Diablo III: Not Just a Vitality Race!

[Psyren]

Though I'm not in the beta, I can't imagine playing Diablo without mouse+keyboard tbh.

Does "15 free trades" refer to Blizz's commission? Because you'd still have to pay for the item itself, right?

[Karoht]

Does "15 free trades" refer to Blizz's commission? Because you'd still have to pay for the item itself, right?

Yes, the commission. Seeing as my comment regarding said free trades was in direct response to Chen's comment regarding the commission. But perhaps I'd best clarify.

"Seems there's a $0.15 posting fee and another $0.50 transaction fee once something sells. This is interesting since it puts a lower bound on items unless you use your free transactions/week on cheap things."
I remember Blizzard saying that players would get a certain number of free transactions per month or week, where these fee's are waived.
Seeing as Chen is mentioning using said free transactions per period, that to me is a confirm that they are in. I haven't messed around with the RMAH in the Beta yet personally.

[AgentPaper]

From the Battle.net Balance FAQ:

Can I convert my Battle.net Balance into cash?
Once funds or Diablo III auction house earnings have been added to your Battle.net Balance, you are not able to convert that Balance into cash. Battle.net Balance can only be used to buy designated Blizzard Entertainment products or to acquire items from Diablo III's currency-based auction house.

In certain regions, Diablo III players who wish to "cash out" the proceeds from the sale of an item from the currency-based auction house instead of storing it in a Battle.net Balance will be able to do so via PayPal for an additional fee. Players will need to determine which method they wish to use at the time they post their auction. For more information on the currency-based auction house, see the FAQ.

Can I use my Battle.net Balance as the automatic payment method for my recurring World of Warcraft subscription?
No, though you are able to pre-purchase World of Warcraft game time using your Battle.net Balance.

Important bits highlighted.

[Meta]

If you check out the Runestones on the Skills Calculator on the website (Runes get attached to abilities, I'm pretty sure they don't go in items, at least not for now), there doesn't appear to be different power levels. However, there will still be some that are more sought after than others, meaning you're probably right about the economic impact either way.


I could see them being transmutable in some way, I just don't see where. Maybe Jeweller makes them, Mystic transmutes them in some fashion?

Correcting my mistake from before. It's still max level 7 of a runestone, but the skill calculator now uses rank 4 as it's examples

[Psyren]

Opening Cinematic out!

"...Uncle?"

[Yora]

Compared to the openings of any other Blizard game since Diablo, this is pretty lame.

[Psyren]

I thought it was nice (particularly... Lia's?... vision) but I thought she herself tripped and fell out of a Final Fantasy game of some sort. Odd she has that much time to moisturize in the Horadrim.

[Yora]

The cheap cutouts that turn out to actually be fully animated and three dimensional are quite cool.

But compared to Diablo II, Warcraft III, and Brood War?
It just doesn't compare.

[Karoht]

Apologies in advance if this is thread necro. If necessary I will start a new thread.

So I'm going to be doing some videos from the beta fairly soon. First one I'm going to cover is the Wizard, and why I rather enjoy Disintegrate. For those not in the know, Disintegrate is a beam effect, and you scythe it around destroying objects and killing enemies with it. I won't speak to it's optimization or that it is the best ability in the game (we're still capped at 13, the game is still just in beta, we haven't seen half of the other abilities yet, etc), but I will argue that the fun factor of this ability is very high.

Also, you get Disintegrate at 8 instead of 12 now. It's weak and pathetic at that level (unless you're wand is decent, you can craft a very good wand at 6? 7?) but two levels later when you get your first Passive Slot, it becomes much much better.


Not sure what I want to cover after that. Maybe when Runestones are implimented I'll do a spot on my Barbarian and the Frenzy ability. It stacks up a crazy amount of haste in very short order. Some of the Runestone effects (for this ability and a few others) stack attack power and haste. So I'll have to do a video for that, because if I'm right, the ability for Barbarians to hit hard and hit fast will have to be seen to be believed.

