher difficulties comes better gear and seems the only thing that made a difference was the abuse of monster immunities. Seriously that forced multiplayer because no other way around to beat diablo game in hell or even nightmare when you meet your immunity dopplehanger,unless you're a mofo and have all sort of uber gear to fit every situation but again if you have that, you must've already finished the game on hell at least 100 times to get the runes.
Also higher difficulties should not only repeat the main story, but add more to the map, new bosses and such. Beating the game 3 times in a row doing the same stuff over and over is really boring and not encouraging at all for a casual gamer.
Agree that it'd be cool if they made some small twists to the maps, quests, monsters and bosses on each difficulty. They don't have to write a new storyline, but some changes that make you stay awake.
Monsters get more abilities as you increase the difficulty. They also get different abilities.
Normal: 1-2 abilities, not that dangerous (knockback).
Hell and Inferno: 4 abilities, very dangerous (lightning enchant, nightmare, molten, and cursed all on the same monster).
I don't know anything about the specifics, but Blizzard has said that a lot of monster abilities don't even show up until hell.
I can't wait to have an elite mob teleport to me and then fear me to death. It will be amazing.
and probably very furstrating when you'll die to it 5-6 times in a row
On April 26 2012 00:39 terranu1 wrote: Hey man, for a gamer who likes to play games for fun at least 3 hours a day, it doesn't matter how many difficulties they create in games, it will always be easy to beat it. With higher difficulties comes better gear and seems the only thing that made a difference was the abuse of monster immunities. Seriously that forced multiplayer because no other way around to beat diablo game in hell or even nightmare when you meet your immunity dopplehanger,unless you're a mofo and have all sort of uber gear to fit every situation but again if you have that, you must've already finished the game on hell at least 100 times to get the runes.
Also higher difficulties should not only repeat the main story, but add more to the map, new bosses and such. Beating the game 3 times in a row doing the same stuff over and over is really boring and not encouraging at all for a casual gamer.
Agree that it'd be cool if they made some small twists to the maps, quests, monsters and bosses on each difficulty. They don't have to write a new storyline, but some changes that make you stay awake.
Monsters get more abilities as you increase the difficulty. They also get different abilities.
Normal: 1-2 abilities, not that dangerous (knockback).
Hell and Inferno: 4 abilities, very dangerous (lightning enchant, nightmare, molten, and cursed all on the same monster).
I don't know anything about the specifics, but Blizzard has said that a lot of monster abilities don't even show up until hell.
I can't wait to have an elite mob teleport to me and then fear me to death. It will be amazing.
and probably very furstrating when you'll die to it 5-6 times in a row
I'm not convinced by this "it's single player and therefore easy" argument.
I'm expecting 4 player coop to be the way all the first kills happen, and I'm expecting solo to be the hardest way to play.
Since - every class has group wide buffs (most of which look like they'd be included in most builds) - every class has monster debuffs (again, many of which look like they'd be included in most builds)
I mean the monk alone with the runed Conviction aura increases the damage output of every member of the group by 24%, plus another 15% if he has the passive that buffs the party when he does his heal spell. Likewise, he can debuff every monster to reduce all damage by 25%.
Now I'm extrapolating a bit since I don't know the other classes, but if every class can buff the damage output of each player by 25%, and debuff the monster damage by 25%, that means that with 4 players, every player is doing 244% of normal damage and taking just 32% of normal damage.
I.e., your 4 players are as strong as about 10 individual players, and as tough as about 12 individual players.
Unless monster damage and HP scale exponentially with players (which they don't appear to do), coop is going to be a LOT easier than solo. And honestly, it was the same way in D2.
You just argumented that the game cant be really hard for 4 players, if coop play is optional. There is even more like pets or players tanking for ranged classes. More AOE slows etc. In Diablo 2 everything was incredible easy if you had tanks that can survive. The only real hard part would be, if WD pets or barbs and monks couldnt tank in inferno for at least a few seconds. But if they make it that hard, melee classes would be way weaker, cause well ye you have to tank to do damage. Remember damage doesnt scale, the more players are in the game. So how is a barb player with monk aura and maybe heals from a wd, slows from a sorc etc not be able to tank inferno, if a barb or monk is supposed to solo the content ?
Also people underestimate the level of casualness. By visiting this forum before the game is even out, you are already prob around 2% "hardcore" of the whole playerbase.
I hope Im wrong, as I would like a really really hard game too, but my hopes are slim.
I'm not convinced by this "it's single player and therefore easy" argument.
I'm expecting 4 player coop to be the way all the first kills happen, and I'm expecting solo to be the hardest way to play.
Since - every class has group wide buffs (most of which look like they'd be included in most builds) - every class has monster debuffs (again, many of which look like they'd be included in most builds)
I mean the monk alone with the runed Conviction aura increases the damage output of every member of the group by 24%, plus another 15% if he has the passive that buffs the party when he does his heal spell. Likewise, he can debuff every monster to reduce all damage by 25%.
Now I'm extrapolating a bit since I don't know the other classes, but if every class can buff the damage output of each player by 25%, and debuff the monster damage by 25%, that means that with 4 players, every player is doing 244% of normal damage and taking just 32% of normal damage.
I.e., your 4 players are as strong as about 10 individual players, and as tough as about 12 individual players.
Unless monster damage and HP scale exponentially with players (which they don't appear to do), coop is going to be a LOT easier than solo. And honestly, it was the same way in D2.
You just argumented that the game cant be really hard for 4 players, if coop play is optional. There is even more like pets or players tanking for ranged classes. More AOE slows etc. In Diablo 2 everything was incredible easy if you had tanks that can survive. The only real hard part would be, if WD pets or barbs and monks couldnt tank in inferno for at least a few seconds. But if they make it that hard, melee classes would be way weaker, cause well ye you have to tank to do damage. Remember damage doesnt scale, the more players are in the game. So how is a barb player with monk aura and maybe heals from a wd, slows from a sorc etc not be able to tank inferno, if a barb or monk is supposed to solo the content ?
When you solo you got a companion which gives you buffs, heals you, tanks a few hits and uses crowd controls and there is zero problem with him dying. People always seem to forget that...
I'm not convinced by this "it's single player and therefore easy" argument.
I'm expecting 4 player coop to be the way all the first kills happen, and I'm expecting solo to be the hardest way to play.
Since - every class has group wide buffs (most of which look like they'd be included in most builds) - every class has monster debuffs (again, many of which look like they'd be included in most builds)
I mean the monk alone with the runed Conviction aura increases the damage output of every member of the group by 24%, plus another 15% if he has the passive that buffs the party when he does his heal spell. Likewise, he can debuff every monster to reduce all damage by 25%.
Now I'm extrapolating a bit since I don't know the other classes, but if every class can buff the damage output of each player by 25%, and debuff the monster damage by 25%, that means that with 4 players, every player is doing 244% of normal damage and taking just 32% of normal damage.
I.e., your 4 players are as strong as about 10 individual players, and as tough as about 12 individual players.
Unless monster damage and HP scale exponentially with players (which they don't appear to do), coop is going to be a LOT easier than solo. And honestly, it was the same way in D2.
You just argumented that the game cant be really hard for 4 players, if coop play is optional. There is even more like pets or players tanking for ranged classes. More AOE slows etc. In Diablo 2 everything was incredible easy if you had tanks that can survive. The only real hard part would be, if WD pets or barbs and monks couldnt tank in inferno for at least a few seconds. But if they make it that hard, melee classes would be way weaker, cause well ye you have to tank to do damage. Remember damage doesnt scale, the more players are in the game. So how is a barb player with monk aura and maybe heals from a wd, slows from a sorc etc not be able to tank inferno, if a barb or monk is supposed to solo the content ?
When you solo you got a companion which gives you buffs, heals you, tanks a few hits and uses crowd controls and there is zero problem with him dying. People always seem to forget that...
Blizzard has said the game as it stands now is catered towards soloable content. Groups will make you probably kill faster but level a lot slower. So once people start hitting the level cap, you will see more people grouping for bosses and such.
Edit: But then again they've also said that the game doesn't encourage boss farming so I guess the main point of partying will be to clear content faster. Just that won't mean much though since magic find works better in solo and so does leveling.
On April 26 2012 05:53 Blasterion wrote: Adding people also makes the mobs themselves stronger, So a co-op might not be as easy as soloing Inferno.
It's only by 75% though for person right? Combine that with the fact that several classes can give eachother buffs and theres no way Co-Op is going to be harder except maybe for a few bosses.
On April 26 2012 05:53 Blasterion wrote: Adding people also makes the mobs themselves stronger, So a co-op might not be as easy as soloing Inferno.
It's only by 75% though for person right? Combine that with the fact that several classes can give eachother buffs and theres no way Co-Op is going to be harder except maybe for a few bosses.
Who knows maybe Blizzard is hiding this detail and it goes 75% on Normal, maybe 100% on Nightmare, 125% on Hell, and 150% on Inferno which would be amusing but probably not the case.
On April 24 2012 23:42 skyR wrote: Ulduar was insanely overtuned, I don't know what you're talking about.
I thought it was perfectly tuned for all skill levels and ambitions. Ulduar is still considered to be the most balanced dungeon in WoW, and one the highest experiences in MMO history. But I am probably flavoring it with my own experiences.
I have like 7 more. Too bad wowmeter kept overwriting my world records instead of storing them because on Freya I beat my own world record like 7 times and Thorim like 3 times and no one beat my original record for like 8 weeks. i think at one time they did but no one wants to see my name 6 times on every list.
So you could say I had a blast.
Blizzard obviously has the potential to make games difficult and balanced but wrangling it out of them takes time and effort and the stars only align once every 5 years or so.
It's no doubt that Ulduar was one of the most amazing raids ever created but it's hard to deny that some of the encounters weren't overtuned since they got overly nerfed before kills started coming in regularly. Firefighter, 2min Hodir, Council come to mind.
I would disagree since before they ever got nerfed they got buffed. Mimiron was uptuned before anyone killed it. Hodir timer was shortened (used to be longer than 2min IIRC 2.5?). Then extended when Ensidia had to cheat it to be beatable >.> 2 minutes was really stupid though. That hard mode in general was stupid.
Council was also buffed. You couldn't teleport out of the dungeon to avoid the death leach. So i find it kinda funny you mention those encounters because before they were ever nerfed, they were buffed first :p
Jay Wilson: “When we’re testing the highest difficulty level, we don’t force testers to level-up from scratch each time. Their chars receive randomized equipment of 0.5~1 lvl under the boss’s level. After 20 attempts the boss was still undefeated. We hope the most difficult bosses will be really, really hard to beat, as we know from experience never, NEVER underestimate our players. We set the difficulty based on how our most skilled staff felt to be adequate. Then we MULTIPLY THIS BY 2 upon release”
(P.S. He further explains that “times by 2″ not only refers to mob damage output & HP, but also to the extent that players will need to “apply combat skills depth”.)
On April 24 2012 23:42 skyR wrote: Ulduar was insanely overtuned, I don't know what you're talking about.
I thought it was perfectly tuned for all skill levels and ambitions. Ulduar is still considered to be the most balanced dungeon in WoW, and one the highest experiences in MMO history. But I am probably flavoring it with my own experiences.
I have like 7 more. Too bad wowmeter kept overwriting my world records instead of storing them because on Freya I beat my own world record like 7 times and Thorim like 3 times and no one beat my original record for like 8 weeks. i think at one time they did but no one wants to see my name 6 times on every list.
So you could say I had a blast.
Blizzard obviously has the potential to make games difficult and balanced but wrangling it out of them takes time and effort and the stars only align once every 5 years or so.
It's no doubt that Ulduar was one of the most amazing raids ever created but it's hard to deny that some of the encounters weren't overtuned since they got overly nerfed before kills started coming in regularly. Firefighter, 2min Hodir, Council come to mind.
I would disagree since before they ever got nerfed they got buffed. Mimiron was uptuned before anyone killed it. Hodir timer was shortened (used to be longer than 2min IIRC 2.5?). Then extended when Ensidia had to cheat it to be beatable >.> 2 minutes was really stupid though. That hard mode in general was stupid.
Council was also buffed. You couldn't teleport out of the dungeon to avoid the death leach. So i find it kinda funny you mention those encounters because before they were ever nerfed, they were buffed first :p
2min hodir was actually not achievable barring spectacularly good RNG on your NPCs behaviors (sometimes they would do nothing for 15~ seconds, other times instantly hand out buffs)
Ulduar was insanely overtuned, I don't know what you're talking about.
Ulduar was arguably one of the BEST tuned (at releast) raid instances blizzard has ever produced. Barring Yogg+0 and Hodir, everything else was very achievable.
The thing about co-op is that even though monsters have more HP, the players are going to have abilities that can help each other. Auras that boost the damage and defense of the entire party, heals that heal everyone, etc. Co-op will definitely be easier than solo.
I'll be sticking to solo regardless, I'd rather play at my own pace, pausing and alt-tabbing every now and then to watch an SC2 stream etc.
On April 24 2012 23:42 skyR wrote: Ulduar was insanely overtuned, I don't know what you're talking about.
I thought it was perfectly tuned for all skill levels and ambitions. Ulduar is still considered to be the most balanced dungeon in WoW, and one the highest experiences in MMO history. But I am probably flavoring it with my own experiences.
I have like 7 more. Too bad wowmeter kept overwriting my world records instead of storing them because on Freya I beat my own world record like 7 times and Thorim like 3 times and no one beat my original record for like 8 weeks. i think at one time they did but no one wants to see my name 6 times on every list.
So you could say I had a blast.
Blizzard obviously has the potential to make games difficult and balanced but wrangling it out of them takes time and effort and the stars only align once every 5 years or so.
It's no doubt that Ulduar was one of the most amazing raids ever created but it's hard to deny that some of the encounters weren't overtuned since they got overly nerfed before kills started coming in regularly. Firefighter, 2min Hodir, Council come to mind.
I would disagree since before they ever got nerfed they got buffed. Mimiron was uptuned before anyone killed it. Hodir timer was shortened (used to be longer than 2min IIRC 2.5?). Then extended when Ensidia had to cheat it to be beatable >.> 2 minutes was really stupid though. That hard mode in general was stupid.
Council was also buffed. You couldn't teleport out of the dungeon to avoid the death leach. So i find it kinda funny you mention those encounters because before they were ever nerfed, they were buffed first :p
2min hodir was actually not achievable barring spectacularly good RNG on your NPCs behaviors (sometimes they would do nothing for 15~ seconds, other times instantly hand out buffs)
Ulduar was insanely overtuned, I don't know what you're talking about.
Ulduar was arguably one of the BEST tuned (at releast) raid instances blizzard has ever produced. Barring Yogg+0 and Hodir, everything else was very achievable.
Jay Wilson: “When we’re testing the highest difficulty level, we don’t force testers to level-up from scratch each time. Their chars receive randomized equipment of 0.5~1 lvl under the boss’s level. After 20 attempts the boss was still undefeated. We hope the most difficult bosses will be really, really hard to beat, as we know from experience never, NEVER underestimate our players. We set the difficulty based on how our most skilled staff felt to be adequate. Then we MULTIPLY THIS BY 2 upon release”
(P.S. He further explains that “times by 2″ not only refers to mob damage output & HP, but also to the extent that players will need to “apply combat skills depth”.)
That sounds about right. Still, I kind of miss the atmosphere that diablo1 created for instance, where you'd lose all your equipment if you died. I wish they did more of this kind of a hardcore enviroment, but I understand that this could indulge into abandoning your friends, and acting like a prick because you could do actual harm to your allies.
According to Jay Wilson, it will be pretty damn hard. Sure, there are probably better gamers out there than Blizzard's testers, but I would imagine they have been testing the game for more than a few weeks/months already and they still haven't beaten Inferno. So it should take the most hardcore Diablo players at least a little while to clear all 4 difficulties legitimately (potential exploits and bugs excluded).
i like how people say the beta was extremely easy, but if you ran into a teleporter pack of scavengers early on as a DH or a wizard.. you were pretty much fucked if you didn't have the right gear.. no way to kite or even attempt to slow them down and they have downright uber ass HP/dmg.. i suspect the troubles will be amplified in later difficulties as well. although the circumstances are rare in which a mob with certain affixes would spawn that would be considered lethal to you in the normal difficulties.. i think it should be a tell sign of whats to come and the arguments for the game being catered to just casuals a farce.
I thought the Beta was Easy = > Medium => Easy. Since the OPEN Beta Weekend I though they game was alot easier than before. No idea whats up with that.
Ulduar was arguably one of the BEST tuned (at releast) raid instances blizzard has ever produced. Barring Yogg+0 and Hodir, everything else was very achievable. ---- did you ever do 40 man BWL/AQ40/Naxx?
You can't compare 25 vs 40. Ulduar was by far the best raid in WoW all time. The real hardmodes where you activate them in or before the fight were so awesome. Freya with the trees! Kill all trees = EZ-Moade, Kill 2-Medium, Kill None-Hardmode! BWL,AQ40 were fun, but the encounters weren't that fun like in ulduar. And Naxx40 was not much fun at all! You needed a guild with like 60+ players with T2+ Gear. It was just too hard to find 40 players with gear who can play and had a high attendance.
btw who cares WoW. Diablo 3 won't be that hard. The game is made for all the Casuals who still play WoW. Inferno will be completed in under a week, I bet! Maybe exploit/bug, maybe just complete freaks who abuse a Party-combo (2 DH, 2 WD sounds imba).
And I bet there will be exploits, where you can farm endless loot or something oh boy!
According to Jay Wilson, it will be pretty damn hard. Sure, there are probably better gamers out there than Blizzard's testers, but I would imagine they have been testing the game for more than a few weeks/months already and they still haven't beaten Inferno. So it should take the most hardcore Diablo players at least a little while to clear all 4 difficulties legitimately (potential exploits and bugs excluded).
Like I said somewhere I really believe Blizzard will make it very difficult and maybe overtuned just so that they are able to keep their promises. At least for a legit play and no loopholes/exploit/bugs and other unwanted stuff. I dont think the "world first" will take very long though, but for someone normal I'm willing to bet.
According to Jay Wilson, it will be pretty damn hard. Sure, there are probably better gamers out there than Blizzard's testers, but I would imagine they have been testing the game for more than a few weeks/months already and they still haven't beaten Inferno. So it should take the most hardcore Diablo players at least a little while to clear all 4 difficulties legitimately (potential exploits and bugs excluded).
Like I said somewhere I really believe Blizzard will make it very difficult and maybe overtuned just so that they are able to keep their promises. At least for a legit play and no loopholes/exploit/bugs and other unwanted stuff. I dont think the "world first" will take very long though, but for someone normal I'm willing to bet.
Let's not forget that Blizzard's internal testers use premade characters with great gear already, stuff that would probably take hundreds of in game hours to actually farm.
Then, as Jay (or was it Bashiok?) says, they are going to just double the difficulty before launch, just to be on the safe side.
According to Jay Wilson, it will be pretty damn hard. Sure, there are probably better gamers out there than Blizzard's testers, but I would imagine they have been testing the game for more than a few weeks/months already and they still haven't beaten Inferno. So it should take the most hardcore Diablo players at least a little while to clear all 4 difficulties legitimately (potential exploits and bugs excluded).
Like I said somewhere I really believe Blizzard will make it very difficult and maybe overtuned just so that they are able to keep their promises. At least for a legit play and no loopholes/exploit/bugs and other unwanted stuff. I dont think the "world first" will take very long though, but for someone normal I'm willing to bet.
Let's not forget that Blizzard's internal testers use premade characters with great gear already, stuff that would probably take hundreds of in game hours to actually farm.
Then, as Jay (or was it Bashiok?) says, they are going to just double the difficulty before launch, just to be on the safe side.
No, no, no. That was just regarding the difficulty at the beginning of the game and was already applied in the beta.
Also why is one of you talking about "overtuned"? Like you know that one balance where it's perfectly good, in someones opinion. All that matters, is that it is damn hard. That's what people are looking for. They're not saying it's impossible, just damn hard. If you don't wanna play it you needn't. Saying it's "overtuned" on purpose just to proof some stupid point isn't what they do of course. Then again in some peoples opinion you always gotta look at stuff from a bad point of view.
I think most of those Blizzard statements should be taken with a grain of salt by now. They're obviously just appeasing the vocal hardcore minority because we're getting closer to release and the Beta thus far has been relatively easy.
We know nothing about the circumstances of the QA team's testing of Inferno mode, but it's probably safe to assume that they haven't been playing it nonstop in premade Hell gear for the last few months. That's not what they're there for. Chances are the fine tuning for Inferno will happen once players get there and start beating their heads against virtual walls.
According to Jay Wilson, it will be pretty damn hard. Sure, there are probably better gamers out there than Blizzard's testers, but I would imagine they have been testing the game for more than a few weeks/months already and they still haven't beaten Inferno. So it should take the most hardcore Diablo players at least a little while to clear all 4 difficulties legitimately (potential exploits and bugs excluded).
Like I said somewhere I really believe Blizzard will make it very difficult and maybe overtuned just so that they are able to keep their promises. At least for a legit play and no loopholes/exploit/bugs and other unwanted stuff. I dont think the "world first" will take very long though, but for someone normal I'm willing to bet.
Let's not forget that Blizzard's internal testers use premade characters with great gear already, stuff that would probably take hundreds of in game hours to actually farm.
Then, as Jay (or was it Bashiok?) says, they are going to just double the difficulty before launch, just to be on the safe side.
No, no, no. That was just regarding the difficulty at the beginning of the game and was already applied in the beta.
Also why is one of you talking about "overtuned"? Like you know that one balance where it's perfectly good, in someones opinion. All that matters, is that it is damn hard. That's what people are looking for. They're not saying it's impossible, just damn hard. If you don't wanna play it you needn't. Saying it's "overtuned" on purpose just to proof some stupid point isn't what they do of course. Then again in some peoples opinion you always gotta look at stuff from a bad point of view.
Sorry dude but overtuned stuff happens sometimes. Not saying it will, I said maybe.
If you don't like the word and just want me to say very hard so that it cant be beaten without ridiculous exploits yeah ok whatever.
On May 01 2012 06:52 Shockk wrote: I think most of those Blizzard statements should be taken with a grain of salt by now. They're obviously just appeasing the vocal hardcore minority because we're getting closer to release and the Beta thus far has been relatively easy.
We know nothing about the circumstances of the QA team's testing of Inferno mode, but it's probably safe to assume that they haven't been playing it nonstop in premade Hell gear for the last few months. That's not what they're there for. Chances are the fine tuning for Inferno will happen once players get there and start beating their heads against virtual walls.
There's a reason for all those statements though. There have been complete shitstorms in the past when they've released content that was supposed to be "endgame" that got cleared ridiculously quickly (read: Illidan).
Since then, they've learned to be very cautious of what their community is capable of, and in WoW they've certainly been erring on the cautious side by overtuning things to begin with, to the point where even the best players in the world were unable to beat some encounters without developers stepping in and nerfing it.
Blizzard's design philosophy for a while has been to not have to make an encounter harder over time, which is perfectly sensible. If Inferno got cleared within 2 days, Blizz would not be able to say "oh shit, we made this too easy" and make it harder to compensate.
I truly believe the reason Blizzard is telling us "expect Inferno to take weeks/months to clear without exploits" is because it really will happen. They've shown that they're not afraid to throw out fights that are mathematically impossible to beat (pre nerf Spine, if you believe Blood Legion). If I were Blizz, I'd do the same for D3 cos there is gonna be one hell of a shitstorm if Inferno doesn't turn out as hard as they're making it out to be.
On April 24 2012 23:42 skyR wrote: Ulduar was insanely overtuned, I don't know what you're talking about.
I thought it was perfectly tuned for all skill levels and ambitions. Ulduar is still considered to be the most balanced dungeon in WoW, and one the highest experiences in MMO history. But I am probably flavoring it with my own experiences.
I have like 7 more. Too bad wowmeter kept overwriting my world records instead of storing them because on Freya I beat my own world record like 7 times and Thorim like 3 times and no one beat my original record for like 8 weeks. i think at one time they did but no one wants to see my name 6 times on every list.
So you could say I had a blast.
Blizzard obviously has the potential to make games difficult and balanced but wrangling it out of them takes time and effort and the stars only align once every 5 years or so.
It's no doubt that Ulduar was one of the most amazing raids ever created but it's hard to deny that some of the encounters weren't overtuned since they got overly nerfed before kills started coming in regularly. Firefighter, 2min Hodir, Council come to mind.
I would disagree since before they ever got nerfed they got buffed. Mimiron was uptuned before anyone killed it. Hodir timer was shortened (used to be longer than 2min IIRC 2.5?). Then extended when Ensidia had to cheat it to be beatable >.> 2 minutes was really stupid though. That hard mode in general was stupid.
Council was also buffed. You couldn't teleport out of the dungeon to avoid the death leach. So i find it kinda funny you mention those encounters because before they were ever nerfed, they were buffed first :p
2min hodir was actually not achievable barring spectacularly good RNG on your NPCs behaviors (sometimes they would do nothing for 15~ seconds, other times instantly hand out buffs)
Ulduar was insanely overtuned, I don't know what you're talking about.
Ulduar was arguably one of the BEST tuned (at releast) raid instances blizzard has ever produced. Barring Yogg+0 and Hodir, everything else was very achievable.
did you ever do 40 man BWL/AQ40/Naxx?
Yes I had.
Let me tell you in a few words why BWL, AQ40, and Naxx will never be regarded as balanced as Ulduar was.
Resistance checks and gear checks.
You can argue encounters like Mimiron and General are healer gear checks, but aside from those, there are very few raw gear checks in Ulduar.
Rewind to BWL, Vael required either you fully outgear the encounter, or around 200~FR Raidwide. The drakes all benefitted from a little FR on most people. Chromag (certain breaths) and Nef (certain colours) required some FR as well. Yawn.
Also, best TUNED doesn't mean most fun. I enjoyed AQ40 more in terms of 'fun' (aside from the runback when you didn't win a mount on the first week, and your guild was too busy running every single melee through Maraudon 5 times an hour to farm trash for mounts). Doesn't mean it was the most well tuned on release. Cthun was still mathematically impossible until the nerfs.
The main difficulty of D2 was boredom. People usually quit or start to get bots/dupes/... when they don't really want to do Baal runs all day long to get decent gear for Hell.
On May 01 2012 05:47 VPCursed wrote: i like how people say the beta was extremely easy, but if you ran into a teleporter pack of scavengers early on as a DH or a wizard.. you were pretty much fucked if you didn't have the right gear.. no way to kite or even attempt to slow them down and they have downright uber ass HP/dmg.. i suspect the troubles will be amplified in later difficulties as well. although the circumstances are rare in which a mob with certain affixes would spawn that would be considered lethal to you in the normal difficulties.. i think it should be a tell sign of whats to come and the arguments for the game being catered to just casuals a farce.
On April 24 2012 23:42 skyR wrote: Ulduar was insanely overtuned, I don't know what you're talking about.
I thought it was perfectly tuned for all skill levels and ambitions. Ulduar is still considered to be the most balanced dungeon in WoW, and one the highest experiences in MMO history. But I am probably flavoring it with my own experiences.
I have like 7 more. Too bad wowmeter kept overwriting my world records instead of storing them because on Freya I beat my own world record like 7 times and Thorim like 3 times and no one beat my original record for like 8 weeks. i think at one time they did but no one wants to see my name 6 times on every list.
So you could say I had a blast.
Blizzard obviously has the potential to make games difficult and balanced but wrangling it out of them takes time and effort and the stars only align once every 5 years or so.
It's no doubt that Ulduar was one of the most amazing raids ever created but it's hard to deny that some of the encounters weren't overtuned since they got overly nerfed before kills started coming in regularly. Firefighter, 2min Hodir, Council come to mind.
I would disagree since before they ever got nerfed they got buffed. Mimiron was uptuned before anyone killed it. Hodir timer was shortened (used to be longer than 2min IIRC 2.5?). Then extended when Ensidia had to cheat it to be beatable >.> 2 minutes was really stupid though. That hard mode in general was stupid.
Council was also buffed. You couldn't teleport out of the dungeon to avoid the death leach. So i find it kinda funny you mention those encounters because before they were ever nerfed, they were buffed first :p
2min hodir was actually not achievable barring spectacularly good RNG on your NPCs behaviors (sometimes they would do nothing for 15~ seconds, other times instantly hand out buffs)
Ulduar was insanely overtuned, I don't know what you're talking about.
Ulduar was arguably one of the BEST tuned (at releast) raid instances blizzard has ever produced. Barring Yogg+0 and Hodir, everything else was very achievable.
did you ever do 40 man BWL/AQ40/Naxx?
BWL was the worst tuned instance at release, like, ever. I think it was the first and last instance that they had no PTR or beta testing for. And it showed because it was bugged for weeks, and Razorgore still causes problems with every new patch released, 6 years later. Also C'thun was bugged at release. Big tentacles spawning in the stomach can not have been intentional design, and once this was fixed he was dead in an hour.
" Jay Wilson: “When we’re testing the highest difficulty level, we don’t force testers to level-up from scratch each time. Their chars receive randomized equipment of 0.5~1 lvl under the boss’s level. After 20 attempts the boss was still undefeated. We hope the most difficult bosses will be really, really hard to beat, as we know from experience never, NEVER underestimate our players. We set the difficulty based on how our most skilled staff felt to be adequate. Then we MULTIPLY THIS BY 2 upon release”
(P.S. He further explains that “times by 2″ not only refers to mob damage output & HP, but also to the extent that players will need to “apply combat skills depth”.) "
The later Acts of Inferno are going to be ridiculously hard. Also, I don't think Inferno is going to be soloable for a long time, and despite the game being focused on solo as well as group, I think it will be far far easier to group the end content than solo it because........ Monsters in a 4 player game will have 325% life or so but do the same amount of damage. Instead of 1 person doing say 1000 dps and having moderate survivablity, you can have say 1 char geared for max surviability and doing say 550ish dps, and 3 other chars geared for slightly more than moderate survivability and doing say 900 dps. Overall dps of the party vs the monster life is an identical ratio to that of a solo player, but the party has higher survability, an actual tank, and much more utility with 4 chars worth of skills. The follower helping solo players is going to be negligible dps, and won't come close to the utility of a full party.
On May 01 2012 10:30 Zanzabarr wrote: The later Acts of Inferno are going to be ridiculously hard. Also, I don't think Inferno is going to be soloable for a long time, and despite the game being focused on solo as well as group, I think it will be far far easier to group the end content than solo it because........ Monsters in a 4 player game will have 325% life or so but do the same amount of damage. Instead of 1 person doing say 1000 dps and having moderate survivablity, you can have say 1 char geared for max surviability and doing say 550ish dps, and 3 other chars geared for slightly more than moderate survivability and doing say 900 dps. Overall dps of the party vs the monster life is an identical ratio to that of a solo player, but the party has higher survability, an actual tank, and much more utility with 4 chars worth of skills. The follower helping solo players is going to be negligible dps, and won't come close to the utility of a full party.
Mark my words, the world first clears of inferno will be a solo player.
1 = x% chance to screw up 4 = 4x% chance to screw up
On May 01 2012 09:04 1Eris1 wrote: Stop talking about AQ40 and Naxx; you guys are making me miss WoW -____- Seriously though, fuck BWL, never once liked that place.
BWL was better than molten core. Granted I never played on release. I got to do BWL+ when transfers first started available, so I can't really comment on pre-patch tuning.
Though honestly, my favorite raid was Serpentshrine Cavern. Lady Vashj was one of my favorite boss fights.
