On January 13 2011 00:44 Teejing wrote: diablo 1 on console was nice, wont be too bad guys ^^
Most PC ports to console are nice, because you take a great game from PC and make it work for a console. What is happening now is they are looking at designing the game with launching D3 on both at the same time (presumably). That means they are designing with both in mind at the same time, so some things that seem easy to design for a PC might be a nightmare for consoles at the same time, and instead of taking the time to make it work (where if you had a PC port -> console port after the game is out, you just have to make it work), they may just discard some ideas to avoid that type of trouble.
Teleport is a perfect example, because its hard to control that on a console whereas on a PC it is very basic.
This quote was from the article.
"Please note that this is not an announcement of a console title. We are first and foremost developing Diablo III for Windows and Mac PCs and don't intend to allow any possibility of a console interpretation to delay or affect the release of the game."
I don't think they are going to delay release, or change any features to make it fit to a console. IMO, anything on the console would be it's own thing, but under the same name. Kind of like Call of Duty for the Gameboy, or something silly like that. I doubt they would try to replicate the full game into a console.
On November 16 2010 14:33 dacthehork wrote: That's horrible news to be honest
If they port to console it means they will make design decisions now that will make the PC version have neutered controls / interface etc. I really hope they keep it PC only, just so content like expansions/release is faster and more focused on then console type stuff.
Red Alert 3 is also on console and I don't think the control for the PC version was "neutered".
torchlight is coming to xbla. i read that the controls were changed so that you 'drive' your character with the left stick, instead of clicking like in the pc version. skills are mapped to the buttons with an ability wheel. i think this would work with D3.
that said who cares? we are all obviously pc gamers here and most likely wouldnt be caught dead playing it on a console.
On January 12 2011 22:45 Xedat wrote: There was this "leaked" Blizzard release chart, but it is not sure if it was faked, saying that D3 would be released end of 2011. I really hope that this is true and it seems reasonable to me.
Two websites with the leaked chart, as I said it is probably a fake, but you get a general idea.
Its fake or a very old one. The first sc2 expansion is first comming in early 2012 they have already said in interviews. Also D3 still dosent seem to be close to beta so 2011 in unlikely.
Not close to beta? They already handed out keys at blizzcon. I doubt it will be more than 6 months max before beta begins and I don't expect the beta for D3 to be near as long as SC2s. I would be surprised if the game wasn't out this year.
On November 09 2010 11:30 DTK-m2 wrote: I watched some more of these PvP arena videos. Is anyone else disappointed by how slow the game looks?
Seriously, will we have no more of this? 200 fcr, man!
pvp in d2 was hilariously bad. No balance whatsoever. Charms ruined it. The skills made it unbalanced. The pace? its terrible. Tons of luck and now we have d3. which is much less of a screen fuck fest and people aren't teleporting everywheres and laying down spells that do more damage then a melee hit could ever do.
Heh, gonna disagree with most of what you said. Yeah, PK in d2 isn't as fun as it used to be but it's still an amusing past time -- balance is pretty controversial but it really isn't as imba as you seem to make it out to be. Adequately geared characters have, quite frankly, pretty even chances at killing one another. Even take an extreme example of a hdin and a smiter -- a smiter should utilize the 'sweet spots' where he could safely tele and smite. Hammers are predictable and can be dodged with charge. Re pace, fair enough -- yes it's really fast but I guess that just caters to a different type of gamer.
And on your comment about spells being higher dmg than melee, totally untrue! In fact, it's the vice versa A chargerdin can hit upwards of upto 50k after Deadly Strike, and even a Melee sorceress (yes, a sorc with a fucking sword) can hit up to 100 lol. But yeah, they come with their disadvantages -- typically being nukers they're fragile and can be crippled with block.