[gooddragon1]

Can a fishymancer survive hell difficulty in diablo 2 expansion pack with players set to 8 and no gear? I've heard they can survive hell difficulty but was wondering if they can take it to the max?

[Karoht]

Can a fishymancer survive hell difficulty in diablo 2 expansion pack with players set to 8 and no gear? I've heard they can survive hell difficulty but was wondering if they can take it to the max?

Fishymancer?

No idea, but I had a Necromancer once with no super broken build (you could call my build a nub build, it was pretty bad) and I managed to clear Hell /8 Baal. You will be moving around rather a lot.

[Starwulf]

Hey Karoht, I just heard something a bit disturbing, was hoping you could confirm or deny it. There are no more named games? Like, in diablo 2, if you got bored and felt like helping random people, you just pop open the find game button and lots of people would have "Tomb runsxxx" or "Help me kill Diablo", and stuff like. If you can't have named games anymore, how is creating and joining games handled?

[AgentPaper]

Hey Karoht, I just heard something a bit disturbing, was hoping you could confirm or deny it. There are no more named games? Like, in diablo 2, if you got bored and felt like helping random people, you just pop open the find game button and lots of people would have "Tomb runsxxx" or "Help me kill Diablo", and stuff like. If you can't have named games anymore, how is creating and joining games handled?

At least in the beta, this is true. As for how it works, you have two options:

1) Create a game. You choose what quest you start at, and you can set it so that anyone can join, only friends can join, or only people you invite can join.

2) Join a game. You can join a friend's game, or you can choose to join a random game, in which case you choose a quest and you'll be placed in a game with people currently doing that quest.

You can only select quests that your character has reached before, whether you're creating a game or joining a random one. However, you can join a friend's game no matter what, even if you're level 1 and they're on the final boss. Since we only have 1 act so far, there's no way to know exactly how they work in this system.

The system works rather well, at least as far as the beta goes. It's much easier to join your friend's games than in D2, and much easier to join a random game with people around your level/progression as well. Not to say there aren't flaws, but overall I'd say it works better than the old one.

[Starwulf]

At least in the beta, this is true. As for how it works, you have two options:

1) Create a game. You choose what quest you start at, and you can set it so that anyone can join, only friends can join, or only people you invite can join.

2) Join a game. You can join a friend's game, or you can choose to join a random game, in which case you choose a quest and you'll be placed in a game with people currently doing that quest.

You can only select quests that your character has reached before, whether you're creating a game or joining a random one. However, you can join a friend's game no matter what, even if you're level 1 and they're on the final boss. Since we only have 1 act so far, there's no way to know exactly how they work in this system.

The system works rather well, at least as far as the beta goes. It's much easier to join your friend's games than in D2, and much easier to join a random game with people around your level/progression as well. Not to say there aren't flaws, but overall I'd say it works better than the old one.

I don't know, I hope they change it back to named games. New system sounds ok, but it means you can't help random people that are substantially lower then you, which takes out some of the fun. I would often sit in channels when I was bored, and when someone would ask for help doing something, I'd take my Hammerdin or Sorc and go help them through it. If it's keyed to level/progression, that means you'll never be able to help random people, which is kinda stupid >< Hopefully they realize this when the game goes live across the world.

I mean, I understand wanting people to play through the game, but once you've done it 4 or 5 times, you just want to skip to the parts you enjoy the most, which means creating new characters and having yourself rushed through the regular difficulties and sometimes your friends just aren't going to be online when you're doing that.

[AgentPaper]

I don't know, I hope they change it back to named games. New system sounds ok, but it means you can't help random people that are substantially lower then you, which takes out some of the fun. I would often sit in channels when I was bored, and when someone would ask for help doing something, I'd take my Hammerdin or Sorc and go help them through it. If it's keyed to level/progression, that means you'll never be able to help random people, which is kinda stupid >< Hopefully they realize this when the game goes live across the world.

I mean, I understand wanting people to play through the game, but once you've done it 4 or 5 times, you just want to skip to the parts you enjoy the most, which means creating new characters and having yourself rushed through the regular difficulties and sometimes your friends just aren't going to be online when you're doing that.