On May 01 2012 05:47 VPCursed wrote: i like how people say the beta was extremely easy, but if you ran into a teleporter pack of scavengers early on as a DH or a wizard.. you were pretty much fucked if you didn't have the right gear.. no way to kite or even attempt to slow them down and they have downright uber ass HP/dmg.. i suspect the troubles will be amplified in later difficulties as well. although the circumstances are rare in which a mob with certain affixes would spawn that would be considered lethal to you in the normal difficulties.. i think it should be a tell sign of whats to come and the arguments for the game being catered to just casuals a farce.
As we unlock more skills, those packs will be more manageable. As a wizard:
Get teleported in > diamond skin > aoe freeze > teleport away. From there you can try avoid them completely or pull one by one and hope for the best.
On May 01 2012 09:04 1Eris1 wrote: Stop talking about AQ40 and Naxx; you guys are making me miss WoW -____- Seriously though, fuck BWL, never once liked that place.
BWL was better than molten core. Granted I never played on release. I got to do BWL+ when transfers first started available, so I can't really comment on pre-patch tuning.
Though honestly, my favorite raid was Serpentshrine Cavern. Lady Vashj was one of my favorite boss fights.
The thing about MC was that well it was kind of shoddy, it was the first "epic" raid. When you first walked into the instance and saw just how big it was you knew it was going to interesting.
On May 01 2012 10:30 Zanzabarr wrote: The later Acts of Inferno are going to be ridiculously hard. Also, I don't think Inferno is going to be soloable for a long time, and despite the game being focused on solo as well as group, I think it will be far far easier to group the end content than solo it because........ Monsters in a 4 player game will have 325% life or so but do the same amount of damage. Instead of 1 person doing say 1000 dps and having moderate survivablity, you can have say 1 char geared for max surviability and doing say 550ish dps, and 3 other chars geared for slightly more than moderate survivability and doing say 900 dps. Overall dps of the party vs the monster life is an identical ratio to that of a solo player, but the party has higher survability, an actual tank, and much more utility with 4 chars worth of skills. The follower helping solo players is going to be negligible dps, and won't come close to the utility of a full party.
Mark my words, the world first clears of inferno will be a solo player.
1 = x% chance to screw up 4 = 4x% chance to screw up
You greatly underestimate both the coordination of a 4-man premade and the extent of the advantages a 4-man party will get over 1 person (of which I have already mentioned). Math dictates that the min-maxing and strategy you can employ with 4 characters, where difficulty increases only by monster health and not by monster damage(and not even 4x the health for 4x the people), will be far superior for a 4-man party.
In the early stages especially, it's not going to be about screwing up, it's going to be about your character being mathematically undergeared to pass the content. I.E. the content will actually be impossible. The level of gear needed by a party will be less than that of a solo person (again, due to all the inherent advantages). The first inferno clear will not be solo (first legitimate clear, not some sort of exploit).
I believe that the first inferno clear WILL be solo - purely for the fact that organising 4 highly skilled players to play at the same, huge amount of time just after release will be very hard, compared to any insanely skilled person playing by himself.
On May 01 2012 10:30 Zanzabarr wrote: The later Acts of Inferno are going to be ridiculously hard. Also, I don't think Inferno is going to be soloable for a long time, and despite the game being focused on solo as well as group, I think it will be far far easier to group the end content than solo it because........ Monsters in a 4 player game will have 325% life or so but do the same amount of damage. Instead of 1 person doing say 1000 dps and having moderate survivablity, you can have say 1 char geared for max surviability and doing say 550ish dps, and 3 other chars geared for slightly more than moderate survivability and doing say 900 dps. Overall dps of the party vs the monster life is an identical ratio to that of a solo player, but the party has higher survability, an actual tank, and much more utility with 4 chars worth of skills. The follower helping solo players is going to be negligible dps, and won't come close to the utility of a full party.
Mark my words, the world first clears of inferno will be a solo player.
1 = x% chance to screw up 4 = 4x% chance to screw up
You greatly underestimate both the coordination of a 4-man premade and the extent of the advantages a 4-man party will get over 1 person (of which I have already mentioned). Math dictates that the min-maxing and strategy you can employ with 4 characters, where difficulty increases only by monster health and not by monster damage(and not even 4x the health for 4x the people), will be far superior for a 4-man party.
In the early stages especially, it's not going to be about screwing up, it's going to be about your character being mathematically undergeared to pass the content. I.E. the content will actually be impossible. The level of gear needed by a party will be less than that of a solo person (again, due to all the inherent advantages). The first inferno clear will not be solo (first legitimate clear, not some sort of exploit).
To an extent. Damage gear yes. Health, no. In fact, you probably need even more vitality than normal to cope with the extra damage they dish out when playing with four people.
On May 01 2012 10:30 Zanzabarr wrote: The later Acts of Inferno are going to be ridiculously hard. Also, I don't think Inferno is going to be soloable for a long time, and despite the game being focused on solo as well as group, I think it will be far far easier to group the end content than solo it because........ Monsters in a 4 player game will have 325% life or so but do the same amount of damage. Instead of 1 person doing say 1000 dps and having moderate survivablity, you can have say 1 char geared for max surviability and doing say 550ish dps, and 3 other chars geared for slightly more than moderate survivability and doing say 900 dps. Overall dps of the party vs the monster life is an identical ratio to that of a solo player, but the party has higher survability, an actual tank, and much more utility with 4 chars worth of skills. The follower helping solo players is going to be negligible dps, and won't come close to the utility of a full party.
Mark my words, the world first clears of inferno will be a solo player.
1 = x% chance to screw up 4 = 4x% chance to screw up
You greatly underestimate both the coordination of a 4-man premade and the extent of the advantages a 4-man party will get over 1 person (of which I have already mentioned). Math dictates that the min-maxing and strategy you can employ with 4 characters, where difficulty increases only by monster health and not by monster damage(and not even 4x the health for 4x the people), will be far superior for a 4-man party.
In the early stages especially, it's not going to be about screwing up, it's going to be about your character being mathematically undergeared to pass the content. I.E. the content will actually be impossible. The level of gear needed by a party will be less than that of a solo person (again, due to all the inherent advantages). The first inferno clear will not be solo (first legitimate clear, not some sort of exploit).
To an extent. Damage gear yes. Health, no. In fact, you probably need even more vitality than normal to cope with the extra damage they dish out when playing with four people.
The only thing that scales with more people is the monsters hp which is increased 75% per extra person in game. Damage does not increase.
On May 01 2012 14:45 MaReK wrote: I believe that the first inferno clear WILL be solo - purely for the fact that organising 4 highly skilled players to play at the same, huge amount of time just after release will be very hard, compared to any insanely skilled person playing by himself.
lol, were talking about people that have been playing diablo for over 15 years, you really think solo will succeed instead of a group? Especially since there is now private loot and drops can't be stolen? no way
On May 01 2012 10:30 Zanzabarr wrote: The later Acts of Inferno are going to be ridiculously hard. Also, I don't think Inferno is going to be soloable for a long time, and despite the game being focused on solo as well as group, I think it will be far far easier to group the end content than solo it because........ Monsters in a 4 player game will have 325% life or so but do the same amount of damage. Instead of 1 person doing say 1000 dps and having moderate survivablity, you can have say 1 char geared for max surviability and doing say 550ish dps, and 3 other chars geared for slightly more than moderate survivability and doing say 900 dps. Overall dps of the party vs the monster life is an identical ratio to that of a solo player, but the party has higher survability, an actual tank, and much more utility with 4 chars worth of skills. The follower helping solo players is going to be negligible dps, and won't come close to the utility of a full party.
Mark my words, the world first clears of inferno will be a solo player.
1 = x% chance to screw up 4 = 4x% chance to screw up
You greatly underestimate both the coordination of a 4-man premade and the extent of the advantages a 4-man party will get over 1 person (of which I have already mentioned). Math dictates that the min-maxing and strategy you can employ with 4 characters, where difficulty increases only by monster health and not by monster damage(and not even 4x the health for 4x the people), will be far superior for a 4-man party.
In the early stages especially, it's not going to be about screwing up, it's going to be about your character being mathematically undergeared to pass the content. I.E. the content will actually be impossible. The level of gear needed by a party will be less than that of a solo person (again, due to all the inherent advantages). The first inferno clear will not be solo (first legitimate clear, not some sort of exploit).
To an extent. Damage gear yes. Health, no. In fact, you probably need even more vitality than normal to cope with the extra damage they dish out when playing with four people.
Read my original post, it's a nested quote. I already explained everything. Only health scales.... a solo player building gear to actually survive inferno will gimp his dps, whereas a party can have one person build this way and fully make up for it due to monster health scaling only to 325% with 4 people with damage from monsters being the same... hence 4 person party >....
On May 01 2012 10:30 Zanzabarr wrote: The later Acts of Inferno are going to be ridiculously hard. Also, I don't think Inferno is going to be soloable for a long time, and despite the game being focused on solo as well as group, I think it will be far far easier to group the end content than solo it because........ Monsters in a 4 player game will have 325% life or so but do the same amount of damage. Instead of 1 person doing say 1000 dps and having moderate survivablity, you can have say 1 char geared for max surviability and doing say 550ish dps, and 3 other chars geared for slightly more than moderate survivability and doing say 900 dps. Overall dps of the party vs the monster life is an identical ratio to that of a solo player, but the party has higher survability, an actual tank, and much more utility with 4 chars worth of skills. The follower helping solo players is going to be negligible dps, and won't come close to the utility of a full party.
Mark my words, the world first clears of inferno will be a solo player.
1 = x% chance to screw up 4 = 4x% chance to screw up
You greatly underestimate both the coordination of a 4-man premade and the extent of the advantages a 4-man party will get over 1 person (of which I have already mentioned). Math dictates that the min-maxing and strategy you can employ with 4 characters, where difficulty increases only by monster health and not by monster damage(and not even 4x the health for 4x the people), will be far superior for a 4-man party.
In the early stages especially, it's not going to be about screwing up, it's going to be about your character being mathematically undergeared to pass the content. I.E. the content will actually be impossible. The level of gear needed by a party will be less than that of a solo person (again, due to all the inherent advantages). The first inferno clear will not be solo (first legitimate clear, not some sort of exploit).
To an extent. Damage gear yes. Health, no. In fact, you probably need even more vitality than normal to cope with the extra damage they dish out when playing with four people.
Read my original post, it's a nested quote. I already explained everything. Only health scales.... a solo player building gear to actually survive inferno will gimp his dps, whereas a party can have one person build this way and fully make up for it due to monster health scaling only to 325% with 4 people with damage from monsters being the same... hence 4 person party >....
I assume that most 4 player parties will have a monk that gears toward greater healing, so that cuts into the parties damage capabilities. You're not really going to be able to kill monsters in such a short timeframe that you can outdo their damage output, especially when you have 15+ on one or two members. Yes, buffs help, but I think far too many folks are doing rudimentary and myopic math without taking into account the full range of gameplay and scenarios. Should be interesting nonetheless.
Not to mention that everyone's DPS will be considerably under optimal because the name of the game is survivability. (Especially in hardcore) I wonder what the survivability of your follower is like in Inferno. He probably dies in two shots lol. I am completely open to the fact I could be completely wrong of course. I guess we'll find out in a few weeks. :p
I am more interested in seeing who will be the first to beat HC Inferno. You know the first person to get the Demi-God title is going to be riding that roller coaster high for a while. Balls of Steel.
On May 01 2012 06:16 Kaesebrot wrote: I thought the Beta was Easy = > Medium => Easy. Since the OPEN Beta Weekend I though they game was alot easier than before. No idea whats up with that.
Ulduar was arguably one of the BEST tuned (at releast) raid instances blizzard has ever produced. Barring Yogg+0 and Hodir, everything else was very achievable. ---- did you ever do 40 man BWL/AQ40/Naxx?
You can't compare 25 vs 40. Ulduar was by far the best raid in WoW all time. The real hardmodes where you activate them in or before the fight were so awesome. Freya with the trees! Kill all trees = EZ-Moade, Kill 2-Medium, Kill None-Hardmode! BWL,AQ40 were fun, but the encounters weren't that fun like in ulduar. And Naxx40 was not much fun at all! You needed a guild with like 60+ players with T2+ Gear. It was just too hard to find 40 players with gear who can play and had a high attendance.
btw who cares WoW. Diablo 3 won't be that hard. The game is made for all the Casuals who still play WoW. Inferno will be completed in under a week, I bet! Maybe exploit/bug, maybe just complete freaks who abuse a Party-combo (2 DH, 2 WD sounds imba).
And I bet there will be exploits, where you can farm endless loot or something oh boy!
well i was a hardcore 40 man raider and i hated 25 mans, too casual for me. i mean now i cant even raid hardcore (or play any mmo at all) since im 20 now, but it saddens me to see everything much easier is all i was saying. i too agree that d3 will 100% be ez mode, no one makes hardcore games right now because why on earth would they if casuals bring in $$$? im an elitist, i know i am, but even if i cant personally be the hardcore one, i LOVE knowing that there are ppl out there doing it. and for the record, blizzard internal team are pretty much always shit at video games. lol
On May 01 2012 10:30 Zanzabarr wrote: The later Acts of Inferno are going to be ridiculously hard. Also, I don't think Inferno is going to be soloable for a long time, and despite the game being focused on solo as well as group, I think it will be far far easier to group the end content than solo it because........ Monsters in a 4 player game will have 325% life or so but do the same amount of damage. Instead of 1 person doing say 1000 dps and having moderate survivablity, you can have say 1 char geared for max surviability and doing say 550ish dps, and 3 other chars geared for slightly more than moderate survivability and doing say 900 dps. Overall dps of the party vs the monster life is an identical ratio to that of a solo player, but the party has higher survability, an actual tank, and much more utility with 4 chars worth of skills. The follower helping solo players is going to be negligible dps, and won't come close to the utility of a full party.
Mark my words, the world first clears of inferno will be a solo player.
1 = x% chance to screw up 4 = 4x% chance to screw up
You greatly underestimate both the coordination of a 4-man premade and the extent of the advantages a 4-man party will get over 1 person (of which I have already mentioned). Math dictates that the min-maxing and strategy you can employ with 4 characters, where difficulty increases only by monster health and not by monster damage(and not even 4x the health for 4x the people), will be far superior for a 4-man party.
In the early stages especially, it's not going to be about screwing up, it's going to be about your character being mathematically undergeared to pass the content. I.E. the content will actually be impossible. The level of gear needed by a party will be less than that of a solo person (again, due to all the inherent advantages). The first inferno clear will not be solo (first legitimate clear, not some sort of exploit).
To an extent. Damage gear yes. Health, no. In fact, you probably need even more vitality than normal to cope with the extra damage they dish out when playing with four people.
Read my original post, it's a nested quote. I already explained everything. Only health scales.... a solo player building gear to actually survive inferno will gimp his dps, whereas a party can have one person build this way and fully make up for it due to monster health scaling only to 325% with 4 people with damage from monsters being the same... hence 4 person party >....
I assume that most 4 player parties will have a monk that gears toward greater healing, so that cuts into the parties damage capabilities. You're not really going to be able to kill monsters in such a short timeframe that you can outdo their damage output, especially when you have 15+ on one or two members. Yes, buffs help, but I think far too many folks are doing rudimentary and myopic math without taking into account the full range of gameplay and scenarios. Should be interesting nonetheless.
Not to mention that everyone's DPS will be considerably under optimal because the name of the game is survivability. (Especially in hardcore) I wonder what the survivability of your follower is like in Inferno. He probably dies in two shots lol. I am completely open to the fact I could be completely wrong of course. I guess we'll find out in a few weeks. :p
I am more interested in seeing who will be the first to beat HC Inferno. You know the first person to get the Demi-God title is going to be riding that roller coaster high for a while. Balls of Steel.
On May 01 2012 10:30 Zanzabarr wrote: The later Acts of Inferno are going to be ridiculously hard. Also, I don't think Inferno is going to be soloable for a long time, and despite the game being focused on solo as well as group, I think it will be far far easier to group the end content than solo it because........ Monsters in a 4 player game will have 325% life or so but do the same amount of damage. Instead of 1 person doing say 1000 dps and having moderate survivablity, you can have say 1 char geared for max surviability and doing say 550ish dps, and 3 other chars geared for slightly more than moderate survivability and doing say 900 dps. Overall dps of the party vs the monster life is an identical ratio to that of a solo player, but the party has higher survability, an actual tank, and much more utility with 4 chars worth of skills. The follower helping solo players is going to be negligible dps, and won't come close to the utility of a full party.
Mark my words, the world first clears of inferno will be a solo player.
1 = x% chance to screw up 4 = 4x% chance to screw up
You greatly underestimate both the coordination of a 4-man premade and the extent of the advantages a 4-man party will get over 1 person (of which I have already mentioned). Math dictates that the min-maxing and strategy you can employ with 4 characters, where difficulty increases only by monster health and not by monster damage(and not even 4x the health for 4x the people), will be far superior for a 4-man party.
In the early stages especially, it's not going to be about screwing up, it's going to be about your character being mathematically undergeared to pass the content. I.E. the content will actually be impossible. The level of gear needed by a party will be less than that of a solo person (again, due to all the inherent advantages). The first inferno clear will not be solo (first legitimate clear, not some sort of exploit).
To an extent. Damage gear yes. Health, no. In fact, you probably need even more vitality than normal to cope with the extra damage they dish out when playing with four people.
Read my original post, it's a nested quote. I already explained everything. Only health scales.... a solo player building gear to actually survive inferno will gimp his dps, whereas a party can have one person build this way and fully make up for it due to monster health scaling only to 325% with 4 people with damage from monsters being the same... hence 4 person party >....
I assume that most 4 player parties will have a monk that gears toward greater healing, so that cuts into the parties damage capabilities. You're not really going to be able to kill monsters in such a short timeframe that you can outdo their damage output, especially when you have 15+ on one or two members. Yes, buffs help, but I think far too many folks are doing rudimentary and myopic math without taking into account the full range of gameplay and scenarios. Should be interesting nonetheless.
Not to mention that everyone's DPS will be considerably under optimal because the name of the game is survivability. (Especially in hardcore) I wonder what the survivability of your follower is like in Inferno. He probably dies in two shots lol. I am completely open to the fact I could be completely wrong of course. I guess we'll find out in a few weeks. :p
I am more interested in seeing who will be the first to beat HC Inferno. You know the first person to get the Demi-God title is going to be riding that roller coaster high for a while. Balls of Steel.
On May 01 2012 10:30 Zanzabarr wrote: The later Acts of Inferno are going to be ridiculously hard. Also, I don't think Inferno is going to be soloable for a long time, and despite the game being focused on solo as well as group, I think it will be far far easier to group the end content than solo it because........ Monsters in a 4 player game will have 325% life or so but do the same amount of damage. Instead of 1 person doing say 1000 dps and having moderate survivablity, you can have say 1 char geared for max surviability and doing say 550ish dps, and 3 other chars geared for slightly more than moderate survivability and doing say 900 dps. Overall dps of the party vs the monster life is an identical ratio to that of a solo player, but the party has higher survability, an actual tank, and much more utility with 4 chars worth of skills. The follower helping solo players is going to be negligible dps, and won't come close to the utility of a full party.
Mark my words, the world first clears of inferno will be a solo player.
1 = x% chance to screw up 4 = 4x% chance to screw up
You greatly underestimate both the coordination of a 4-man premade and the extent of the advantages a 4-man party will get over 1 person (of which I have already mentioned). Math dictates that the min-maxing and strategy you can employ with 4 characters, where difficulty increases only by monster health and not by monster damage(and not even 4x the health for 4x the people), will be far superior for a 4-man party.
In the early stages especially, it's not going to be about screwing up, it's going to be about your character being mathematically undergeared to pass the content. I.E. the content will actually be impossible. The level of gear needed by a party will be less than that of a solo person (again, due to all the inherent advantages). The first inferno clear will not be solo (first legitimate clear, not some sort of exploit).
To an extent. Damage gear yes. Health, no. In fact, you probably need even more vitality than normal to cope with the extra damage they dish out when playing with four people.
Read my original post, it's a nested quote. I already explained everything. Only health scales.... a solo player building gear to actually survive inferno will gimp his dps, whereas a party can have one person build this way and fully make up for it due to monster health scaling only to 325% with 4 people with damage from monsters being the same... hence 4 person party >....
I assume that most 4 player parties will have a monk that gears toward greater healing, so that cuts into the parties damage capabilities. You're not really going to be able to kill monsters in such a short timeframe that you can outdo their damage output, especially when you have 15+ on one or two members. Yes, buffs help, but I think far too many folks are doing rudimentary and myopic math without taking into account the full range of gameplay and scenarios. Should be interesting nonetheless.
Not to mention that everyone's DPS will be considerably under optimal because the name of the game is survivability. (Especially in hardcore) I wonder what the survivability of your follower is like in Inferno. He probably dies in two shots lol. I am completely open to the fact I could be completely wrong of course. I guess we'll find out in a few weeks. :p
I am more interested in seeing who will be the first to beat HC Inferno. You know the first person to get the Demi-God title is going to be riding that roller coaster high for a while. Balls of Steel.
Didn't think they released achievement lists yet
Datamining.
Care to provide a link? The only datamined achievements are from beta, from what I've found.
On May 01 2012 10:30 Zanzabarr wrote: The later Acts of Inferno are going to be ridiculously hard. Also, I don't think Inferno is going to be soloable for a long time, and despite the game being focused on solo as well as group, I think it will be far far easier to group the end content than solo it because........ Monsters in a 4 player game will have 325% life or so but do the same amount of damage. Instead of 1 person doing say 1000 dps and having moderate survivablity, you can have say 1 char geared for max surviability and doing say 550ish dps, and 3 other chars geared for slightly more than moderate survivability and doing say 900 dps. Overall dps of the party vs the monster life is an identical ratio to that of a solo player, but the party has higher survability, an actual tank, and much more utility with 4 chars worth of skills. The follower helping solo players is going to be negligible dps, and won't come close to the utility of a full party.
Mark my words, the world first clears of inferno will be a solo player.
1 = x% chance to screw up 4 = 4x% chance to screw up
You greatly underestimate both the coordination of a 4-man premade and the extent of the advantages a 4-man party will get over 1 person (of which I have already mentioned). Math dictates that the min-maxing and strategy you can employ with 4 characters, where difficulty increases only by monster health and not by monster damage(and not even 4x the health for 4x the people), will be far superior for a 4-man party.
In the early stages especially, it's not going to be about screwing up, it's going to be about your character being mathematically undergeared to pass the content. I.E. the content will actually be impossible. The level of gear needed by a party will be less than that of a solo person (again, due to all the inherent advantages). The first inferno clear will not be solo (first legitimate clear, not some sort of exploit).
To an extent. Damage gear yes. Health, no. In fact, you probably need even more vitality than normal to cope with the extra damage they dish out when playing with four people.
Read my original post, it's a nested quote. I already explained everything. Only health scales.... a solo player building gear to actually survive inferno will gimp his dps, whereas a party can have one person build this way and fully make up for it due to monster health scaling only to 325% with 4 people with damage from monsters being the same... hence 4 person party >....
I assume that most 4 player parties will have a monk that gears toward greater healing, so that cuts into the parties damage capabilities. You're not really going to be able to kill monsters in such a short timeframe that you can outdo their damage output, especially when you have 15+ on one or two members. Yes, buffs help, but I think far too many folks are doing rudimentary and myopic math without taking into account the full range of gameplay and scenarios. Should be interesting nonetheless.
Not to mention that everyone's DPS will be considerably under optimal because the name of the game is survivability. (Especially in hardcore) I wonder what the survivability of your follower is like in Inferno. He probably dies in two shots lol. I am completely open to the fact I could be completely wrong of course. I guess we'll find out in a few weeks. :p
I am more interested in seeing who will be the first to beat HC Inferno. You know the first person to get the Demi-God title is going to be riding that roller coaster high for a while. Balls of Steel.
Didn't think they released achievement lists yet
Datamining.
Care to provide a link? The only datamined achievements are from beta, from what I've found.
I feel like everything before hell difficulty will be too easy and it will be annoying that I have to play 'easy' and 'medium' before I can get to the fun stuff in 'hard' and 'insane' difficulties. (normal, nightmare, hell, inferno ofc)
I feel people are getting ahead of themselves here. People have been telling blizzard that 1/3 of act 1 is of normal is to easy. Does everyone remember the first 1/3 of act 1 of Diablo II ridiculously easy. Which there are now 4 difficulties.
I think the game will start getting more challenging at the end of Act III to IV normal. It will progressively get harder through out from there. Making the game extremely hard. Jay Wilson has stated that Inferno is not made for Hardcore Characters due to the difficulty.
People will say ya right...But don't come QQing when you come in here saying they made Inferno impossible. I just don't think people know what there getting themselves into.
On May 02 2012 05:02 Coolness53 wrote: I feel people are getting ahead of themselves here. People have been telling blizzard that 1/3 of act 1 is of normal is to easy. Does everyone remember the first 1/3 of act 1 of Diablo II ridiculously easy. Which there are now 4 difficulties.
I think the game will start getting more challenging at the end of Act III to IV normal. It will progressively get harder through out from there. Making the game extremely hard. Jay Wilson has stated that Inferno is not made for Hardcore Characters due to the difficulty.
People will say ya right...But don't come QQing when you come in here saying they made Inferno impossible. I just don't think people know what there getting themselves into.
The QQ will come. I already see the: "Yes I know you said it's gonna be hard, but this is impossible and you have to be lucky and wahh!"
On May 02 2012 05:02 Coolness53 wrote: I feel people are getting ahead of themselves here. People have been telling blizzard that 1/3 of act 1 is of normal is to easy. Does everyone remember the first 1/3 of act 1 of Diablo II ridiculously easy. Which there are now 4 difficulties.
I think the game will start getting more challenging at the end of Act III to IV normal. It will progressively get harder through out from there. Making the game extremely hard. Jay Wilson has stated that Inferno is not made for Hardcore Characters due to the difficulty.
People will say ya right...But don't come QQing when you come in here saying they made Inferno impossible. I just don't think people know what there getting themselves into.
Welcome to the internet, where people will complain over anything given the chance. Personaly i played thoughout normal in D2 a few weeks ago and it was really easy, i expect that to happen in d3 as well(Which is fine, these difficulties are designed for people who want to do the lore). I cant comment as how hard the game will be on higher difficulties untill i have tried them tho, i hope inferno will be as hard as it is hyped up to be(Otherwise i will be disapointed when they market it the way they have)
thought just crossed my mind that if Inferno is incredibly hard to the point that it will take months for someone to finally beat it because of the need to acquire the appropriate gear, then some items are going to have huge real money values to them then dramatically decrease in value once Inferno is beaten
On May 02 2012 06:23 ibreakurface wrote: I just watched that whole youtube video, and that second half totally looked like a "WoW players look! a more casual* game for you!"
*STAY BACK D3'rs!
You wouldn't know, but nearly all of WoW's raid content far surpasses anything in D2 with it's difficulty.
On April 24 2012 14:55 NotSorry wrote: The devs keep dropping little hints that it might be months til someone beats inferno, I would honestly be surprised if it lasts 2 weeks.
I made a bet with a friend that inferno will be beaten in the first 48 hours after release. I plan to play A LOT during the first few days and I don't think I'll take any more than a day per difficulty - so 4 days.
I used to do a few speedruns for certain games and managed a fairly close time for the D2 record (0:58m to beat normal) so for some of the extreme players, inferno won't last long.
By 0:58m, you mean 58minutes, right? If it's 58 seconds, I'd love to see...
On April 24 2012 14:55 NotSorry wrote: The devs keep dropping little hints that it might be months til someone beats inferno, I would honestly be surprised if it lasts 2 weeks.
I made a bet with a friend that inferno will be beaten in the first 48 hours after release. I plan to play A LOT during the first few days and I don't think I'll take any more than a day per difficulty - so 4 days.
I used to do a few speedruns for certain games and managed a fairly close time for the D2 record (0:58m to beat normal) so for some of the extreme players, inferno won't last long.
By 0:58m, you mean 58minutes, right? If it's 58 seconds, I'd love to see...
he means 58 minutes, but his logic is extremely off
to beat normal in 58 minutes in D2 requires him getting carried by some higher level at some point. there is no way to beat D2 normal in 58 minutes if doing it completely solo.
also, D2 Hell would not be beat within 48 hours if doing it solo.
he's grossly underestimating the gear check/requirements he's going to run into with D3 because he's used to playing D2 where getting geared or playing with someone geared isn't hard to do.
people should be having a hell of a time trying to make progress in Inferno for a while because their gear is mediocre for Inferno's difficulty level
I think it would make sense that most of the Inferno content will require you having tip top gear. I don't see the point of RMAH if people won't need the very best items.
This also ensures the longetivity of the game, which in turns makes more money for Blizzard.
On May 02 2012 15:31 udgnim wrote: to beat normal in 58 minutes in D2 requires him getting carried by some higher level at some point. there is no way to beat D2 normal in 58 minutes if doing it completely solo.
Nope, you can do it in 58 minutes legit, diablo 2 is a very short game.
On May 02 2012 15:31 udgnim wrote: to beat normal in 58 minutes in D2 requires him getting carried by some higher level at some point. there is no way to beat D2 normal in 58 minutes if doing it completely solo.
Well I'm not sure how to do it, but I think this person cheated at least in 'premaking' the games, doing video editing etc so that he could always get the oh so convenient experience or skill shrine, and occasionally doing the 'leaving game' for no reason at all besides either check where he was supposed to go, or to 'premake' the game in a way that he needed. Kind of like an offline maphack. Of course video edits in between.
But I guess the point of this video was just to show that it IS possible to do in 58 minutes, even if there's a very low chance of everything going that well in reality.
I hope you didn't bet much, because you are going to lose your inferno cleared in 48 hours bet 100%. It is quite possible the bosses of the last 2 acts in inferno may actually be tuned to be impossible until they get nerfed once nobody can kill them after a sufficient amount of time.
On May 02 2012 15:31 udgnim wrote: to beat normal in 58 minutes in D2 requires him getting carried by some higher level at some point. there is no way to beat D2 normal in 58 minutes if doing it completely solo.
Well I'm not sure how to do it, but I think this person cheated at least in 'premaking' the games, doing video editing etc so that he could always get the oh so convenient experience or skill shrine, and occasionally doing the 'leaving game' for no reason at all besides either check where he was supposed to go, or to 'premake' the game in a way that he needed. Kind of like an offline maphack. Of course video edits in between.
But I guess the point of this video was just to show that it IS possible to do in 58 minutes, even if there's a very low chance of everything going that well in reality.
This video wasn't intended as a "legit" clear. It was made in the spirit of "fastest possible clear theoretically".
I was no secret that that one who made the video preload the map many times, finding the way beforehand as well. Not only that, he often reload the map until a favourable shrine spawned near a waypoint. (everytime he tp-ed home was when he needed to do one of those "preparation" period.)
The actual time it takes for this to be done was VERY long. And it was done with extensive knowledge of the game mechanics, both of his character and of the areas and monsters in the game, aka something that people won't get in Diablo 3 for a VERY long time.
For the record, the owner of the video beat Hell within 4.5 hours (or thereabout), in one of his speedruns vids, iirc.
On May 02 2012 17:21 Zanzabarr wrote: I hope you didn't bet much, because you are going to lose your inferno cleared in 48 hours bet 100%. It is quite possible the bosses of the last 2 acts in inferno may actually be tuned to be impossible until they get nerfed once nobody can kill them after a sufficient amount of time.
I have to agree with this. Jay said no one on the int testing team had beaten it and they would have much longer then 48 hours to do it. They wouldn't be the best gamers in the world but they'd definitely know their way around the game. Think David Kim but for Diablo 3.
Id say less than 2% beat it on inferno by then end of the year. What I have seen, many of the ppl who will play so much they could beat it will try to do it on HC.
