On May 14 2012 07:29 skyR wrote: That's pretty unreasonable since you wouldn't be able to progress without items or xp.
Well in D2, when there were more people in a game, you'd gain more XP. I was just saying that they should cap the bonus at whatever you'd get with 4 players. Turns out it doesn't work like that in D3 so never mind about that, I guess. Perhaps lower the XP to 0.9x for 5 players, 0.8x for 6 players and so on... That way it's not necessarily the most efficient, but it CAN still be done for fun.
On May 14 2012 07:30 R0YAL wrote: xp and drops don't scale with players in D3, the only thing that scales is monster hp & damage.
EDIT: Wait i'm not sure I fully understand what you are proposing.
I think you got it. I didn't know about that, though.
On May 14 2012 06:20 Djzapz wrote: 2 days before release right now I just learned that D3 is 4 players max... wow, that's quite a disappointment...
Why that? 4 players is the perfect size! In a larger grp you have to play with people you barely know or are just bad. And in a larger grp its way to hard to communicate strategies!
It's disappointing because you can't play with more than 3 friends at once.
agree that it's disappointing in that regard, but I think the 4 player limit will force greater teamwork due to smaller group size
Well here's a little piece of mind: let the player decide what's fun and what isn't, is that so crazy? And if the game is supposed to sweetspot at 4 players, then they should just give no further bonuses (items or xp) beyond that, and the default game size should be 4. I don't think it's unreasonable.
I have 6 close friends who are going to buy the game, and a bunch of friends-of-friends who are going to join the games that we'll be in, so naturally I'll have people telling me "hey your game's full come to this other game" and whatnot.
Oh well, too bad I guess.
Eh, not really. People absolutely will do things that make the game less fun for them and give it less staying power, sometimes it makes sense for the devs to restrict players from doing what they want to in order to make a game better. For example, have you considered zoom distance? People will typically zoom a top down game as far out as they're allowed to, even if it makes the experience worse.
Even with just a couple players I find the game gets hectic anyway. There's a lot more going on than there is in d2.
Your idea of fun certainly isn't the same as mine. If you dislike 8 player games, then cap it at 4 players.
Regardless of how you handle the loot or exp system, the developers would still have to waste time on balancing up to x players for the game to be fun / challenging. You're basically proposing the impossible for a PvE game.
Just a reminder, guys, be sure to turn on Elective mode!
What is Elective Mode?
TLDR: Just turn it on there's zero reason not to. Then remember you can now have whatever skill setup you want. I think it's under Options --> Gameplay --> Interface
It's probably the dumbest mistake Blizzard's ever done assuming it's still there on release, which afaik it is. And it's not intuitive at all nor is it explained except if you get it in a lucky Tip while loading.
Basically, each class in D3 has a maximum of 6 active skill slots available to them (along with 3 passives).
Each skill belongs to one of 6 categories for each class, like Primary, Secondary, Defensive, etc. The default UI (ELECTIVE OFF) only allows you to have one of each type of skill learned. So only 1 Primary, 1 Defensive, 1 Tactical, 1 Secondary, etc. But actually any char can have any skill setup they want. You can have 3 secondaries and 3 tacticals or whatever you want, but only if you have Elective Mode on. Also it unlocks your action bar, which by default prevented you from being able to change what Mouse 1 / 2 did, or hotkeys 1-4 did. Seriously dumb.
On May 14 2012 07:29 skyR wrote: That's pretty unreasonable since you wouldn't be able to progress without items or xp.
Well in D2, when there were more people in a game, you'd gain more XP. I was just saying that they should cap the bonus at whatever you'd get with 4 players. Turns out it doesn't work like that in D3 so never mind about that, I guess. Perhaps lower the XP to 0.9x for 5 players, 0.8x for 6 players and so on... That way it's not necessarily the most efficient, but it CAN still be done for fun.
On May 14 2012 07:30 R0YAL wrote: xp and drops don't scale with players in D3, the only thing that scales is monster hp & damage.
EDIT: Wait i'm not sure I fully understand what you are proposing.
I think you got it. I didn't know about that, though.
On May 14 2012 06:20 Djzapz wrote: 2 days before release right now I just learned that D3 is 4 players max... wow, that's quite a disappointment...
Why that? 4 players is the perfect size! In a larger grp you have to play with people you barely know or are just bad. And in a larger grp its way to hard to communicate strategies!
It's disappointing because you can't play with more than 3 friends at once.
agree that it's disappointing in that regard, but I think the 4 player limit will force greater teamwork due to smaller group size
Well here's a little piece of mind: let the player decide what's fun and what isn't, is that so crazy? And if the game is supposed to sweetspot at 4 players, then they should just give no further bonuses (items or xp) beyond that, and the default game size should be 4. I don't think it's unreasonable.
I have 6 close friends who are going to buy the game, and a bunch of friends-of-friends who are going to join the games that we'll be in, so naturally I'll have people telling me "hey your game's full come to this other game" and whatnot.
Oh well, too bad I guess.
