Diablo III: Not Just a Vitality Race!

[Chen]

Why would Bioware be talking about D3?

[Gamerlord]

Did Bioware actually say that, or are you just referring to someone's opinion? I've heard plenty of people say playing D1/D2 solo was "wrong" but that has as much oomph behind it as me saying that grinding out the same encounter over and over is "wrong".

Bioware is working on D3? Tell me, what are the romance sidequests?

[Diarmuid]

Damnit...jumping between too many threads...lol.

And spending too many hours I should be sleeping playing Skyrim.

Sorry, just replace Bioware with Blizzard.

[Starwulf]

Why would Bioware be talking about D3?

Bioware is working on D3? Tell me, what are the romance sidequests?

lmao, I noticed he said Bioware as well, but figured it was just a slip of the mind and fingers.

[Karoht]

Hmm, wasn't it in that one interview a while back(where they were being extremely arrogant) that they basically said if you're playing Diablo in single-player, you're doing it wrong? So I'm sure there will be a reason to group, and it likely will be improved EXP and loot, can't imagine there is any other decent motivation to get people to work together, unless they really do institute "raid" bosses, which would suck ><

I'm not sure what interview you're talking about.
Either way, each one I've read on grouping/solo'ing, in either public releases or blue posts on the forums, basically reads like this:

'Yes you can solo, but we've made it as easy and streamlined to get a group or play with friends.'
'Yes, we can confirm that Inferno is soloable. Props if you can do it. Mad skills brah.'
'Yes, grouping is what it has been designed around, but the solo play is still solid.'

The hirelings alone are a supporting arguement to the last part. Solo play does have some extra depth in that regard.

[Avilan the Grey]

I'm not sure what interview you're talking about.

To be fair AFAIR it was not an official interview, I think it was a throwaway comment by someone on a panel at a Blizzcon, probably last year's.

[Karoht]

To be fair AFAIR it was not an official interview, I think it was a throwaway comment by someone on a panel at a Blizzcon, probably last year's.

Many of such "throwaway comments" are these things called jokes. Especially at Blizzcon. Of course, everyone thinks that Blizzcon is a press release, but secretly, it's actually this thing called a convention. But no one would figure that out with the letters 'con' in the title, no sir.

Either way, every comment they've made that I've ever read has basically been that grouping or soloing is meant to be a player choice. Yes, soloing Inferno mode will be a challenge. Yes, there were people in D2 who couldn't solo Diablo himself on normal difficulty. Take the words 'a challenge' to be relative for the time being. One player's challenge is another player's faceroll.

[ZeltArruin]

In regards to more people = better loot, as far as I know, and I haven't played the game, more players means that more loot drops, and thus, a higher chance of getting better loot amongst the players, is this wrong? Individual chances might go up or be the same, but the odds of a group of four getting better stuff will certainly be higher than solo. This is what I assume, mind you, so I could very well be wrong, though I doubt it.

[Karoht]

In regards to more people = better loot, as far as I know, and I haven't played the game, more players means that more loot drops, and thus, a higher chance of getting better loot amongst the players, is this wrong? Individual chances might go up or be the same, but the odds of a group of four getting better stuff will certainly be higher than solo. This is what I assume, mind you, so I could very well be wrong, though I doubt it.

Uh, yeah, this is what we've just been discussing.

As I said, we don't have a confirmation from a dev post yet.
More loot dropping isn't necessarily the same as better loot. It's poor wording on our parts, but there it is.

Also, I'm in the beta. They've changed the drop chances (across the board) in the beta 3 times now. Typically trending lower at the moment. Before anyone cry's foul, beta is beta is beta. We know the drop chances overall are lower, we don't know how grouping affects it.

[Psyren]

In D2, you got both more loot and better loot (from bosses and elites). As players increased, the boss drop table shifted upwards, pushing various things off the end like inferiors (cracked sash etc.)

Someone ran an experiment on the forums once, where he had one heavily mf-laden character do meph runs, and another character optimized for killing on /players8 who would simply switch to gull+rhyme on a kill. The latter got better loot.