In wow, once you get enough gear, fights get alot easier. I remember when at the start of expansion you had to use cc to survive, and later on you just run in and aoe everything. In D3 it wont work since your primary defencive stat is your own skill to dodge projectiles/not stand in fire. No matter how much gear you get, it wont trivialise fights as much as it does in wow. Unless you are facing boss that does only one or maybe two type of elemental damage and get resistances for those (Like Diablo in D2), but then that gear wont work well against other bosses.
In the end thou I don't really care how many% gets it done and how fast, only if it makes me want to continue to bang my head against that brickwall just to find the stonewall behind it. And I don't mean thats bad.
I also don't see how anyone can look at a speedrun as an estimate of how long a game will take to complete on release. Runners spend months planning, testing optimising and practicing a run, and often use completely unintuitive play styles. And Diablo tends to be a terrible game to run without luck manipulation because, well, otherwise you spend most of your time hunting for gear.
they simply added an 'easy difficulty in d2 standards' and moved all difficulties by 1. Normal is easy, nightmare is normal, hell is nightmare and inferno becomes hell difficulty of d2. Blizzard would so want to make their games as casual as possible. Inferno will ofc be totally different, due to the way the game works now (you will have all skills and can switch, which makes it ALOT easier). I still had a hard time with d2 solo hell, but it's not as impossible as some make it out to be, and inferno will be no different.
On May 02 2012 17:21 Zanzabarr wrote: I hope you didn't bet much, because you are going to lose your inferno cleared in 48 hours bet 100%. It is quite possible the bosses of the last 2 acts in inferno may actually be tuned to be impossible until they get nerfed once nobody can kill them after a sufficient amount of time.
I have to agree with this. Jay said no one on the int testing team had beaten it and they would have much longer then 48 hours to do it. They wouldn't be the best gamers in the world but they'd definitely know their way around the game. Think David Kim but for Diablo 3.
hey, if you happen to have the link handy to where jay says that, i would love to see it, was looking around and ive seen this quote used several times in relation to saying HE can't beat it, but havnt found the exact quote, if its noone has that would be very different, also he said at one point that once they release they plan to double or more every stat of every monster to make sure its unbeable.
i know i just said alot of stuff, but this is what i see thrown around, would love to see what interview this was from.
On May 02 2012 17:21 Zanzabarr wrote: I hope you didn't bet much, because you are going to lose your inferno cleared in 48 hours bet 100%. It is quite possible the bosses of the last 2 acts in inferno may actually be tuned to be impossible until they get nerfed once nobody can kill them after a sufficient amount of time.
I have to agree with this. Jay said no one on the int testing team had beaten it and they would have much longer then 48 hours to do it. They wouldn't be the best gamers in the world but they'd definitely know their way around the game. Think David Kim but for Diablo 3.
hey, if you happen to have the link handy to where jay says that, i would love to see it, was looking around and ive seen this quote used several times in relation to saying HE can't beat it, but havnt found the exact quote, if its noone has that would be very different, also he said at one point that once they release they plan to double or more every stat of every monster to make sure its unbeable.
i know i just said alot of stuff, but this is what i see thrown around, would love to see what interview this was from.
It wasn't a real interview, it was Twitter. He also said that Inferno was not designed to be able to be beaten by Hardcore chars.
I love that the are trying to make it difficult, but I think they are hyping it up a bit more than it really is
On May 02 2012 17:21 Zanzabarr wrote: I hope you didn't bet much, because you are going to lose your inferno cleared in 48 hours bet 100%. It is quite possible the bosses of the last 2 acts in inferno may actually be tuned to be impossible until they get nerfed once nobody can kill them after a sufficient amount of time.
I have to agree with this. Jay said no one on the int testing team had beaten it and they would have much longer then 48 hours to do it. They wouldn't be the best gamers in the world but they'd definitely know their way around the game. Think David Kim but for Diablo 3.
hey, if you happen to have the link handy to where jay says that, i would love to see it, was looking around and ive seen this quote used several times in relation to saying HE can't beat it, but havnt found the exact quote, if its noone has that would be very different, also he said at one point that once they release they plan to double or more every stat of every monster to make sure its unbeable.
i know i just said alot of stuff, but this is what i see thrown around, would love to see what interview this was from.
On May 02 2012 19:21 []Phase[] wrote: A scenario that I fear but is very plausible :
they simply added an 'easy difficulty in d2 standards' and moved all difficulties by 1. Normal is easy, nightmare is normal, hell is nightmare and inferno becomes hell difficulty of d2. Blizzard would so want to make their games as casual as possible. Inferno will ofc be totally different, due to the way the game works now (you will have all skills and can switch, which makes it ALOT easier). I still had a hard time with d2 solo hell, but it's not as impossible as some make it out to be, and inferno will be no different.
a scenario I fear but is very plausible:
They made inferno very hard indeed, to the point where the community begins to whine that it's too hard and must be dumbed down and made easier.
Honestly, D2 is a REALLY EASY game... depending on the class a little bit though, if you're soloing everything. You might have to farm items and xp a little but that is beside the point. I have complete faith in blizzard that inferno isn't here to please the casuals. for casuals, there is nightmare and maybe hell too, but inferno is clearly meant to be that something they cannot do. Believe it or not, even WoW (gasp!) raid content wasn't there to completely please the casuals, because the Heroic content would slaughter the group if there was a single casual in it. (except 25 man maybe) They have received enough feedback on players wanting it to be hard that I fully expect inferno to take a similar stance, even with the best gear most people are incapable of downing all the content.
Why is it so hard to believe if they even did it for WoW, which is apparently so casual that it makes you cringe? And before any of you make stupid assumptions about me, I got masters 1v1 in SC2 with 50-60 games played TOTAL. Just two days ago I got the achievement for 100 1v1's. Yahoo. I had 6 lvl 90's in D2:LoD, and downed most of WoW's raid content from the last two expansions excluding heroics. Just in case you thought of me as a WoW casual.
I think people are forgetting that people truly don't know what to expect past the skeleton king. This isn't a standard D2 speed run, where you know exactly what to do, what requirements you need, what requirements/quests you can skip. There is no optimal route right now, and that's the thing that will be eating up most of your time.
Sure, D2 may be a cake walk right now and we can speed through it easily, even just by yourself with crap gear, but how was it when it first came out? One thing I would love to know is how long it took for the first person to beat D2 (through hell). If it wasn't 48 hours, don't expect it to be 48 hours for this game. If it was, then there definitely is a chance.
We also don't know how truly hard/possibly broken these inferno monsters are. I just kinda laugh to myself reading comments about how people will beat it in just 48 hours. What's even more halrious is people saying that for hardcore inferno (at least in reddit).
I know people are good at diablo and such, but they aren't that good and won't be that lucky.
We'll just have to wait and see how long it takes for that first victor(s). It would be dissapointing to see someone/some group to beat it in 48 hours...
On May 03 2012 02:18 EliteAzn wrote: I think people are forgetting that people truly don't know what to expect past the skeleton king. This isn't a standard D2 speed run, where you know exactly what to do, what requirements you need, what requirements/quests you can skip. There is no optimal route right now, and that's the thing that will be eating up most of your time.
Sure, D2 may be a cake walk right now and we can speed through it easily, even just by yourself with crap gear, but how was it when it first came out? One thing I would love to know is how long it took for the first person to beat D2 (through hell). If it wasn't 48 hours, don't expect it to be 48 hours for this game. If it was, then there definitely is a chance.
We also don't know how truly hard/possibly broken these inferno monsters are. I just kinda laugh to myself reading comments about how people will beat it in just 48 hours. What's even more halrious is people saying that for hardcore inferno (at least in reddit).
I know people are good at diablo and such, but they aren't that good and won't be that lucky.
We'll just have to wait and see how long it takes for that first victor(s). It would be dissapointing to see someone/some group to beat it in 48 hours...
Pretty much this. No one has any idea what the difficulty will be like in normal past the Skeleton King. It could continue being extremely easy, like the Beta or first half of Act I D2 is, or it could ramp up a little bit more so that the difficulty is in line with D2 Normal/NM/Hell and then Inferno is a completely different beast.
The fact that Jay Wilson has said A) No one in their internal testing team has beating Inferno, and B) Inferno is not designed for Hardcore play, has me thinking it will be just fine difficulty wise. Initially I was planning on rolling HC as soon as possible (it was all I played in D2) but now I'm not so sure. In D2, since I knew the game pretty well and how the difficulty scaled between acts and between Normal/NM/Hell, I could gauge how my HC character was geared and knew that I would only die if I got extremely unlucky RNG or had an attention lapse. With D3, I have no idea if I'll stumble across some previously-unseen combination of affixes on a unique and he just rapes me. Likewise, I would like to beat Inferno, but it doesn't sound realistic with a HC character if the difficulty is tuned around dying a lot and having the best gear in order to progress through it.
What I'll probably end up doing is playing a HC character first and try to get it through the end of Hell, then go back and level a SC character and try to get through Inferno. Then see if I can extrapolate from that and get my HC character through Inferno. Regardless, I'm excited!
I also guarantee you that the first person to make it through Inferno on a HC char (if it happens) will be someone who did it first on a SC char and not someone who tries to brute force their way through on HC chars.
I disagree that beating the gam eis beating the final boss on inferno. Sure that is completley beating the gmae ... but you have had the same story 3-4 times by that point. If the rationally for normal being so fucking easy is the story then the completion of the story is completion of the game.
beating the game is beating the game on the hardest difficutly available to you at the start So the answer is 100% unless they die of absolute fucking boredom on the way.
No offence but I don't really want to waste 16 hours of my life on something that is utterly trivial - ie normal difficulty. So right now i am looking at torchlight2 tbh or praying for a cs:go key. Really id rather spend those 16 hours on something equally boring like tidying the house, making a friend maybe just masterbate for as long as i can.
Because the game is soooo complex that a 10 min tutorial would run out of things to talk about.
If i wanted a story id read a book. I want to have to think hard, react hard and make difficult decisions ... not as i did with d3 beta get so fucking bored i let my wife take over after 20 mins and watched her one hand her way to victory. Yes that is true, there is a thread about it on the blizz forums somewhere. All that showed me is that d3 beta people are incapable of logic
so is the game going to be too easy ... YES.
Otherwise youd just make a game like gauntlet with infinite levels and say look our game is soo hard noone has completed it.
The argument about d2 being really easy is flawed. Some countries still have slavery so its ok to be pro slavery right? D2 came out about 10 years ago before lots of people were on Internets (and i ran up hundreds of pounds in phone bills) also it had a REALLY harsh skill system that was easy to mess up - thats been fixed.
On May 02 2012 19:21 []Phase[] wrote: A scenario that I fear but is very plausible :
they simply added an 'easy difficulty in d2 standards' and moved all difficulties by 1. Normal is easy, nightmare is normal, hell is nightmare and inferno becomes hell difficulty of d2. Blizzard would so want to make their games as casual as possible. Inferno will ofc be totally different, due to the way the game works now (you will have all skills and can switch, which makes it ALOT easier). I still had a hard time with d2 solo hell, but it's not as impossible as some make it out to be, and inferno will be no different.
a scenario I fear but is very plausible:
They made inferno very hard indeed, to the point where the community begins to whine that it's too hard and must be dumbed down and made easier.
Honestly, D2 is a REALLY EASY game... depending on the class a little bit though, if you're soloing everything. You might have to farm items and xp a little but that is beside the point. I have complete faith in blizzard that inferno isn't here to please the casuals. for casuals, there is nightmare and maybe hell too, but inferno is clearly meant to be that something they cannot do. Believe it or not, even WoW (gasp!) raid content wasn't there to completely please the casuals, because the Heroic content would slaughter the group if there was a single casual in it. (except 25 man maybe) They have received enough feedback on players wanting it to be hard that I fully expect inferno to take a similar stance, even with the best gear most people are incapable of downing all the content.
Why is it so hard to believe if they even did it for WoW, which is apparently so casual that it makes you cringe? And before any of you make stupid assumptions about me, I got masters 1v1 in SC2 with 50-60 games played TOTAL. Just two days ago I got the achievement for 100 1v1's. Yahoo. I had 6 lvl 90's in D2:LoD, and downed most of WoW's raid content from the last two expansions excluding heroics. Just in case you thought of me as a WoW casual.
Unlike WoW, though, Diablo 3 team aren't desperate to keep people (who already bought the game) playing Diablo 3, thus there's no real reason for them to bend their back too much for those complaints (and whine for nerfs). They repeatedly said that their philosophy for this game is Single-Player, and as such the difficulty will likely remain as is.
Of course, they may go back on those words, but i would like to believe it until then
On May 03 2012 02:36 MrTortoise wrote: I disagree that beating the gam eis beating the final boss on inferno
beating the game is beating the game on the hardest difficutly available to you at the start So the answer is 100% unless they die of absolute fucking boredom on the way.
No offence but I don't really want to waste 16 hours of my life on something that is utterly trivial - ie normal difficulty. So right now i am looking at torchlight2 tbh or praying for a cs:go key. Really id rather spend those 16 hours on something equally boring like tidying the house, making a friend maybe just masterbate for as long as i can.
Because the game is soooo complex that a 10 min tutorial would run out of things to talk about.
If i wanted a story id read a book. I want to have to think hard, react hard and make difficult decisions ... not as i did with d3 beta get so fucking bored i let my wife take over after 20 mins and watched her one hand her way to victory.
so is the game going to be too easy ... YES.
Otherwise youd just make a game like gauntlet with infinite levels and say look our game is soo hard noone has completed it.
Have fun reading the books, and cleaning the house.
Heh, i even bit the bait and gave you the attention you were dying for.
On May 02 2012 19:21 []Phase[] wrote: A scenario that I fear but is very plausible :
they simply added an 'easy difficulty in d2 standards' and moved all difficulties by 1. Normal is easy, nightmare is normal, hell is nightmare and inferno becomes hell difficulty of d2. Blizzard would so want to make their games as casual as possible. Inferno will ofc be totally different, due to the way the game works now (you will have all skills and can switch, which makes it ALOT easier). I still had a hard time with d2 solo hell, but it's not as impossible as some make it out to be, and inferno will be no different.
a scenario I fear but is very plausible:
They made inferno very hard indeed, to the point where the community begins to whine that it's too hard and must be dumbed down and made easier.
Honestly, D2 is a REALLY EASY game... depending on the class a little bit though, if you're soloing everything. You might have to farm items and xp a little but that is beside the point. I have complete faith in blizzard that inferno isn't here to please the casuals. for casuals, there is nightmare and maybe hell too, but inferno is clearly meant to be that something they cannot do. Believe it or not, even WoW (gasp!) raid content wasn't there to completely please the casuals, because the Heroic content would slaughter the group if there was a single casual in it. (except 25 man maybe) They have received enough feedback on players wanting it to be hard that I fully expect inferno to take a similar stance, even with the best gear most people are incapable of downing all the content.
Why is it so hard to believe if they even did it for WoW, which is apparently so casual that it makes you cringe? And before any of you make stupid assumptions about me, I got masters 1v1 in SC2 with 50-60 games played TOTAL. Just two days ago I got the achievement for 100 1v1's. Yahoo. I had 6 lvl 90's in D2:LoD, and downed most of WoW's raid content from the last two expansions excluding heroics. Just in case you thought of me as a WoW casual.
Unlike WoW, though, Diablo 3 team aren't desperate to keep people (who already bought the game) playing Diablo 3, thus there's no real reason for them to bend their back too much for those complaints (and whine for nerfs). They repeatedly said that their philosophy for this game is Single-Player, and as such the difficulty will likely remain as is.
Of course, they may go back on those words, but i would like to believe it until then
Agree and disagree. The development team definitely has an incentive to keep people playing, as the longer people play, the more items they will buy/sell on the RMAH and the more money Blizzard will make from it. On the other hand, keeping the game hard and reliant on gear is another way to get people to utilize the RMAH and jack up prices.
And @ MrTortoise...wow. I don't know what to tell you except that if you think beating a game on the easiest difficulty, without experiencing 70% of the available items and the other three difficulties, is completion of a game, then I guess you're right. Oh and have fun with your masturbation marathon (even though it seems like your married? :-\)
On May 03 2012 03:00 NotSorry wrote: What's wrong with masturbating while married?
I was more talking about the "use the 16 hour period I could be playing D3 to masturbate for as long as I can" clause of his well thought out argument, which really shouldn't be necessary in a healthy marriage, but that's waaaaaaay beside the point I was trying to make in response to his post.
Sounds like your projecting personal morals on others. I consider my marriage to be rather healthy and I masturbate on average 5-7times a day, but I'm also a well experienced at gaming 1 handed so shouldn't cut into my game time too much.
On May 02 2012 18:10 cjin wrote: Id say less than 2% beat it on inferno by then end of the year. What I have seen, many of the ppl who will play so much they could beat it will try to do it on HC.
In wow, once you get enough gear, fights get alot easier. I remember when at the start of expansion you had to use cc to survive, and later on you just run in and aoe everything. In D3 it wont work since your primary defencive stat is your own skill to dodge projectiles/not stand in fire. No matter how much gear you get, it wont trivialise fights as much as it does in wow. Unless you are facing boss that does only one or maybe two type of elemental damage and get resistances for those (Like Diablo in D2), but then that gear wont work well against other bosses.
In the end thou I don't really care how many% gets it done and how fast, only if it makes me want to continue to bang my head against that brickwall just to find the stonewall behind it. And I don't mean thats bad.
I'd say 2% is awfully optimistic. If this thing is tuned to be impossible out of the gate (like many people expect), we'll be lucky to see 0.5% of the playerbase beat inferno in year 1. Also, you have to remember how many people will be playing D3. It could easily pass the 5 million worldwide mark in 1 year, meaning 2% would be 100,000, and 0.5% would be 25,000.
On May 03 2012 03:18 NotSorry wrote: Sounds like your projecting personal morals on others. I consider my marriage to be rather healthy and I masturbate on average 5-7times a day, but I'm also a well experienced at gaming 1 handed so shouldn't cut into my game time too much.
Wow, the world really has all kinds of people. I guess you do learn something new every day
@Zasz Hmm.. I know every1 keeps talking about the RMAH and everything, but sometimes i wonder. Is it really that those developers are more concerned about making money than improving their game. As an aspiring game developer, i really hope for this to not be the case, since it ll really suck if my future colleagues all think this way. Those guys (D3 development team) looked/felt real passionate about developing this into a good game too =/
On May 02 2012 18:10 cjin wrote: Id say less than 2% beat it on inferno by then end of the year. What I have seen, many of the ppl who will play so much they could beat it will try to do it on HC.
In wow, once you get enough gear, fights get alot easier. I remember when at the start of expansion you had to use cc to survive, and later on you just run in and aoe everything. In D3 it wont work since your primary defencive stat is your own skill to dodge projectiles/not stand in fire. No matter how much gear you get, it wont trivialise fights as much as it does in wow. Unless you are facing boss that does only one or maybe two type of elemental damage and get resistances for those (Like Diablo in D2), but then that gear wont work well against other bosses.
In the end thou I don't really care how many% gets it done and how fast, only if it makes me want to continue to bang my head against that brickwall just to find the stonewall behind it. And I don't mean thats bad.
I'd say 2% is awfully optimistic. If this thing is tuned to be impossible out of the gate (like many people expect), we'll be lucky to see 0.5% of the playerbase beat inferno in year 1. Also, you have to remember how many people will be playing D3. It could easily pass the 5 million worldwide mark in 1 year, meaning 2% would be 100,000, and 0.5% would be 25,000.
The question in the OP said to exclude people who will play for a short time and drop the game, which will be the vast majority as with all games of this genre. So since you're only including those that stick with it the rate is going to be much higher.
On May 03 2012 03:18 NotSorry wrote: Sounds like your projecting personal morals on others. I consider my marriage to be rather healthy and I masturbate on average 5-7times a day, but I'm also a well experienced at gaming 1 handed so shouldn't cut into my game time too much.
Wow, the world really has all kinds of people. I guess you do learn something new every day
@Zasz Hmm.. I know every1 keeps talking about the RMAH and everything, but sometimes i wonder. Is it really that those developers are more concerned about making money than improving their game. As an aspiring game developer, i really hope for this to not be the case, since it ll really suck if my future colleagues all think this way. Those guys (D3 development team) looked/felt real passionate about developing this into a good game too =/
No, no I'm not saying that all they care about is the payoff. I'm just saying that aside from being passionate about their game (admirable as that is), there are monetary incentives for them to keep people playing by making the game hard enough that A) people feel challenged and engaged and B) people feel the need to pick up good items off the RMAH.
Remember that ultimately Acti-Blizzard is pulling the strings here. The D3 development team can be as passionate they like about making their game the best there is, but if their budget gets cut back because they're not churning out the dollars, it doesn't help anyone. I feel like this is win-win in that the most challenging and engaging game will make Blizzard the most money.
On May 03 2012 04:51 GGTeMpLaR wrote: Part of me really thinks that they're just over-hyping how hard inferno will actually be, but hopefully I'm wrong.
I voted mediocre but I wouldn't be surprised if it ended up somewhere in the percentages of "Easy".
Pretty much sums up how I feel. I think it will be easy as hell, but hoping I'm wrong and it's soul raping hard because I want a real challenge.
On May 02 2012 06:23 ibreakurface wrote: I just watched that whole youtube video, and that second half totally looked like a "WoW players look! a more casual* game for you!"
*STAY BACK D3'rs!
You wouldn't know, but nearly all of WoW's raid content far surpasses anything in D2 with it's difficulty.
I feel like MMORPG's and RPG's in general, where it's all about leveling up and out gearing your counterparts, have caused the meaning of the term "difficulty" has become skewed. WoW is difficult in that you need to spend a lot of time on it to get somewhere. So yes, if something is defined as difficult by how much time it takes to get somewhere, then WoW is pretty damn difficult compared to many games.
Now if we are talking about difficulty in strategy, and technique, then WoW is probably only marginally harder than other RPG's, if at all.
The only reason WoW is considered "hardcore" is because it takes months (if you play hours a day, every day) to even catch up to higher tier players in level and gear.
Regardless, I agree that diablo will be relatively "easy" (less of a grind) because that's what they are shooting for. They are targeting people who want to play an RPG, but don't want to spend 20hrs+ a week to make progress like in WoW.
On May 02 2012 06:23 ibreakurface wrote: I just watched that whole youtube video, and that second half totally looked like a "WoW players look! a more casual* game for you!"
*STAY BACK D3'rs!
You wouldn't know, but nearly all of WoW's raid content far surpasses anything in D2 with it's difficulty.
I feel like MMORPG's and RPG's in general, where it's all about leveling up and out gearing your counterparts, have caused the meaning of the term "difficulty" has become skewed. WoW is difficult in that you need to spend a lot of time on it to get somewhere. So yes, if something is defined as difficult by how much time it takes to get somewhere, then WoW is pretty damn difficult compared to many games.
Now if we are talking about difficulty in strategy, and technique, then WoW is probably only marginally harder than other RPG's, if at all.
The only reason WoW is considered "hardcore" is because it takes months (if you play hours a day, every day) to even catch up to higher tier players in level and gear.
Regardless, I agree that diablo will be relatively "easy" (less of a grind) because that's what they are shooting for. They are targeting people who want to play an RPG, but don't want to spend 20hrs+ a week to make progress like in WoW.
I really doubt D3 will be less grindy. Even though you probably won't need the absolute highest tier gear to beat the content, you'll still need months worth of playing to "max out" your charater.
They won't make the game too hard, because of all these terrible WoW-Casuals. They can't make Inferno that hard that you can it only play with one build and perfect stats. I feel they turned the difficulty back down before the Open Beta started.
[QUOTE]On May 03 2012 05:36 m00nchile wrote: [QUOTE]On May 03 2012 05:28 ibreakurface wrote: [QUOTE]On May 02 2012 14:34 Ahzz wrote: [QUOTE]On May 02 2012 06:23 ibreakurface wrote: I just watched that whole youtube video, and that second half totally looked like a "WoW players look! a more casual* game for you!"
*STAY BACK D3'rs![/QUOTE] You wouldn't know, but nearly all of WoW's raid content far surpasses anything in D2 with it's difficulty.[/QUOTE]
I feel like MMORPG's and RPG's in general, where it's all about leveling up and out gearing your counterparts, have caused the meaning of the term "difficulty" has become skewed. WoW is difficult in that you need to spend a lot of time on it to get somewhere. So yes, if something is defined as difficult by how much time it takes to get somewhere, then WoW is pretty damn difficult compared to many games.
[/QUOTE]
WOW is a joke compared to Lineage 2 where you had to grind few hours a day with good gear for almost a year to get max level pre -nerf - like prelude or HB. But Korean MMOs are way harder then easy mode that WOW is.
As much as I would love to vote that it will be extremely hard and not many people will beat it...I had to vote casual. I'm pretty sure one of the following 3 situations is going to occur.
A) The game isn't that hard right now and people will just be able to beat. B) The game is hard right now, only a portion of the population will beat it, Inferno will be nerfed and then everyone beats it. C) The game is hard right now, only a portion of the population will beat it for a while, as really good items from Inferno become more readily available those people who were unable to beat it with the items they just got from playing through Hell difficulty will be able to beat it with their newly bought Inferno items.
Edit: Ok I guess I just add a little note onto this.. I voted casual, meaning 80% - 100%, but when I did that I was thinking 80 - 100% of the people who actually try to beat the game. I'm not counting the people who just play through normal and say they beat the game/stop playing, or the people who play but have no actual desire to be beat Inferno.
On May 03 2012 06:29 Chewbacca. wrote: As much as I would love to vote that it will be extremely hard and not many people will beat it...I had to vote casual. I'm pretty sure one of the following 3 situations is going to occur.
A) The game isn't that hard right now and people will just be able to beat. B) The game is hard right now, only a portion of the population will beat it, Inferno will be nerfed and then everyone beats it. C) The game is hard right now, only a portion of the population will beat it for a while, as really good items from Inferno become more readily available those people who were unable to beat it with the items they just got from playing through Hell difficulty will be able to beat it with their newly bought Inferno items.
Edit: Ok I guess I just add a little note onto this.. I voted casual, meaning 80% - 100%, but when I did that I was thinking 80 - 100% of the people who actually try to beat the game. I'm not counting the people who just play through normal and say they beat the game/stop playing, or the people who play but have no actual desire to be beat Inferno.
I think that due to the repetitive nature of Diablo's harder difficulties, they probably won't nerf the hardest difficulty setting. The reason they do that in WoW is so all that work they did with new art and fights gets seeen by more than 1% of the games population. But back to Diablo 3, the harder difficulties are going to be more about things that are simple to code in, added resistances, more health, harder hits. All these things take much less time than designing totally new content to show only the top 1%. So ultimately I don't know why they would nerf the game.
On May 03 2012 06:28 Agarvaen wrote: WOW is a joke compared to Lineage 2 where you had to grind few hours a day with good gear for almost a year to get max level pre -nerf - like prelude or HB. But Korean MMOs are way harder then easy mode that WOW is.
After this I'm probably going to be done with this thread since the same comments of 'its going to be so casual omg' pop up without reading or adding anything to the discussion going on the thread, but I'll make something clear: Gearing up in wow is not the same as in downing the raid content. Yes, absolutely anyone can get GOOD gear in wow if they simply spend time on it, doing weekly rewards etc. Yes, they gain it at a limited speed and slowly, but even casuals will get good gear. That was never my point though, and funnily people seem to jump at it after ONE person misinterpreted my message. I never said 'gear up' I said 'raid content'. Besides, I didn't even compare it to other MMO's, though I would uneducately argue that wow heroics are more demanding than nearly everything in other MMO's, based on playing a few other MMO's in my time. No, it's not starcraft 2. But it is way more challenging than D2 ever was. Mind you, I'm talking about heroic content. And the videos seen of raid gameplay don't do the game very much justice, because doing top tier DPS or healing or tanking is far more demanding while doing everything in the fight you are supposed to than what it seems. And it is something maybe only 0.1% of the servers playerbase are capable of doing after WEEKS of coordination, planning, and numerous attempts.
This discussion isn't about MMO's or WoW though, but I thought I'd add my 2 cents because people tend to jump on the common 'wow is for casuals' bandwagon without ever experiencing it for themselves. Funnily, that assumption is usually made after spending the oh so demanding 'leveling up' process, instead of heroic raid content. And like I said before in this thread I believe, I got masters 1v1 in SC2 with 60 games played total. woah?
And I seriously doubt they'd make inferno so casual after hyping it up so much. And it will not be. Anything up to then might be, since all you need to do in hell is level up, and gear up, so anyone will probably be able to do it (dunno about diablo/azmodan though), but inferno is clearly a mode where you cant outlevel your enemies. At this point, nothing is going to be changed since the game has already been sent out to the world probably. So painting horror images of how easy it's going to be aint going to help either.
If you listened to the last developer diary. There adding abilities only seen in Inferno. Jay Wilson did explained one called "Waller" which if you were trying to run away it causes a waller to go up so you can't escape.
I just can't wait for the QQ train to start...When they get to inferno.
I don't think you can design a game to be relaxed in terms of strategy (not needing some sort of team comp) and still have it be hard. The only way you can make a game allow any team comp to win is to make it easier. I think best case the game will be very hard for shitty comps, and easy* for good team comps.
*when I say easy I mean 80-90% of the gamer's can beat it.
On May 03 2012 08:39 Whalecore wrote: Well the waller affix showed up even in beta, not sure if that was just for showing it off though. Search for it on YouTube and you'll see it!
The point is that there going to have a lot of new abilities that we haven't seen yet. They are testing so many things to ensure the difficulty will keep people playing. Blizzard wants people to keep playing so they can get money from the RMAH.
On May 03 2012 08:58 ibreakurface wrote: I don't think you can design a game to be relaxed in terms of strategy (not needing some sort of team comp) and still have it be hard. The only way you can make a game allow any team comp to win is to make it easier. I think best case the game will be very hard for shitty comps, and easy* for good team comps.
*when I say easy I mean 80-90% of the gamer's can beat it.
Your not thinking there going to make it very item dependent when you get to inferno. I expect people to gear up before they can get through it fully. I feel like build changing through out Inferno is going to have to happen a lot before people are able to clear it.
On May 03 2012 08:58 ibreakurface wrote: I don't think you can design a game to be relaxed in terms of strategy (not needing some sort of team comp) and still have it be hard. The only way you can make a game allow any team comp to win is to make it easier. I think best case the game will be very hard for shitty comps, and easy* for good team comps.
*when I say easy I mean 80-90% of the gamer's can beat it.
Your not thinking there going to make it very item dependent when you get to inferno. I expect people to gear up before they can get through it fully. I feel like build changing through out Inferno is going to have to happen a lot before people are able to clear it.
True, but then you have the issue of "it's hard until good gear is available." I never played WoW, but i heard that when expansions came out the monsters were hard until higher level gear was easily available to everyone, in which case the game became a cake walk. I suppose if D3 properly makes the game so that you can't get, or at least can't use, gear that will make the your stage of the game too easy then it will be a great success.
But I don't see D3 being all that difficult, knowing how games usually function in a few months people are going to find strong builds/comps that make the content easier than expected.
On May 03 2012 08:58 ibreakurface wrote: I don't think you can design a game to be relaxed in terms of strategy (not needing some sort of team comp) and still have it be hard. The only way you can make a game allow any team comp to win is to make it easier. I think best case the game will be very hard for shitty comps, and easy* for good team comps.
*when I say easy I mean 80-90% of the gamer's can beat it.
Your not thinking there going to make it very item dependent when you get to inferno. I expect people to gear up before they can get through it fully. I feel like build changing through out Inferno is going to have to happen a lot before people are able to clear it.
True, but then you have the issue of "it's hard until good gear is available." I never played WoW, but i heard that when expansions came out the monsters were hard until higher level gear was easily available to everyone, in which case the game became a cake walk. I suppose if D3 properly makes the game so that you can't get, or at least can't use, gear that will make the your stage of the game too easy then it will be a great success.
