PvP Blog is out - Page 7

On December 29 2012 04:44 XerrolAvengerII wrote:
Their logic is flawed as hell.

The more players you throw into action, the less impact class balance has on the game.
In 1v1s, the class balance factors will be huge and deciding.
In a theoretical 4v4 - 6v6, teamwork and composition makes a much larger impact and reduces the burden on balance.
In playing starcraft, we all know that the best.

On December 28 2012 07:06 Infernal_dream wrote:


No they dont. Did you ever pvp in d2? Shit was inbalanced as hell, and yet it still happened. They don't HAVE to do shit about the crybabies. Those will always exist, no matter what. There's no point in even trying to please them. You might as well please the rest of the playerbase by letting us whack the crap out of each other. Of course it's "mindless" it's fucking diablo. So is farming. I just want to go in 5v5 and spam buttons and die or get kills. Why is that so difficult to understand? It's ok if I go into mp10 and just spam buttons, but not against other players? What a backward ass thought process.

On December 29 2012 05:29 Markwerf wrote:
It's just a complete show of incompetence to state lack of balance as a reason to delay this. It's just an excuse for this not being a priority and them probably working on the expansion instead.

There are a lot of 'ugly' fixes already to balance spells between the different levels for example freezes and stuns are not as effective in higher difficulties. Why don't they simple apply these same principles to PvP.. Just create a unique class for players somewhat similar to elites (+ dmg vs elite affix working too) and give them more resistance to stuns, lower damage etc. You can easily modify spells or groups of spells to be better or worse then like making summons better vs this class or reduce ranged damage a bit whatever. Even the community can balance a bit themselves if blizzard doesn't have the time for it by not allowing some builds or forcing teams to have 1 of each character..

On December 28 2012 03:16 Kickboxer wrote:
In the list of top 10 most botched things of all time this game is somewhere between Napoleon's invasion of Russia and the Pepsi commercial that vaporized MJ's hair.

On December 28 2012 06:08 Logo wrote:


I don't....

They promised a game that would have PvP without a concern for balance, no ladder, and under the assumption that gear was likely to play a deciding factor in who wins or loses.

Why would this be desirable at all to you?

On December 29 2012 06:16 Bosu wrote:


Because diablo is about being overpowered as fuck and blowing shit up. I didn't expect I would be playing d3 competitively.

Diablo 3 sold millions of copies and many players played for hundreds of hours. Diablo 3 scored 88 on metacritics. (The Diablo got 94 (topping the original Starcraft, which scored 88), Diablo 2 got just 88 too, Lord of Destruction only 87.)

On December 29 2012 10:55 Thereisnosaurus wrote:


It was of course a comercial success. The fact that you used the commercial metascore rating for the game just shows you're not really up on how opinions run. Every commercial game metascore is vastly overadjusted, the best way of determining whether a game is actually good is if the user and reviewer reviews are on roughly the same level. A game where the user score is a little under the reviewer score is probably a touch overhyped. A game where the user score is a little better than the reviewer score is probably a niche jewel.

Diablo II's reviewer/user score was 88/87
Starcraft II's reviewer/user score was 91/81
Diablo III's reviewer/user score was 88/38

That puts it in the same league as ME3 (89/45) and CoDMW3 (78/28), both also commercial successes but massive critical failures. The fact that a game sold a lot of copies clearly no longer is indicative that it is a good game.

Success does not equal quality.