There was also increased chances for champions (& fanatics, etc.) to spawn, who had their own superior loot tables, and chests contained more stuff.

[Karoht]

And again, beta is beta is beta.
I'll wait until I have a confirm on the loot table. But to be honest, improved loot isn't really much of an incentive to group up. Not to me anyway.

[Psyren]

And again, beta is beta is beta.

I understand that; I was just explaining why grouping with strangers was so commonplace despite all the drawbacks.

But to be honest, improved loot isn't really much of an incentive to group up. Not to me anyway.

Diablo is the loot, even moreso than WoW is. Endgame boiled down to farming to trade for expensive runes/runewords/charms, farming gear for that wonky build you really wanted to try (e.g. Singer Barb), farming for an alt, or farming PvP gear. There were no achievements, no guildscores, no feats of strength, no special titles to earn, and no pets/mounts/tabards/etc. to collect.

I have no doubt they'll change a lot of that paradigm, perhaps even radically. But to move forward we have to know where we're coming from.

[Starwulf]

I'm not sure what interview you're talking about.
Either way, each one I've read on grouping/solo'ing, in either public releases or blue posts on the forums, basically reads like this:

'Yes you can solo, but we've made it as easy and streamlined to get a group or play with friends.'
'Yes, we can confirm that Inferno is soloable. Props if you can do it. Mad skills brah.'
'Yes, grouping is what it has been designed around, but the solo play is still solid.'

The hirelings alone are a supporting arguement to the last part. Solo play does have some extra depth in that regard.

To be fair AFAIR it was not an official interview, I think it was a throwaway comment by someone on a panel at a Blizzcon, probably last year's.

Many of such "throwaway comments" are these things called jokes. Especially at Blizzcon. Of course, everyone thinks that Blizzcon is a press release, but secretly, it's actually this thing called a convention. But no one would figure that out with the letters 'con' in the title, no sir.

Either way, every comment they've made that I've ever read has basically been that grouping or soloing is meant to be a player choice. Yes, soloing Inferno mode will be a challenge. Yes, there were people in D2 who couldn't solo Diablo himself on normal difficulty. Take the words 'a challenge' to be relative for the time being. One player's challenge is another player's faceroll.

It was neither a throwaway comment, nor was it from Blizzcon, it was in an interview with the lead designer, and it was featured in PC Gamer magazine. Unfortunately, the article in question has apparently been removed from their site, or something, as when I tried to get it to load, it said it had either been moved or deleted. But, just from the article link title, I think you can see the gist of what it was about:

http://www.pcgamer.com/.../diablo-3-...9s-not-online/

Notice the words "Lead Designer on lack of offline mode, game not being played right if it's not online". The entire article was originally linked on another thread in this forum, and actually caused quite a bit of discussion(3 pages worth). I think the specific thread I might have mentioned in this very thread, back on I believe page 3(which is where I found the link to the article after much careful searching).

Those words all used together, pretty much say to me that they mean for the game to be an online experience, played with the max amount of people in each game. They don't want you to play solo(or else they'd have left single-player offline mode in), though they'll make it possible. So, again, my guess is that they are quite likely to keep the increased EXP and better loot benefits from playing with the max amount of people in the game, just as it was in D2.

[Karoht]

http://www.pcgamer.com/.../diablo-3-...9s-not-online/

Those words all used together, pretty much say to me that they mean for the game to be an online experience, played with the max amount of people in each game. They don't want you to play solo(or else they'd have left single-player offline mode in), though they'll make it possible. So, again, my guess is that they are quite likely to keep the increased EXP and better loot benefits from playing with the max amount of people in the game, just as it was in D2.

Meh. I can't read the article at the moment, I'll check it when I get home from work. I won't argue that it wasn't said. Though I need to check the date on it.

[AgentPaper]

If they really didn't want you to play solo, then why are there companions in the game?

I think the quote you're talking about is more in relation to offline vs online play, not singleplayer vs multiplayer. I would say that if you're playing D3 or D2 offline, you're not doing it right, because you get the same exact capability to play singleplayer online, only then you can also go around and play with other people when you want, or trade items, socialize, etc. It's just more options.