But I don't see D3 being all that difficult, knowing how games usually function in a few months people are going to find strong builds/comps that make the content easier than expected.
If you've never played WoW than how can you possibly understand? Gear is one thing but that doesn't make an encounter cakewalk unless you severely outlevel and outgear it. You still need to know the mechanics, have awareness, be able to react, and execute a rotation / strategy. The majority of the gaming population is incapable of doing so, evidently by WoW, Starcraft II, and basically every other online game out there.
On May 03 2012 08:58 ibreakurface wrote: I don't think you can design a game to be relaxed in terms of strategy (not needing some sort of team comp) and still have it be hard. The only way you can make a game allow any team comp to win is to make it easier. I think best case the game will be very hard for shitty comps, and easy* for good team comps.
*when I say easy I mean 80-90% of the gamer's can beat it.
Your not thinking there going to make it very item dependent when you get to inferno. I expect people to gear up before they can get through it fully. I feel like build changing through out Inferno is going to have to happen a lot before people are able to clear it.
True, but then you have the issue of "it's hard until good gear is available." I never played WoW, but i heard that when expansions came out the monsters were hard until higher level gear was easily available to everyone, in which case the game became a cake walk. I suppose if D3 properly makes the game so that you can't get, or at least can't use, gear that will make the your stage of the game too easy then it will be a great success.
But I don't see D3 being all that difficult, knowing how games usually function in a few months people are going to find strong builds/comps that make the content easier than expected.
If you've never played WoW than how can you possibly understand? Gear is one thing but that doesn't make an encounter cakewalk unless you severely outlevel and outgear it. You still need to know the mechanics, have awareness, be able to react, and execute a rotation / strategy. The majority of the gaming population is incapable of doing so, evidently by WoW, Starcraft II, and basically every other online game out there.
@ your first sentence: I'm paraphrasing another source. Would you like me to use MLA or APA?
...
Let me put it to you this way: While playing a game that's new you don't know what stats are best, what gear, what strat, etc. so it's probably difficult. YAY! while playing a game that has been out for a while (like a month) the hardcore (top .05%) figure it out and spread the word through guides, playing the game with others, etc. Then you have a game like WoW, where everyone knows exactly how shit needs to be done, and it gets done. Not hard. Boo.
To those who are about to say "wow then don't look at guides and just play the game": No. Have you ever seen someone in WoW, or any RPG, run around in high level play having no idea what their doing and enjoying it? No because they have a bunch of assholes yelling at him.
On May 03 2012 08:58 ibreakurface wrote: I don't think you can design a game to be relaxed in terms of strategy (not needing some sort of team comp) and still have it be hard. The only way you can make a game allow any team comp to win is to make it easier. I think best case the game will be very hard for shitty comps, and easy* for good team comps.
*when I say easy I mean 80-90% of the gamer's can beat it.
Your not thinking there going to make it very item dependent when you get to inferno. I expect people to gear up before they can get through it fully. I feel like build changing through out Inferno is going to have to happen a lot before people are able to clear it.
True, but then you have the issue of "it's hard until good gear is available." I never played WoW, but i heard that when expansions came out the monsters were hard until higher level gear was easily available to everyone, in which case the game became a cake walk. I suppose if D3 properly makes the game so that you can't get, or at least can't use, gear that will make the your stage of the game too easy then it will be a great success.
But I don't see D3 being all that difficult, knowing how games usually function in a few months people are going to find strong builds/comps that make the content easier than expected.
If you've never played WoW than how can you possibly understand? Gear is one thing but that doesn't make an encounter cakewalk unless you severely outlevel and outgear it. You still need to know the mechanics, have awareness, be able to react, and execute a rotation / strategy. The majority of the gaming population is incapable of doing so, evidently by WoW, Starcraft II, and basically every other online game out there.
@ your first sentence: I'm paraphrasing another source. Would you like me to use MLA or APA?
...
Let me put it to you this way: While playing a game that's new you don't know what stats are best, what gear, what strat, etc. so it's probably difficult. YAY! while playing a game that has been out for a while (like a month) the hardcore (top .05%) figure it out and spread the word through guides, playing the game with others, etc. Then you have a game like WoW, where everyone knows exactly how shit needs to be done, and it gets done. Not hard. Boo.
To those who are about to say "wow then don't look at guides and just play the game": No. Have you ever seen someone in WoW, or any RPG, run around in high level play having no idea what their doing and enjoying it? No because they have a bunch of assholes yelling at him.
You sounded all good and intelligent until you posted the bolded part, and the paragraph after that. We were exactly trying to say that this is not the case. Basically what SkyR said, and what is indeed true, is that while anyone can gear up in WoW, it does NOT guarantee that they down ANY raid bosses, especially in heroic. This is a very common misconception. while wow is a game where even the casuals can enjoy themselves, it is also a game where your damage output could be double or even triple that of a bad player with the same game. It's a game where you have to pay attention to a lot of things while doing top tier DPS to get through content. And THIS is something only 0.1% of the server are capable of doing after weeks or months of attempts. And trust me your casual joe or even your average SC2 gamer isn't able to do that. You can call out "wow is ez mode casual ezpz" all you want, but it's evident from your posts you never experienced the raid content and call out what other people say about 'dungeons' that are MEANT to be casual.
What me and SkyR are both saying is: a) The argument of WoW is ezmode is extremely stupid because there is an equivalent to the heroic content: inferno mode, something probably only 0.1-1% are capable of doing, at least for many months. b) BECAUSE the heroic raid content is extremely challenging in WoW, something only 0.1% are capable of doing, why wouldn't it be EXACTLY THE SAME in D3? Yes, there is indeed not as much coordination needed, and you don't have to group up with 9 failures or anything. However, AS PROVEN BY WOW, only 0.1% are able to put out the necessary damage/heals/tanking WHILE doing all the mechanics, dodges, turns, etc done by the boss. I would have so many examples of outdpsing some raid buddy who is the same class, same build, but he has far better items. That person usually couldn't perform the more difficult content either, and overall just stopped the group from progressing because he wasn't capable of the amounts of multitasking necessary while dealing top dps.
On May 03 2012 08:58 ibreakurface wrote: I don't think you can design a game to be relaxed in terms of strategy (not needing some sort of team comp) and still have it be hard. The only way you can make a game allow any team comp to win is to make it easier. I think best case the game will be very hard for shitty comps, and easy* for good team comps.
*when I say easy I mean 80-90% of the gamer's can beat it.
Your not thinking there going to make it very item dependent when you get to inferno. I expect people to gear up before they can get through it fully. I feel like build changing through out Inferno is going to have to happen a lot before people are able to clear it.
True, but then you have the issue of "it's hard until good gear is available." I never played WoW, but i heard that when expansions came out the monsters were hard until higher level gear was easily available to everyone, in which case the game became a cake walk. I suppose if D3 properly makes the game so that you can't get, or at least can't use, gear that will make the your stage of the game too easy then it will be a great success.
But I don't see D3 being all that difficult, knowing how games usually function in a few months people are going to find strong builds/comps that make the content easier than expected.
If you've never played WoW than how can you possibly understand? Gear is one thing but that doesn't make an encounter cakewalk unless you severely outlevel and outgear it. You still need to know the mechanics, have awareness, be able to react, and execute a rotation / strategy. The majority of the gaming population is incapable of doing so, evidently by WoW, Starcraft II, and basically every other online game out there.
@ your first sentence: I'm paraphrasing another source. Would you like me to use MLA or APA?
...
Let me put it to you this way: While playing a game that's new you don't know what stats are best, what gear, what strat, etc. so it's probably difficult. YAY! while playing a game that has been out for a while (like a month) the hardcore (top .05%) figure it out and spread the word through guides, playing the game with others, etc. Then you have a game like WoW, where everyone knows exactly how shit needs to be done, and it gets done. Not hard. Boo.
To those who are about to say "wow then don't look at guides and just play the game": No. Have you ever seen someone in WoW, or any RPG, run around in high level play having no idea what their doing and enjoying it? No because they have a bunch of assholes yelling at him.
top guilds go into bosses without knowledge in wow (well prior to the ability popup from blizzard) on beta to get the infos and so u r wrong on that part, its all part of learning the encounter, for example, we didnt ve a guide for c-thun in classic~
but u r right about the others yelling at u when u fuck up in wow - doesnt mean they are assholes thou, in top guildes bad players are just not acceptable
On May 03 2012 08:58 ibreakurface wrote: I don't think you can design a game to be relaxed in terms of strategy (not needing some sort of team comp) and still have it be hard. The only way you can make a game allow any team comp to win is to make it easier. I think best case the game will be very hard for shitty comps, and easy* for good team comps.
*when I say easy I mean 80-90% of the gamer's can beat it.
Your not thinking there going to make it very item dependent when you get to inferno. I expect people to gear up before they can get through it fully. I feel like build changing through out Inferno is going to have to happen a lot before people are able to clear it.
True, but then you have the issue of "it's hard until good gear is available." I never played WoW, but i heard that when expansions came out the monsters were hard until higher level gear was easily available to everyone, in which case the game became a cake walk. I suppose if D3 properly makes the game so that you can't get, or at least can't use, gear that will make the your stage of the game too easy then it will be a great success.
But I don't see D3 being all that difficult, knowing how games usually function in a few months people are going to find strong builds/comps that make the content easier than expected.
If you've never played WoW than how can you possibly understand? Gear is one thing but that doesn't make an encounter cakewalk unless you severely outlevel and outgear it. You still need to know the mechanics, have awareness, be able to react, and execute a rotation / strategy. The majority of the gaming population is incapable of doing so, evidently by WoW, Starcraft II, and basically every other online game out there.
@ your first sentence: I'm paraphrasing another source. Would you like me to use MLA or APA?
...
Let me put it to you this way: While playing a game that's new you don't know what stats are best, what gear, what strat, etc. so it's probably difficult. YAY! while playing a game that has been out for a while (like a month) the hardcore (top .05%) figure it out and spread the word through guides, playing the game with others, etc. Then you have a game like WoW, where everyone knows exactly how shit needs to be done, and it gets done. Not hard. Boo.
To those who are about to say "wow then don't look at guides and just play the game": No. Have you ever seen someone in WoW, or any RPG, run around in high level play having no idea what their doing and enjoying it? No because they have a bunch of assholes yelling at him.
You clearly didn't read what I wrote.
You can give someone the strategy, the gear, and the most optimized build for something but that doesn't mean they're capable of doing it. It's not only WoW, you can find examples of this nearly everywhere.
If it works the way that you describe, we obviously would be living in a perfect world where everyone is godlike amazing.
On May 03 2012 08:58 ibreakurface wrote: I don't think you can design a game to be relaxed in terms of strategy (not needing some sort of team comp) and still have it be hard. The only way you can make a game allow any team comp to win is to make it easier. I think best case the game will be very hard for shitty comps, and easy* for good team comps.
*when I say easy I mean 80-90% of the gamer's can beat it.
Your not thinking there going to make it very item dependent when you get to inferno. I expect people to gear up before they can get through it fully. I feel like build changing through out Inferno is going to have to happen a lot before people are able to clear it.
True, but then you have the issue of "it's hard until good gear is available." I never played WoW, but i heard that when expansions came out the monsters were hard until higher level gear was easily available to everyone, in which case the game became a cake walk. I suppose if D3 properly makes the game so that you can't get, or at least can't use, gear that will make the your stage of the game too easy then it will be a great success.
But I don't see D3 being all that difficult, knowing how games usually function in a few months people are going to find strong builds/comps that make the content easier than expected.
If you've never played WoW than how can you possibly understand? Gear is one thing but that doesn't make an encounter cakewalk unless you severely outlevel and outgear it. You still need to know the mechanics, have awareness, be able to react, and execute a rotation / strategy. The majority of the gaming population is incapable of doing so, evidently by WoW, Starcraft II, and basically every other online game out there.
@ your first sentence: I'm paraphrasing another source. Would you like me to use MLA or APA?
...
Let me put it to you this way: While playing a game that's new you don't know what stats are best, what gear, what strat, etc. so it's probably difficult. YAY! while playing a game that has been out for a while (like a month) the hardcore (top .05%) figure it out and spread the word through guides, playing the game with others, etc. Then you have a game like WoW, where everyone knows exactly how shit needs to be done, and it gets done. Not hard. Boo.
To those who are about to say "wow then don't look at guides and just play the game": No. Have you ever seen someone in WoW, or any RPG, run around in high level play having no idea what their doing and enjoying it? No because they have a bunch of assholes yelling at him.
You sounded all good and intelligent until you posted the bolded part, and the paragraph after that. We were exactly trying to say that this is not the case. Basically what SkyR said, and what is indeed true, is that while anyone can gear up in WoW, it does NOT guarantee that they down ANY raid bosses, especially in heroic. This is a very common misconception. while wow is a game where even the casuals can enjoy themselves, it is also a game where your damage output could be double or even triple that of a bad player with the same game. It's a game where you have to pay attention to a lot of things while doing top tier DPS to get through content. And THIS is something only 0.1% of the server are capable of doing after weeks or months of attempts. And trust me your casual joe or even your average SC2 gamer isn't able to do that. You can call out "wow is ez mode casual ezpz" all you want, but it's evident from your posts you never experienced the raid content and call out what other people say about 'dungeons' that are MEANT to be casual.
What me and SkyR are both saying is: a) The argument of WoW is ezmode is extremely stupid because there is an equivalent to the heroic content: inferno mode, something probably only 0.1-1% are capable of doing, at least for many months. b) BECAUSE the heroic raid content is extremely challenging in WoW, something only 0.1% are capable of doing, why wouldn't it be EXACTLY THE SAME in D3? Yes, there is indeed not as much coordination needed, and you don't have to group up with 9 failures or anything. However, AS PROVEN BY WOW, only 0.1% are able to put out the necessary damage/heals/tanking WHILE doing all the mechanics, dodges, turns, etc done by the boss. I would have so many examples of outdpsing some raid buddy who is the same class, same build, but he has far better items. That person usually couldn't perform the more difficult content either, and overall just stopped the group from progressing because he wasn't capable of the amounts of multitasking necessary while dealing top dps.
Ah, I was under the impression that whoever played the most (the result being having the best items) was the best, because skill can't over come stats, and once you got decent items shit was a cake walk. My apologies.
But this brings up a different point. WoW requires a lot of time to do end game content, I'm pretty sure on this. I heard some dungeons take more than 1 session to complete so people plan ahead when to be on. So my question is, will D3 still be extremely hard but still allow you to not have to play all day every day to be able to take part in the very hard content. If so, I have myself a dream RPG.
I want the game to be casual in hours, but insane in actual difficulty (coordination, planning, mechanics, etc.).
Well, Diablo 3 is basically single player with multiplayer options. You are free to set up your own schedule to play, as there are no outside obligations.
WoW does require a commitment to the game. In the two-three major guilds I was in (Vanilla-early Wrath), we had scheduled raids. You more or less had to be on during these hours. This was approximately 20 hours a week, 8-12 4-5 days a week. Obviously some people have issue with this, I did not, or I wouldn't have done it for the better portion of two years + early wrath.
Gear does make encounters easier, sure, but not necessarily a cakewalk. Healers still need to focus, DPS still needs to DPS, etc. Gear, along with experience, allows you to clear an instance in 1 raid session as opposed to two or more, and certainly over the weeks / months spent learning it.
There were gear checks in WoW. Some of these were resistance checks (dumb idea), and just straight up gear checks (these im okay with). Farming lol poison resist gear to get through Huhuran in AQ40 is silly. However, getting 30 or so people the best possible gear to beat patchwerk in 7 minutes is just fine.
In short: Yes, diablo 3 has zero obligations associated with it. You can be casual with your hours, however you define that, and still see everything that everyone else does. It just takes longer, obviously. As you get gear, stuff becomes easier, it's natural progression. You do more damage, you take less damage, thus you increase your speed of clearing and your margin of error to withstand dying.
We do not know how Inferno is tuned, but if Diablo II is any indication, farming bosses in the previous difficulty is probably required to get decent gear for the next difficulty. Normal -> nightmare is a huge step, just like nightmare -> hell. It's a fairly lineal scale with a giant jump in between each difficulty.
If you think about a scale from 1-100..
1-10 is normal, 20-40 is nightmare, 60-100 is hell. Act 5 normal and Act 1 Nightmare are worlds apart in terms of health / damage. The AI is about the same i think, I forgot though. That's the only advantage (if Act 1 mobs sit around doing nothing). Diablo III has improvements across the board, so yeah, there should be that noticable difficulty jump when beating Act 4 and starting Act 1 again.
On May 03 2012 15:26 Mysticesper wrote: The AI is about the same i think, I forgot though. That's the only advantage (if Act 1 mobs sit around doing nothing)
Iirc, the developers mentioned just that in one of the Blizzcon 2011 panels. Difficulty / AI will increase with Nightmare/Hell/Inferno, meaning that those sluggish and braindead Act 1 monsters will suddenly prey on you and actually become a threat.
I was specifically talking about Diablo II AI, I know Diablo III will have AI improvements across the board.
I don't have any characters above normal on my laptop and this desktop. My old, dying desktop has all my legit and lol hacked characters. Unfortunately, that is 8 hours away, and I'm kind of finishing my semester right now.
So Jay said on Twitter that noone on the internal test team was able to beat Inferno. Let us assume for the sake of argument that this is really the case and not some baseless plug from marketing.
Does anyone actually know how much time the internal test team had to play the game? I imagine that their internal testing is at least in some way structured, with testers focussing on specific items at specific times (Skills, balance, UI, ...). Can't really imagine that they have internal testers just dicking around in the game, from start to finish, just to see if it can be done.
Does anyone know, or remember an interview, where they discussed the alpha "friends and family" test? Did they get the same beta as we did? That Jay's grandmother was not able to inferno I can get behind. But can't imagine that none of their friends, if given sufficient access-time, would be unable to beat the game. Technically those people were not a part of the "internal" test team, so Jay's "no" would still be valid
It doesnt really matter if the internal test team beats it or not, at least that doesnt matter to me.. when i get the game i am gonna beat it and thats all to it, i doubt its gonna be impossible to beat and as wow teached me the times of hard content from blizzard is over, if u dont ve 24 others around u that can make u fail the encounter i dont see it being a super hard challenge....its just a hack and slay game after all
On May 03 2012 16:30 {ToT}ColmA wrote: It doesnt really matter if the internal test team beats it or not, at least that doesnt matter to me.. when i get the game i am gonna beat it and thats all to it, i doubt its gonna be impossible to beat and as wow teached me the times of hard content from blizzard is over, if u dont ve 24 others around u that can make u fail the encounter i dont see it being a super hard challenge....its just a hack and slay game after all
No one except you and a few others like you said Inferno is impossible.
Obviously Inferno will be beaten but the question is how long will it take?
On May 03 2012 16:24 NeoLearner wrote: So Jay said on Twitter that noone on the internal test team was able to beat Inferno. Let us assume for the sake of argument that this is really the case and not some baseless plug from marketing.
my guess is that they didn't beat it legit, like playing through the game from start to finish (which i'm pretty sure they tried nontheless). they probably tested every boss on every difficulty separately and i'm pretty sure they gave themselfs enough high lvl items to beat it. no developer would release a game where they don't know every detail from each site which means also beating it..
jay didn't lie, but it wasn't the whole truth either imo
On May 03 2012 16:24 NeoLearner wrote: So Jay said on Twitter that noone on the internal test team was able to beat Inferno. Let us assume for the sake of argument that this is really the case and not some baseless plug from marketing.
my guess is that they didn't beat it legit, like playing through the game from start to finish (which i'm pretty sure they tried nontheless). they probably tested every boss on every difficulty separately and i'm pretty sure they gave themselfs enough high lvl items to beat it. no developer would release a game where they don't know every detail from each site which means also beating it..
jay didn't lie, but it wasn't the whole truth either imo
pretty sure when they released MC/BWL in WoW they never beat it, seeing as how it took like 6 months to kill Ragnaros from release...
On May 03 2012 16:24 NeoLearner wrote: So Jay said on Twitter that noone on the internal test team was able to beat Inferno. Let us assume for the sake of argument that this is really the case and not some baseless plug from marketing.
my guess is that they didn't beat it legit, like playing through the game from start to finish (which i'm pretty sure they tried nontheless). they probably tested every boss on every difficulty separately and i'm pretty sure they gave themselfs enough high lvl items to beat it. no developer would release a game where they don't know every detail from each site which means also beating it..
jay didn't lie, but it wasn't the whole truth either imo
They said that they couldn't beat the bosses. They tuned things for their best players and then made it twice as hard, so obviously their best players aren't good enough to beat it if it is twice as hard as what is reasonable for them.
“When we’re testing the highest difficulty level, we don’t force testers to level-up from scratch each time. Their chars receive randomized equipment of 0.5~1 lvl under the boss’s level. After 20 attempts the boss was still undefeated. We hope the most difficult bosses will be really, really hard to beat, as we know from experience never, NEVER underestimate our players. We set the difficulty based on how our most skilled staff felt to be adequate. Then we MULTIPLY THIS BY 2 upon release”
(P.S. He further explains that “times by 2″ not only refers to mob damage output & HP, but also to the extent that players will need to “apply combat skills depth”.)
On May 03 2012 16:30 {ToT}ColmA wrote: It doesnt really matter if the internal test team beats it or not, at least that doesnt matter to me.. when i get the game i am gonna beat it and thats all to it, i doubt its gonna be impossible to beat and as wow teached me the times of hard content from blizzard is over, if u dont ve 24 others around u that can make u fail the encounter i dont see it being a super hard challenge....its just a hack and slay game after all
No one except you and a few others like you said Inferno is impossible.
Obviously Inferno will be beaten but the question is how long will it take?
It can very well be impossible if they themselves can't beat it.
On May 03 2012 16:24 NeoLearner wrote: So Jay said on Twitter that noone on the internal test team was able to beat Inferno. Let us assume for the sake of argument that this is really the case and not some baseless plug from marketing.
my guess is that they didn't beat it legit, like playing through the game from start to finish (which i'm pretty sure they tried nontheless). they probably tested every boss on every difficulty separately and i'm pretty sure they gave themselfs enough high lvl items to beat it. no developer would release a game where they don't know every detail from each site which means also beating it..
jay didn't lie, but it wasn't the whole truth either imo
They said that they couldn't beat the bosses. They tuned things for their best players and then made it twice as hard, so obviously their best players aren't good enough to beat it if it is twice as hard as what is reasonable for them.
“When we’re testing the highest difficulty level, we don’t force testers to level-up from scratch each time. Their chars receive randomized equipment of 0.5~1 lvl under the boss’s level. After 20 attempts the boss was still undefeated. We hope the most difficult bosses will be really, really hard to beat, as we know from experience never, NEVER underestimate our players. We set the difficulty based on how our most skilled staff felt to be adequate. Then we MULTIPLY THIS BY 2 upon release”
(P.S. He further explains that “times by 2″ not only refers to mob damage output & HP, but also to the extent that players will need to “apply combat skills depth”.)
On May 03 2012 16:30 {ToT}ColmA wrote: It doesnt really matter if the internal test team beats it or not, at least that doesnt matter to me.. when i get the game i am gonna beat it and thats all to it, i doubt its gonna be impossible to beat and as wow teached me the times of hard content from blizzard is over, if u dont ve 24 others around u that can make u fail the encounter i dont see it being a super hard challenge....its just a hack and slay game after all
No one except you and a few others like you said Inferno is impossible.
Obviously Inferno will be beaten but the question is how long will it take?
It can very well be impossible if they themselves can't beat it.
You really shouldn't take Blizzard statements literally, especially not so close to release.
I bought the game 3 times and have gotten to Diablo probably 100+ times, but I was never strong enough to beat him.
I never got past lvl 27 on my Necromancer. You can only replay Act IV so many dozens of times for only a fraction of experience of a level per run before it gets old.
(I could never connect to battle.net... I guess that's how most people got their levels.)
I bought the game 3 times and have gotten to Diablo probably 100+ times, but I was never strong enough to beat him.
I never got past lvl 27 on my Necromancer. You can only replay Act IV so many dozens of times for only a fraction of experience of a level per run before it gets old.
(I could never connect to battle.net... I guess that's how most people got their levels.)
Well Diablo is probably the hardest boss in Normal, so.. He's especially hard if you are playing a Zookeeper Necro.
If you have trouble beating the game in normal, i recommend a Meteorb Sorc, Tesladin, or a Trapsin. You can look up the builds online.. They are fairly easy to play, and should get you pass normal no problem.
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.
On May 03 2012 16:24 NeoLearner wrote: So Jay said on Twitter that noone on the internal test team was able to beat Inferno. Let us assume for the sake of argument that this is really the case and not some baseless plug from marketing.
my guess is that they didn't beat it legit, like playing through the game from start to finish (which i'm pretty sure they tried nontheless). they probably tested every boss on every difficulty separately and i'm pretty sure they gave themselfs enough high lvl items to beat it. no developer would release a game where they don't know every detail from each site which means also beating it..
jay didn't lie, but it wasn't the whole truth either imo
They said that they couldn't beat the bosses. They tuned things for their best players and then made it twice as hard, so obviously their best players aren't good enough to beat it if it is twice as hard as what is reasonable for them.
“When we’re testing the highest difficulty level, we don’t force testers to level-up from scratch each time. Their chars receive randomized equipment of 0.5~1 lvl under the boss’s level. After 20 attempts the boss was still undefeated. We hope the most difficult bosses will be really, really hard to beat, as we know from experience never, NEVER underestimate our players. We set the difficulty based on how our most skilled staff felt to be adequate. Then we MULTIPLY THIS BY 2 upon release”
(P.S. He further explains that “times by 2″ not only refers to mob damage output & HP, but also to the extent that players will need to “apply combat skills depth”.)
On May 03 2012 16:33 skyR wrote:
On May 03 2012 16:30 {ToT}ColmA wrote: It doesnt really matter if the internal test team beats it or not, at least that doesnt matter to me.. when i get the game i am gonna beat it and thats all to it, i doubt its gonna be impossible to beat and as wow teached me the times of hard content from blizzard is over, if u dont ve 24 others around u that can make u fail the encounter i dont see it being a super hard challenge....its just a hack and slay game after all
No one except you and a few others like you said Inferno is impossible.
Obviously Inferno will be beaten but the question is how long will it take?
It can very well be impossible if they themselves can't beat it.
You really shouldn't take Blizzard statements literally, especially not so close to release.
You do know that Blizzard testers also can't beat the hardest raid bosses in WoW either? (They said so in one of the Blizzcon).
On May 03 2012 16:30 {ToT}ColmA wrote: It doesnt really matter if the internal test team beats it or not, at least that doesnt matter to me.. when i get the game i am gonna beat it and thats all to it, i doubt its gonna be impossible to beat and as wow teached me the times of hard content from blizzard is over, if u dont ve 24 others around u that can make u fail the encounter i dont see it being a super hard challenge....its just a hack and slay game after all
No one except you and a few others like you said Inferno is impossible.
Obviously Inferno will be beaten but the question is how long will it take?
please read again, i said "i doubt its gonna be impossible" thats not meaning i think its impossible u know.. -_-
On May 03 2012 16:24 NeoLearner wrote: So Jay said on Twitter that noone on the internal test team was able to beat Inferno. Let us assume for the sake of argument that this is really the case and not some baseless plug from marketing.
my guess is that they didn't beat it legit, like playing through the game from start to finish (which i'm pretty sure they tried nontheless). they probably tested every boss on every difficulty separately and i'm pretty sure they gave themselfs enough high lvl items to beat it. no developer would release a game where they don't know every detail from each site which means also beating it..
jay didn't lie, but it wasn't the whole truth either imo
They said that they couldn't beat the bosses. They tuned things for their best players and then made it twice as hard, so obviously their best players aren't good enough to beat it if it is twice as hard as what is reasonable for them.
“When we’re testing the highest difficulty level, we don’t force testers to level-up from scratch each time. Their chars receive randomized equipment of 0.5~1 lvl under the boss’s level. After 20 attempts the boss was still undefeated. We hope the most difficult bosses will be really, really hard to beat, as we know from experience never, NEVER underestimate our players. We set the difficulty based on how our most skilled staff felt to be adequate. Then we MULTIPLY THIS BY 2 upon release”
(P.S. He further explains that “times by 2″ not only refers to mob damage output & HP, but also to the extent that players will need to “apply combat skills depth”.)
On May 03 2012 16:33 skyR wrote:
On May 03 2012 16:30 {ToT}ColmA wrote: It doesnt really matter if the internal test team beats it or not, at least that doesnt matter to me.. when i get the game i am gonna beat it and thats all to it, i doubt its gonna be impossible to beat and as wow teached me the times of hard content from blizzard is over, if u dont ve 24 others around u that can make u fail the encounter i dont see it being a super hard challenge....its just a hack and slay game after all
No one except you and a few others like you said Inferno is impossible.
Obviously Inferno will be beaten but the question is how long will it take?
It can very well be impossible if they themselves can't beat it.
You really shouldn't take Blizzard statements literally, especially not so close to release.
You do know that Blizzard testers also can't beat the hardest raid bosses in WoW either? (They said so in one of the Blizzcon).
The chances of Blizzard having 25 good players among their staff is a lot less than the chance that they got a single good player.
On May 03 2012 16:24 NeoLearner wrote: So Jay said on Twitter that noone on the internal test team was able to beat Inferno. Let us assume for the sake of argument that this is really the case and not some baseless plug from marketing.
my guess is that they didn't beat it legit, like playing through the game from start to finish (which i'm pretty sure they tried nontheless). they probably tested every boss on every difficulty separately and i'm pretty sure they gave themselfs enough high lvl items to beat it. no developer would release a game where they don't know every detail from each site which means also beating it..
jay didn't lie, but it wasn't the whole truth either imo
They said that they couldn't beat the bosses. They tuned things for their best players and then made it twice as hard, so obviously their best players aren't good enough to beat it if it is twice as hard as what is reasonable for them.
“When we’re testing the highest difficulty level, we don’t force testers to level-up from scratch each time. Their chars receive randomized equipment of 0.5~1 lvl under the boss’s level. After 20 attempts the boss was still undefeated. We hope the most difficult bosses will be really, really hard to beat, as we know from experience never, NEVER underestimate our players. We set the difficulty based on how our most skilled staff felt to be adequate. Then we MULTIPLY THIS BY 2 upon release”
(P.S. He further explains that “times by 2″ not only refers to mob damage output & HP, but also to the extent that players will need to “apply combat skills depth”.)
On May 03 2012 16:33 skyR wrote:
On May 03 2012 16:30 {ToT}ColmA wrote: It doesnt really matter if the internal test team beats it or not, at least that doesnt matter to me.. when i get the game i am gonna beat it and thats all to it, i doubt its gonna be impossible to beat and as wow teached me the times of hard content from blizzard is over, if u dont ve 24 others around u that can make u fail the encounter i dont see it being a super hard challenge....its just a hack and slay game after all
No one except you and a few others like you said Inferno is impossible.
Obviously Inferno will be beaten but the question is how long will it take?
It can very well be impossible if they themselves can't beat it.
You really shouldn't take Blizzard statements literally, especially not so close to release.
You do know that Blizzard testers also can't beat the hardest raid bosses in WoW either? (They said so in one of the Blizzcon).
The chances of Blizzard having 25 good players among their staff is a lot less than the chance that they got a single good player.
And yet they still released an encounter in the latest raid tier that even the top players in the world said was literally impossible, and they had to nerf extensively before it was beaten. Hm.
i think the game will be difficult enough - i trust blizzard. But, the funniest thing in the video was after they showed developers playing and dying and saying "You will die", they show a petless witchdoctor oneshotting everything in hell O_o
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?