There was some talk about it in a thread a while ago, but nothing much seems to have come of it. Something much more likely to be re-introduced is chat rooms, which should help to serve much of that function at least.

[Karoht]

At least in the beta, this is true. As for how it works, you have two options:

1) Create a game. You choose what quest you start at, and you can set it so that anyone can join, only friends can join, or only people you invite can join.

2) Join a game. You can join a friend's game, or you can choose to join a random game, in which case you choose a quest and you'll be placed in a game with people currently doing that quest.

You can only select quests that your character has reached before, whether you're creating a game or joining a random one. However, you can join a friend's game no matter what, even if you're level 1 and they're on the final boss. Since we only have 1 act so far, there's no way to know exactly how they work in this system.

The system works rather well, at least as far as the beta goes. It's much easier to join your friend's games than in D2, and much easier to join a random game with people around your level/progression as well. Not to say there aren't flaws, but overall I'd say it works better than the old one.

Agent has it perfectly.

There's no need to fish through games to find something appropriate, as the matchmaker will find it for you.
As a result, there's no naming of games, hence there is none of the baggage that goes with it.
IE-If I opened up Secret Cow level, and advertised the game as 'Secret Cow Farm', some jerkwad would go in and find the Cow King and kill him, thereby removing my ability to open up Secret Cow level from that point onward. Now of course, after that happened I got smart and threw on a password, but you get the idea.

As for searching for random people to play with, the matchmaker is a roulette wheel, but going off of game names was a roulette wheel with a dirty jockey.

Also, I was going to go ahead and make videos from the beta, but some cool people over on the diablofans website beat me to it. Including using abilities that are currently not accessable in the beta yet.


Lastly, I've been messing around with builds over on the diablo 3 main page. The fact that you can save builds now is extra fun. I've got 4 builds I'm toying with for just my Wizard alone.
Turrets and Lazors-Hydra, Runed Teleport + Runed Mirror Image = Lots of Mirror Images that in fact inflict damage, with Hydra's for further support. Blizzard for AoE, Disintegrate for main pew pew, and any one Signature spell to fill in the gaps, probably Electrocute.

My Monk is going to go into damage reduction and healing. Cyclone Strike with the healing rune is actually very solid looking.

My Barbarian is basically a quick strike smash and dash. Frenzy runed so that I get 75% Haste AND 75% bonus damage. Hit fast, hit hard, get out, hit and run.

My Witchdoctor builds keep going in odd and confusing directions rather quickly. I think I've got a plan, but by the time I'm done messing around with my build and my runes I look at it all and wonder what the heck I'm doing. I will say though, Zombie Dogs + Exploding Zombie Dogs will likely be central to any Witchdoctor build I put together.

[AgentPaper]

Personally, I can't wait to try out some of my builds that make barbarians do strange things, like the Infinite Whirlrager and Throwbarian.

[Karoht]

Personally, I can't wait to try out some of my builds that make barbarians do strange things, like the Infinite Whirlrager and Throwbarian.

Oh bay-bee. Don't get me started. Monk goes funky places like that in a hurry.

Whirlrager with Whirlwinds when you Whirlwind (yo dawg...)
Onslaught Infinite Crit Combo with Rend to back it up.
Basically, if you aren't doing a billionty-one damage with a Barbarian, every second, you're doing something wrong. Really wrong.
Seismic Slam rage dumping and stunning, to pair up with Leap and Stomp and Dash slow/stunning and giving you crazy amounts of rage to burn.


And then there are real mysteries like Wizard's Archon ability. *rubs hands together*

[Surrealistik]

Been salivating over all the possible PvP builds. I think the telebastard is probably my favourite:

Telebastard:

http://us.battle.net/d3/en/forum/top...24460?page=1#0

Nigh unkillable, high mobility build that aims to wear opponents down over time and act as a health grabber/area denial for his team. Lots of fun.

Telebomber:

http://us.battle.net/d3/en/forum/topic/3881714265

Relatively boring but extremely deadly alpha striking tele-ssassin build.