Of course, there's a big exception there for people with poor internet connections, for whom online play isn't really an option.

[Psyren]

It was neither a throwaway comment, nor was it from Blizzcon, it was in an interview with the lead designer, and it was featured in PC Gamer magazine. Unfortunately, the article in question has apparently been removed from their site, or something, as when I tried to get it to load, it said it had either been moved or deleted.

Nah, it's still there, your link is just bad. Here:

http://www.pcgamer.com/2011/08/22/di...9s-not-online/

And he didn't say a thing about not being able to play solo, or "max amount of people in each game" or any other such nonsense. Being connected to their servers while you play doesn't stop you from playing alone, any more than playing D2 Ladder meant you couldn't play alone; just make a private game.

The main reason they gave for the online-only move in that interview (which is valid) is that allowing offline play meant the game client would basically have to be a local copy of their server architecture. In short, the game would have to be able to run without getting necessary information from their servers. But having access to that kind of system makes the game that much easier to hack.

But the Extra Credits video I linked to you a couple of pages back (if you had bothered to watch it) gave you the real reason that they require online play; they want maximum exposure to their RMAH, which even if you're in a private game you'll no doubt have access to. The system won't work if everybody's offline, for the same reason that allowing people to bring food into a movie theater will lower concession stand sales. But the security part is definitely a legitimate concern, especially if it becomes as easy to hack as D2 was.

But surely you can see how "we want as many players as possible using the AH" would have gone over with the base, so they are publicly playing up the security reason.

[Starwulf]

Nah, it's still there, your link is just bad. Here:

http://www.pcgamer.com/2011/08/22/di...9s-not-online/

And he didn't say a thing about not being able to play solo, or "max amount of people in each game" or any other such nonsense. Being connected to their servers while you play doesn't stop you from playing alone, any more than playing D2 Ladder meant you couldn't play alone; just make a private game.

I never said that the article said any of that stuff. I merely inferred that by them claiming the game isn't being played right if it's being played offline, means TO ME that they want you to play together, to group together, with other people.

But the Extra Credits video I linked to you a couple of pages back (if you had bothered to watch it) gave you the real reason that they require online play; they want maximum exposure to their RMAH, which even if you're in a private game you'll no doubt have access to. The system won't work if everybody's offline, for the same reason that allowing people to bring food into a movie theater will lower concession stand sales. But the security part is definitely a legitimate concern, especially if it becomes as easy to hack as D2 was.

But surely you can see how "we want as many players as possible using the AH" would have gone over with the base, so they are publicly playing up the security reason.

If you had read my response to that particular post, I made it clear that I was UNABLE to watch the video, I'm on 26.4k dial-up(and iirc, you even commented on it and wondered how I'd ever be able to play d3). Have you ever tried to watch a video on a NORMAL 26.4k dial-up connection? It's hellishly slow, takes at least an hour for a 5 minute video to load, and MY connection isn't normal, and hasn't been since January, for whatever reason(still haven't figured it out, doubt I ever will). I'm glad that you admit that the sole reason they are implementing the online only architecture isn't primarily because of the ability to hack, but because they want maximum exposure to RMAH. Just another reason for me to hate this particular move on their part. I pray with ever fiber of my being that it completely flops, that after a short period of time, people stop wanting to pay fees to use it, and start up their own sites like they did with d2, and proves to Blizzard that a RMAH is unfeasible, and a waste of space.

Anyways, yeah, TO ME, saying that "playing the game offline isn't the way it's mean to be played" is saying they want you to group up with other people. Sure there are obviously other reasons they said that, but to me, it screams "Play with other people! We want to prove that playing games online doesn't stunt your growth socially, that you can still be a vocal and social person while spending hours playing a video game! We don't want whack jobs spouting on and on about how playing our game makes gamers shut-in recluses".

[Fan]

I never said that the article said any of that stuff. I merely inferred that by them claiming the game isn't being played right if it's being played offline, means TO ME that they want you to play together, to group together, with other people.