I bought the game 3 times and have gotten to Diablo probably 100+ times, but I was never strong enough to beat him.
I never got past lvl 27 on my Necromancer. You can only replay Act IV so many dozens of times for only a fraction of experience of a level per run before it gets old.
(I could never connect to battle.net... I guess that's how most people got their levels.)
Well Diablo is probably the hardest boss in Normal, so.. He's especially hard if you are playing a Zookeeper Necro.
Haaaa, the good old days: Diablo on normal as a Zookeeper Necro. That first fight is one I'll never forget. I was owning left and right with my army of the damned. Around 15 skeletons, 10 mages, a blood golem and a few revives. This was before they implemented synergies and limited the amount of skeletons.
Diablo spawns, does his Johnny Cash patented Ring Of Fire and every one of the minions drops dead. I didn't have any attack skill except Teeth, so I had to result to "clay bombing" him to death. In other words, keep Iron maiden on him and and spawn Clay Golems, which are then 1 hit killed by a melee hit from Diablo. Took forever, but it was awesome.
I think Duriel and Diablo were on the same level if you were a caster. While Diablo could be handled with a Nozokan's relic and some micro, Duriel first lagged you and then slowed you. I remember buying something with Blaze charges, just to be able to cast that and run around like crazy to kill him...
If I can get anything like that in Diablo 3, I will be happy
On May 03 2012 16:24 NeoLearner wrote: So Jay said on Twitter that noone on the internal test team was able to beat Inferno. Let us assume for the sake of argument that this is really the case and not some baseless plug from marketing.
jay didn't lie, but it wasn't the whole truth either imo
This is what I think also. Although the WOW thing makes an amount of sense.
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 find 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.
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 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.
Edit: grammar
Running heroics with blues and greens?
Guilds like Paragon, Method and Ensidia were clearing T11 heroic raids in blues and greens at the start, sure it took about a month, but bosses were dying in blues and greens, one of the hardest raid tiers ever made. Even a year and a half after release less than 3% of raiding guilds (I would guess that's less than 0,01% of the playerbase) have even seen Sinestra.
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.
Blizzard employees have an internal bet going how fast inferno will be cleared. No numbers were released, but they are deviding in months. Also they are going to double everything (health, damage, etc. ...) for release, what the internal test team couldn't beat already.
I certainly hope that it will be really really hard.
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 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.
Most of diablo is made for casuals, inferno however is made for the hardcore fans. I am sure it can be cleared in four days given the right circumstances if 100 people farm gear for 1 person it would greatly accelerate the rate at which people are able to clear it. From a "casual" levels view point however I think inferno is going to be impossible.
Jay Wilson on Inferno: “When we’re testing the highest difficulty level, we don’t force testers to level-up from scratch each time. Their chars receive randomized equipment of 0.5~1 lvl under the boss’s level. After 20 attempts the boss was still undefeated. We hope the most difficult bosses will be really, really hard to beat, as we know from experience never, NEVER underestimate our players. We set the difficulty based on how our most skilled staff felt to be adequate. Then we MULTIPLY THIS BY 2 upon release”
(P.S. He further explains that “times by 2″ not only refers to mob damage output & HP, but also to the extent that players will need to “apply combat skills depth”.)
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 cock block. You have no idea what you are talking about
We have only seen the first half of the first act. I think we can safely say noone has any idea what they are talking about I mean, both the low side and the high side arguments are based on nothing but empty statements and unrelated game info.
My argument on this: equipement. What will be the difference between the very first group of people hitting Inferno or the same group 1 year from now? Experience in playing, sure. But I can't imagine the monsters being that difficult to figure out. No, the biggest change I can imagine is equipement. Down the road we will have godly items, not some randomn crap that dropped in Inferno. As far as I know, we haven't seen any godly equipement yet. Don't think Blizzard has released any clear examples. So it seems rather futile to make sweeping statements and personal attack on knowledge...
What does seem rather fun is making baseless guesses and theorycraft the crap out of this issue. Because it WILL be one of the things D3 will be scrutinized on, especially after the hyping Blizzard did themselves. Personally could imagine it going either way at this point.
Jay Wilson on Inferno: (P.S. He further explains that “times by 2″ not only refers to mob damage output & HP, but also to the extent that players will need to “apply combat skills depth”.)
The "We increased the combat depth by a factor of 2" statements bug me. I know factor 2, it means double. Like the damage of the mob was 100. Now it is 200. That's a factor 2. How DOES one increase a combat depth? Is that measured in meters, yards or ponies? It makes my marketing-sense tingle
How do you guys see that? An active increase in AI or a normal side-effect of making the monsters be more robust and heavier hitting?
The guy talking about how hard wow is at the bleeding edge sure 100% agree. At the very top it is difficult, and you're right most people have no idea cos only 1% ever really see it.
I would assume D3 can't be as difficult because you take away the need for coordination which cuts out quite a bit of the skill needed and I would imagine limits what they can do with the encounter design mechanics (could be wrong)
That isn't to say though that it will be breezed by the 1% a lot of the blue posts indicate to it being gear blocked. If done right it can stop even the most skilled people being able to do it in a short amount of time (spine heroic?)
Having said this though - there is still a lot of scope to design very challanging encounters mechanically that also require gear. I'm pretty sure the game will not be some 'casual' fest and the end of hell + inferno will be aimed at the top few %.
Blizzard also have no reason not to make inferno super hard, there is no subscription and they want people to buy items on the RMAH. Making faceroll content would be counterproductive.
I'm sure it will take even the very skilled people with a lot of free time more than 2-4 days to beat it. I would say somewhere from 6 days to 2 months. No way of really knowing till it comes out.
Jay Wilson on Inferno: (P.S. He further explains that “times by 2″ not only refers to mob damage output & HP, but also to the extent that players will need to “apply combat skills depth”.)
The "We increased the combat depth by a factor of 2" statements bug me. I know factor 2, it means double. Like the damage of the mob was 100. Now it is 200. That's a factor 2. How DOES one increase a combat depth? Is that measured in meters, yards or ponies? It makes my marketing-sense tingle
How do you guys see that? An active increase in AI or a normal side-effect of making the monsters be more robust and heavier hitting?
I imagine it like this: Say you have a boss fight that requires you to do a certain action ever so often or in a precise time frame. Now to double that you either increase the number of times you have to successfully do that or half the time frame. Half timers for certain boss abilities. Whatever. There are a lot of knobs and buttons to press to make an encounter harder. edit: typos
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
There are tiers of gear in WoW too. Most guilds spend months gearing up in the current tier's heroic gear before they even have a chance of beating it.
And then there are world first progression raiding guilds, who are able to clear heroic bosses in blues and greens in the first week of the expansion when it's not possible to get anything more than 1 raid lockout's worth of epic gear.
On May 03 2012 23:27 NeoLearner wrote: We have only seen the first half of the first act. I think we can safely say noone has any idea what they are talking about I mean, both the low side and the high side arguments are based on nothing but empty statements and unrelated game info.
What I am saying is in line with what the devs have said. Why would there be different tiers of armour in Inferno? When you have imperfect information (as we do) all you can hope to do is acquire as much of it as possible and apply logic.
If they wanted to they could make it so that no one could ever defeat Inferno. PVE is not the same as PVP. They can make the game arbitrarily difficult if they wanted to. They clearly do not want people to defeat the game in under a week. They would look like retards and it would serverely undermine their lucrative RMAH.
I do appreciate that the devs don't always think up every scenario and there are lots of permutations with the builds and grouping etc, but every piece of information released makes it look like it will take longer to complete rather than some guys zerging it. Even if there is some amazing four player group dynamic that a few people have theorycrafted, this will probably get nerfed. It isn't hard for Bliz to have people observing the top 100 and seeing how they are levelling and what if any exploits they are using.
There is so much they can do. I was speaking to a friend who said if they really want to cockblock in Inferno you they could just make the skeletons outside town really tough elite mobs and drop no gold or gear, so you can't even progress until you equip good enough gear.
The game will not be finished in four days, and in the EXTREMELY unlikely event it is, they will patch whatever it is that led to such a quick feat.
Jay Wilson on Inferno: “When we’re testing the highest difficulty level, we don’t force testers to level-up from scratch each time. Their chars receive randomized equipment of 0.5~1 lvl under the boss’s level. After 20 attempts the boss was still undefeated. We hope the most difficult bosses will be really, really hard to beat, as we know from experience never, NEVER underestimate our players. We set the difficulty based on how our most skilled staff felt to be adequate. Then we MULTIPLY THIS BY 2 upon release”
(P.S. He further explains that “times by 2″ not only refers to mob damage output & HP, but also to the extent that players will need to “apply combat skills depth”.)
20 attempts lol...
It took over 200 attempts from the best guild in the world before the first Kil'Jaeden kill.
If that's how their measuring D3 difficulty, then I'm even more confident that it will be cleared within days.
Jay Wilson on Inferno: “When we’re testing the highest difficulty level, we don’t force testers to level-up from scratch each time. Their chars receive randomized equipment of 0.5~1 lvl under the boss’s level. After 20 attempts the boss was still undefeated. We hope the most difficult bosses will be really, really hard to beat, as we know from experience never, NEVER underestimate our players. We set the difficulty based on how our most skilled staff felt to be adequate. Then we MULTIPLY THIS BY 2 upon release”
(P.S. He further explains that “times by 2″ not only refers to mob damage output & HP, but also to the extent that players will need to “apply combat skills depth”.)
20 attempts lol...
It took over 200 attempts from the best guild in the world before the first Kil'Jaeden kill.
If that's how their measuring D3 difficulty, then I'm even more confident that it will be cleared within days.
It took paragon 600 to beat rag hc, Blizzard know this too. It is not in their interest to make it so easy you can beat it in a few days.
Why do people care wether or not someone with all the time in the world has the ability to farm great gear and beat inferno 5 minutes after it is released? Isnt the only thing that REALLY matters how hard YOU the INDIVIDUAL find it?
On May 03 2012 23:27 NeoLearner wrote: We have only seen the first half of the first act. I think we can safely say noone has any idea what they are talking about I mean, both the low side and the high side arguments are based on nothing but empty statements and unrelated game info.
The game will not be finished in four days, and in the EXTREMELY unlikely event it is, they will patch whatever it is that led to such a quick feat.
I agree with you. A "legit" clear in 4 days seems highly unlikely. I think Bashiok even said that on their boards:
Can I totally go back on what I said before?
Ok, not totally, but I think there’s some distinction to be made for ‘legitimate’ ability to beat Inferno, in that, we expect there could be ways, potentially exploits, potentially clever but cheesy mechanics, that could maybe allow a player to complete Inferno fairly quickly. The bet stands as-is, but I think if it could be revised it would be “X time before it becomes farmable”, meaning someone can legitimately kill the end boss over and over and over without needing to take advantage of an exploit, or loophole, or some other thing we don’t intend to be possible.
Of course we’ll try to address any such issue as quickly as possible, but it’s feasible that the first Inferno clear will be through use of unintended means. Technically still valid per the wording of the bet, but I think most can agree would go against the spirit of it.
I was merely trying to show the irony of telling someone he has no idea what they're talking in this case It was foolish during the SC2 beta and there we had full information. In this case, we are quite blind.
Jay Wilson on Inferno: “When we’re testing the highest difficulty level, we don’t force testers to level-up from scratch each time. Their chars receive randomized equipment of 0.5~1 lvl under the boss’s level. After 20 attempts the boss was still undefeated. We hope the most difficult bosses will be really, really hard to beat, as we know from experience never, NEVER underestimate our players. We set the difficulty based on how our most skilled staff felt to be adequate. Then we MULTIPLY THIS BY 2 upon release”
(P.S. He further explains that “times by 2″ not only refers to mob damage output & HP, but also to the extent that players will need to “apply combat skills depth”.)
20 attempts lol...
It took over 200 attempts from the best guild in the world before the first Kil'Jaeden kill.
If that's how their measuring D3 difficulty, then I'm even more confident that it will be cleared within days.
It took paragon 600 to beat rag hc, Blizzard know this too. It is not in their interest to make it so easy you can beat it in a few days.
I never played WoW, so all of this information is new to me. But I actually wonder: Do you guys think Blizzard will try to make D3 as difficult as the more difficult WoW raids? Because I honestly fdon't think so. First, I think the global difficulty level of D3 will be a lot lower. MMORPG's have a different curve and lifespan than normal (A)RPG's. And second, making a "difficult" instance seems "easier" in WoW. You can make it so that (guessing here) 12 people need to work together. Seems more difficult to make something for just 4. But that's my perception...
On May 03 2012 23:27 NeoLearner wrote: We have only seen the first half of the first act. I think we can safely say noone has any idea what they are talking about I mean, both the low side and the high side arguments are based on nothing but empty statements and unrelated game info.
What I am saying is in line with what the devs have said. Why would there be different tiers of armour in Inferno? When you have imperfect information (as we do) all you can hope to do is acquire as much of it as possible and apply logic.
If they wanted to they could make it so that no one could ever defeat Inferno. PVE is not the same as PVP. They can make the game arbitrarily difficult if they wanted to. They clearly do not want people to defeat the game in under a week. They would look like retards and it would serverely undermine their lucrative RMAH.
I do appreciate that the devs don't always think up every scenario and there are lots of permutations with the builds and grouping etc, but every piece of information released makes it look like it will take longer to complete rather than some guys zerging it. Even if there is some amazing four player group dynamic that a few people have theorycrafted, this will probably get nerfed. It isn't hard for Bliz to have people observing the top 100 and seeing how they are levelling and what if any exploits they are using.
There is so much they can do. I was speaking to a friend who said if they really want to cockblock in Inferno you they could just make the skeletons outside town really tough elite mobs and drop no gold or gear, so you can't even progress until you equip good enough gear.
The game will not be finished in four days, and in the EXTREMELY unlikely event it is, they will patch whatever it is that led to such a quick feat.
Give a break. Blizzard has virtually never buffed a 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 4 days, but the other 0.0001% will do it.
If diablo is completed quickly people will stop playing and then the RMAH is pointless and they wont make as much money
Hmmmm. Don't really agree. I would hardly describe Diablo 2 as "hard". And I still play it from time to time
On May 03 2012 23:27 NeoLearner wrote: We have only seen the first half of the first act. I think we can safely say noone has any idea what they are talking about I mean, both the low side and the high side arguments are based on nothing but empty statements and unrelated game info.
What I am saying is in line with what the devs have said. Why would there be different tiers of armour in Inferno? When you have imperfect information (as we do) all you can hope to do is acquire as much of it as possible and apply logic.
If they wanted to they could make it so that no one could ever defeat Inferno. PVE is not the same as PVP. They can make the game arbitrarily difficult if they wanted to. They clearly do not want people to defeat the game in under a week. They would look like retards and it would serverely undermine their lucrative RMAH.
I do appreciate that the devs don't always think up every scenario and there are lots of permutations with the builds and grouping etc, but every piece of information released makes it look like it will take longer to complete rather than some guys zerging it. Even if there is some amazing four player group dynamic that a few people have theorycrafted, this will probably get nerfed. It isn't hard for Bliz to have people observing the top 100 and seeing how they are levelling and what if any exploits they are using.
There is so much they can do. I was speaking to a friend who said if they really want to cockblock in Inferno you they could just make the skeletons outside town really tough elite mobs and drop no gold or gear, so you can't even progress until you equip good enough gear.
The game will not be finished in four days, and in the EXTREMELY unlikely event it is, they will patch whatever it is that led to such a quick feat.
Give me a break. Blizzard has virtually never buffed PvE content (unless it's fixing a bug).
Are you talking about WoW? Because in D2, I feel they surely did. Remeber the endless Cow game / easy bloody foothills time? I feel they made Hell difficulty a lot more difficult during the patches...
On May 03 2012 23:27 NeoLearner wrote: We have only seen the first half of the first act. I think we can safely say noone has any idea what they are talking about I mean, both the low side and the high side arguments are based on nothing but empty statements and unrelated game info.
What I am saying is in line with what the devs have said. Why would there be different tiers of armour in Inferno? When you have imperfect information (as we do) all you can hope to do is acquire as much of it as possible and apply logic.
If they wanted to they could make it so that no one could ever defeat Inferno. PVE is not the same as PVP. They can make the game arbitrarily difficult if they wanted to. They clearly do not want people to defeat the game in under a week. They would look like retards and it would serverely undermine their lucrative RMAH.
I do appreciate that the devs don't always think up every scenario and there are lots of permutations with the builds and grouping etc, but every piece of information released makes it look like it will take longer to complete rather than some guys zerging it. Even if there is some amazing four player group dynamic that a few people have theorycrafted, this will probably get nerfed. It isn't hard for Bliz to have people observing the top 100 and seeing how they are levelling and what if any exploits they are using.
There is so much they can do. I was speaking to a friend who said if they really want to cockblock in Inferno you they could just make the skeletons outside town really tough elite mobs and drop no gold or gear, so you can't even progress until you equip good enough gear.
The game will not be finished in four days, and in the EXTREMELY unlikely event it is, they will patch whatever it is that led to such a quick feat.
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.
On May 03 2012 23:27 NeoLearner wrote: We have only seen the first half of the first act. I think we can safely say noone has any idea what they are talking about I mean, both the low side and the high side arguments are based on nothing but empty statements and unrelated game info.
What I am saying is in line with what the devs have said. Why would there be different tiers of armour in Inferno? When you have imperfect information (as we do) all you can hope to do is acquire as much of it as possible and apply logic.
If they wanted to they could make it so that no one could ever defeat Inferno. PVE is not the same as PVP. They can make the game arbitrarily difficult if they wanted to. They clearly do not want people to defeat the game in under a week. They would look like retards and it would serverely undermine their lucrative RMAH.
I do appreciate that the devs don't always think up every scenario and there are lots of permutations with the builds and grouping etc, but every piece of information released makes it look like it will take longer to complete rather than some guys zerging it. Even if there is some amazing four player group dynamic that a few people have theorycrafted, this will probably get nerfed. It isn't hard for Bliz to have people observing the top 100 and seeing how they are levelling and what if any exploits they are using.
There is so much they can do. I was speaking to a friend who said if they really want to cockblock in Inferno you they could just make the skeletons outside town really tough elite mobs and drop no gold or gear, so you can't even progress until you equip good enough gear.
The game will not be finished in four days, and in the EXTREMELY unlikely event it is, they will patch whatever it is that led to such a quick feat.
Give a break. Blizzard has virtually never buffed a 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 4 days, but the other 0.0001% will do it.
They nerf wow so that people dont get stuck and quit which in turn loses them money from the subscription
If diablo is completed quickly people will stop playing and then the RMAH is pointless and they wont make as much money
It is two completely different concepts, just because blizzard dont buff content in wow only nerf it does not mean diablo will the same
On May 03 2012 23:27 NeoLearner wrote: We have only seen the first half of the first act. I think we can safely say noone has any idea what they are talking about I mean, both the low side and the high side arguments are based on nothing but empty statements and unrelated game info.
The game will not be finished in four days, and in the EXTREMELY unlikely event it is, they will patch whatever it is that led to such a quick feat.
I agree with you. A "legit" clear in 4 days seems highly unlikely. I think Bashiok even said that on their boards:
Ok, not totally, but I think there’s some distinction to be made for ‘legitimate’ ability to beat Inferno, in that, we expect there could be ways, potentially exploits, potentially clever but cheesy mechanics, that could maybe allow a player to complete Inferno fairly quickly. The bet stands as-is, but I think if it could be revised it would be “X time before it becomes farmable”, meaning someone can legitimately kill the end boss over and over and over without needing to take advantage of an exploit, or loophole, or some other thing we don’t intend to be possible.
Of course we’ll try to address any such issue as quickly as possible, but it’s feasible that the first Inferno clear will be through use of unintended means. Technically still valid per the wording of the bet, but I think most can agree would go against the spirit of it.
I was merely trying to show the irony of telling someone he has no idea what they're talking in this case It was foolish during the SC2 beta and there we had full information. In this case, we are quite blind.
Jay Wilson on Inferno: “When we’re testing the highest difficulty level, we don’t force testers to level-up from scratch each time. Their chars receive randomized equipment of 0.5~1 lvl under the boss’s level. After 20 attempts the boss was still undefeated. We hope the most difficult bosses will be really, really hard to beat, as we know from experience never, NEVER underestimate our players. We set the difficulty based on how our most skilled staff felt to be adequate. Then we MULTIPLY THIS BY 2 upon release”
(P.S. He further explains that “times by 2″ not only refers to mob damage output & HP, but also to the extent that players will need to “apply combat skills depth”.)
20 attempts lol...
It took over 200 attempts from the best guild in the world before the first Kil'Jaeden kill.
If that's how their measuring D3 difficulty, then I'm even more confident that it will be cleared within days.
It took paragon 600 to beat rag hc, Blizzard know this too. It is not in their interest to make it so easy you can beat it in a few days.
I never played WoW, so all of this information is new to me. But I actually wonder: Do you guys think Blizzard will try to make D3 as difficult as the more difficult WoW raids? Because I honestly fdon't think so. First, I think the global difficulty level of D3 will be a lot lower. MMORPG's have a different curve and lifespan than normal (A)RPG's. And second, making a "difficult" instance seems "easier" in WoW. You can make it so that (guessing here) 12 people need to work together. Seems more difficult to make something for just 4. But that's my perception...
On May 03 2012 23:27 NeoLearner wrote: We have only seen the first half of the first act. I think we can safely say noone has any idea what they are talking about I mean, both the low side and the high side arguments are based on nothing but empty statements and unrelated game info.
What I am saying is in line with what the devs have said. Why would there be different tiers of armour in Inferno? When you have imperfect information (as we do) all you can hope to do is acquire as much of it as possible and apply logic.
If they wanted to they could make it so that no one could ever defeat Inferno. PVE is not the same as PVP. They can make the game arbitrarily difficult if they wanted to. They clearly do not want people to defeat the game in under a week. They would look like retards and it would serverely undermine their lucrative RMAH.
I do appreciate that the devs don't always think up every scenario and there are lots of permutations with the builds and grouping etc, but every piece of information released makes it look like it will take longer to complete rather than some guys zerging it. Even if there is some amazing four player group dynamic that a few people have theorycrafted, this will probably get nerfed. It isn't hard for Bliz to have people observing the top 100 and seeing how they are levelling and what if any exploits they are using.
There is so much they can do. I was speaking to a friend who said if they really want to cockblock in Inferno you they could just make the skeletons outside town really tough elite mobs and drop no gold or gear, so you can't even progress until you equip good enough gear.
The game will not be finished in four days, and in the EXTREMELY unlikely event it is, they will patch whatever it is that led to such a quick feat.
Give me a break. Blizzard has virtually never buffed PvE content (unless it's fixing a bug).
Are you talking about WoW? Because in D2, I feel they surely did. Remeber the endless Cow game / easy bloody foothills time? I feel they made Hell difficulty a lot more difficult during the patches...
That's my point, it won't be anywhere near as difficult as WoW. And WoW heroic raids usually get cleared in about 2 weeks after release.
Also, H Rag is one of the hardest raid bosses Blizzard has ever made, it was cleared in 3 weeks, although with 600 attempts as the above poster points out.
On May 03 2012 23:40 paralleluniverse wrote: There are tiers of gear in WoW too. Most guilds spend months gearing up in the current tier's heroic gear before they even have a chance of beating it.
And then there are world first progression raiding guilds, who are able to clear heroic bosses in blues and greens in the first week of the expansion when it's not possible to get anything more than 1 raid lockout's worth of epic gear.
Sure but they are likely to tune it so that it takes gear+skill to clear, not just skill alone. Or gear alone.
Wow is different in that bosses locked and it reset weekly so you could only get gear at a certain rate.
Naturally people will rush through the game until the point at which they start wiping too often and have to think about how they will progress, and this point will differ for people of opposing skillsets
On May 03 2012 23:27 NeoLearner wrote: We have only seen the first half of the first act. I think we can safely say noone has any idea what they are talking about I mean, both the low side and the high side arguments are based on nothing but empty statements and unrelated game info.
The game will not be finished in four days, and in the EXTREMELY unlikely event it is, they will patch whatever it is that led to such a quick feat.
I agree with you. A "legit" clear in 4 days seems highly unlikely. I think Bashiok even said that on their boards:
Can I totally go back on what I said before?
Ok, not totally, but I think there’s some distinction to be made for ‘legitimate’ ability to beat Inferno, in that, we expect there could be ways, potentially exploits, potentially clever but cheesy mechanics, that could maybe allow a player to complete Inferno fairly quickly. The bet stands as-is, but I think if it could be revised it would be “X time before it becomes farmable”, meaning someone can legitimately kill the end boss over and over and over without needing to take advantage of an exploit, or loophole, or some other thing we don’t intend to be possible.
Of course we’ll try to address any such issue as quickly as possible, but it’s feasible that the first Inferno clear will be through use of unintended means. Technically still valid per the wording of the bet, but I think most can agree would go against the spirit of it.
I was merely trying to show the irony of telling someone he has no idea what they're talking in this case It was foolish during the SC2 beta and there we had full information. In this case, we are quite blind.
EDIT:
On May 03 2012 23:45 Thallium wrote:
On May 03 2012 23:43 paralleluniverse wrote:
On May 03 2012 23:24 d3thorr wrote:
Jay Wilson on Inferno: “When we’re testing the highest difficulty level, we don’t force testers to level-up from scratch each time. Their chars receive randomized equipment of 0.5~1 lvl under the boss’s level. After 20 attempts the boss was still undefeated. We hope the most difficult bosses will be really, really hard to beat, as we know from experience never, NEVER underestimate our players. We set the difficulty based on how our most skilled staff felt to be adequate. Then we MULTIPLY THIS BY 2 upon release”
(P.S. He further explains that “times by 2″ not only refers to mob damage output & HP, but also to the extent that players will need to “apply combat skills depth”.)
20 attempts lol...
It took over 200 attempts from the best guild in the world before the first Kil'Jaeden kill.
If that's how their measuring D3 difficulty, then I'm even more confident that it will be cleared within days.
It took paragon 600 to beat rag hc, Blizzard know this too. It is not in their interest to make it so easy you can beat it in a few days.
I never played WoW, so all of this information is new to me. But I actually wonder: Do you guys think Blizzard will try to make D3 as difficult as the more difficult WoW raids? Because I honestly fdon't think so. First, I think the global difficulty level of D3 will be a lot lower. MMORPG's have a different curve and lifespan than normal (A)RPG's. And second, making a "difficult" instance seems "easier" in WoW. You can make it so that (guessing here) 12 people need to work together. Seems more difficult to make something for just 4. But that's my perception...
EDIT 2:
On May 03 2012 23:50 paralleluniverse wrote:
On May 03 2012 23:42 The Irate Turk wrote:
On May 03 2012 23:27 NeoLearner wrote: We have only seen the first half of the first act. I think we can safely say noone has any idea what they are talking about I mean, both the low side and the high side arguments are based on nothing but empty statements and unrelated game info.
What I am saying is in line with what the devs have said. Why would there be different tiers of armour in Inferno? When you have imperfect information (as we do) all you can hope to do is acquire as much of it as possible and apply logic.
If they wanted to they could make it so that no one could ever defeat Inferno. PVE is not the same as PVP. They can make the game arbitrarily difficult if they wanted to. They clearly do not want people to defeat the game in under a week. They would look like retards and it would serverely undermine their lucrative RMAH.
I do appreciate that the devs don't always think up every scenario and there are lots of permutations with the builds and grouping etc, but every piece of information released makes it look like it will take longer to complete rather than some guys zerging it. Even if there is some amazing four player group dynamic that a few people have theorycrafted, this will probably get nerfed. It isn't hard for Bliz to have people observing the top 100 and seeing how they are levelling and what if any exploits they are using.
There is so much they can do. I was speaking to a friend who said if they really want to cockblock in Inferno you they could just make the skeletons outside town really tough elite mobs and drop no gold or gear, so you can't even progress until you equip good enough gear.
The game will not be finished in four days, and in the EXTREMELY unlikely event it is, they will patch whatever it is that led to such a quick feat.
Give me a break. Blizzard has virtually never buffed PvE content (unless it's fixing a bug).
Are you talking about WoW? Because in D2, I feel they surely did. Remeber the endless Cow game / easy bloody foothills time? I feel they made Hell difficulty a lot more difficult during the patches...
That's my point, it won't be anywhere near as difficult as WoW. And WoW heroic raids usually get cleared in about 2 weeks after release.
Also, H Rag is probably the hardest raid boss Blizzard has made.
When you say "2 weeks after release", that's after the expansion packs, right? I see your point then.
But imagine if they would wipe the WoW servers now. Everyone starting clean. What would be your time estimation before the first team clears the same herioic raid? I can't imagine it will be in 2 weeks. Can't even imagine they manage that in double the amount of time. The elite loot comes from the other raids, right? Man, I really need to read up on WoW it seems
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
On May 03 2012 23:27 NeoLearner wrote: We have only seen the first half of the first act. I think we can safely say noone has any idea what they are talking about I mean, both the low side and the high side arguments are based on nothing but empty statements and unrelated game info.
The game will not be finished in four days, and in the EXTREMELY unlikely event it is, they will patch whatever it is that led to such a quick feat.
I agree with you. A "legit" clear in 4 days seems highly unlikely. I think Bashiok even said that on their boards:
Can I totally go back on what I said before?
Ok, not totally, but I think there’s some distinction to be made for ‘legitimate’ ability to beat Inferno, in that, we expect there could be ways, potentially exploits, potentially clever but cheesy mechanics, that could maybe allow a player to complete Inferno fairly quickly. The bet stands as-is, but I think if it could be revised it would be “X time before it becomes farmable”, meaning someone can legitimately kill the end boss over and over and over without needing to take advantage of an exploit, or loophole, or some other thing we don’t intend to be possible.
Of course we’ll try to address any such issue as quickly as possible, but it’s feasible that the first Inferno clear will be through use of unintended means. Technically still valid per the wording of the bet, but I think most can agree would go against the spirit of it.
I was merely trying to show the irony of telling someone he has no idea what they're talking in this case It was foolish during the SC2 beta and there we had full information. In this case, we are quite blind.
EDIT:
On May 03 2012 23:45 Thallium wrote:
On May 03 2012 23:43 paralleluniverse wrote:
On May 03 2012 23:24 d3thorr wrote:
Jay Wilson on Inferno: “When we’re testing the highest difficulty level, we don’t force testers to level-up from scratch each time. Their chars receive randomized equipment of 0.5~1 lvl under the boss’s level. After 20 attempts the boss was still undefeated. We hope the most difficult bosses will be really, really hard to beat, as we know from experience never, NEVER underestimate our players. We set the difficulty based on how our most skilled staff felt to be adequate. Then we MULTIPLY THIS BY 2 upon release”
(P.S. He further explains that “times by 2″ not only refers to mob damage output & HP, but also to the extent that players will need to “apply combat skills depth”.)
20 attempts lol...
It took over 200 attempts from the best guild in the world before the first Kil'Jaeden kill.
If that's how their measuring D3 difficulty, then I'm even more confident that it will be cleared within days.
It took paragon 600 to beat rag hc, Blizzard know this too. It is not in their interest to make it so easy you can beat it in a few days.
I never played WoW, so all of this information is new to me. But I actually wonder: Do you guys think Blizzard will try to make D3 as difficult as the more difficult WoW raids? Because I honestly fdon't think so. First, I think the global difficulty level of D3 will be a lot lower. MMORPG's have a different curve and lifespan than normal (A)RPG's. And second, making a "difficult" instance seems "easier" in WoW. You can make it so that (guessing here) 12 people need to work together. Seems more difficult to make something for just 4. But that's my perception...
