Diablo III: Not Just a Vitality Race!

[Starwulf]

So, I just wanted to post up here, that I have officially managed to join the modern world, and I will indeed be able to buy Diablo 3, and I will probably be pre-ordering it the next time I"m down in hagerstown(where the nearest gamestop is). In other words, I have Internet! Fast internet! So incredibly happy :)

[Psyren]

So, I just wanted to post up here, that I have officially managed to join the modern world, and I will indeed be able to buy Diablo 3, and I will probably be pre-ordering it the next time I"m down in hagerstown(where the nearest gamestop is). In other words, I have Internet! Fast internet! So incredibly happy :)

*applause*
*cheers*
*confetti*

Does this mean we can stop hating on Mean Old Mr. Blizzard?

[Starwulf]

*applause*
*cheers*
*confetti*

Does this mean we can stop hating on Mean Old Mr. Blizzard?

nope, lol, they are still pretty insensitive to those poor unfortunates who don't have high-speed internet. They just lucky they are such awesome game developers and I love love love them ^^

[tribble]

*applause*
*cheers*
*confetti*

Does this mean we can stop hating on Mean Old Mr. Blizzard?

I still don't see the purpose in forcing people to log onto battlenet to play single player.

[Psyren]

I still don't see the purpose in forcing people to log onto battlenet to play single player.

Would require server architecture in the client programs, reduced exposure to RMAH, etc.

[The_Jackal]

Anyone know how the skill/spell system works yet? Is it like Diablo 2?

Far from it. Skills scale directly off your stats, you have access to a number of skill slots based on your level. The maximum is... 6 I think? You get 4 by the end of the Beta (level 13). There's no more synergies, or deep stacking of skill point to make your skills better, they just work, and scale as you level, and get better equipment. So build decisions are more like choosing what colour outfit you're wearing, and less like a permanent life-changing decision.

If your idea of replay value is throwing out a perfectly good character because someone nerfed your build in the last patch, then this is bad news. Otherwise, it's great news.

How exactly skills will be switched is currently in flux. You used to have to go back to town to switch, now switching triggers a long (30-60 second) cooldown on the switched slot.

I still don't see the purpose in forcing people to log onto battlenet to play single player.

Cheaters, pirates and revenue. The RMAH is how D3 is expected to pay for itself. Forcing people to play online forces them to play by the rules. No cheats for infinite gear, uber powerful runewords, etc. If you want awesome D3 gear, you'll have one of two ways to get it: 1) Play until it drops. 2) Pay someone else who had it drop. It forcibly expands their RMAH to include their entire player base.

If you don't have a good internet connection, don't buy D3. It's that simple. The only influence you have on Activision is how you spend your money on their products. Use it.

[Karoht]

new beta patch going out today/tomorrow. It's supposed to have some skill updates. We might even see Runes, but I'm not counting on it.

There is a perfectly working Skills Calculator over on the D3 main site.
www.battle.net
Click Diablo 3
Click Game Guide
Scroll down, Click Skills Calculator
Pick a Class.
Pick 6 Active abilities
Pick 3 Passive abilities
Pick Runes for each ability to match.
Mix and match until you find something you think you like. Enjoy.


@Battle.net
Quite a bit of the game is being handled on the server side, not client side. This helps lower the requirements to play the game, and makes it small enough to actually ship on one disc. Also, the heavier load on server side means they can make hotfixes pretty much whenever, without having to prepare whole patches.
IE-They found a typo in an ability tooltip.
1 programmer goes in, edits. No update to client side required, therefore no patch. Huge time and money saver, it does mean that they have much better response time to bugs and other issues.

Also, I fully expect D3 to be a game that Blizzard experiments with for purposes of better understanding Cloud Gaming and Cloud Computing. If anyone has a problem with logging on to a server to play a game now, you really won't like Cloud streaming as it applies to gaming then.

[Chen]

@Battle.net
Quite a bit of the game is being handled on the server side, not client side. This helps lower the requirements to play the game, and makes it small enough to actually ship on one disc. Also, the heavier load on server side means they can make hotfixes pretty much whenever, without having to prepare whole patches.
IE-They found a typo in an ability tooltip.
1 programmer goes in, edits. No update to client side required, therefore no patch. Huge time and money saver, it does mean that they have much better response time to bugs and other issues.

Also, I fully expect D3 to be a game that Blizzard experiments with for purposes of better understanding Cloud Gaming and Cloud Computing. If anyone has a problem with logging on to a server to play a game now, you really won't like Cloud streaming as it applies to gaming then.

I agree with this. I have to wonder whether they also find a cost savings in using part of their WoW server/client architecture here. Keeping the majority of things on a server can allow them to re-use similar code more easily. I mean things like Monster pathing AI. This should be fairly similar in both WoW and Diablo, at a very basic level. Keeping big parts of the code out of the player's hands is also useful to avoid cheating and the like. The idea has its flaws, but its definitely a way of moving forward. It seems like a better way to implement DRM without it having no benefits to the customer.

[Karoht]

I agree with this. I have to wonder whether they also find a cost savings in using part of their WoW server/client architecture here. Keeping the majority of things on a server can allow them to re-use similar code more easily. I mean things like Monster pathing AI. This should be fairly similar in both WoW and Diablo, at a very basic level. Keeping big parts of the code out of the player's hands is also useful to avoid cheating and the like. The idea has its flaws, but its definitely a way of moving forward. It seems like a better way to implement DRM without it having no benefits to the customer.