Eh, not really. People absolutely will do things that make the game less fun for them and give it less staying power, sometimes it makes sense for the devs to restrict players from doing what they want to in order to make a game better. For example, have you considered zoom distance? People will typically zoom a top down game as far out as they're allowed to, even if it makes the experience worse.
Even with just a couple players I find the game gets hectic anyway. There's a lot more going on than there is in d2.
Your idea of fun certainly isn't the same as mine. If you dislike 8 player games, then cap it at 4 players.
Regardless of how you handle the loot or exp system, the developers would still have to waste time on balancing up to x players for the game to be fun / challenging. You're basically proposing the impossible for a PvE game.
Balance? Just in the last few pages we talked about how it's possible for randomly generated packs of mobs to turn out to be excessively difficult to handle for the players, this game only has to be marginally balanced.
And the idea that the devs would have to "waste time" to balance the game for 8 players is ridiculous. They would *spend* that time to make a better game that appeals to more people, and is more fun to more people. It's not like it would take forever either, even now when people join the game, mobs get a bit stronger - not hard to pull off. Increase the mobs stats and get a feel for it. This is very, very doable, especially for Blizzard.
On May 14 2012 07:29 skyR wrote: That's pretty unreasonable since you wouldn't be able to progress without items or xp.
Well in D2, when there were more people in a game, you'd gain more XP. I was just saying that they should cap the bonus at whatever you'd get with 4 players. Turns out it doesn't work like that in D3 so never mind about that, I guess. Perhaps lower the XP to 0.9x for 5 players, 0.8x for 6 players and so on... That way it's not necessarily the most efficient, but it CAN still be done for fun.
On May 14 2012 07:30 R0YAL wrote: xp and drops don't scale with players in D3, the only thing that scales is monster hp & damage.
EDIT: Wait i'm not sure I fully understand what you are proposing.
I think you got it. I didn't know about that, though.
On May 14 2012 06:20 Djzapz wrote: 2 days before release right now I just learned that D3 is 4 players max... wow, that's quite a disappointment...
Why that? 4 players is the perfect size! In a larger grp you have to play with people you barely know or are just bad. And in a larger grp its way to hard to communicate strategies!
It's disappointing because you can't play with more than 3 friends at once.
agree that it's disappointing in that regard, but I think the 4 player limit will force greater teamwork due to smaller group size
Well here's a little piece of mind: let the player decide what's fun and what isn't, is that so crazy? And if the game is supposed to sweetspot at 4 players, then they should just give no further bonuses (items or xp) beyond that, and the default game size should be 4. I don't think it's unreasonable.
I have 6 close friends who are going to buy the game, and a bunch of friends-of-friends who are going to join the games that we'll be in, so naturally I'll have people telling me "hey your game's full come to this other game" and whatnot.
Oh well, too bad I guess.
Eh, not really. People absolutely will do things that make the game less fun for them and give it less staying power, sometimes it makes sense for the devs to restrict players from doing what they want to in order to make a game better. For example, have you considered zoom distance? People will typically zoom a top down game as far out as they're allowed to, even if it makes the experience worse.
Even with just a couple players I find the game gets hectic anyway. There's a lot more going on than there is in d2.
Your idea of fun certainly isn't the same as mine. If you dislike 8 player games, then cap it at 4 players.
Regardless of how you handle the loot or exp system, the developers would still have to waste time on balancing up to x players for the game to be fun / challenging. You're basically proposing the impossible for a PvE game.
Balance? Just in the last few pages we talked about how it's possible for randomly generated packs of mobs to turn out to be excessively difficult to handle for the players, this game only has to be marginally balanced.
And the idea that the devs would have to "waste time" to balance the game for 8 players is ridiculous. They would *spend* that time to make a better game that appeals to more people, and is more fun to more people. It's not like it would take forever either, even now when people join the game, mobs get a bit stronger - not hard to pull off. Increase the mobs stats and get a feel for it. This is very, very doable, especially for Blizzard.
Hell, even 6 players would be nice.
Except a six or eight player hard cap wasn't what you were proposing...
Whether you consider RNG as part of balance is up to you but marginally balanced is still considered balance. And you can't achieve any sort of balance for an infinite amount of players just by increasing x by y per z. That would only be possible if the game was simple and we all know Diablo III isn't going to be simple since it takes so many mechanics from WoW.
I understand the reasoning behind complaining about a four player cap and how a six or eight player cap would be better but let's face it, you're not going to satisfy everyone regardless of what the hard cap is. Your proposal of infinite players is just ridiculous.
I don't know where you saw that I proposed infinite players SkyR, maybe one of my sentences was messy, or you misunderstood. Either way I was proposing 8 players, and then said I'd be fine with 6. I'd like 8 because I think it makes sense, and I feel like it worked in D2.
I understand that D3 is different, and I understand that there's no magical way to balance it by multiplying the stats of mobs by x% per player. However, I don't think it's unreasonable to give players the option to do 8 players. And yeah we can dick around with the slippery slope of "why not 10, or 12 then?" which is adorable, but I think it would be nice to match D2.