[tribble]

I am so stoked to see more angels. I'm such a hopeless tyreal fanboy. I wish I could be half as badass. Guy walks in on Diablo trying to free baal and his first reaction was "Can't let you do that, Star Fox Diablo." I am hoping for some more epic Angel-on-demon violence in the other cutscenes.

[Karoht]

I don't know, I hope they change it back to named games. New system sounds ok, but it means you can't help random people that are substantially lower then you, which takes out some of the fun. I would often sit in channels when I was bored, and when someone would ask for help doing something, I'd take my Hammerdin or Sorc and go help them through it. If it's keyed to level/progression, that means you'll never be able to help random people, which is kinda stupid >< Hopefully they realize this when the game goes live across the world.

I mean, I understand wanting people to play through the game, but once you've done it 4 or 5 times, you just want to skip to the parts you enjoy the most, which means creating new characters and having yourself rushed through the regular difficulties and sometimes your friends just aren't going to be online when you're doing that.

First off, it's a randomizer. Rather than going to help lowbies, you're helping those of your level that need help. Which also means you benefit.

Second, if you want to help people lower level than you, you can always help those on your friends list.

Third, you said before you didn't play much online back in D2, and rather didn't enjoy it. Now you did? Confused am I, to say the least.

Fourth, without seeing other difficulty modes implimented in the game, the fact that there is a quest selector means that you can in fact go to the exact quests you want to, when you want. I would assume that would also be part and parcel to the difficulty selection as well. So yes, if you want to help lowbies on a particular quest that you rather enjoy, odds are you can, but I can't verify that.

Seriously Star, if you want D2 so bad, by all means go play it. Just saying.


@Tribble-Did you see the stuff that was taken down? There was shots of an Angel being different to Tyreal, and a demon that looked a lot like Diablo but different. It's kind of spoilery, supposedly, but you only see them for about a second and a half or so, so it can't be that bad. That said, both look most excellent.

[Starwulf]

First off, it's a randomizer. Rather than going to help lowbies, you're helping those of your level that need help. Which also means you benefit.

Second, if you want to help people lower level than you, you can always help those on your friends list.

Third, you said before you didn't play much online back in D2, and rather didn't enjoy it. Now you did? Confused am I, to say the least.

Fourth, without seeing other difficulty modes implimented in the game, the fact that there is a quest selector means that you can in fact go to the exact quests you want to, when you want. I would assume that would also be part and parcel to the difficulty selection as well. So yes, if you want to help lowbies on a particular quest that you rather enjoy, odds are you can, but I can't verify that.

Seriously Star, if you want D2 so bad, by all means go play it. Just saying.


@Tribble-Did you see the stuff that was taken down? There was shots of an Angel being different to Tyreal, and a demon that looked a lot like Diablo but different. It's kind of spoilery, supposedly, but you only see them for about a second and a half or so, so it can't be that bad. That said, both look most excellent.

Uhh, well, first off, I NEVER said I didn't play online much for D2. Go ahead, go through all my past posts and say where I said that. The only thing I've ever said is that my very first playthrough of the previous Diablo games was in Single-player mode. I LOVED Diablo 2 online, all aspects of it, the trading most of all. So please don't put words into my mouth, I reaaaaallly hate that.

Also, helping friends is all well and good, but sometimes it's fun to share the good-will and help out random people, without having to go on chat and say "hey, is anyone looking for help for something today? If so, please, add me to your friend list, and invite me into your game!" An awful lot of work just to help out a random person. I personally find that as one of the best aspects of past Diablo games, the ability to just help out random people whenever you want. Can't count how many times I'd Clear off an entire account worth of mules in a private game, then go out and spam every channel with a list of the GOOD loot that was inside the game, just to help people, or how I'd find a lowbie game, go in, and outfit every single person in there with top-notch gear for their current level, and for many levels to come. It's a good feeling, and I don't like that Blizzard has likely taken that away from me.