Anyways I def see where youre coming from though. Anyone taking a small peek at d2 PK will say 'ugh, disgusting shit' and to an extent I won't disagree -- there's still retarded shit like desynch but play a little longer and you'll realise that it's insanely fun. See past the annoying stuff and enjoy 4v4 party PK's and clan shitstorms.
On January 13 2011 07:17 Vaporized wrote: that said who cares? we are all obviously pc gamers here and most likely wouldnt be caught dead playing it on a console.
Yeah, but we don't want to play a console game on the PC either...
Let's hope Blizz is honest about it being not the case with Diablo3.
On January 13 2011 07:17 Vaporized wrote: torchlight is coming to xbla. i read that the controls were changed so that you 'drive' your character with the left stick, instead of clicking like in the pc version. skills are mapped to the buttons with an ability wheel. i think this would work with D3.
that said who cares? we are all obviously pc gamers here and most likely wouldnt be caught dead playing it on a console.
Exactly... This control scheme sounds pretty bad. Especially if you have 10+ skills.
On January 13 2011 07:17 Vaporized wrote: torchlight is coming to xbla. i read that the controls were changed so that you 'drive' your character with the left stick, instead of clicking like in the pc version. skills are mapped to the buttons with an ability wheel. i think this would work with D3.
that said who cares? we are all obviously pc gamers here and most likely wouldnt be caught dead playing it on a console.
Exactly... This control scheme sounds pretty bad. Especially if you have 10+ skills.
I think I remember hearing that you can only put points into 7 active skills on one character. That can be done on consoles by simply mapping them to buttons and have a second set you can toggle to with a trigger.
pvp in d2 was hilariously bad. No balance whatsoever. Charms ruined it. The skills made it unbalanced. The pace? its terrible. Tons of luck and now we have d3. which is much less of a screen fuck fest and people aren't teleporting everywheres and laying down spells that do more damage then a melee hit could ever do.
Patch 1.10 absolutely destroyed D2 PvP by giving class specific skills to all the classes. Every class can teleport now? What a terrible idea. However, 1.09 D2 pvp was a completely different game and was amazing in terms of balance, excitement, and pace, and each 1v1 matchup was unique, although team games of 3v3 were probably the best.
Here is an example of a 1.09 Sorceress vs Amazon duel
Similar to SC, there is much more depth than appears. I'll try to explain as if you don't know anything about d2 pvp. Where the amazon clicks on the screen is crucial because what they are shooting are guided arrows which track the sorceress (sorc) BUT the arrow will first go to where you click on the screen and THEN track any target within a 10 foot or 1/2 a screen area. So if you click close to your character and then the arrow will instantly start seeking but only in a short range, so if the sorc is off your screen you will hit, similarly if you click on the edge of your screen you can hit the sorc even when they are off your screen but if they teleport really close to you they won't get hit since the arrow will first go to where you clicked, which is the outside of the screen.
Also, the amazon switches between the bow and the shield/javelin because when the jav/shield is out the amazon runs faster (great for dodging the frozen orb which the sorc casts), but obviously can't shoot in jav/shield mode. So its pretty fast paced to play and you need a good timing because if you hit your weapon switch button twice or don't hit it and the sorc teleports near you then you can't shoot back.
At the higher levels Sorc vs Zon became all about predicting as the arrows are usually to slow to hit a sorc so you'd have to aim ahead of them and predict where they were going to go. Similarly, the sorc wanted to slowly get closer and closer making smaller alternating circles to force the zon to move. Since if the zon is moving they are not shooting, eventually the sorc would aim to keep the zon moving eventually trapping them with frozen orbs by putting an orb ahead of where they are running. It was a pretty volatile matchup as if the zon hits the sorc, he will leech life back and the if the sorc hit the amazon you would often times stun them and be able to follow up with another close orb.
The RPG aspect was brought in that there were many different zon and sorc builds. A zon could be a dexazon (high damage, low life) or a vitazon (high life, low damage), both requiring different playstyles as dexazons hit hard and leeched alot of life but could die with a few orbs hitting them. Vitazons wouldn't get stunned (since to get stunned the damage of each shard had to be 1/12 of your max life).