If you had read my response to that particular post, I made it clear that I was UNABLE to watch the video, I'm on 26.4k dial-up(and iirc, you even commented on it and wondered how I'd ever be able to play d3). Have you ever tried to watch a video on a NORMAL 26.4k dial-up connection? It's hellishly slow, takes at least an hour for a 5 minute video to load, and MY connection isn't normal, and hasn't been since January, for whatever reason(still haven't figured it out, doubt I ever will). I'm glad that you admit that the sole reason they are implementing the online only architecture isn't primarily because of the ability to hack, but because they want maximum exposure to RMAH. Just another reason for me to hate this particular move on their part. I pray with ever fiber of my being that it completely flops, that after a short period of time, people stop wanting to pay fees to use it, and start up their own sites like they did with d2, and proves to Blizzard that a RMAH is unfeasible, and a waste of space.

Anyways, yeah, TO ME, saying that "playing the game offline isn't the way it's mean to be played" is saying they want you to group up with other people. Sure there are obviously other reasons they said that, but to me, it screams "Play with other people! We want to prove that playing games online doesn't stunt your growth socially, that you can still be a vocal and social person while spending hours playing a video game! We don't want whack jobs spouting on and on about how playing our game makes gamers shut-in recluses".

As a plus, Garena will most definitely have diablo 3 servers up within a month of release.. this is kinda something they've been planning on, and they'll allow for server locks made via it if their current policy is maintained.

Garena, not just for pirates, but for those of us who prefer to play games with either the people we invite, or by our fracking selves.

It also can be done in an offline mode, so if that comes to that.. >_>
*takes leave of thread*

[AgentPaper]

I don't know where you're getting all that. What they've been saying is, playing online has many advantages, which you may or may not take advantage of, and playing offline has only one disadvantage, which isn't relevant to the majority of players. Unfortunately, it is relevant to some players, but as they've also stated, you can't please everyone.

As to the RMAH being a major factor leading to online-only, I find that claim pretty ludicrous. For one, it portrays Blizzard as money-grubbing greedy jerks who want to take all of your money, which is blatantly false. If they were, then they wouldn't still be running the architecture to allow people to play Starcraft 1 and Warcraft 3, both vanilla and expansion each, more than 10 years after those games came out. That's a major drain on resources with no returns whatsoever, and the only reason they keep it going is because they genuinely want players to have fun.

If they really wanted to make tons of money off of D3, they wouldn't have done so with an RMAH, where they only get a small part of every transaction. Instead, they would have sold those items directly to the players, and taken all of the profits for themselves.

Blizzard has always been about making good, solid, fun games, and I haven't seen anything so far to make me think differently. Sorry if I seem overly defensive here, but I have a lot of respect for Blizzard, and don't like it when people picture them as these huge evil jerkwads because they made one decision they don't like.

[Starwulf]

I don't know where you're getting all that. What they've been saying is, playing online has many advantages, which you may or may not take advantage of, and playing offline has only one disadvantage, which isn't relevant to the majority of players. Unfortunately, it is relevant to some players, but as they've also stated, you can't please everyone.

As to the RMAH being a major factor leading to online-only, I find that claim pretty ludicrous. For one, it portrays Blizzard as money-grubbing greedy jerks who want to take all of your money, which is blatantly false. If they were, then they wouldn't still be running the architecture to allow people to play Starcraft 1 and Warcraft 3, both vanilla and expansion each, more than 10 years after those games came out. That's a major drain on resources with no returns whatsoever, and the only reason they keep it going is because they genuinely want players to have fun.

If they really wanted to make tons of money off of D3, they wouldn't have done so with an RMAH, where they only get a small part of every transaction. Instead, they would have sold those items directly to the players, and taken all of the profits for themselves.

Blizzard has always been about making good, solid, fun games, and I haven't seen anything so far to make me think differently. Sorry if I seem overly defensive here, but I have a lot of respect for Blizzard, and don't like it when people picture them as these huge evil jerkwads because they made one decision they don't like.