As far as going and playing Diablo 2, I have like 5k hours sunk into that game. I'm done over it, I just don't understand why Blizzard wants to change certain things that I have NEVER, EVER seen ANYONE complain about before. I understand wanting to make a different game, with lots of great innovation, but there are sometimes where the old adage "If it ain't broke, Don't fix it" applies perfectly well, and random game names is one of them. Just because you didn't like it and didn't have great experiences with it, doesn't mean other people didn't. Hell, the whole reason I even found out about them removing it is because a guy I met playing Diablo 2, messaged me on AIM asking me about it, wondering if it was true, and was upset that they would do that. So it's not just me, ya know?

Really, please don't tell me I should go play another game just because I don't like certain things that they are doing. I have a right to my opinion, and to voice said opinion. What works for you, might not work me, what works for me, might not work for you, and what works for both of us, might not work for others, and the only way Blizzard will ever know these things is if people voice their opinions about them. There are a lot of things they are doing that I DO like, and praise them for. I just happen to dislike A: The RMT Auction House, B: No single player, and C: A a few smaller things, like the lack of named games. And again, don't put words into my mouth, I truly do hate that and am very irate atm because of it.

[Karoht]

Also, helping friends is all well and good, but sometimes it's fun to share the good-will and help out random people, without having to go on chat and say "hey, is anyone looking for help for something today? If so, please, add me to your friend list, and invite me into your game!" An awful lot of work just to help out a random person.

Odds are if there is a chat, it would stand to reason that one could invite someone directly from chat. Not a lot of work at all. It works that way in other Blizzard titles, I don't see why it wouldn't work here.

It's a good feeling, and I don't like that Blizzard has likely taken that away from me.

See, it's things like this that confuse me. You state that you want to play single player without people, including making several posts regarding single player offline, particularly referencing how you weren't or aren't interested in playing with people, now suddenly you're Mr Altruism.

Moreover, if you're so interested in giving away loot, why would you care about the RMAH? Nothing is stopping you from still giving out that loot for free. If anything, giving away loot for free is a legitimate form of rebellion. And at the end of the day, you even have a tool for listing that gear for cheap as free, as you could go and list it all for 1 gold.

As far as going and playing Diablo 2, I have like 5k hours sunk into that game. I'm done over it, I just don't understand why Blizzard wants to change certain things that I have NEVER, EVER seen ANYONE complain about before.

I've seen many people in this thread post about how people would pop into a game uninvited, go and clear quests and screw up their personal progression, and leave. If you ever floated the old D2 forums it was a constant complaint, especially in open. Especially as people could pop into your game, set hostile, hunt you down, and kill you. Just because you were a kind person in these games doesn't mean that everyone else was.

I understand wanting to make a different game, with lots of great innovation, but there are sometimes where the old adage "If it ain't broke, Don't fix it" applies perfectly well, and random game names is one of them.

See above for examples of how broke it was and why it needed fixing.

Just because you didn't like it and didn't have great experiences with it, doesn't mean other people didn't.

Funny, I said the same thing to you regarding online play, you instantly shot me down for it.

Really, please don't tell me I should go play another game just because I don't like certain things that they are doing.

Sorry, it was just a silly suggestion, hence the emoticon at the end of that suggestion. Besides, you said D2 isn't broken.

I have a right to my opinion, and to voice said opinion. What works for you, might not work me, what works for me, might not work for you, and what works for both of us, might not work for others, and the only way Blizzard will ever know these things is if people voice their opinions about them.

Many people have. People being hacked or griefed and having their stuff taken, directly as a result of named games, is something that Blizzard received rather a lot of feedback for.

A: The RMT Auction House

Which you could not only use for your altruism towards other players, but protects other players from scams from illegitmate item trading.

B: No single player

Run a private game. Don't invite anyone. Single Player. It exists.

And again, don't put words into my mouth, I truly do hate that and am very irate atm because of it.

I seem to remember the conversation differently, but I will give you the benefit of the doubt and apologize for it.

[Starwulf]

Odds are if there is a chat, it would stand to reason that one could invite someone directly from chat. Not a lot of work at all. It works that way in other Blizzard titles, I don't see why it wouldn't work here.

That would be perfectly acceptable. I could certainly live with that.