EDIT 2:
On May 03 2012 23:50 paralleluniverse wrote:
On May 03 2012 23:42 The Irate Turk wrote:
On May 03 2012 23:27 NeoLearner wrote: We have only seen the first half of the first act. I think we can safely say noone has any idea what they are talking about I mean, both the low side and the high side arguments are based on nothing but empty statements and unrelated game info.
What I am saying is in line with what the devs have said. Why would there be different tiers of armour in Inferno? When you have imperfect information (as we do) all you can hope to do is acquire as much of it as possible and apply logic.
If they wanted to they could make it so that no one could ever defeat Inferno. PVE is not the same as PVP. They can make the game arbitrarily difficult if they wanted to. They clearly do not want people to defeat the game in under a week. They would look like retards and it would serverely undermine their lucrative RMAH.
I do appreciate that the devs don't always think up every scenario and there are lots of permutations with the builds and grouping etc, but every piece of information released makes it look like it will take longer to complete rather than some guys zerging it. Even if there is some amazing four player group dynamic that a few people have theorycrafted, this will probably get nerfed. It isn't hard for Bliz to have people observing the top 100 and seeing how they are levelling and what if any exploits they are using.
There is so much they can do. I was speaking to a friend who said if they really want to cockblock in Inferno you they could just make the skeletons outside town really tough elite mobs and drop no gold or gear, so you can't even progress until you equip good enough gear.
The game will not be finished in four days, and in the EXTREMELY unlikely event it is, they will patch whatever it is that led to such a quick feat.
Give me a break. Blizzard has virtually never buffed PvE content (unless it's fixing a bug).
Are you talking about WoW? Because in D2, I feel they surely did. Remeber the endless Cow game / easy bloody foothills time? I feel they made Hell difficulty a lot more difficult during the patches...
That's my point, it won't be anywhere near as difficult as WoW. And WoW heroic raids usually get cleared in about 2 weeks after release.
Also, H Rag is probably the hardest raid boss Blizzard has made.
When you say "2 weeks after release", that's after the expansion packs, right? I see your point then.
But imagine if they would wipe the WoW servers now. Everyone starting clean. What would be your time estimation before the first team clears the same herioic raid? I can't imagine it will be in 2 weeks. Can't even imagine they manage that in double the amount of time. The elite loot comes from the other raids, right? Man, I really need to read up on WoW it seems
Yes, you get epic loot from the previous tier, but current tier bosses are balanced assuming that players are wearing the current tier (99% of guilds will be).
And at the start of the expansion, everyone is in blues and greens, yet that doesn't stop the best guilds from clearing most of the heroic raid bosses within the first week. Gear doesn't matter as much as you think.
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.
Yes, they can make it literally impossible to clear. They won't. That would just be stupid.
Jay Wilson on Inferno: (P.S. He further explains that “times by 2″ not only refers to mob damage output & HP, but also to the extent that players will need to “apply combat skills depth”.)
The "We increased the combat depth by a factor of 2" statements bug me. I know factor 2, it means double. Like the damage of the mob was 100. Now it is 200. That's a factor 2. How DOES one increase a combat depth? Is that measured in meters, yards or ponies? It makes my marketing-sense tingle
How do you guys see that? An active increase in AI or a normal side-effect of making the monsters be more robust and heavier hitting?
I imagine it like this: Say you have a boss fight that requires you to do a certain action ever so often or in a precise time frame. Now to double that you either increase the number of times you have to successfully do that or half the time frame. Half timers for certain boss abilities. Whatever. There are a lot of knobs and buttons to press to make an encounter harder. edit: typos
I think it means that in Inferno, we will fight monsters as complex as our player characters. Instead of seeing demons that throw firebolts until you kill them, they will run around, regroup, throw different kinds of fireballs, have some kind of super move, have the ability to heal themselves, protect themselves. They will probably have some sort of escape skill too.
They released a handful of elite mob specials and one of them was the monster leaving a trail of fire and trying to TRAP you inside a ring of fire while his buddies kill you. And this is in Normal.
We're in 2012, it's a whole lot easier than before to program an AI that's finally smart, and that uses good tactics.
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,
On May 04 2012 00:04 paralleluniverse wrote: And at the start of the expansion, everyone is in blues and greens, yet that doesn't stop the best guilds from clearing most of the heroic raid bosses within the first week. Gear doesn't matter as much as you think.
OK: turn that on its head
How long did it take for HC Ragnaros to be killed? You could argue that the people were a lot closer to having perfect gear than when they were first fighting HC Magmaw or whatever in the first week, because they were already specced out in epics at the start of Firelands.
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.
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.
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,
On May 04 2012 00:04 paralleluniverse wrote: And at the start of the expansion, everyone is in blues and greens, yet that doesn't stop the best guilds from clearing most of the heroic raid bosses within the first week. Gear doesn't matter as much as you think.
OK: turn that on its head
How long did it take for HC Ragnaros to be killed? You could argue that the people were a lot closer to having perfect gear than when they were first fighting HC Magmaw or whatever in the first week, because they were already specced out in epics at the start of Firelands.
its not possible to compare d3 / wow difficulty cuz we dont even ve played d3 inferno but as u can do the content solo it should be easier as it the coordination in wow boss encounters with 25 people is the hard part, stepping out of a voidzone alone or attacking the right target...well thats simple, so in conclusion to that i highly doubt that it will be hard if u r not outgeared by the encounters...
would be funny thou if this would be a hard hack and slay game :D but i really ve my doubts
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.
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.
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.
And you know THIS how?
The concept is the same you control an avatar that has a set bunch of skills you choose, you use these skills to overcome an AI encounter.
d3 you can do that on your own wow you have to do it with 24 other people
To make it just as hard or harder it would most likely be through some arbitary method like needing some perfect gear. It doesn't really make the encounter more difficult.
They could make it as difficult as wow perhaps, but I don't see how they could make it LEGITIMATELY harder
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.
Yes, they can make it literally impossible to clear. They won't. That would just be stupid.
SOME WOW heroic raids get cleared 2 weeks later. Full content? No.
And to give you a better idea, people spend hour after hour, day after day, wiping on the same boss. What's to say they won't put this kind of difficulty in D3?
Why would it be stupid for them to make the hardest part of the game this hard, if not harder, given that you won't have to co-ordinate 25 people/ you can solo it?
The whole point is the longer it takes to beat the game, the more people will play it, the more gear will matter, the more money they will make from their RMAH.
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.
And you know THIS how?
That's the vibe I get when the developer's talk about the game in interviews.
There also isn't anywhere near as much depth to the spells (there's significantly less spells) than WoW, thus the skill ceiling is lower. Further, you don't need to coordinate 25 players, so again the skill ceiling is lower.
The argument is quite pointless.
Wait until May 18, when I will make my "I told you so" post.
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?
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.
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.
How does that follow?
The fact that 25 players have to be coordinated makes it harder. If they made something that was hard for 1 player, then scaling up the HP and damage to tune it for 25 players will always make it harder.
Because if you account for the fact that people need to be in uncoordinated groups of 25 you CANT scale it to 25 players. You deliberatly underscale so that a group has room to make not only individual mistakes, but coordination errors as well.
WoW isnt tuned to require perfection from a group. There is error taken into account. By eliminating sources of error, you eliminate the need to account for that error. Its basic statistics.
On May 04 2012 00:16 Two_DoWn wrote: Because if you account for the fact that people need to be in uncoordinated groups of 25 you CANT scale it to 25 players. You deliberatly underscale so that a group has room to make not only individual mistakes, but coordination errors as well.
WoW isnt tuned to require perfection from a group. There is error taken into account. By eliminating sources of error, you eliminate the need to account for that error. Its basic statistics.
Try H Rag or at least watch a video of the fight after phase 1 and get back to me.
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.
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.
On May 03 2012 23:27 NeoLearner wrote: We have only seen the first half of the first act. I think we can safely say noone has any idea what they are talking about I mean, both the low side and the high side arguments are based on nothing but empty statements and unrelated game info.
The game will not be finished in four days, and in the EXTREMELY unlikely event it is, they will patch whatever it is that led to such a quick feat.
I agree with you. A "legit" clear in 4 days seems highly unlikely. I think Bashiok even said that on their boards:
Can I totally go back on what I said before?
Ok, not totally, but I think there’s some distinction to be made for ‘legitimate’ ability to beat Inferno, in that, we expect there could be ways, potentially exploits, potentially clever but cheesy mechanics, that could maybe allow a player to complete Inferno fairly quickly. The bet stands as-is, but I think if it could be revised it would be “X time before it becomes farmable”, meaning someone can legitimately kill the end boss over and over and over without needing to take advantage of an exploit, or loophole, or some other thing we don’t intend to be possible.
Of course we’ll try to address any such issue as quickly as possible, but it’s feasible that the first Inferno clear will be through use of unintended means. Technically still valid per the wording of the bet, but I think most can agree would go against the spirit of it.
I was merely trying to show the irony of telling someone he has no idea what they're talking in this case It was foolish during the SC2 beta and there we had full information. In this case, we are quite blind.
EDIT:
On May 03 2012 23:45 Thallium wrote:
On May 03 2012 23:43 paralleluniverse wrote:
On May 03 2012 23:24 d3thorr wrote:
Jay Wilson on Inferno: “When we’re testing the highest difficulty level, we don’t force testers to level-up from scratch each time. Their chars receive randomized equipment of 0.5~1 lvl under the boss’s level. After 20 attempts the boss was still undefeated. We hope the most difficult bosses will be really, really hard to beat, as we know from experience never, NEVER underestimate our players. We set the difficulty based on how our most skilled staff felt to be adequate. Then we MULTIPLY THIS BY 2 upon release”
(P.S. He further explains that “times by 2″ not only refers to mob damage output & HP, but also to the extent that players will need to “apply combat skills depth”.)
20 attempts lol...
It took over 200 attempts from the best guild in the world before the first Kil'Jaeden kill.
If that's how their measuring D3 difficulty, then I'm even more confident that it will be cleared within days.
It took paragon 600 to beat rag hc, Blizzard know this too. It is not in their interest to make it so easy you can beat it in a few days.
I never played WoW, so all of this information is new to me. But I actually wonder: Do you guys think Blizzard will try to make D3 as difficult as the more difficult WoW raids? Because I honestly fdon't think so. First, I think the global difficulty level of D3 will be a lot lower. MMORPG's have a different curve and lifespan than normal (A)RPG's. And second, making a "difficult" instance seems "easier" in WoW. You can make it so that (guessing here) 12 people need to work together. Seems more difficult to make something for just 4. But that's my perception...
EDIT 2:
On May 03 2012 23:50 paralleluniverse wrote:
On May 03 2012 23:42 The Irate Turk wrote:
On May 03 2012 23:27 NeoLearner wrote: We have only seen the first half of the first act. I think we can safely say noone has any idea what they are talking about I mean, both the low side and the high side arguments are based on nothing but empty statements and unrelated game info.
What I am saying is in line with what the devs have said. Why would there be different tiers of armour in Inferno? When you have imperfect information (as we do) all you can hope to do is acquire as much of it as possible and apply logic.
If they wanted to they could make it so that no one could ever defeat Inferno. PVE is not the same as PVP. They can make the game arbitrarily difficult if they wanted to. They clearly do not want people to defeat the game in under a week. They would look like retards and it would serverely undermine their lucrative RMAH.
I do appreciate that the devs don't always think up every scenario and there are lots of permutations with the builds and grouping etc, but every piece of information released makes it look like it will take longer to complete rather than some guys zerging it. Even if there is some amazing four player group dynamic that a few people have theorycrafted, this will probably get nerfed. It isn't hard for Bliz to have people observing the top 100 and seeing how they are levelling and what if any exploits they are using.
There is so much they can do. I was speaking to a friend who said if they really want to cockblock in Inferno you they could just make the skeletons outside town really tough elite mobs and drop no gold or gear, so you can't even progress until you equip good enough gear.
The game will not be finished in four days, and in the EXTREMELY unlikely event it is, they will patch whatever it is that led to such a quick feat.
Give me a break. Blizzard has virtually never buffed PvE content (unless it's fixing a bug).
Are you talking about WoW? Because in D2, I feel they surely did. Remeber the endless Cow game / easy bloody foothills time? I feel they made Hell difficulty a lot more difficult during the patches...
That's my point, it won't be anywhere near as difficult as WoW. And WoW heroic raids usually get cleared in about 2 weeks after release.
Also, H Rag is probably the hardest raid boss Blizzard has made.
When you say "2 weeks after release", that's after the expansion packs, right? I see your point then.
But imagine if they would wipe the WoW servers now. Everyone starting clean. What would be your time estimation before the first team clears the same herioic raid? I can't imagine it will be in 2 weeks. Can't even imagine they manage that in double the amount of time. The elite loot comes from the other raids, right? Man, I really need to read up on WoW it seems
As a loooong-time WoW player (regularly from 2004-2010), this idea intrigues me. Sort of like what Blizzard is doing by resetting the D2 ladder every once in a while. I feel like it would have to wait until the game is sort of on its way out (major decline in subscribers), but if they absolutely wiped everybody (this does make me cringe a bit knowing how much time I put into my toons) and made people level from 1 and complete all the old content to get to the new content...I would think that could cause a resurgence of sorts.
I always come back to the game once or twice a year and always play a little less each time, and I think it's because most of the magic is lost to me at this point. That game was so damn addicting when it was first released, well through BC. After that it kind of wore off. Having to level, with no gold, heirloom gear, bags, or help of any kind, back when leveling was actually difficult, was so rewarding.
On May 04 2012 00:20 ZasZ. wrote: As a loooong-time WoW player (regularly from 2004-2010), this idea intrigues me. Sort of like what Blizzard is doing by resetting the D2 ladder every once in a while. I feel like it would have to wait until the game is sort of on its way out (major decline in subscribers), but if they absolutely wiped everybody (this does make me cringe a bit knowing how much time I put into my toons) and made people level from 1 and complete all the old content to get to the new content...I would think that could cause a resurgence of sorts.
I always come back to the game once or twice a year and always play a little less each time, and I think it's because most of the magic is lost to me at this point. That game was so damn addicting when it was first released, well through BC. After that it kind of wore off. Having to level, with no gold, heirloom gear, bags, or help of any kind, back when leveling was actually difficult, was so rewarding.
AFAIK they indirectly do this by creating new servers every so often
On May 04 2012 00:16 Two_DoWn wrote: Because if you account for the fact that people need to be in uncoordinated groups of 25 you CANT scale it to 25 players. You deliberatly underscale so that a group has room to make not only individual mistakes, but coordination errors as well.
WoW isnt tuned to require perfection from a group. There is error taken into account. By eliminating sources of error, you eliminate the need to account for that error. Its basic statistics.
Except at the high end it is tuned for perfect coordination?
Most people don't experience these fights cos by the time 99% of the player base get to it - it has been nerfed so you can make errors.
Having more people allows for additional mechanics that you can't have with just 1 person.
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.
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?
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.
The nature of action RPG games are just kind of fun anyway. I had fun in beta even though it was mindlessly easy. The ridiculously easy content you will pass up so fast though. You should run into challenges along the way to inferno as well. But after hours of playing the game you will just naturally get better. That is why the discussion is always about the end game.
The only thing i remember being remotely challenging in a1 normal was like lightning enchanted mobs since the damage output was quite high, treehead woodfist and andariel due to her damage being quite high. Keep in mind, this is a point in time where I was young, didn't understand proper skill trees, proper attribute placement and also made bad choices on the weapons.
Doubt you'll have any idea about the difficulty of D3 until the game actually comes out beccause A1 really tells you nothing.
You could argue that A1 normal is used as a tutorial which is even more dumbed down.
On May 04 2012 03:49 KingDime wrote: The only thing i remember being remotely challenging in a1 normal was like lightning enchanted mobs since the damage output was quite high, treehead woodfist and andariel due to her damage being quite high. Keep in mind, this is a point in time where I was young, didn't understand proper skill trees, proper attribute placement and also made bad choices on the weapons.
Doubt you'll have any idea about the difficulty of D3 until the game actually comes out beccause A1 really tells you nothing.
You could argue that A1 normal is used as a tutorial which is even more dumbed down.
Hmm.. I could agree to Andariel, though I still think Diablo and Duriel == harder.
Though of course, depending on the class that you play, some bosses can be much easier/harder (Duriel is a joke if you play Summon-based build, while difficult if you play a tank-less ranged character).
beating duriel with horrible gear is easy, just drink like 5 cold res potions before fighting him and he won't do any dmg to you. Also just hide in a corner because duriels strongest attack is blocked if you are close to him.
On May 04 2012 04:41 idonthinksobro wrote: beating duriel with horrible gear is easy, just drink like 5 cold res potions before fighting him and he won't do any dmg to you. Also just hide in a corner because duriels strongest attack is blocked if you are close to him.
Really? that's so cute <3
Uhmmm.. Which part of Thawing Potions' description states that they reduce Physical damage? o.O
You could argue that A1 normal is used as a tutorial which is even more dumbed down.
How can people exaggerate this much and hope to be taken seriously.
Really man? Normal Act 1 is a DUMBED DOWN tutorial? Not even a tutorial, for the whole act, but a dumbed down one too...
Let's just see how the game plays out ok?
On topic
Andariel wasn't too bad if you carried a bag of antidotes. The $%?&* dung beetles killed me way too many times. Duriel was tough, the room was small and there was no way to get rid of the cold aura. The jerks I had trouble with were the council in act 3, the one who was Extra Fast Light Enchanted was a pain. Treehead was tough Mephisto and Diablo were manageable if you could dodge well. Baal too. His Minions of Destro were hard just because of the knockback.
Nilathak and corpse explosion...
Yeah I guess the monsters weren't too hard to beat.
On May 04 2012 03:49 KingDime wrote: The only thing i remember being remotely challenging in a1 normal was like lightning enchanted mobs since the damage output was quite high, treehead woodfist and andariel due to her damage being quite high. Keep in mind, this is a point in time where I was young, didn't understand proper skill trees, proper attribute placement and also made bad choices on the weapons.
Doubt you'll have any idea about the difficulty of D3 until the game actually comes out beccause A1 really tells you nothing.
You could argue that A1 normal is used as a tutorial which is even more dumbed down.
Hmm.. I could agree to Andariel, though I still think Diablo and Duriel == harder.
Though of course, depending on the class that you play, some bosses can be much easier/harder (Duriel is a joke if you play Summon-based build, while difficult if you play a tank-less ranged character).
I recently started a summon/elemental Druid and got smashed with /players 4 on Duriel normal. He one shotted my wolves. T_T
Had to restart and go /players 2 or something like that.
Maybe you're talking about nightmare/hell, in which case you may be right ^^
On May 04 2012 03:49 KingDime wrote: The only thing i remember being remotely challenging in a1 normal was like lightning enchanted mobs since the damage output was quite high, treehead woodfist and andariel due to her damage being quite high. Keep in mind, this is a point in time where I was young, didn't understand proper skill trees, proper attribute placement and also made bad choices on the weapons.
Doubt you'll have any idea about the difficulty of D3 until the game actually comes out beccause A1 really tells you nothing.
You could argue that A1 normal is used as a tutorial which is even more dumbed down.
Hmm.. I could agree to Andariel, though I still think Diablo and Duriel == harder.
Though of course, depending on the class that you play, some bosses can be much easier/harder (Duriel is a joke if you play Summon-based build, while difficult if you play a tank-less ranged character).
I recently started a summon/elemental Druid and got smashed with /players 4 on Duriel normal. He one shotted my wolves. T_T
Had to restart and go /players 2 or something like that.
Maybe you're talking about nightmare/hell, in which case you may be right ^^
Ahh.. I just know that Zoomancers own him, and extrapolated that Druid would be the same (never played a Summoning Druid before). Evidently not? :3 Hehe.. You sure he 1-shot Wolves with Heart of the Oak tho? =/ Cos i don't remember him 1-shotting skeletons :D
You could argue that A1 normal is used as a tutorial which is even more dumbed down.
How can people exaggerate this much and hope to be taken seriously.
Really man? Normal Act 1 is a DUMBED DOWN tutorial? Not even a tutorial, for the whole act, but a dumbed down one too...
Let's just see how the game plays out ok?
On topic
Andariel wasn't too bad if you carried a bag of antidotes. The $%?&* dung beetles killed me way too many times. Duriel was tough, the room was small and there was no way to get rid of the cold aura. The jerks I had trouble with were the council in act 3, the one who was Extra Fast Light Enchanted was a pain. Treehead was tough Mephisto and Diablo were manageable if you could dodge well. Baal too. His Minions of Destro were hard just because of the knockback.
Nilathak and corpse explosion...
Yeah I guess the monsters weren't too hard to beat.
At least Nilathak and his CEs weren't too bad in normal, they (corpses) don't have a lot of HP there. Hell, however :3..
Hahaha yea the Dung Beetle. Recently got my room-mate to play Diablo 2 (his first time), and he had a LOT of trouble w Dung Beetles :D. Oddly (or not), i dont remember having much problem at Tree Head or Meph(norm). The first time i got to Council w my Frenzy Barb, i had quite some difficulties there though (he nvr completed the game .. ). Lister and co. were difficulty, for most (if not all) melee classes.
Oh, and i don't remember Diablo being "managable" at all in my early days =/ i always had a lot of trouble with him.
The thing about Diablo is he was highly exploitable. Mephisto, too. There were ways to kill them with ranged classes without them being able to hit you. :/ Without exploits diablo was still probably the easiest of the act bosses, though. The vast majority of his damage could be moved out of.
I think it's going to be quite hard in the beginning before you actually gets a grip of the game. When you get to gear up and play with you mates/clan it will get much easier.
After reading the interview today (5/3) from Jay Wilson, I am a little concerned about inferno. The idea of all the acts in inferno being strictly separated by level (61 for Act 1, 62 for act 2, etc.) seems a little too rigid. It sounds like WoW where you need get a certain level of gear before you can go into another area. I know diablo uses a treasure class system and mobs always have a certain probability of dropping any loot provided it's equal or less than its level, thus it is different from WoW. Nonetheless, I am still a little worried that if you will need "level 61 drops from act 1" to beat content in act 2. If that is the case then it seems like they just put farming roadblocks in the way to add to the total time it takes to beat inferno.
On May 04 2012 08:59 Muggs wrote: After reading the interview today (5/3) from Jay Wilson, I am a little concerned about inferno. The idea of all the acts in inferno being strictly separated by level (61 for Act 1, 62 for act 2, etc.) seems a little too rigid. It sounds like WoW where you need get a certain level of gear before you can go into another area. I know diablo uses a treasure class system and mobs always have a certain probability of dropping any loot provided it's equal or less than its level, thus it is different from WoW. Nonetheless, I am still a little worried that if you will need "level 61 drops from act 1" to beat content in act 2. If that is the case then it seems like they just put farming roadblocks in the way to add to the total time it takes to beat inferno.
Thats not how gear works in diablo. There are really only tiers for the normal mode. When you're in the highest difficulty act 1 will have a chance to drop all the good items too. Sure there are some areas that have higher average ilvl and are better for farming but its not like you get a set of gear in act 1 then replace it in act 2.
On May 04 2012 03:49 KingDime wrote: The only thing i remember being remotely challenging in a1 normal was like lightning enchanted mobs since the damage output was quite high, treehead woodfist and andariel due to her damage being quite high. Keep in mind, this is a point in time where I was young, didn't understand proper skill trees, proper attribute placement and also made bad choices on the weapons.
Doubt you'll have any idea about the difficulty of D3 until the game actually comes out beccause A1 really tells you nothing.
You could argue that A1 normal is used as a tutorial which is even more dumbed down.
Hmm.. I could agree to Andariel, though I still think Diablo and Duriel == harder.
Though of course, depending on the class that you play, some bosses can be much easier/harder (Duriel is a joke if you play Summon-based build, while difficult if you play a tank-less ranged character).
I recently started a summon/elemental Druid and got smashed with /players 4 on Duriel normal. He one shotted my wolves. T_T
Had to restart and go /players 2 or something like that.
Maybe you're talking about nightmare/hell, in which case you may be right ^^
Ahh.. I just know that Zoomancers own him, and extrapolated that Druid would be the same (never played a Summoning Druid before). Evidently not? :3 Hehe.. You sure he 1-shot Wolves with Heart of the Oak tho? =/ Cos i don't remember him 1-shotting skeletons :D
You could argue that A1 normal is used as a tutorial which is even more dumbed down.
How can people exaggerate this much and hope to be taken seriously.
Really man? Normal Act 1 is a DUMBED DOWN tutorial? Not even a tutorial, for the whole act, but a dumbed down one too...
Let's just see how the game plays out ok?
On topic
Andariel wasn't too bad if you carried a bag of antidotes. The $%?&* dung beetles killed me way too many times. Duriel was tough, the room was small and there was no way to get rid of the cold aura. The jerks I had trouble with were the council in act 3, the one who was Extra Fast Light Enchanted was a pain. Treehead was tough Mephisto and Diablo were manageable if you could dodge well. Baal too. His Minions of Destro were hard just because of the knockback.
Nilathak and corpse explosion...
Yeah I guess the monsters weren't too hard to beat.
At least Nilathak and his CEs weren't too bad in normal, they (corpses) don't have a lot of HP there. Hell, however :3..
Hahaha yea the Dung Beetle. Recently got my room-mate to play Diablo 2 (his first time), and he had a LOT of trouble w Dung Beetles :D. Oddly (or not), i dont remember having much problem at Tree Head or Meph(norm). The first time i got to Council w my Frenzy Barb, i had quite some difficulties there though (he nvr completed the game .. ). Lister and co. were difficulty, for most (if not all) melee classes.
Oh, and i don't remember Diablo being "managable" at all in my early days =/ i always had a lot of trouble with him.
I made a point of getting 3 Personalised items on all my HC chars just because of Nihlathak :3 lost a couple of well geared ones in hell that way, mostly to vipers actually..
Honestly though, on the first playthrough of normal there are some tough little "gotchas" that, if you've never seen them ebfore, can rip you apart.
- Rakinishu (everyone must have died to him on their first few playthroughs, surely) - Dung beetles (as mentioned) - Summoner's firewall - Duriel (as mentioned) - Flayer shamans - Stygian doll death explosions - Burning Souls - Oblivion knights and iron maiden lol - Diablo - Those act 5 suicide exploding things - Extra fast minotaur packs - Lister
Then even in later difficulties when you think you have things figured out..
- Your first MSLE boss, which will oneshot you the moment you touch it and you won't even know why - Your first FECE bugged death explosion, which will again oneshot you even though you swear you were out of range of the corpse explosion - Might auras that cover an entire area, including multiple other boss packs - Ruined temple and getting murdered before it even finishes loading - Those poison vipers near Nihlathak with the bugged poison spears that basically one shot you if you're not a block build, or if you're running when it hits - Talic's death explosion - Going into WSK L3, getting halfway through a WW and realising with they decided to put Obliv knights there in higher difficulties... your deeds of valour will be remembered - extra fast cursed/fanat lister
On May 04 2012 08:59 Muggs wrote: After reading the interview today (5/3) from Jay Wilson, I am a little concerned about inferno. The idea of all the acts in inferno being strictly separated by level (61 for Act 1, 62 for act 2, etc.) seems a little too rigid. It sounds like WoW where you need get a certain level of gear before you can go into another area. I know diablo uses a treasure class system and mobs always have a certain probability of dropping any loot provided it's equal or less than its level, thus it is different from WoW. Nonetheless, I am still a little worried that if you will need "level 61 drops from act 1" to beat content in act 2. If that is the case then it seems like they just put farming roadblocks in the way to add to the total time it takes to beat inferno.
Thats not how gear works in diablo. There are really only tiers for the normal mode. When you're in the highest difficulty act 1 will have a chance to drop all the good items too. Sure there are some areas that have higher average ilvl and are better for farming but its not like you get a set of gear in act 1 then replace it in act 2.
I sure hope you're right. The interview from Jay made it sound like you need act 1 inferno gear to start moving through act 2 inferno.
EDIT:
Here is the quote I'm referring to:
So we created a fourth difficulty that we call Inferno that is ALL max-level. Max-level for a player is level 60, and so all the monsters at the start of Inferno are level 61, in Act Two they are level 62, in Three and Four they're level 63. And there are items that ONLY drop at level 61, at level 62 and so on; and they're not small number! There's a whole tier of armour in each one.
So even to be able to play viably in Inferno, you're going to have to play and fight in Hell for a little while, to get your items up to the quality so that you'll be able to fight through. And then to move from Act to Act you'll need to do that.
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.
I'm keen on this bet, you got a middleman?
Only taking it because you seem stupid enough to think heroic raids are difficult (lol)
On May 04 2012 03:49 KingDime wrote: The only thing i remember being remotely challenging in a1 normal was like lightning enchanted mobs since the damage output was quite high, treehead woodfist and andariel due to her damage being quite high. Keep in mind, this is a point in time where I was young, didn't understand proper skill trees, proper attribute placement and also made bad choices on the weapons.
Doubt you'll have any idea about the difficulty of D3 until the game actually comes out beccause A1 really tells you nothing.
You could argue that A1 normal is used as a tutorial which is even more dumbed down.
Hmm.. I could agree to Andariel, though I still think Diablo and Duriel == harder.
Though of course, depending on the class that you play, some bosses can be much easier/harder (Duriel is a joke if you play Summon-based build, while difficult if you play a tank-less ranged character).
I recently started a summon/elemental Druid and got smashed with /players 4 on Duriel normal. He one shotted my wolves. T_T
Had to restart and go /players 2 or something like that.
Maybe you're talking about nightmare/hell, in which case you may be right ^^
Ahh.. I just know that Zoomancers own him, and extrapolated that Druid would be the same (never played a Summoning Druid before). Evidently not? :3 Hehe.. You sure he 1-shot Wolves with Heart of the Oak tho? =/ Cos i don't remember him 1-shotting skeletons :D
On May 04 2012 06:25 Krowser wrote:
On May 04 2012 03:49 KingDime wrote:
You could argue that A1 normal is used as a tutorial which is even more dumbed down.
How can people exaggerate this much and hope to be taken seriously.
Really man? Normal Act 1 is a DUMBED DOWN tutorial? Not even a tutorial, for the whole act, but a dumbed down one too...
Let's just see how the game plays out ok?
On topic
Andariel wasn't too bad if you carried a bag of antidotes. The $%?&* dung beetles killed me way too many times. Duriel was tough, the room was small and there was no way to get rid of the cold aura. The jerks I had trouble with were the council in act 3, the one who was Extra Fast Light Enchanted was a pain. Treehead was tough Mephisto and Diablo were manageable if you could dodge well. Baal too. His Minions of Destro were hard just because of the knockback.
Nilathak and corpse explosion...
Yeah I guess the monsters weren't too hard to beat.
At least Nilathak and his CEs weren't too bad in normal, they (corpses) don't have a lot of HP there. Hell, however :3..
Hahaha yea the Dung Beetle. Recently got my room-mate to play Diablo 2 (his first time), and he had a LOT of trouble w Dung Beetles :D. Oddly (or not), i dont remember having much problem at Tree Head or Meph(norm). The first time i got to Council w my Frenzy Barb, i had quite some difficulties there though (he nvr completed the game .. ). Lister and co. were difficulty, for most (if not all) melee classes.
Oh, and i don't remember Diablo being "managable" at all in my early days =/ i always had a lot of trouble with him.
I made a point of getting 3 Personalised items on all my HC chars just because of Nihlathak :3 lost a couple of well geared ones in hell that way, mostly to vipers actually..
Honestly though, on the first playthrough of normal there are some tough little "gotchas" that, if you've never seen them ebfore, can rip you apart.