Please note that I'm not the one who originally put the idea forth, Psyren was, and he claims that the video that Extra Credits did put forth that particular idea. I just happen to agree that it's likely why they made the change to "online-only" architecture, and not because of "hacking".

I personally love Blizzard as well. I've yet to be disappointed with ANY of their games, ever, dating back to "The Lost Vikings". That doesn't mean that I'm going to be super nice and supportive of every single thing they do, especially when one of the things is something I whole-heartedly despise(RMAH), and another thing practically screams "We don't want your money"(Online always, no offline mode). Those are two strikes, and quite frankly, if it was ANY other developer, even Bethsoft, I wouldn't touch Diablo 3, but it IS blizzard, and I LOVE Blizzard, so I'm more then willing to extend them more good faith. I just happen to enjoy complaining/discussing(More the first lately, I'll be the first to admit) things they are doing :). so please, please PLEASE don't think I'm making them out to be the devil. Not yet anyways ^^

[AgentPaper]

@Starwulf

Well, I didn't call you out specifically, but sorry for the misunderstanding anyways. I was responding to the general idea that RMAH and online-only was something Blizzard was doing to get more money.

[Karoht]

As a plus, Garena will most definitely have diablo 3 servers up within a month of release..

And assuming they can pull this off (good luck, even the current data miners can tell you that rather a lot of the game is handled server side not client side) but Blizzard has probably got the paperwork started and the lawyers on standby to sue them within the first week.

Garena, not just for pirates, but for those of us who prefer to play games with either the people we invite, or by our fracking selves.

So despite the fact that the game has an invite-only mode (and it happens to be the default setting) which does exactly this, you're going to solve the problem of the 'always online' only by having people connect to other servers and be 'always online' with them instead. Not the blizzard servers, someone elses. How does that solve anything?

It also can be done in an offline mode, so if that comes to that.. >_>

Given how much is being processed server side, I very much doubt that.

*takes leave of thread*

Make baseless and illogical post, then retreat. Good job.

[Fan]

And assuming they can pull this off (good luck, even the current data miners can tell you that rather a lot of the game is handled server side not client side) but Blizzard has probably got the paperwork started and the lawyers on standby to sue them within the first week.


So despite the fact that the game has an invite-only mode (and it happens to be the default setting) which does exactly this, you're going to solve the problem of the 'always online' only by having people connect to other servers and be 'always online' with them instead. Not the blizzard servers, someone elses. How does that solve anything?


Given how much is being processed server side, I very much doubt that.


Make baseless and illogical post, then retreat. Good job.

Um.. okay.

It.. kinda wasn't baseless or illogical, but okay.

Thanks for the rudeness.

I don't even plan to get Diablo.. I don't like it, never have. I'm just relaying what I've read on the Garena forums, and was merely relating with Starwulf's desire to avoid contact with certain games online communities. I figured it'd be something he'd be interested in hearing as an alternative on his dial up connection. (Garena is designed with that in mind, being built with the original idea of being an alternative to battle.net for Warcraft 3.)

If I offended you somehow I'm sorry, but that doesn't give you the right to just go off on somebody like that.

[Karoht]

Um.. okay.
It.. kinda wasn't baseless or illogical, but okay.

So solving the problem of online connection with online connection isn't illogical?
You speak of 'those of us who prefer to play games with either the people we invite, or by our fracking selves' yet you recommend a private server that obviously wouldn't interface with battle.net, meaning one could not play with existing battle.net contacts.
Then there's the fact that again, nothing forces you to play with other people. The default setting is invite only. If you don't want to play with other people, don't invite them.
It's plainly illogical because the solution proposed;
1-Solves a problem with more of that problem (connect to server x rather than battle.net still requires connecting to a server which is the problem)
2-Solves a problem that doesn't need solving (want to play with just my friends or by myself already has a setting designed for it)

[Fan]

So solving the problem of online connection with online connection isn't illogical?
You speak of 'those of us who prefer to play games with either the people we invite, or by our fracking selves' yet you recommend a private server that obviously wouldn't interface with battle.net, meaning one could not play with existing battle.net contacts.
Then there's the fact that again, nothing forces you to play with other people. The default setting is invite only. If you don't want to play with other people, don't invite them.
It's plainly illogical because the solution proposed;
1-Solves a problem with more of that problem (connect to server x rather than battle.net still requires connecting to a server which is the problem)
2-Solves a problem that doesn't need solving (want to play with just my friends or by myself already has a setting designed for it)

Okay...