See, it's things like this that confuse me. You state that you want to play single player without people, including making several posts regarding single player offline, particularly referencing how you weren't or aren't interested in playing with people, now suddenly you're Mr Altruism.

Please go back and re-read all of my previous arguments. You've obviously missed where I've stated many times that I don't like the option being taken away from me, but that I do still intend on playing online, and enjoy doing so. You must be confusing me with a few of the people who supported me. I want to play single player for my very first playthrough of the game, and when my internet isn't working very well. Though, I found out today that min. requirement for D3 is broadband, so I'm screwed regardless. I've never said I wasn't interested playing with people(or if I did, it was playing devils advocate and I clearly stated as much). I enjoy meeting new people, it was a great aspect of D2, even if I did get burned a few times(losing my .08 windforce to a guy I thought was a great friend for example ><).

Moreover, if you're so interested in giving away loot, why would you care about the RMAH? Nothing is stopping you from still giving out that loot for free. If anything, giving away loot for free is a legitimate form of rebellion. And at the end of the day, you even have a tool for listing that gear for cheap as free, as you could go and list it all for 1 gold.

It's the principle of the thing for me. I saw how RMT completely decimated the economy of Final Fantasy XI, taking it from normalcy, to extreme highs, to eventually, when Squeenix fought back, dropped the market to levels unheard of, and made only the absolute rarest drops worth anything. It was very frustrating. Also, people with credit cards and lots of money can buy advantages, and I dislike that. It's why I don't play Free MMOs that have micro-transactions that favor people who do buy over those who don't. Granted, D3 won't be favoring those who buy over those who won't, at least not if those who don't are willing to grind countless hours and hours to get the best gear, but still, I just dislike the idea that one person has to put into hundreds of hours to get great stuff, and another person can either use their own credit card, or go run to mommy and daddy saying "I want this item, buy it for me" ><

I've seen many people in this thread post about how people would pop into a game uninvited, go and clear quests and screw up their personal progression, and leave. If you ever floated the old D2 forums it was a constant complaint, especially in open. Especially as people could pop into your game, set hostile, hunt you down, and kill you. Just because you were a kind person in these games doesn't mean that everyone else was.

Hmm, I saw that as well, but I saw enough good to balance out the bad, so for me, the system worked just fine. Also, I never ran public cows unless my Cow King had already been killed. I joined a group of friends who were smart and not *******s, and Cowed for however long. Of course, in later patches, cows were worthless anyways, Hell Baal + minions were where the real EXP was.

Funny, I said the same thing to you regarding online play, you instantly shot me down for it.

Big difference between giving people the option to run public named games or private games, and forcing EVERYONE to ALWAYS be logged onto the internet, just to play your game. MONUMENTAL DIFFERENCE, actually. And as I've said before, while it doesn't massively bother me, as I've always intended to play online, there are people out there who ONLY played Diablo 2 off-line, because there internet sucked, or they just didn't have any(such people do exist). Good/Bad Choice, versus no choice at all, it's like trying to compare apples to chicken. Completely different, sorry.

Sorry, it was just a silly suggestion, hence the emoticon at the end of that suggestion. Besides, you said D2 isn't broken.

I never said it wasn't broken, I just said there was no reason to get rid of the named games. Again, putting words into my mouth man, please, stop that >< Also, again, I have over 5k hours into Diablo 2, I'm very much over it, and have been looking forward to a new experience for quite some time.

Many people have. People being hacked or griefed and having their stuff taken, directly as a result of named games, is something that Blizzard received rather a lot of feedback for.

Please, tell me how people were HACKED by playing in a public game? I could see if they were doing so on Open realms, but on closed? I never saw it, or heard of it happening, and again, yeah, 5k hours into the game. Griefed, or tricked out of their stuff(like in D2 classic, right after I got my first SOJ(when they cost 6 Pskulls, and Pskulls were the primary form of currency), I was bragging about it in a game, and some guy asked me if I wanted to learn how to dupe it. Yeah...he popped me and I lost all my stuff. That's not hacking, it's him taking advantage of a game design flaw, and me not knowing any better.