- Rakinishu (everyone must have died to him on their first few playthroughs, surely) - Dung beetles (as mentioned) - Summoner's firewall - Duriel (as mentioned) - Flayer shamans - Stygian doll death explosions - Burning Souls - Oblivion knights and iron maiden lol - Diablo - Those act 5 suicide exploding things - Extra fast minotaur packs - Lister
Then even in later difficulties when you think you have things figured out..
- Your first MSLE boss, which will oneshot you the moment you touch it and you won't even know why - Your first FECE bugged death explosion, which will again oneshot you even though you swear you were out of range of the corpse explosion - Might auras that cover an entire area, including multiple other boss packs - Ruined temple and getting murdered before it even finishes loading - Those poison vipers near Nihlathak with the bugged poison spears that basically one shot you if you're not a block build, or if you're running when it hits - Talic's death explosion - Going into WSK L3, getting halfway through a WW and realising with they decided to put Obliv knights there in higher difficulties... your deeds of valour will be remembered - extra fast cursed/fanat lister
I'm surprised you didn't mention the ancients- they could be pretty tough for some characters depending on the mods they spawned with. I lost a HC summonmancer to hell ancient- got one-shotted by his WW despite having a lot of hit points. It was my own fault for letting him get too close but still...
And Blizzard actually realized iron maiden was so annoying they got rid of it in the 1.13 patch.
On May 04 2012 03:49 KingDime wrote: The only thing i remember being remotely challenging in a1 normal was like lightning enchanted mobs since the damage output was quite high, treehead woodfist and andariel due to her damage being quite high. Keep in mind, this is a point in time where I was young, didn't understand proper skill trees, proper attribute placement and also made bad choices on the weapons.
Doubt you'll have any idea about the difficulty of D3 until the game actually comes out beccause A1 really tells you nothing.
You could argue that A1 normal is used as a tutorial which is even more dumbed down.
Hmm.. I could agree to Andariel, though I still think Diablo and Duriel == harder.
Though of course, depending on the class that you play, some bosses can be much easier/harder (Duriel is a joke if you play Summon-based build, while difficult if you play a tank-less ranged character).
I recently started a summon/elemental Druid and got smashed with /players 4 on Duriel normal. He one shotted my wolves. T_T
Had to restart and go /players 2 or something like that.
Maybe you're talking about nightmare/hell, in which case you may be right ^^
Ahh.. I just know that Zoomancers own him, and extrapolated that Druid would be the same (never played a Summoning Druid before). Evidently not? :3 Hehe.. You sure he 1-shot Wolves with Heart of the Oak tho? =/ Cos i don't remember him 1-shotting skeletons :D
On May 04 2012 06:25 Krowser wrote:
On May 04 2012 03:49 KingDime wrote:
You could argue that A1 normal is used as a tutorial which is even more dumbed down.
How can people exaggerate this much and hope to be taken seriously.
Really man? Normal Act 1 is a DUMBED DOWN tutorial? Not even a tutorial, for the whole act, but a dumbed down one too...
Let's just see how the game plays out ok?
On topic
Andariel wasn't too bad if you carried a bag of antidotes. The $%?&* dung beetles killed me way too many times. Duriel was tough, the room was small and there was no way to get rid of the cold aura. The jerks I had trouble with were the council in act 3, the one who was Extra Fast Light Enchanted was a pain. Treehead was tough Mephisto and Diablo were manageable if you could dodge well. Baal too. His Minions of Destro were hard just because of the knockback.
Nilathak and corpse explosion...
Yeah I guess the monsters weren't too hard to beat.
At least Nilathak and his CEs weren't too bad in normal, they (corpses) don't have a lot of HP there. Hell, however :3..
Hahaha yea the Dung Beetle. Recently got my room-mate to play Diablo 2 (his first time), and he had a LOT of trouble w Dung Beetles :D. Oddly (or not), i dont remember having much problem at Tree Head or Meph(norm). The first time i got to Council w my Frenzy Barb, i had quite some difficulties there though (he nvr completed the game .. ). Lister and co. were difficulty, for most (if not all) melee classes.
Oh, and i don't remember Diablo being "managable" at all in my early days =/ i always had a lot of trouble with him.
I made a point of getting 3 Personalised items on all my HC chars just because of Nihlathak :3 lost a couple of well geared ones in hell that way, mostly to vipers actually..
Honestly though, on the first playthrough of normal there are some tough little "gotchas" that, if you've never seen them ebfore, can rip you apart.
- Rakinishu (everyone must have died to him on their first few playthroughs, surely) - Dung beetles (as mentioned) - Summoner's firewall - Duriel (as mentioned) - Flayer shamans - Stygian doll death explosions - Burning Souls - Oblivion knights and iron maiden lol - Diablo - Those act 5 suicide exploding things - Extra fast minotaur packs - Lister
Then even in later difficulties when you think you have things figured out..
- Your first MSLE boss, which will oneshot you the moment you touch it and you won't even know why - Your first FECE bugged death explosion, which will again oneshot you even though you swear you were out of range of the corpse explosion - Might auras that cover an entire area, including multiple other boss packs - Ruined temple and getting murdered before it even finishes loading - Those poison vipers near Nihlathak with the bugged poison spears that basically one shot you if you're not a block build, or if you're running when it hits - Talic's death explosion - Going into WSK L3, getting halfway through a WW and realising with they decided to put Obliv knights there in higher difficulties... your deeds of valour will be remembered - extra fast cursed/fanat lister
Haha that was a very comprehensive list
I agree with the one who mentioned the Ancient though, they can sometimes roll mods that will make life very difficult (esp when you weren't sure what you were doing :3). I remember a senior of mine banged his head on Holy Freeze, Cursed, Stone Skin/PI, Fanat (Might/Blessed Aim probably works too) with his Fury Druid, eventually gave up.. And having those 4 mods spawned across 3 Ancients isn't all that unlikely, neither are they the worst combination, just somehow stuck in my head
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)..)
I definitely had more fun in the Diablo 3 beta than in Act1 of D2. More level diversity, monster diversity and even skill diversity. It's almost sad that the shared gold/stash and blacksmith make it so that leveling 1 char is more efficient than starting a bunch in parallel, because I can imagine me replaying the early acts. I found you got a lot more build diversity early. In D2, I never placed stat points and, depending on the patch, placed no to very few skills points, just so I could have a "perfect" late game build.
On May 04 2012 08:59 Muggs wrote: After reading the interview today (5/3) from Jay Wilson, I am a little concerned about inferno. The idea of all the acts in inferno being strictly separated by level (61 for Act 1, 62 for act 2, etc.) seems a little too rigid. It sounds like WoW where you need get a certain level of gear before you can go into another area. I know diablo uses a treasure class system and mobs always have a certain probability of dropping any loot provided it's equal or less than its level, thus it is different from WoW. Nonetheless, I am still a little worried that if you will need "level 61 drops from act 1" to beat content in act 2. If that is the case then it seems like they just put farming roadblocks in the way to add to the total time it takes to beat inferno.
Thats not how gear works in diablo. There are really only tiers for the normal mode. When you're in the highest difficulty act 1 will have a chance to drop all the good items too. Sure there are some areas that have higher average ilvl and are better for farming but its not like you get a set of gear in act 1 then replace it in act 2.
I sure hope you're right. The interview from Jay made it sound like you need act 1 inferno gear to start moving through act 2 inferno.
So we created a fourth difficulty that we call Inferno that is ALL max-level. Max-level for a player is level 60, and so all the monsters at the start of Inferno are level 61, in Act Two they are level 62, in Three and Four they're level 63. And there are items that ONLY drop at level 61, at level 62 and so on; and they're not small number! There's a whole tier of armour in each one.
So even to be able to play viably in Inferno, you're going to have to play and fight in Hell for a little while, to get your items up to the quality so that you'll be able to fight through. And then to move from Act to Act you'll need to do that.
I had the same feeling from the interview. It looks like they want to have you spend time in each act, gearing up, before tackling the next one. This was pretty much my point yesterday, why arguing about an arbitrary number of days/weeks/months/years it will take to finish Inferno does not make sense. Blizzard seems to be pushing items in regards to power level (and customization). But they have not revealed any information on the actual power level of the higher tier items. None of the uniques have been released and even the range of possible bonusses on rares is still unclear. Equally important: Drop rates. Do we assume they are the same as in D2?
For example, an exaggerated example. Let's say in hell you get items with max +50 intelligence. But in Act1 Inferno you get +500 intelligence, increasing your DPS by a factor of 5. It all depends on the steepness of the monster curve, the steepness of the item curve and the drop rates. Basically we only have information on the first (+1 level / act). And I know the "models" for hit points, damage reduction and so on are already data minded, so maybe someone can make an educated guess on how more difficult a level 62 monster is compared to a level 60?
There are some hard fights in Diablo 2, but all of them except Duriel, Stygian Dolls and Burning Souls (or any variation there of) are very easy the second time around in my experience. I hope D3 enemies will be legitimately dangerous this time around, not just the first time when you didn't know what they were capable of.
On May 04 2012 15:54 kuresuti wrote: There are some hard fights in Diablo 2, but all of them except Duriel, Stygian Dolls and Burning Souls (or any variation there of) are very easy the second time around in my experience. I hope D3 enemies will be legitimately dangerous this time around, not just the first time when you didn't know what they were capable of.
Hmmm, I don't think we will see Stygian Dolls or Burning Souls (Gloams, right?) in D3. The reason I think this is because the "chance to hit" was removed and changed into damage reduction.
In D2, adding armour made it so you were less likely to get hit, but when you did get hit, the amount of HP you lost was the same all round. So there was a real risk of getting one hit killed. Now that we have some amount of damage reduction, I hope this means we also got rid of 1 hit kills. Because I did not consider those things as best design practices
On May 04 2012 15:54 kuresuti wrote: There are some hard fights in Diablo 2, but all of them except Duriel, Stygian Dolls and Burning Souls (or any variation there of) are very easy the second time around in my experience. I hope D3 enemies will be legitimately dangerous this time around, not just the first time when you didn't know what they were capable of.
Hmmm, I don't think we will see Stygian Dolls or Burning Souls (Gloams, right?) in D3. The reason I think this is because the "chance to hit" was removed and changed into damage reduction.
In D2, adding armour made it so you were less likely to get hit, but when you did get hit, the amount of HP you lost was the same all round. So there was a real risk of getting one hit killed. Now that we have some amount of damage reduction, I hope this means we also got rid of 1 hit kills. Because I did not consider those things as best design practices
I wonder if that point has any relevance.
Gloam's lightning definitely doesn't interact with Defense at all, only resistance which is a direct mitigation. I'm not as sure about Stygian Doll's CE-upon-death effect, but im inclined to think it is the same.
AusGamers: Just the level of challenge that comes up, especially with cooperative play.
Jay: I guess your question is, is the game going to get more challenging? I can say, unequivocally... and I don’t like to firmly stamp my foot down on things -- because that almost always comes back to bite me -- but I can honestly say, that the end-game of Diablo III is way more challenging than Diablo II; way more.
There’s none of the... because we’ve added Inferno -- the max-level difficulty -- there’s no case where you had in Diablo II, where you simply out-levelled and out-geared the content. The content stays relevant. So it takes... when you get into Inferno for the first time, if you haven’t spent time in Hell, just farming for gear, you will get crushed.
We die... we have encounters in the Inferno mode, where we will die a dozen times trying to take a rare down. And I mean, that rare, not only do they have a host of different abilities that we don’t even have earlier in the game -- things like the ability to create walls in front of me and enemies; the ability to do all different kinds of spells and effects that control area around the player and dish out damage.
Just being able to make creatures that are faster than the player, which you don’t really see in the earlier difficulties very often -- we can make any kind of common creature faster. And you take all that, and we also have enraged timers, where if you don’t kill the monsters in a certain amount of time, they enrage and then they do massive damage.
You take all those things together, and it creates an experience that’s a lot more challenging.
Jay: We don’t believe that there’s a place where you can play the game at the maximum level and it will be easy. We think it will always be challenging. I say “we think”, because players surprise us, and the level of difficulty on Inferno is so high that a lot of people on the dev team can’t test it very effectively. So we’ve actually had to use a specialty group within... we always run into this problem, you know game developers are never as good as the players, because we don’t have the time to play that the players do.
So we have groups internally -- and a few exceptions to that case -- and we formed a specific strike-team, just for end-game. And their goal was to tell us that this was a challenging and compelling experience. So they spent just as long working on the game as our kind of normal difficulty strike-team did -- which is unusual. For most of our games... World of Warcraft does have a kind of raid group that they have dedicated, but most of our games have just a regular strike-team. They don’t have, like, an end-game, hard-mode strike-team like we’ve created.
Enrage timers were sort of a given. So I guess they went back on their word of having mobs capable of dropping everything, now we're going to go back to grinding the last act for the best gear...?
On May 05 2012 03:00 MrTortoise wrote: so what they are saying is that the game will be a piece of piss.
But then it will suddenly scale to being impossible.
so how long will it stay fun to play hard?
Ramping up difficulty as you progress through the game is bad in your opinion ? Isn't that how basically every single game does it ? Do you want it the other way around ?
On May 05 2012 02:19 skyR wrote: Enrage timers were sort of a given. So I guess they went back on their word of having mobs capable of dropping everything, now we're going to go back to grinding the last act for the best gear...?
How do you reach that conclusion exactly ? Enrage timer = guaranteed best loot... just what is your basis for such an argument ?
Good job twisting my words. I never said enrage timers = guaranteed best loot. Enrage timers adds a DPS requirement which is one of the simplest ways to make an encounter harder, this isn't exactly rocket science lol...
On May 05 2012 03:14 skyR wrote: Good job twisting my words. I never said enrage timers = guaranteed best loot. Enrage timers adds a DPS requirement which is one of the simplest ways to make an encounter harder, this isn't exactly rocket science lol...
Or it means you cannot kite a boss forever. Difficult encounter =/ Best loot. Not exactly rocket science indeed.
On May 05 2012 02:19 skyR wrote: Enrage timers were sort of a given. So I guess they went back on their word of having mobs capable of dropping everything, now we're going to go back to grinding the last act for the best gear...?
I think what sky is trying to say is that if each act in inferno drops increasingly better gear, Blizz changed their stance on allowing every mob to drop the same gear to prevent you from having to grind the same area over and over again.
For example, the way it seems to me is that with this item path, if you want to get the best gear, you will need to grind act 5 of inferno over and over.
On May 05 2012 02:19 skyR wrote: Enrage timers were sort of a given. So I guess they went back on their word of having mobs capable of dropping everything, now we're going to go back to grinding the last act for the best gear...?
What? that doesn't follow at all.
You are not understanding what he meant, I'll break it down to you.
First they went back on their word of having mobs capable of dropping everything (even if they aren't high-end mobs they can drop high-end gear.)
Now they are putting enrage timers which kinda are gear check encounters, which make you need to grind the last act of hell for the gear needed to pass the gear check.
Now in the latest interview with atomic, they're saying that each act has a respective tier of gear that can only be dropped in that act.
And there's a very low chance that tier 3 will be better than tier 5 so please don't start that stupid argument.
Read that interview again, nowhere did he say that later act bosses drops better gear.
On May 05 2012 03:42 Alpino wrote: First they went back on their word of having mobs capable of dropping everything (even if they aren't high-end mobs they can drop high-end gear.)
They didn't do that, unless there is some interview here I didn't see.
Edit: Okay, I found it. Next time cite your source.
And there are items that ONLY drop at level 61, at level 62 and so on; and they're not small number! There's a whole tier of armour in each one.
So even to be able to play viably in Inferno, you're going to have to play and fight in Hell for a little while, to get your items up to the quality so that you'll be able to fight through. And then to move from Act to Act you'll need to do that.
We're seriously going to start this argument of whether the Act 1 tier will be better than Act 5 tier???
Yeah, next time people discuss new interviews they should link them. It sounded like he drew that conclusion based on the fact that enrage timers exist.
So even to be able to play viably in Inferno, you're going to have to play and fight in Hell for a little while, to get your items up to the quality so that you'll be able to fight through. And then to move from Act to Act you'll need to do that.
We're seriously going to start this argument of whether the Act 1 tier will be better than Act 5 tier???
That interview wasn't linked or cited anywhere, please understand that you sounded like a moron there because it sounded like you drew that conclusion based on the ausgamer interview.
I think the big thing at this point is that we dont know the scope of act 5 though. There is a chance that it is either big enough to make grinding not boring, or incorporates the entire game somehow.
Yeah, next time people discuss new interviews they should link them. It sounded like he drew that conclusion based on the fact that enrage timers exist.
So even to be able to play viably in Inferno, you're going to have to play and fight in Hell for a little while, to get your items up to the quality so that you'll be able to fight through. And then to move from Act to Act you'll need to do that.
We're seriously going to start this argument of whether the Act 1 tier will be better than Act 5 tier???
That interview wasn't linked or cited anywhere, please understand that you sounded like a moron there because it sounded like you drew that conclusion based on the ausgamer interview.
I didn't draw a conclusion based on enrage timers. It was a given, you don't have to be a game designer to know that enrage timers is an easy way to add difficulty and a grind requirement to a game. You assume that only the higher end bosses will have enrage timers which is an understandable but bad assumption.
It was my fault that I didn't separate my thoughts or quote the post i was replying to as I deemed it unnecessary but I guess I'll do that next time.
Yeah, next time people discuss new interviews they should link them. It sounded like he drew that conclusion based on the fact that enrage timers exist.
So even to be able to play viably in Inferno, you're going to have to play and fight in Hell for a little while, to get your items up to the quality so that you'll be able to fight through. And then to move from Act to Act you'll need to do that.
We're seriously going to start this argument of whether the Act 1 tier will be better than Act 5 tier???
That interview wasn't linked or cited anywhere, please understand that you sounded like a moron there because it sounded like you drew that conclusion based on the ausgamer interview.
I didn't draw a conclusion based on enrage timers. It was a given, you don't have to be a game designer to know that enrage timers is an easy way to add difficulty and a grind requirement to a game. You assume that only the higher end bosses will have enrage timers which is an understandable but bad assumption.
It was my fault that I didn't separate my thoughts or quote the post i was replying to as I deemed it unnecessary but I guess I'll do that next time.
One thing that I think people are missing that gear checks apply to a standard playstyle. With enough patience gear shortcomings can be overcome. There is a post on (I think) diablo.incgamers,com where a guy describes his run through the whole game (yes, beating Baal on Hell) with an amazon that put points only into the passives tree and wearing only cracked/low quality items. I'm not saying kiting Lister for 45 minutes is fun, I'm saying it's doable, and I sincerely doubt that a tier below what's required gear wise means you won't be able to play through an act, it just means you won't be able to rolfstomp (exaggeration of course) anything that crosses your path, you'll just have to put more thought into an encounter than shift+spam left click.
Yeah, next time people discuss new interviews they should link them. It sounded like he drew that conclusion based on the fact that enrage timers exist.
So even to be able to play viably in Inferno, you're going to have to play and fight in Hell for a little while, to get your items up to the quality so that you'll be able to fight through. And then to move from Act to Act you'll need to do that.
We're seriously going to start this argument of whether the Act 1 tier will be better than Act 5 tier???
That interview wasn't linked or cited anywhere, please understand that you sounded like a moron there because it sounded like you drew that conclusion based on the ausgamer interview.
I didn't draw a conclusion based on enrage timers. It was a given, you don't have to be a game designer to know that enrage timers is an easy way to add difficulty and a grind requirement to a game. You assume that only the higher end bosses will have enrage timers which is an understandable but bad assumption.
It was my fault that I didn't separate my thoughts or quote the post i was replying to as I deemed it unnecessary but I guess I'll do that next time.
One thing that I think people are missing that gear checks apply to a standard playstyle. With enough patience gear shortcomings can be overcome. There is a post on (I think) diablo.incgamers,com where a guy describes his run through the whole game (yes, beating Baal on Hell) with an amazon that put points only into the passives tree and wearing only cracked/low quality items. I'm not saying kiting Lister for 45 minutes is fun, I'm saying it's doable, and I sincerely doubt that a tier below what's required gear wise means you won't be able to play through an act, it just means you won't be able to rolfstomp (exaggeration of course) anything that crosses your path, you'll just have to put more thought into an encounter than shift+spam left click.
Whether it would be doable or not without a certain level of gear is entirely dependent on how Blizzard designs the encounters. If boss just disappears after x minutes and reappears with full health, there's simply no way of beating it without appropriate level of gear, a group, or a clever use of game mechanics (which in most cases is not intended) since you won't have enough DPS.
I think perhaps you're underestimating the effect that player skill can have on your time-on-target in Diablo style games. It's often forgotten that the time it takes you to kill a boss is dependent not only on your DPS, but also on the percentage of time you spend actually attacking vs kiting around.
Just as a very basic example, I can imagine a case where a very skilled Wizard with the wormhole rune would be able to maintain a constant distance from a boss while still doing damage by mixing signature spells with teleport casts in quick succession, as opposed to a less skilled wizard who spends a lot more time running because they can't keep the wormhole rune effect up.
Of course, your ability to tank a target and continue DPS'ing is itself gear dependent, but unlike DPS which you can really only control through your build choices and gear, your playstyle can change your time-on-target quite a bit.
On May 05 2012 05:10 eluv wrote: I think perhaps you're underestimating the effect that player skill can have on your time-on-target in Diablo style games. It's often forgotten that the time it takes you to kill a boss is dependent not only on your DPS, but also on the percentage of time you spend actually attacking vs kiting around.
Just as a very basic example, I can imagine a case where a very skilled Wizard with the wormhole rune would be able to maintain a constant distance from a boss while still doing damage by mixing signature spells with teleport casts in quick succession, as opposed to a less skilled wizard who spends a lot more time running because they can't keep the wormhole rune effect up.
Of course, your ability to tank a target and continue DPS'ing is itself gear dependent, but unlike DPS which you can really only control through your build choices and gear, your playstyle can change your time-on-target quite a bit.
Player skill has an IMMENSE impact on DPS. Back in my WoW days, there was an affliction warlock who had both gear and full raid buffs. Deals ~1/2 the dps of another warlock with worse gear. My alt warlock in welfare epics did more DPS. There's a video on Youtube somewhere that shows a ~30% dps increase simply by animation canceling to reset swing timers. Upwards of 90% will never utilize this to do anything. The percentage that do will simply deal more damage, despite equivalent gear.
Outside of some ridiculous exploit, Inferno mode will NOT be beaten within 2 days, or 4 days as some ignorant people claim. Inferno will be scaled to require very very good gear to complete. Getting good enough gear in under a week will be pretty much IMPOSSIBLE. This isn't even taking into account the fight mechanics or any other inferno-only monster abilities. People seem to have this notion that D3 is a casual game and hence the hardest difficulty will be casual as well. The last 2 acts of Inferno are going to be so brutally difficult, they will not be cleared in under a week. It's not that hard for blizzard to change a few numbers here and there to make encounters mathematically impossible. They can always nerf the encounters later on. Buffing Inferno to be harder after it is beaten, on the other hand, is not something they are going to want to do.
I just hope on normal difficulty the game will be at least somewhat challenging. Because as a casual gamer I dont plan on playing through the game several times, at least not with the same character, just so that I can play on a higher difficulty level. I have to say I dont like this system at all where you have to finish the game first just to increase difficulty.
Yeah, next time people discuss new interviews they should link them. It sounded like he drew that conclusion based on the fact that enrage timers exist.
So even to be able to play viably in Inferno, you're going to have to play and fight in Hell for a little while, to get your items up to the quality so that you'll be able to fight through. And then to move from Act to Act you'll need to do that.
We're seriously going to start this argument of whether the Act 1 tier will be better than Act 5 tier???
That interview wasn't linked or cited anywhere, please understand that you sounded like a moron there because it sounded like you drew that conclusion based on the ausgamer interview.
I didn't draw a conclusion based on enrage timers. It was a given, you don't have to be a game designer to know that enrage timers is an easy way to add difficulty and a grind requirement to a game. You assume that only the higher end bosses will have enrage timers which is an understandable but bad assumption.
It was my fault that I didn't separate my thoughts or quote the post i was replying to as I deemed it unnecessary but I guess I'll do that next time.
One thing that I think people are missing that gear checks apply to a standard playstyle. With enough patience gear shortcomings can be overcome. There is a post on (I think) diablo.incgamers,com where a guy describes his run through the whole game (yes, beating Baal on Hell) with an amazon that put points only into the passives tree and wearing only cracked/low quality items. I'm not saying kiting Lister for 45 minutes is fun, I'm saying it's doable, and I sincerely doubt that a tier below what's required gear wise means you won't be able to play through an act, it just means you won't be able to rolfstomp (exaggeration of course) anything that crosses your path, you'll just have to put more thought into an encounter than shift+spam left click.
Whether it would be doable or not without a certain level of gear is entirely dependent on how Blizzard designs the encounters. If boss just disappears after x minutes and reappears with full health, there's simply no way of beating it without appropriate level of gear, a group, or a clever use of game mechanics (which in most cases is not intended) since you won't have enough DPS.
a boss just disappearing after x minutes is just shitty game design and a gimmicky cockblock for no reason other than to be a cockblock
well, inferno monsters will have 3-5 times more hp than hell mobs, and deal about 10-13 times more damage, along with many other specific abilities that only show on inferno. The damage output and hp etc will also increase by the player, but not exactly this much, so it's all extra challenge.
On May 05 2012 07:15 Ahzz wrote: well, inferno monsters will have 3-5 times more hp than hell mobs, and deal about 10-13 times more damage, along with many other specific abilities that only show on inferno. The damage output and hp etc will also increase by the player, but not exactly this much, so it's all extra challenge.
Since it's all relative, I wonder if hell is going to be cruise mode now or if inferno really is going to be that wild.
This whole idea of enraging rare monsters and all the inferno acts dropping a different level of gear has me kind of worried. It sounds like they are really tiering things up.
Yeah, next time people discuss new interviews they should link them. It sounded like he drew that conclusion based on the fact that enrage timers exist.
So even to be able to play viably in Inferno, you're going to have to play and fight in Hell for a little while, to get your items up to the quality so that you'll be able to fight through. And then to move from Act to Act you'll need to do that.
We're seriously going to start this argument of whether the Act 1 tier will be better than Act 5 tier???
That interview wasn't linked or cited anywhere, please understand that you sounded like a moron there because it sounded like you drew that conclusion based on the ausgamer interview.
I didn't draw a conclusion based on enrage timers. It was a given, you don't have to be a game designer to know that enrage timers is an easy way to add difficulty and a grind requirement to a game. You assume that only the higher end bosses will have enrage timers which is an understandable but bad assumption.
It was my fault that I didn't separate my thoughts or quote the post i was replying to as I deemed it unnecessary but I guess I'll do that next time.
One thing that I think people are missing that gear checks apply to a standard playstyle. With enough patience gear shortcomings can be overcome. There is a post on (I think) diablo.incgamers,com where a guy describes his run through the whole game (yes, beating Baal on Hell) with an amazon that put points only into the passives tree and wearing only cracked/low quality items. I'm not saying kiting Lister for 45 minutes is fun, I'm saying it's doable, and I sincerely doubt that a tier below what's required gear wise means you won't be able to play through an act, it just means you won't be able to rolfstomp (exaggeration of course) anything that crosses your path, you'll just have to put more thought into an encounter than shift+spam left click.
Whether it would be doable or not without a certain level of gear is entirely dependent on how Blizzard designs the encounters. If boss just disappears after x minutes and reappears with full health, there's simply no way of beating it without appropriate level of gear, a group, or a clever use of game mechanics (which in most cases is not intended) since you won't have enough DPS.
a boss just disappearing after x minutes is just shitty game design and a gimmicky cockblock for no reason other than to be a cockblock
I think most bosses are generally made more interesting and demanding of skill (not less) by addition of hard enrage timers.
What if the boss does nonstop attacks from a varied repetoire of 6 different moves, all with slightly different windup animations that require different dodging movements to avoid, each of which gives a 0.5s window at different points during the animation for you to attack (if you dodged correctly)?
Given a hard "enrage timer", the boss becomes an intricate feat of skill and execution, requiring you to identify, recognise, dodge and counterattack say 50% of the opportunities you are given. You know that if you miss some opportunities, you're going to have to take more risks to do enough dps to bring it down. And you know that if your gear is worse, you're going to have to play better in order to take more of your opportunities to reach the timer.
Without a hard enrage timer, it becomes... almost trivial, you just play ultra safe and grind it down by attrition, with no pressure to hit your windows to attack safely. In addition, if your gear is worse, you don't have to play better (i.e. take more opporunities) - you just have to play for longer. It's just a worse encounter without an enrage timer.
Just ball-parking without any guidance, let's take a look at the Demon Hunter and the base Hungering Arrow skill. It seems like the end-game bows have 322 base DPS. Let's say between the weapon and the rest of the gear, there's +400% increased weapon damage. We'll also assume 20% crit chance at +50% damage, so we end up with 1771 damage before stats and skills. Let's also assume 900 Dex for +900% (I hear gems will provide +stats?). With all this, the base Hungering Arrow will do 21K damage per shot. Some of those champion monsters have over a million HP; it'd take over 50 seconds of shooting Hungering Arrow to kill them.
Of course, these are numbers I pulled out of thin air, but that gives us some idea of how much gear we'll need before attempting Inferno.
Have you noticed that the act 2 accursed monster is a higher level than the accursed hellion monster in act 3? I wonder if the acts aren't going to be strictly linear. I'm not sure if that would make sense though.
Have you noticed that the act 2 accursed monster is a higher level than the accursed hellion monster in act 3? I wonder if the acts aren't going to be strictly linear. I'm not sure if that would make sense though.
The description says "once summoned" though so maybe that's why.
Have you noticed that the act 2 accursed monster is a higher level than the accursed hellion monster in act 3? I wonder if the acts aren't going to be strictly linear. I'm not sure if that would make sense though.
The description says "once summoned" though so maybe that's why.
Hey, does anyone know if the witch doctor is still getting the infuseable pets? Last I recalled from the original release video ( I understand that it is very old), the Witch Doctor would be able to infuse their pets with locust swarm to make them deal more damage, kind of like an enchant. Are they still including this into the game?
On May 05 2012 12:32 Lagcraft wrote: Hey, does anyone know if the witch doctor is still getting the infuseable pets? Last I recalled from the original release video ( I understand that it is very old), the Witch Doctor would be able to infuse their pets with locust swarm to make them deal more damage, kind of like an enchant. Are they still including this into the game?
No. Now the effects are just part of the rune system.
Im not sure if Jay was saying that all enemies in inferno have enrage timers. I was kind of hoping he ment that enrage was one of the new monster affixes.
Yeah, next time people discuss new interviews they should link them. It sounded like he drew that conclusion based on the fact that enrage timers exist.
So even to be able to play viably in Inferno, you're going to have to play and fight in Hell for a little while, to get your items up to the quality so that you'll be able to fight through. And then to move from Act to Act you'll need to do that.
We're seriously going to start this argument of whether the Act 1 tier will be better than Act 5 tier???
That interview wasn't linked or cited anywhere, please understand that you sounded like a moron there because it sounded like you drew that conclusion based on the ausgamer interview.
I didn't draw a conclusion based on enrage timers. It was a given, you don't have to be a game designer to know that enrage timers is an easy way to add difficulty and a grind requirement to a game. You assume that only the higher end bosses will have enrage timers which is an understandable but bad assumption.
It was my fault that I didn't separate my thoughts or quote the post i was replying to as I deemed it unnecessary but I guess I'll do that next time.
One thing that I think people are missing that gear checks apply to a standard playstyle. With enough patience gear shortcomings can be overcome. There is a post on (I think) diablo.incgamers,com where a guy describes his run through the whole game (yes, beating Baal on Hell) with an amazon that put points only into the passives tree and wearing only cracked/low quality items. I'm not saying kiting Lister for 45 minutes is fun, I'm saying it's doable, and I sincerely doubt that a tier below what's required gear wise means you won't be able to play through an act, it just means you won't be able to rolfstomp (exaggeration of course) anything that crosses your path, you'll just have to put more thought into an encounter than shift+spam left click.