Well, as I said, Garena has an offline server mode which provides that server structure without an internet connection.

Which was more or less the point.

I don't really care about a game's community unless it is openly hostile.

I was again, just being sympathetic with Starwulf, I have encountered not having a good internet connection, I was on a 256 k Dialup connection the entire first year I was on GITP, so I understand why he wouldn't want to have to deal with an online server connection.

This is the last time I'm responding to your openly hostile (At least from my point of view, I'm perfectly capable of being wrong, and have been many times in the past.) series of posts.

[Karoht]

Okay...
Well, as I said, Garena has an offline server mode which provides that server structure without an internet connection.

...provides that server structure without an internet connection. Hoo kay. Good luck with that, for reasons already mentioned.

I was again, just being sympathetic with Starwulf

By advocating a hacked solution.

This is the last time I'm responding to your openly hostile series of posts.

You came into the thread, advocated a hacked solution, then abandoned the thread. To me that came across as trolling. Apparently you had a genuine concern, albeit you advocated an illogical solution.
I dislike people making ignorant claims, especially without proof to back it. I called you on it and pointed out the flaw in the logic.
'Make baseless and illogical post, then retreat. Good job.' I can see that this is likely the hostile remark you were probably concerned with. However, that is exactly what you did. I'm the kind that calls a spade a spade, though I suppose I could have positioned that a bit better.

[Fan]

...provides that server structure without an internet connection. Hoo kay. Good luck with that, for reasons already mentioned.


By advocating a hacked solution.


You came into the thread, advocated a hacked solution, then abandoned the thread. To me that came across as trolling. Apparently you had a genuine concern, albeit you advocated an illogical solution.
I dislike people making ignorant claims, especially without proof to back it. I called you on it and pointed out the flaw in the logic.
'Make baseless and illogical post, then retreat. Good job.' I can see that this is likely the hostile remark you were probably concerned with. However, that is exactly what you did. I'm the kind that calls a spade a spade, though I suppose I could have positioned that a bit better.

Fyi, Blizzard already tried sueing Garena when they made their initial Warcraft 3 servers, and provided the same structure they did for Warcraft 3's battlenet deal, as they would be for Diablo 3.

It didn't work.

Out for reals now.

[Karoht]

Fyi, Blizzard already tried sueing Garena when they made their initial Warcraft 3 servers, and provided the same structure they did for Warcraft 3's battlenet deal, as they would be for Diablo 3.
It didn't work.
Out for reals now.

The only reason that lawsuit didn't work was because Blizzard could not prove loss on their part, and their ToS was poorly worded, and because nothing forces any player to use battle.net to play WC3 multiplayer. Also, what Garena was operating was essentially a LAN network when you look at the architecture, which the base game had support for. SCII and Diablo 3 do not have support for LAN play, for this and many reasons.

Also, when it comes to a hacked server setup, the concept of game purity pretty much goes out the window with it. There was a massive difference between hacked D2 and the actual game, and the hacking arms race pretty much meant that hacking players were pretty much playing an entirely different game.

If people want to cheat at a game, that is something I feel Blizzard has every right (and responsibility to some extent) to try and prevent.

[Gnoman]

To provide any non-battlenet service for Diablo III, it would be necessary to obtain code that exists purely on blizzard servers. Besides the feasibilty of such action, the chances of winning the lawsuit are roughly 100%.

[Karoht]

To provide any non-battlenet service for Diablo III, it would be necessary to obtain code that exists purely on blizzard servers. Besides the feasibilty of such action, the chances of winning the lawsuit are roughly 100%.

Of Blizzard winning the lawsuit? Or Garena?