On the other hand the sorc could be a block sorc (block 75% of the arrows) but would be momentarily stunned, but each hit would take around 20% of your life. A dmg reduction sorc(75% less damage taken, but 0% blocking). So you could take alot more hits but nothing would be blocked and as an advantage you wouldn't ever be slowed down by having to do the block animation. There were multiple skill builds as you'll see in the 3v3 vids a little down there is a fire sorc whereas in the 1v1 video it is a frozen orb/thunderstorm sorc.
Additionally you could swap your charms(items u keep in your inventory that give you +stats) to decide if you wanted more damage, more life or more mana.
Here are some 3v3 1.09 D2 games:
There are about a dozen other nuances of that specific 1v1 matchup I could write but I'm starting to ramble so I'll start wrapping up. Could probably write a hundred pages on 3v3 strategies, character builds, and combinations. There were 7 classes, so many other matchups as well.
My final take on D2 pvp (1.09 ofc) is that it was amazing, far superior to WoW PvP or anyother rpg pvp game I have played. However, it was a complete mistake on the part of Blizzard, it was amazing not because of a great design, but in a very SC1 esque move it just all worked out and was overall amazing balanced and in depth. The fact that Blizzard came out with 1.10 completely boggled my mind and I don't know if it shows they have no idea what they are doing or if it was a marketing move or what.
I watched a few of the D3 vids and the arena looked flawed in having health orbs spawn in the fighting area. Obviously whichever team knows the timing of the health orbs and can stun/prevent the other team from getting it will win. Which is completely stupid imo the whole battle coming down to whoever gets the health orbs. I don't think (and hope) they won't have the health orbs in the game. I have personally lost faith in Blizz after how they killed D2 and how many of the WoW expansions have played out (making the game easier, not rewarding skill, etc)
One of the arguments against "more than 4 players" is that with more players, each player will do less and some players could just afk and let the others do all the work.
I disagree with that and even in 4 players, it's probably possible to have one person solo the game (just like having one naked hardcore character solo Diablo 2 in hell difficulty).
Also take note in Diablo 2, monster stats were increased according to the amount of players in game.
Another argument against "more than 4 players" is that it will be "messier". that is true to "some extent" but at the same time, I argue it's more fun.
In Diablo 2, I've had great times with 8 player games. Sometimes even low level runs or sometimes with two parties splitting up in teams of 2 to search a dungeon. Another fun thing is trying to take on bosses while low level with 8 players. It's more fun to try to rush a strong boss (stats scaled) with 8 players than a weaker boss with 4 players IMO.
Sure you could do it with less but the more you can have (without the game being too "messy") the more fun. 8 players was not enough to be "messy" in D2.
Also cow runs were fun because they had 8 players. (Of course anti-fun Bashiok hates the fact that secret cow level (an easteregg) was more popular than the main game itself. Now that may sound fine on paper but is cow runs less fun than the massive baal runs?)
Finally - In TF2 there's a warning when you join a server with more than 24 players that "the game is balanced with 24 players in mind, not 32", however that doesn't "prevent" the player from playing 32 player servers.
I say Blizzard does the same with D3. Just make it so 4 player is the default but 8 player (or even just 6 player at least) is still an option for games (the monster's stats should be scaled depending on the amount of players like in D2 of course).
I'd actually post this on the battle.net D3 forums if I had an account >.> but anyway what do you guys think on 4 player vs 8 players?
If there's a four player limit it'll probably be taken out as a feature in an expansion unless they feel that it's a really crucial element for the design of the game.
Im kinda neutral on the player limit thing, but I would like to point out that I think they stated one of their main reasons for lowering it was so they could add more teamwork to the game. With 8 players the game often becomes a bumrush and your screen is just filled with spamming of spells whereas with 4 I can see it being less cluttered and more focused on what your teammates and you are doing together. The main thing I think I may not like about the limit though is that if I have more than 3 friends I want to play with I can't do that.