Which you could not only use for your altruism towards other players, but protects other players from scams from illegitmate item trading.

Issue with that, is putting stuff up on the Auction House for 1 gold, as you've said I should do, doesn't guarantee that some newbie, or lowbie is going to get it. I can guarantee there will be tens of thousands(if not hundreds of thousands) of people camping the Auction HOuse, looking for stuff just LIKE that, snatching it up, and making a profit of it. After enough time playing D2, it was pretty easy to spot the people who've done it all and seen it all, and just running another char up the ladder, and those who were honestly new, if not to the game, at least to the current ladder reset. Those were the kind of people I was usually interested in helping.

Run a private game. Don't invite anyone. Single Player. It exists.

Not for me it doesn't. Requires broadband. Yep, congratulations Blizzard, you just screwed every single Dial-up player in the world out of being able to play your game. So, no, single player doesn't exist for people like me. And even if it did, what if my dial-up is down for whatever reason? I can't play my game because I can't log on? Yeah, we've gone over this all before, so I'll end it here.

I seem to remember the conversation differently, but I will give you the benefit of the doubt and apologize for it.

My guess is you are confusing my words, with those of my supporters. Early on, people thought that I was saying I wouldn't buy and play Diablo 3 at all because of the RMT and Online only stuff, and I had to add to many of my posts that I was still planning on purchasing the game. I also started adding that I would be playing the game online as well, and if you want, you can even go back a few pages in this very thread, where I was wondering out loud whether or not I'd have immense lag because of my dial-up, or if it would rely more on my processor/graphics card, like Diablo 2 did(because, honestly, once I had a computer that could run D2 at max settings with no stress, my lag, even in Act 4 right before Chaos Sanctuary, was virtually nil).

[AgentPaper]

Also, helping friends is all well and good, but sometimes it's fun to share the good-will and help out random people, without having to go on chat and say "hey, is anyone looking for help for something today? If so, please, add me to your friend list, and invite me into your game!" An awful lot of work just to help out a random person. I personally find that as one of the best aspects of past Diablo games, the ability to just help out random people whenever you want. Can't count how many times I'd Clear off an entire account worth of mules in a private game, then go out and spam every channel with a list of the GOOD loot that was inside the game, just to help people, or how I'd find a lowbie game, go in, and outfit every single person in there with top-notch gear for their current level, and for many levels to come. It's a good feeling, and I don't like that Blizzard has likely taken that away from me.

While that sounds nice on the surface, you're actually disrupting the game significantly for those people, and probably making the game less fun overall. Getting loot is a big part of the game, and giving people all the loot they could ever want on a platter takes that away from them. They might thank you, but in the long run they won't have as much fun and may even quit before they get far enough to out-level the gear you gave them.


Edit: Another note, just because something is a good idea doesn't mean that it should be implemented. In an idea universe, sure, everyone would get what they want. In the real world, though, these kinds of things take a lot of time, money, and expertise that could be spent on other, even better ideas. Would named games improve the game? Sure, probably. Would they improve the game more than the 50 other things that Blizzard could do with that same time and money? Probably not.

When you're deciding whether or not to add an idea to a game, you have to realize that you're not just deciding whether it would improve the game, but if it's worth the investment that you will have to put into implementing that idea.

[Starwulf]

While that sounds nice on the surface, you're actually disrupting the game significantly for those people, and probably making the game less fun overall. Getting loot is a big part of the game, and giving people all the loot they could ever want on a platter takes that away from them. They might thank you, but in the long run they won't have as much fun and may even quit before they get far enough to out-level the gear you gave them.

While that is somewhat true, they do have the ability to say no, they don't want the gear or the help. Not to mention, while I would often set people up with good gear, it was never the best of the best stuff, which most people would strive for. I would often give good gear that would get them through the early levels, then enough to get them through nightmare, and let them start grinding in Hell for the best stuff themselves. Kind of like the old saying "Give a man a fish, feed him for a day, teach him to fish, feed him for a life time", I would "Give a man some gear, get them on their way, teach him the core principles, and how to get the best gear in the game on their own"

Edit: Another note, just because something is a good idea doesn't mean that it should be implemented. In an idea universe, sure, everyone would get what they want. In the real world, though, these kinds of things take a lot of time, money, and expertise that could be spent on other, even better ideas. Would named games improve the game? Sure, probably. Would they improve the game more than the 50 other things that Blizzard could do with that same time and money? Probably not.

