EPT8 player diablo 2 is totally sloppy. I'm playing HU and even with epic boss fights where u need that many, u can't tell wtf is going on really and its just a button mashing fest. And fighting trash with 8 ppl is totally unfair.
Diablo III General Discussion - Page 25
| Forum Index > General Games |
|
ToxNub
Canada805 Posts
8 player diablo 2 is totally sloppy. I'm playing HU and even with epic boss fights where u need that many, u can't tell wtf is going on really and its just a button mashing fest. And fighting trash with 8 ppl is totally unfair. | ||
|
CooDu
Australia899 Posts
One thing's for sure, I have low expectations when games are released, so I know I'll love it  | ||
|
DannyJ
United States5110 Posts
On January 15 2011 15:01 Leviwtf wrote: 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. Man that video really has me questioning if all my good memories of Diablo 2 are genuine or just distorted nostalgia of perhaps a massively crappy game. I never want to find out... | ||
|
darmousseh
United States3437 Posts
 I guess we will just make multiple games :p | ||
|
Sm3agol
United States2055 Posts
On January 25 2011 08:39 DannyJ wrote: Man that video really has me questioning if all my good memories of Diablo 2 are genuine or just distorted nostalgia of perhaps a massively crappy game. I never want to find out... Don't deceive yourself, D2 PvP was horrifically crappy. At best a mildly entertaining, brainless, click-fest that was popular only because nerds had to justify grinding thousands of hours for gear. | ||
|
mark05
Canada807 Posts
| ||
|
Tdelamay
Canada548 Posts
On January 25 2011 08:52 Sm3agol wrote: Don't deceive yourself, D2 PvP was horrifically crappy. At best a mildly entertaining, brainless, click-fest that was popular only because nerds had to justify grinding thousands of hours for gear. 'Brainless click-fest' could be said about almost any game. In any case, it's not brainless. Brainless means you have no human imput required during the battle - if you watch the video quoted, you can clearly see that the human has a lot of involvement in the fight. This makes your statement of a 'brainless' game, false. I didn't personally like Diablo pvp, but mostly because it relied too much on gear and some people became absolutely over-powered. Potions also made battles frustrating since people could pop a potion to regenerate to full in any situation. On January 25 2011 08:52 mark05 wrote: I probably won't buy the game if it stays 4 players only, my best memories of d2 were with huge groups doing quests together You should try playing Diablo again. The game is equally if not more enjoyable with four players or less than with 5 or more. When you have too many people, you just get carried and barely have to do anything. | ||
|
Sm3agol
United States2055 Posts
On January 25 2011 09:03 Tdelamay wrote: 'Brainless click-fest' could be said about almost any game. In any case, it's not brainless. Brainless means you have no human imput required during the battle - if you watch the video quoted, you can clearly see that the human has a lot of involvement in the fight. This makes your statement of a 'brainless' game, false. So, by your definition, bejeweled isn't brainless. Not that I disagree with the fact that its about as skilled as bejeweled, but I hardly think that's the point you want to make. | ||
|
Deadlyhazard
United States1177 Posts
On January 25 2011 08:52 Sm3agol wrote: Don't deceive yourself, D2 PvP was horrifically crappy. At best a mildly entertaining, brainless, click-fest that was popular only because nerds had to justify grinding thousands of hours for gear. Yep. I went back and tried to play it again and it was terrible. I must have had loooow standards back then :O | ||
|
Enderbantoo
United States465 Posts
| ||
|
Leviwtf
174 Posts
On January 25 2011 08:52 Sm3agol wrote: Don't deceive yourself, D2 PvP was horrifically crappy. At best a mildly entertaining, brainless, click-fest that was popular only because nerds had to justify grinding thousands of hours for gear. It depends, I would say most people had a completely different pvp experience than me since I played in an organized 1v1 and 3v3 pvp league where we actually had rules to make things more balanced. Items obviously did determine alot since there was a huge difference in them, but with the people I played we all had the best gear so it was balanced. I later played on a private server which also had a similar setup. Also some classes like sorcs, your gear didn't really matter at all since it was pretty much 100% based on skill and somewhat your internet connection. And I couldn't find any decent videos of d2 pvp that was pre 1.10, those were the only videos I found period. Those videos are akin to D+/C- in BW for a skill level comparison that makes sense. | ||
|
Goldfish
2230 Posts