4 is very very few people, and I know it'll suck when I'll be on Ventrilo with 4-5 friends on release, and we'll have to split in 2 servers even though we would have had a lot more fun goofing together, all 5-6 of us. This is especially true for normal difficulty which, at least in the beta, is ridiculous anyway.
I don't know where you saw that I proposed infinite players SkyR, maybe one of my sentences was messy, or you misunderstood. Either way I was proposing 8 players, and then said I'd be fine with 6. I'd like 8 because I think it makes sense, and I feel like it worked in D2.
I understand that D3 is different, and I understand that there's no magical way to balance it by multiplying the stats of mobs by x% per player. However, I don't think it's unreasonable to give players the option to do 8 players. And yeah we can dick around with the slippery slope of "why not 10, or 12 then?" which is adorable, but I think it would be nice to match D2.
4 is very very few people, and I know it'll suck when I'll be on Ventrilo with 4-5 friends on release, and we'll have to split in 2 servers even though we would have had a lot more fun goofing together, all 5-6 of us. This is especially true for normal difficulty which, at least in the beta, is ridiculous anyway.
On May 14 2012 07:22 Djzapz wrote:
Well here's a little piece of mind: let the player decide what's fun and what isn't, is that so crazy? And if the game is supposed to sweetspot at 4 players, then they should just give no further bonuses (items or xp) beyond that, and the default game size should be 4. I don't think it's unreasonable.
I have 6 close friends who are going to buy the game, and a bunch of friends-of-friends who are going to join the games that we'll be in, so naturally I'll have people telling me "hey your game's full come to this other game" and whatnot.
I don't know where you saw that I proposed infinite players SkyR, maybe one of my sentences was messy, or you misunderstood. Either way I was proposing 8 players, and then said I'd be fine with 6. I'd like 8 because I think it makes sense, and I feel like it worked in D2.
I understand that D3 is different, and I understand that there's no magical way to balance it by multiplying the stats of mobs by x% per player. However, I don't think it's unreasonable to give players the option to do 8 players. And yeah we can dick around with the slippery slope of "why not 10, or 12 then?" which is adorable, but I think it would be nice to match D2.
4 is very very few people, and I know it'll suck when I'll be on Ventrilo with 4-5 friends on release, and we'll have to split in 2 servers even though we would have had a lot more fun goofing together, all 5-6 of us. This is especially true for normal difficulty which, at least in the beta, is ridiculous anyway.
Well here's a little piece of mind: let the player decide what's fun and what isn't, is that so crazy? And if the game is supposed to sweetspot at 4 players, then they should just give no further bonuses (items or xp) beyond that, and the default game size should be 4. I don't think it's unreasonable.
I have 6 close friends who are going to buy the game, and a bunch of friends-of-friends who are going to join the games that we'll be in, so naturally I'll have people telling me "hey your game's full come to this other game" and whatnot.
Oh well, too bad I guess.
Infinite?
Sure if you want to extrapolate and reach into the things I didn't say and didn't mean. 8 players however is more reasonable from a technical and design standpoint.
I don't know where you saw that I proposed infinite players SkyR, maybe one of my sentences was messy, or you misunderstood. Either way I was proposing 8 players, and then said I'd be fine with 6. I'd like 8 because I think it makes sense, and I feel like it worked in D2.
I understand that D3 is different, and I understand that there's no magical way to balance it by multiplying the stats of mobs by x% per player. However, I don't think it's unreasonable to give players the option to do 8 players. And yeah we can dick around with the slippery slope of "why not 10, or 12 then?" which is adorable, but I think it would be nice to match D2.
4 is very very few people, and I know it'll suck when I'll be on Ventrilo with 4-5 friends on release, and we'll have to split in 2 servers even though we would have had a lot more fun goofing together, all 5-6 of us. This is especially true for normal difficulty which, at least in the beta, is ridiculous anyway.
On May 14 2012 07:22 Djzapz wrote:
Well here's a little piece of mind: let the player decide what's fun and what isn't, is that so crazy? And if the game is supposed to sweetspot at 4 players, then they should just give no further bonuses (items or xp) beyond that, and the default game size should be 4. I don't think it's unreasonable.
I have 6 close friends who are going to buy the game, and a bunch of friends-of-friends who are going to join the games that we'll be in, so naturally I'll have people telling me "hey your game's full come to this other game" and whatnot.
Oh well, too bad I guess.
Infinite?
Sure if you want to extrapolate and reach into the things I didn't say and didn't mean. 8 players however is more reasonable from a technical and design standpoint.
4 players is more reasonable from a technical and design standpoint... If they think its bad after 4 players and cannot really balance the game for 8 its pretty clear why they limited to 4.
By the way, you dont get any bonus playing with 1 2 or 3 player you get the exact same thing, only killing speed is different and the challenge.
I felt like 8 player games in Diablo 2 were kind of a shit-show anyway, really chaotic and generally a lot of overlap in spells. They were fun in some ways, but they weren't great game experiences (for me) especially when running around enclosed areas with everyone splitting off and heading their own way.
EPT![[image loading]](http://www.slamonline.com/online/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/clyde_drexler_michael_jordan.jpg)