When you're deciding whether or not to add an idea to a game, you have to realize that you're not just deciding whether it would improve the game, but if it's worth the investment that you will have to put into implementing that idea.

The question is, is really, how much effort would it really take to implement named games? Just swap that particular code out from D2, and put it into D3. Yes, I know it's probably not THAT simple, since there is a decade of difference in the two games, but the concept would have to be pretty much the same, I can't imagine it would take more then a half a days work to re-implement named games, and I really don't think that would take away from their main projects.

edit: Anyways, I didn't come here to start an argument over this, I was just confirming for a friend that named games were indeed being cut out, and then to voice my displeasure about it. What I didn't come here for, was to be belittled, have words shoved in my mouth, mocked, basically called a liar, and in general, majorly ticked off. So, if you don't mind, I'd like it if the conversation just moved on, k?

[Psyren]

We already know why D3 is online-only or at the very least we have a much more plausible reason than mere security. There's no need for anyone to argue about it all over again.

RE: Named Games - I'm not so sure that removing the ability to name games is a good call. Take the cow level, or Ubers - there was no specific "quest" for either of those things. Even runs that did have an associated quest like Countess or Meph would most often be revisited post-completion for their drops. So either you allow people to tie games to quests they've already completed, or you prevent the creation of farmable "runs." The former defeats the purpose of the random drop-in system - if I'm trying to complete a quest, including games where that quest is completed or nearly complete is just going to frustrate me. And the community will find a way to do the latter anyway no matter what Blizzard says or does.

[AgentPaper]

We already know why D3 is online-only or at the very least we have a much more plausible reason than mere security. There's no need for anyone to argue about it all over again.

"We" don't know anything of the sort. No need to go into this argument again, but suffice to say that not everyone agrees with that standpoint.

[Karoht]

The question is, is really, how much effort would it really take to implement named games? Just swap that particular code out from D2, and put it into D3. Yes, I know it's probably not THAT simple, since there is a decade of difference in the two games, but the concept would have to be pretty much the same, I can't imagine it would take more then a half a days work to re-implement named games, and I really don't think that would take away from their main projects.

Implimentation is not simply a matter of 'put feature in game' but to commit to servicing every aspect of that feature, especially if it doesn't work. We've established that named games as they existed in D2 in fact contributed to issues. Meaning that Implimenation in this sense would mean more than just a copy and paste of the code but also a serious commitment to the service issues that can and will come out of it.

RE: Named Games - I'm not so sure that removing the ability to name games is a good call. Take the cow level, or Ubers - there was no specific "quest" for either of those things. Even runs that did have an associated quest like Countess or Meph would most often be revisited post-completion for their drops. So either you allow people to tie games to quests they've already completed, or you prevent the creation of farmable "runs." The former defeats the purpose of the random drop-in system - if I'm trying to complete a quest, including games where that quest is completed or nearly complete is just going to frustrate me. And the community will find a way to do the latter anyway no matter what Blizzard says or does.

Since the quest selector (this is going strictly by Beta, unknown if this will function as such in live) allows you to pick previously completed quests, it would stand to reason that you would have that level of selection in group/random content as well.

[AgentPaper]

I would expect it to take at least a week or so just to decide whether to put it into the game. Then, they need to decide exactly how it should work, what the interface should look like, write up a huge amount of new code (decade old code for a completely different game and online platform isn't going to have any relevance at all here), test it thoroughly, tweak it, fix problems, troubleshoot, test some more, tweak some more, fix more bugs, test it, etc. etc. etc.

If you think it would've been worth all that work, then that's fine, but implementing any feature is not as simple as some single person deciding whether a feature should go in or not. With a company and a game this large and complex, adding anything, even something that seems minor, is a big deal, and requires a lot of planning and work.