Whether it would be doable or not without a certain level of gear is entirely dependent on how Blizzard designs the encounters. If boss just disappears after x minutes and reappears with full health, there's simply no way of beating it without appropriate level of gear, a group, or a clever use of game mechanics (which in most cases is not intended) since you won't have enough DPS.
a boss just disappearing after x minutes is just shitty game design and a gimmicky cockblock for no reason other than to be a cockblock
yea its a gimmicky one, there's a reason that this design was only used once in wow, its not good
Hate to reminiscence on WoW having quit a long time ago but anyway I never was a big fan of gear check timers either, although it did lead to one heroic moment for me. On my guilds first Hydross kill he enraged and I was the very last man standing as a Holy Paladin kiting him a bit and then Divine Shielding and watching him die to DoT's while doing some sick Paladin DPS inside my bubble.
Anyway I'm probably one of the people that are underestimating the difficulty a lot inside their own mind at least, somewhat expecting to just walk all over the game easily on all difficulties (minus HC). Going to be a nice and welcome shock once I start dying all the time all of sudden after Normal and maybe Nightmare.
if true, Inferno is definitely not for casuals. the difference in monster HP and attack damage from Hell to Inferno is massive
oh the images are from the Brady Guide. well that's legitimate enough for me. Diablo 3 Inferno going to be fucking hard. lol at those that assumed Diablo 3 was going to be easy due to their experience from Diablo 2.
based on the stat scaling. guessing progress will have to be done in baby steps with many loot runs needing to be done within each Act. I could be wrong though if item scaling for players from Hell to Inferno is equally as massive as the scaling for monster HP/damage.
Oh lol, what I meant was if you're talking about stuff in the guide to put it in spoilers, someone wrote down something about a bosses HP in inferno and I considered even that a spoiler
On May 06 2012 03:46 udgnim wrote: monster stat scaling from Normal to Inferno
if true, Inferno is definitely not for casuals. the difference in monster HP and attack damage from Hell to Inferno is massive
oh the images are from the Brady Guide. well that's legitimate enough for me. Diablo 3 Inferno going to be fucking hard. lol at those that assumed Diablo 3 was going to be easy due to their experience from Diablo 2.
The damage from the Armadon seems to be the special slam attack described above the numbers. 170k seems a bit excessive otherwise. It would also be a huge jump from the act III monster.
If D3 is anywhere near as hard as Diablo:The Hell mod (Inferno difficulty in D3 does promise to be... a bit extreme), the game won't be beaten in quite a whole, and most certainly NOT within 4 days.
HP and damage numbers change how long it takes and how forgiving it is, how much skill you need depends on how quickly you're trying to advance, and on the other game attributes, like monster AI, how much skill it takes to dodge/interrupt certain attacks, etc.
On May 06 2012 13:29 SoulWager wrote: HP and damage numbers change how long it takes and how forgiving it is, how much skill you need depends on how quickly you're trying to advance, and on the other game attributes, like monster AI, how much skill it takes to dodge/interrupt certain attacks, etc.
On May 06 2012 13:29 SoulWager wrote: HP and damage numbers change how long it takes and how forgiving it is, how much skill you need depends on how quickly you're trying to advance, and on the other game attributes, like monster AI, how much skill it takes to dodge/interrupt certain attacks, etc.
Sooo... What's your point???
My point is that numbers are just numbers, that "this dungeon is level 61" or "this dude has 3million hp" doesn't actually mean it's any harder to kill. Consider two monsters, one hits for 3x as much damage as the other, but if they both 1hit kill you if they connect, they're exactly the same difficulty. Same deal w/ HP, just takes longer, is not actually more difficult. The only way to find out how hard inferno is is to play it.
The harder the better. Being able to beat a game is overrated, I want to be able to have a mile-wide grin from advancing a few monster packs further than the last time I died.
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.
lol @ the OP ^^ Diablo 2 was insanely easy until Hell, then you couldn't get hit twice or you were dead. D2 was kind of silly in how it was constructed to be honest. It went from easy to un-beatable in like 5 minutes.
On May 06 2012 15:46 ChosenSC2 wrote: lol @ the OP ^^ Diablo 2 was insanely easy until Hell, then you couldn't get hit twice or you were dead. D2 was kind of silly in how it was constructed to be honest. It went from easy to un-beatable in like 5 minutes.
Play D2 again. Don't let yourself be rushed, don't mule items, don't skip quests or entire acts. Don't brute-force level up with Tristruns, Tombruns, Baalruns and Cowruns. Don't trade a lot, and be content with what little drops or crafting results you get. Don't choose the easiest cookie-cutter build for your character.
If you play like that, without all the artificial crutches the (efficient) community has come up with over the years, you'll find the game to be still challenging, even on Normal difficulty.
On May 06 2012 15:46 ChosenSC2 wrote: lol @ the OP ^^ Diablo 2 was insanely easy until Hell, then you couldn't get hit twice or you were dead. D2 was kind of silly in how it was constructed to be honest. It went from easy to un-beatable in like 5 minutes.
Play D2 again. Don't let yourself be rushed, don't mule items, don't skip quests or entire acts. Don't brute-force level up with Tristruns, Tombruns, Baalruns and Cowruns. Don't trade a lot, and be content with what little drops or crafting results you get. Don't choose the easiest cookie-cutter build for your character.
If you play like that, without all the artificial crutches the (efficient) community has come up with over the years, you'll find the game to be still challenging, even on Normal difficulty.
This is a valid point but to be fair I never played the game like you described. I only played D2 LAN with my real life friends / roommates. We would do all the things people do online though and we were all very knowledgeable. We played Hammerdin (me), Assassin, Hammerdin and we raped the game, Hell was kind of tough but not really. And we weren't even using the community / online trading.
I think that overall while the game may be harder in D3 (harder monsters at nightmare++, etc), it will be much less taxing for players to beat it because of the fact that you don't get confined to a skill build like in D2. So this allows you multiple attempts to try to get through it with different builds. Also you don't have to aim for specific items (which we all know how difficult they are to get in D2), rather you can tune your build to your items.
Also, the fact that there are more ways to get good items not just from boss runs but through beating rare and champion monsters makes the games somewhat less dry than D2 where after awhile it got boring going through multiple Mephisto, Diablo, Pindel, Shenk and Baal run.
On May 06 2012 15:46 ChosenSC2 wrote: lol @ the OP ^^ Diablo 2 was insanely easy until Hell, then you couldn't get hit twice or you were dead. D2 was kind of silly in how it was constructed to be honest. It went from easy to un-beatable in like 5 minutes.
Play D2 again. Don't let yourself be rushed, don't mule items, don't skip quests or entire acts. Don't brute-force level up with Tristruns, Tombruns, Baalruns and Cowruns. Don't trade a lot, and be content with what little drops or crafting results you get. Don't choose the easiest cookie-cutter build for your character.
If you play like that, without all the artificial crutches the (efficient) community has come up with over the years, you'll find the game to be still challenging, even on Normal difficulty.
This is a valid point but to be fair I never played the game like you described. I only played D2 LAN with my real life friends / roommates. We would do all the things people do online though and we were all very knowledgeable. We played Hammerdin (me), Assassin, Hammerdin and we raped the game, Hell was kind of tough but not really. And we weren't even using the community / online trading.
Well, using 2 Hammerdins does make the game a lot easier. Best part about Save for the Monster under Ruined Temple that may resist them, nothing else in the game does. And since Immunity is such a dick thing in D2, Hammerdin got his name for fully pumping only 1 skill and being able to use it on everything (which is more than about every1 else can say).
Imo, if you are playing w friends on LAN, untwinked relatively weak builds like Avengers, Fire Druid, etc are much more exciting
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.
On May 06 2012 15:46 ChosenSC2 wrote: lol @ the OP ^^ Diablo 2 was insanely easy until Hell, then you couldn't get hit twice or you were dead. D2 was kind of silly in how it was constructed to be honest. It went from easy to un-beatable in like 5 minutes.
Play D2 again. Don't let yourself be rushed, don't mule items, don't skip quests or entire acts. Don't brute-force level up with Tristruns, Tombruns, Baalruns and Cowruns. Don't trade a lot, and be content with what little drops or crafting results you get. Don't choose the easiest cookie-cutter build for your character.
If you play like that, without all the artificial crutches the (efficient) community has come up with over the years, you'll find the game to be still challenging, even on Normal difficulty.
I remember the first time I played DII was when I was ~7. It was on a 100mhz computer(like barely ran diablo took 10 secs for a waypoint, 20-25 between acts.) Played a barbarian, had literally ZERO clue about the mechanics of damage. Didn't make it past act 3 of nightmare in about 3 months of playing, and only level 50 or 60ish. Skills all over the place didn't know how to use hotkeys, more stat points in strength than vitality, points in energy(on a barbarian no less). Did cow level runs with a crossbow because cows killed me too fast(true story). Made it there using a The Chieftain that I found in act 2 normal and vast majority blues, dying upwards of a dozen times on most bosses, and probably more than that on the way to them.
Fast forward to today, where waiting for release I made a paladin and blazed through normal and nightmare in 3 days of on and off playing, doing a few farm runs of various bosses/cow level to collect gear/runes. Yet looking back I'm more proud of my 7 year old run than my current 19 year old absolutely smashing the same content. I still suck at the game. My paladin has trouble in act 1 hell, although that's somewhat to be expected, I have trash armor and weapons
I think what I like most about D3 is that there's going to be a vast majority of builds that can actually run content probably all the way up to and including hell, and maybe even inferno with optimal gear for suboptimal build, and while suboptimal builds are possible, the game tries to guide you towards stuff that works. My 7 year old self wouldn't ever have been able to finish hell or possibly even nightmare on that barbarian even given more time.
As for blazing through content, I have figured out through 4 person open beta weekend runs that running with 4 is optimal because with a simple skype call "hey I got found a crossbow with 15.6 dps, what's your's", followed by a "12, drop it for me~" and suddenly you've got 4 people doing their absolute best to split drops and gear each other up.
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.
Oh man precise precision, the precisest of precisions. But honestly I don't quite get it either. D2 definitely didn't have any serious mechanical restrictions, even though you could often tell who the "better" player was. Point is there wasn't a very high skill or difficulty ceiling to begin with. I think a lot of the people who are complaining about this are from the WoW community, and never having played, I can't say where exactly they're getting these ideas about difficulty from.
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 I can say that the amount of games that are difficult are few and far between. The fact that Blizzard openly claims that it will be difficult, gives me reason to at least get excited about it. For your last statement, I doubt that 99% are going to get stuck. That is why they have normal all the way to inferno difficulty modes. Maybe the casual gamer will get stuck mid-way through nightmare or hell. That is where their experience ends.
Gamers are problem solvers at their finest. We are given tools and a problem. "Use these tools to accomplish your goal by any means". Gamers immediately go to work wether it's through trial and error or just good decision making. The casual gamer just kind of does whatever seems cool then gives up when presented with an obstacle.
I'm thinking that the difficulty will come from the more intelligent AI though. Maybe it will require an absurd amount of reaction and proper spell timings to properly handle the special mobs in the later stages while normal will be challenging for the casual gamer. They still experience all the content as far as story goes but if you want all the high end stuff, you are going to have to push your skill limit.
Lots of people (me, for example) are bored and looking for things to do while we wait for 5.15.
Can you tell us anything new-but-not-groundbreaking about d3?
Do you have any recommendations for passing the time? What have you been up to?
Do you have a favorite funny youtube video (even if its not d3 related)?
Thanks! -Ticklefight
Bored? In a world with WoW battlegrounds and the StarCraft II ladder up and running?
To pass the time, I'm watching lots and lots of World Championship Series matches online. Very much fun.
I love old videos that were funny once upon a time, like Ask A Ninja or Strongbad Emails.
Let's see... new-but-not-groundbreaking...
About five weeks ago, a co-worker of mine really hit a wall on the last boss in the game on Nightmare. And he's a fine gamer. Dude has plenty of talent. And he called me over and showed me his struggles, and I was stumped. I watched him playing very admirably, and going down, and I didn't know what to suggest. It was the first time that I really contemplated how complicated the build decisions can be for each hero. I was just merrily playing along on my heroes, making whatever build decisions seemed like the most effective, and not thinking ahead much. I started imagining scenarios that might come along and completely shut down whatever I was counting on (example: very close quarters when you're a Vault-centric demon hunter.) No big deal on normal. You die a couple of times, try a different build, and then work from there. But on Hardcore... you don't get to experiment. Once you engage that boss, it's win or lose. Big.
A third person came over and made some suggestions to the co-worker who was struggling, and made a positive difference. He defeated the boss, and was so happy that he forgot to pick up his loot before going on to Hell!
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.
The fascination with difficulty is in every gaming community, any experienced player will find most games to be trivial so you look for those gems that at least challenge you a bit. And at least in my experience when you get stuck you try to improve yourself so that you are no longer stuck and that is an enjoyable experience.
if you can catch his stream, here is an example of someone who does not know how to play D2
Act 4 Normal Chaos Sanctuary is hard as hell for him because he's playing incredibly bad (guessing no real prior experience with the game) and what looks to be single player mode
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.
Pro tip about D2 potions: You can shift click potions in your inventory and they automatically go to your belt
Yeah going to be hard, won't be able to beat the higher end content if you don't do it with a bunch of other people and they are all really geared and are stat'd correctly. But someone is going to be it fairly soon, Blizzard likes to think that they made really hard content but then it just gets cleared by the best of the best rather quickly i.e. late WoW stuff.
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?
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.
the fundamental problem with this poll is that difficulty is subjective. Do I think for the average person or for me? I guess you mean for the average person, so I guess I should put insane. But for me it should be hard. If I understand Blizzard correctly, anyone with an average IQ(100) will not be able to finish Inferno. If they do, then it's definitely easy.
Diablo 2 for people who done research isn't that hard to beat on Hell, but it is almost impossible to beat if you are shooting from the hip. I would like Diablo 3 to require more strategical thinking in game than before the game, and hope Inferno will live up to it. For me at least I don't finish a game until I finish it on the highest difficulty level.
after seeing the stat growth from Hell to Inferno, I'm expecting Inferno to be played like instances where specific sections of an Act will have groups doing loot runs repeatedly in each section then after a while, attempt to do the next section of an act to see if they've accumulated enough gear+skill to get through it then start doing loot runs of that section and rinse and repeat with the next section of an Act
im not sure if this has been asked (only briefly skimmed through this thread...), but is it possible to join a friend's game who is near the end of say, normal difficulty? even if you are level 1? once the party completes it, does that make you complete it as well? thus, allowing you to start nightmare? haha.
On April 24 2012 14:47 Trozz wrote: It should be easy. Just have an optimal build. Good luck finding it!
You didn't watch the video
I'll definitely get absorbed back into the Diablo universe and go through Inferno a few times. I spent sooo much time in D2. I doubt this'll be any different. Unless HotS steals me back lol.
On May 09 2012 08:45 Polar_Nada wrote: im not sure if this has been asked (only briefly skimmed through this thread...), but is it possible to join a friend's game who is near the end of say, normal difficulty? even if you are level 1? once the party completes it, does that make you complete it as well? thus, allowing you to start nightmare? haha.
Nah, there's minimum level per acts/bosses. Plus I reckon there's no town portal to speak of? Only waypoints and that "hearthstone" to get back to town.
Besides, Diablo has always been best when played alone
On May 09 2012 08:45 Polar_Nada wrote: im not sure if this has been asked (only briefly skimmed through this thread...), but is it possible to join a friend's game who is near the end of say, normal difficulty? even if you are level 1? once the party completes it, does that make you complete it as well? thus, allowing you to start nightmare? haha.
Not possible, you can only join games in quests you are engaged on, or have previously completed, and I think if a higher level character joins a game created by a level 1 player, on the first quest, waypoints are locked so level 1 player can't follow a high level character into a high level zone or boss.
On May 09 2012 08:45 Polar_Nada wrote: im not sure if this has been asked (only briefly skimmed through this thread...), but is it possible to join a friend's game who is near the end of say, normal difficulty? even if you are level 1? once the party completes it, does that make you complete it as well? thus, allowing you to start nightmare? haha.
Not possible, you can only join games in quests you are engaged on, or have previously completed, and I think if a higher level character joins a game created by a level 1 player, on the first quest, waypoints are locked so level 1 player can't follow a high level character into a high level zone or boss.
That is not true at all. A friend level 1 can join your game no matter where you are, he cannot join a Nightmare game before having unlocked it however.
That is not possible for public games though, only friend games.
For example in beta a level 1 could join you to fight the skeleton king, he gets shitty experience but he can join.
On May 09 2012 08:45 Polar_Nada wrote: im not sure if this has been asked (only briefly skimmed through this thread...), but is it possible to join a friend's game who is near the end of say, normal difficulty? even if you are level 1? once the party completes it, does that make you complete it as well? thus, allowing you to start nightmare? haha.
Not possible, you can only join games in quests you are engaged on, or have previously completed, and I think if a higher level character joins a game created by a level 1 player, on the first quest, waypoints are locked so level 1 player can't follow a high level character into a high level zone or boss.
That is not true at all. A friend level 1 can join your game no matter where you are, he cannot join a Nightmare game before having unlocked it however.
That is not possible for public games though, only friend games.
For example in beta a level 1 could join you to fight the skeleton king, he gets shitty experience but he can join.
so it is possible to join a friend's game right before they complete normal difficulty? thus allowing you to go into nightmare once completed normal?
EDIT: For the beta, i did in fact join a friends game when i was level 1, and they were almost at the skeleton king haha.
Is "rushing" a character possible? Or are there some kind of restrictions that keep a player from getting to Nightmare/hell/Inferno in a significantly shorter time period than usual. JayWilson: A higher level character can help you jump past content within a difficulty, but you get greatly diminished XP, so you really need to go through legitimately. We have hard level requirements for difficulty levels, though, so no shortcuts there.
On May 09 2012 08:45 Polar_Nada wrote: im not sure if this has been asked (only briefly skimmed through this thread...), but is it possible to join a friend's game who is near the end of say, normal difficulty? even if you are level 1? once the party completes it, does that make you complete it as well? thus, allowing you to start nightmare? haha.
Not possible, you can only join games in quests you are engaged on, or have previously completed, and I think if a higher level character joins a game created by a level 1 player, on the first quest, waypoints are locked so level 1 player can't follow a high level character into a high level zone or boss.
That is not true at all. A friend level 1 can join your game no matter where you are, he cannot join a Nightmare game before having unlocked it however.
That is not possible for public games though, only friend games.
For example in beta a level 1 could join you to fight the skeleton king, he gets shitty experience but he can join.
so it is possible to join a friend's game right before they complete normal difficulty? thus allowing you to go into nightmare once completed normal?
EDIT: For the beta, i did in fact join a friends game when i was level 1, and they were almost at the skeleton king haha.
Like skyr said. You can do it but there is a min level for difficulties so you will finish normal at level 2 but have to wait level 30 (or whatever) before going into nightmare
there was (somewhat) also a lvl req in d2, but you can get past it (called grushing) when you can rush a lvl 1 character to hell, but you needed someone who was lv 24 (to do ancients + baal (req 25, ancients gave +1lvl)) in your party in normal mode and a lv 39 (ancients + baal (req 40...same deal ancients give +1)). it was a pain sometimes, since a lot of the time you tried to trick some one out and use their quest (thus putting them in the next difficultly).
i would level up bumpers for fg for rushers too xD
kinda like taking that option away though, rather have it be more legit
On May 09 2012 08:45 Polar_Nada wrote: im not sure if this has been asked (only briefly skimmed through this thread...), but is it possible to join a friend's game who is near the end of say, normal difficulty? even if you are level 1? once the party completes it, does that make you complete it as well? thus, allowing you to start nightmare? haha.
Not possible, you can only join games in quests you are engaged on, or have previously completed, and I think if a higher level character joins a game created by a level 1 player, on the first quest, waypoints are locked so level 1 player can't follow a high level character into a high level zone or boss.
That is not true at all. A friend level 1 can join your game no matter where you are, he cannot join a Nightmare game before having unlocked it however.
That is not possible for public games though, only friend games.
For example in beta a level 1 could join you to fight the skeleton king, he gets shitty experience but he can join.
so it is possible to join a friend's game right before they complete normal difficulty? thus allowing you to go into nightmare once completed normal?
EDIT: For the beta, i did in fact join a friends game when i was level 1, and they were almost at the skeleton king haha.
Like skyr said. You can do it but there is a min level for difficulties so you will finish normal at level 2 but have to wait level 30 (or whatever) before going into nightmare
That is fucking bullshit because if I can beat the encounter I shouldn't be limited by some ridiculous level gap. Blizzard are really fucking retarded some times.
On May 09 2012 08:45 Polar_Nada wrote: im not sure if this has been asked (only briefly skimmed through this thread...), but is it possible to join a friend's game who is near the end of say, normal difficulty? even if you are level 1? once the party completes it, does that make you complete it as well? thus, allowing you to start nightmare? haha.
Not possible, you can only join games in quests you are engaged on, or have previously completed, and I think if a higher level character joins a game created by a level 1 player, on the first quest, waypoints are locked so level 1 player can't follow a high level character into a high level zone or boss.
That is not true at all. A friend level 1 can join your game no matter where you are, he cannot join a Nightmare game before having unlocked it however.
That is not possible for public games though, only friend games.
For example in beta a level 1 could join you to fight the skeleton king, he gets shitty experience but he can join.
so it is possible to join a friend's game right before they complete normal difficulty? thus allowing you to go into nightmare once completed normal?
EDIT: For the beta, i did in fact join a friends game when i was level 1, and they were almost at the skeleton king haha.
Like skyr said. You can do it but there is a min level for difficulties so you will finish normal at level 2 but have to wait level 30 (or whatever) before going into nightmare
That is fucking bullshit because if I can beat the encounter I shouldn't be limited by some ridiculous level gap. Blizzard are really fucking retarded some times.
yeah you being carried by your friend = you being able to beat encounter. Not sure where you got that from... people are really fucking retarded some times.
When they said there are level caps it doesn't mean they are high it just means you cannot go in nightmare at level 2 after having been rushed by a 60. Who cares ? Just play legit and I'm pretty sure you will not get blocked.
On May 09 2012 08:45 Polar_Nada wrote: im not sure if this has been asked (only briefly skimmed through this thread...), but is it possible to join a friend's game who is near the end of say, normal difficulty? even if you are level 1? once the party completes it, does that make you complete it as well? thus, allowing you to start nightmare? haha.
Not possible, you can only join games in quests you are engaged on, or have previously completed, and I think if a higher level character joins a game created by a level 1 player, on the first quest, waypoints are locked so level 1 player can't follow a high level character into a high level zone or boss.
That is not true at all. A friend level 1 can join your game no matter where you are, he cannot join a Nightmare game before having unlocked it however.
That is not possible for public games though, only friend games.
For example in beta a level 1 could join you to fight the skeleton king, he gets shitty experience but he can join.
so it is possible to join a friend's game right before they complete normal difficulty? thus allowing you to go into nightmare once completed normal?
EDIT: For the beta, i did in fact join a friends game when i was level 1, and they were almost at the skeleton king haha.
Like skyr said. You can do it but there is a min level for difficulties so you will finish normal at level 2 but have to wait level 30 (or whatever) before going into nightmare
That is fucking bullshit because if I can beat the encounter I shouldn't be limited by some ridiculous level gap. Blizzard are really fucking retarded some times.
yeah you being carried by your friend = you being able to beat encounter. Not sure where you got that from... people are really fucking retarded some times.
When they said there are level caps it doesn't mean they are high it just means you cannot go in nightmare at level 2 after having been rushed by a 60. Who cares ? Just play legit and I'm pretty sure you will not get blocked.
No, that's not my point. I was talking about the level gap, not about getting boosted. Me and my friends will rush the content, skipping as much as we can. Why should we have to stop progressing because of these retarded level gaps?
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.
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.
On May 09 2012 08:45 Polar_Nada wrote: im not sure if this has been asked (only briefly skimmed through this thread...), but is it possible to join a friend's game who is near the end of say, normal difficulty? even if you are level 1? once the party completes it, does that make you complete it as well? thus, allowing you to start nightmare? haha.
Not possible, you can only join games in quests you are engaged on, or have previously completed, and I think if a higher level character joins a game created by a level 1 player, on the first quest, waypoints are locked so level 1 player can't follow a high level character into a high level zone or boss.
That is not true at all. A friend level 1 can join your game no matter where you are, he cannot join a Nightmare game before having unlocked it however.
That is not possible for public games though, only friend games.
For example in beta a level 1 could join you to fight the skeleton king, he gets shitty experience but he can join.
so it is possible to join a friend's game right before they complete normal difficulty? thus allowing you to go into nightmare once completed normal?
EDIT: For the beta, i did in fact join a friends game when i was level 1, and they were almost at the skeleton king haha.
Like skyr said. You can do it but there is a min level for difficulties so you will finish normal at level 2 but have to wait level 30 (or whatever) before going into nightmare
That is fucking bullshit because if I can beat the encounter I shouldn't be limited by some ridiculous level gap. Blizzard are really fucking retarded some times.
yeah you being carried by your friend = you being able to beat encounter. Not sure where you got that from... people are really fucking retarded some times.
When they said there are level caps it doesn't mean they are high it just means you cannot go in nightmare at level 2 after having been rushed by a 60. Who cares ? Just play legit and I'm pretty sure you will not get blocked.
No, that's not my point. I was talking about the level gap, not about getting boosted. Me and my friends will rush the content, skipping as much as we can. Why should we have to stop progressing because of these retarded level gaps?
It sounds to me like the minimum level will only be a problem if your XP is lowered through being rushed by a higher level character. If you're all the same level going through as fast as possible I'd hope they designed the game well enough for you to be past the minimum.
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.
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.
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.
As a wow guild leader who raided during the Naxx 40 times, and was near/at the top of his server during WotLK, I could tell you that the challenge in D3 is different than wow, because in WoW the challenge is in getting 25 people to act cohesively, where in D3 you just need to worry about you. I could tell you that D3 is allowed to be more individually challenging than a WoW boss fight - because again, only one person needs to perform so higher failure rates are allowable.
I could tell you that I find D3 challenging, and that the barbarians who spent something around 12 hours fighting Diablo on Inferno difficulty to be the first barb to do so probably didn't think the boss fights were laughable.
I could tell you that if you find D3 so easily conquerable - go play hardcore. GL in inferno there. I've only seen one person in inferno there, and he died.
But honestly, the level of "discussion" occurring in this thread is so poor, and the arguments being given are so misdirected, that I have a hard time believing anyone actually believes anything they are typing.
Don't think I actually flat out said 4 days was impossible, just that arguing about it in advance was kind of stupid. Then again, you guys called the 4 days quite nicely.
Without the (and you can argue about this) exploits being used like Serenity cycling and so on, I don't think they would have cleared it in 4 days. In that regard I stand with Bashiok.
My journey from normal to hell over the weekend as a Demon Hunter. This was my first ever diablo game I've touched.
Normal: Pretty easy, my total deaths were no more than 5 from my recollection. Got killed by Belial twice, Diablo once and Rakanoth twice. All equipment were from drops (didn't even bother checking AH). I was level 30 when I killed Diablo.
Challenge level: 3/10
Nightmare: Up until Belial, it was a complete breeze, then I hit a brick wall trying to dodge his attacks in his last phase, going against 500ms ping, took me about 7-10 tries before I managed to kill him.
Rakanoth was pretty frustrating, again, on 500ms ping trying to dodge his blink-1-hit-kill move with smokescreen/vault proved to be harder than expected, until I found the stun grenade lock method.
Other mini-bosses and elites weren't all that difficult, occasionally I'd die because of lag or just not careful enough, some elites I had trouble because they ended up at the checkpoint because they weren't far from the zone entrance anyway. Nightmare Diablo wasn't difficult IMO, upgraded my Bow for 20k on the AH to speed the killing a bit, took about 3 tries.
Challenge level: 6.5/10
Hell:
Only just started Act 2, now elites in particular start to get hairy. Jailer + Mortar + Fast elites became my worst nightmare, requiring you to efficiently make use of discipline, timings and the space around you. There are times where I'ved kited back literally 3 screens away from where I started shooting.
Challenge level: around 7.5-8/10
Overall, because the punishment from dying in softcore is next to none, the game instantly doesn't really become difficult. To me, the game frustrates you more than challenges you. It'll be a breeze in most parts then you'd be like, "shit, this boss is pretty strong!" because everything starts to 1-shot you.
Funny how people mention Rakanoth, I had to search for him to find out which boss this was. I never noticed him at all (didn't inferno him yet obv). Maybe just cos i'm melee. I had the same problem with Izual though, everything was very smooth, even elites, then suddenly this guy stuns and 2shots me. What? The difficulty ramp and variation could be a little better at times.
everything was very smooth, even elites, then suddenly this guy stuns and 2shots me
I had the same experience with wizard in nightmare, until that point i didnt even bother looking for vitality on gear, just picked up a bit where i could, but he was stunning me and killing me from full health with armor spell up before the stun ended so i couldnt teleport or diamond skin lol
Easy up to Inferno. You don't need anything except your own drops. The right builds are available everywhere on websites and information can be gathered if you spend the effort. But in most cases, everything is just handed to you so the casual player will have fun.
Inferno. Hard due to damage/gear check/spikes/lag etc. Then it becomes easy with the auction house. The AH makes it so much easier since you can buy the right gear at the right price. Some of the boss fights are hard without the "ideal" gear blizzard imagined. However, for every gear check boss, there are some methods (see builds) that allow you to more or less either cheese your way through, or make much easier with a few key purchases (AH again).
HC:
Much harder since you dont get a second chance. But this isn't even supposed to be balanced or anything so kudos to all the brave ones who've tried it. You will need perfect gear to beat this considering how there are so many non-gear related factors that could kill you.
In short, Diablo 3 is a game that feels hard, seems hard when you reach Inferno. But it only gets easier since gear only makes you more powerful. It will never be as hard as it was yesterday.
On June 13 2012 19:37 aseq wrote: Funny how people mention Rakanoth, I had to search for him to find out which boss this was. I never noticed him at all (didn't inferno him yet obv). Maybe just cos i'm melee. I had the same problem with Izual though, everything was very smooth, even elites, then suddenly this guy stuns and 2shots me. What? The difficulty ramp and variation could be a little better at times.
Rakanoth only starts turning into hell on wheels in... hell mode. In normal and nightmare, his damage isn't that drastic against you. =P
Inferno is stupidly hard for some classes (monk/barb) and can only be countered by a certain gear level
Inferno is stupidly easy for some classes (DH) especially as gear quality increases and softcore deaths not meaning much
Inferno is actually challenging for some classes (WD) because of pets sucking and having to manage CDs and mana because mana is the worse skill resource out of all classes
no idea about Wizards. They're some where in between WD and DH.
EPT
/Can't wait for PvP/
![[image loading]](http://dl.dropbox.com/u/34863088/records%201.JPG)
![[image loading]](http://dl.dropbox.com/u/34863088/records2.JPG)
![[image loading]](http://dl.dropbox.com/u/34863088/records3.JPG)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/OLSNm.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://media.diablofans.com/images/news/2012/may/guide/IMG_0101.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://media.diablofans.com/images/news/2012/may/guide/IMG_0102.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://media.diablofans.com/images/news/2012/may/guide/IMG_0103.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://media.diablofans.com/images/news/2012/may/guide/IMG_0104.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://media.diablofans.com/images/news/2012/may/guide/IMG_0110.jpg)