On January 25 2011 08:52 mark05 wrote: I probably won't buy the game if it stays 4 players only, my best memories of d2 were with huge groups doing quests together I agree. Also for those of you who say 4 players or less is more fun in general, I don't doubt that at all but I'd still like at least an option for more than 4 players. Again I'd prefer it if Blizzard still left in the option (like how Valve in TF2 - 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.) There were plenty of moments in D2 where having more players was definitely a lot more fun than 4 players. Yeah it was cluttery sometime but it was still fun. Also as for the feeling of not being important in the party, they could scale the difficulty some more for more players. They could make it so when you have 6 players (for example) in game, you need that many to beat the game. I can understand 8 being a bit high with how "flashier" the spells are in D3 but at the same time I feel 4 is too low. Also here's an 8 player naked hardcore Pandemonium Event run for example. battle.net topic You can do something like that with 4 players too but what if you wanted to have one of each class for a run? (Okay the run above lacked an amazon >.> but it only lacked an amazon out of 7 classes). Finally one more thing - 8 players but split into groups of 2(for example). In the early days of D2, finding an 8 player game was easy; in those 8 player games there were times when people split into groups of 2 (4 per group) to do quests and stuff. Like gathering the items in Act 2 or Act 3 for example. The difference between the above and the cap being a straight 4 players is that in the above situation allows more players (thus more friends) and it feels more "lively". RL analogy - You can have a fun party at a house with 4 people and I don't doubt that some people may prefer parties with only 4 people but there are others who prefer bigger parties. Same with D2 and probably D3. tl;dr - Blizzard should simply allow just make 4 players the default (with an option of at least 6 max) rather than force 4 players games on everyone. | ||
|
Shockk
Germany2269 Posts
I was a huge Diablo 2 fan, I spent so many hours playing that game, tuning characters and collecting uniques and playing in parties with friends. It was awesome. But D3? Possible cross-platform release and the limit to four players are huge cons, but there's also the "new" Blizzard and all the fun stuff they did with SC2. I fear what they'll do with the Diablo franchise ("Sign up now for Facebook and receive the Epic Armor of Doom!") and what their B.Net 2.0 will do to the game. | ||
|
Panisonic
Canada1 Post
On January 15 2011 15:01 Leviwtf wrote: 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 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nQZDgOY1vro 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) Here's some random 1.10+ videos I found, pretty much everyone of them I think is a lot more advanced compared to 1.09 PvP. http://www.youtube.com/user/Michael91590#p/a/u/1/fsYn_jrJsHE http://www.youtube.com/user/zxjekelxz#p/a/u/2/OE1Ik7KDpOw http://www.youtube.com/user/JsV1x#p/u/39/XCHU8cUmG00 http://www.youtube.com/user/Remedii#p/u/12/-ItzDr-U5IQ My big problem with D3 is how they're going to get information about PvP. The general public still seems to think hammerdins are overpowered for dueling. I just find it hard to imagine them making a nice transition from d2 to d3 pvp if they're using the general public for information. It's kind of like bronze players giving their opinion on SC2 balance, but blizzard actually considering it. | ||
|
Banksy
United States39 Posts
| ||
|
Pokemonxoxo
United States217 Posts
| ||
|
Turgid
United States1623 Posts
On February 20 2011 14:29 Banksy wrote: I never played the original Diablos, what is the gameplay like? I know it's an RPG not an RTS so what do you actually DO in-game? You click. You have an aerial view of your character. You click on places on the screen to move. You have potions(bound to 1, 2, 3 and 4) for health and mana, and left click and right click can also be bound to cast spells or do attacks, such as a normal sword/mace swing or bow shot. The goal is to kill monsters and gather items to: 1. complete pre-determined quests; completing all the quests unlocks the next difficulty mode, of which there are 3 2. gather gear to improve your character. 3. level up your character. | ||
|
Banksy
United States39 Posts
On February 20 2011 14:39 Turgid wrote: You click. You have an aerial view of your character. You click on places on the screen to move. You have potions(bound to 1, 2, 3 and 4) for health and mana, and left click and right click can also be bound to cast spells or do attacks, such as a normal sword/mace swing or bow shot. The goal is to kill monsters and gather items to: 1. complete pre-determined quests; completing all the quests unlocks the next difficulty mode, of which there are 3 2. gather gear to improve your character. 3. level up your character. Isn't there a multiplayer mode? What is that like? | ||
|
KrauserII
United States51 Posts
| ||
|
Turgid
United States1623 Posts
| ||
| ||