On January 15 2011 15:01 Leviwtf wrote: 1.09 D2 pvp was a completely different game and was amazing in terms of balance, excitement, and pace, and each 1v1 matchup was unique, although team games of 3v3 were probably the best.
My final take on D2 pvp (1.09 ofc) is that it was amazing, far superior to WoW PvP or anyother rpg pvp game I have played. However, it was a complete mistake on the part of Blizzard, it was amazing not because of a great design, but in a very SC1 esque move it just all worked out and was overall amazing balanced and in depth. The fact that Blizzard came out with 1.10 completely boggled my mind and I don't know if it shows they have no idea what they are doing or if it was a marketing move or what.
I watched a few of the D3 vids and the arena looked flawed in having health orbs spawn in the fighting area. Obviously whichever team knows the timing of the health orbs and can stun/prevent the other team from getting it will win. Which is completely stupid imo the whole battle coming down to whoever gets the health orbs. I don't think (and hope) they won't have the health orbs in the game. I have personally lost faith in Blizz after how they killed D2 and how many of the WoW expansions have played out (making the game easier, not rewarding skill, etc)
I think your opinion of Diablo 2 PvP is way too high, still. Some matchups could maybe have good PvP, but overall you're still stuck with runes and charms to make for pretty significant gear advantages which is pretty lame.
Also, probably the main thing, is how much of the build were just rock-paper-scissors, and you can't even respec your character, so you're stuck always doing well vs certain builds, then terrible vs others. There's only a select bit of build matchups which are actually somewhat even.
While WoW PvP isn't great I'd still have say it's better than D2 PvP. The only good fantasy PvP games I've ever played with more than like 4 skills (removing DotA) have been Nox and Guild Wars. Can't say those are the only ones around though. I always stumble across Diablo 2 PvP fans and I simply don't understand them.
I agree about the orb thing in the arena. I I'd say it's pretty obvious to Blizzard that that's a problem, and that they will do stuff to fix it.
I'm incredibly disappointed with a four player limit.
1. I often got together with 6 IRL friends and played D2 on LAN, it was some of the most fun I've ever had playing games. What am I supposed to do now?
2. Great, if the game has been found to be unbalanced and chaotic at 8 players, then recommend we play at 4 players. Why take this entire option away from the player? Like in CS, playing iceworld with like 40 people is a complete disaster, but I'm not gonna lie I still loaded it up from time to time to blow off steam after a serious game.
I mean, what is it with these modern games feeling so insistent on telling the players what they should and shouldn't do? You know whose an expert on how they have fun in a game? THE GODDAMN PLAYERS THEMSELVES! Nobody is forcing you to let 19 spamming nubs into your game....just give us a freaking player limit slider when we make the game.
If they're so sure that 4 is the magic number then they can set that as the default with a little note. Its just ridiculous to take this capability completely away.
Party size of 4 is not a final decision. Personally I think it could work if there's varying sizes from like 4 to 8 (or more), depending on the area. That's how Guild Wars functioned, and I think it worked pretty well.
The only reason I would NOT want the limit set to 4 is because there will be 5 classes (so far) available for you to choose from. This means we wouldn't be able to have a party containing all different classes.
This WILL, however, make the players be more strategic in their party collaborations, making sure to have a tank, DPS, AOE, whatever else (secondary tank?). With 8 people, it was really fun to try to put together some insane 8 person party with every type of buff/aura, but when was that ever really necessary? I can't think of a single time (although now I'm playing HU lol)
EPT
A chargerdin can hit upwards of upto 50k after Deadly Strike, and even a Melee sorceress (yes, a sorc with a fucking sword) can hit up to 100 lol. But yeah, they come with their disadvantages -- typically being nukers they're fragile and can be crippled with block.