It's no different than the 'DRM' with Starcraft 2.

The Hotfixing system was actually something they did for Starcraft 2, and adapted it for use in WoW as well. And it just makes sense to continue forward with a working system that benefits people.

For those not in the know, game companies are moving away from ownership of physical media, and more into access to virtual media. Not long ago someone at EA said something to the effect of 'Gamestop was obsolete 5 years ago.' The sharp decision to not have offline singleplayer is really the first of many such actions of 'quickly ripping off the bandaid' that the industry will likely see in future.
They can take the hit now and be done with it, or they can slowly peel off the bandaid over the course of many product releases, which would necessitate a different delivery system and architecture for each.

[Starwulf]

It's no different than the 'DRM' with Starcraft 2.

The Hotfixing system was actually something they did for Starcraft 2, and adapted it for use in WoW as well. And it just makes sense to continue forward with a working system that benefits people.

For those not in the know, game companies are moving away from ownership of physical media, and more into access to virtual media. Not long ago someone at EA said something to the effect of 'Gamestop was obsolete 5 years ago.' The sharp decision to not have offline singleplayer is really the first of many such actions of 'quickly ripping off the bandaid' that the industry will likely see in future.
They can take the hit now and be done with it, or they can slowly peel off the bandaid over the course of many product releases, which would necessitate a different delivery system and architecture for each.

Sadly, I hate to say it, having been a video game fan since I was 5 years old(back when it certainly wasn't popular at all), if we eventually move to a "no offline single-player" entirely in the industry, I'll just quit playing modern video games. Definitely a decision I disagree with, and I am more then willing to vote with my wallet. I can live with a couple of games going that route, but if the entire industry goes that way, I'll just stick with my older games, or handheld systems that aren't as easily connected to the internet, therefore allowing them to still keep offline single player.

[Karoht]

Sadly, I hate to say it, having been a video game fan since I was 5 years old(back when it certainly wasn't popular at all), if we eventually move to a "no offline single-player" entirely in the industry, I'll just quit playing modern video games. Definitely a decision I disagree with, and I am more then willing to vote with my wallet. I can live with a couple of games going that route, but if the entire industry goes that way, I'll just stick with my older games, or handheld systems that aren't as easily connected to the internet, therefore allowing them to still keep offline single player.

There's good news, there's bad news.

Bad News-Um, look at Origin and Steam. Granted, not all games on there require you to be online all the time, but the majority do.
Good News-When you and I were 5 years old, multiplayer gaming sucked. Now it doesn't.
More Good News-Skyrim is proof positive that not every game needs DRM or online play. Sometimes these are good features, sometimes they are unnecessary. Entirely depends on the game.
Also, don't forget the sudden rise of the indie developer. While I could make the arguement that the majority of their games are literally perfect for some form of streaming (small, don't take up massive amounts of bandwidth), they're also typically being designed with no real need to be online in the first place. I mean, who the heck would bother cheating at Bejewelled for example?

Overall, I highly doubt we'll ever get to the point where every game is streamed and requires online functionality to play. If we do, by that point we'll have wireless internet hooked directly in our brain to the point where something not online would just be foreign to culture.

As for Cloud-Streaming, the benefits for the consumer are huge. Say you don't own an Xbox but want to play an Xbox title? Go check out Onlive, you can do this right now. Don't want to buy a system at all? Don't want to keep a library of games on hand? Don't want to keep constantly paying for new titles? Cloud Gaming is largely the answer.
Don't have the latest computer? As long as you can run the streaming client, you can play the game.
That isn't to say it will dominate, but just due to the benefits for the producers, the incentive is now there for a move in this direction. There are still reasons for producers to still come up with and market and sell consoles and physical media for the time being. The infrastucture to support Cloud Gaming on a much larger level simply doesn't exist in enough parts of the world. Cloud also brings certain new service issues to the table that no one has yet to really experiment with or tackle on a large scale. The closest thing we've got to cloud gaming currently is mobile gaming on devices such as iPods.

Round about as that all was, one thing I actually do hope comes to pass would be Diablo 3 in a playable manner on an iPad or tablet. Man, that would be awesome. Play some D3 on the bus? Not just some iPad knock off but the actual game? I'm down with that. I'd sell my car and go back to public transit just for that. This is probably the biggest upside of cloud gaming is portable gaming gets a serious shot in the arm again.

[ShneekeyTheLost]

Sadly, I hate to say it, having been a video game fan since I was 5 years old(back when it certainly wasn't popular at all), if we eventually move to a "no offline single-player" entirely in the industry, I'll just quit playing modern video games. Definitely a decision I disagree with, and I am more then willing to vote with my wallet. I can live with a couple of games going that route, but if the entire industry goes that way, I'll just stick with my older games, or handheld systems that aren't as easily connected to the internet, therefore allowing them to still keep offline single player.

This. Between the RMAH and the 'manditory online', which not even SC2 requires (it does require a connection to verify, and for achievements, but not for play)... count me out. You couldn't pay me enough to play this game, for these two reasons. If someone tried to buy the game for me, I'd demand that they return it for a full refund, because I wouldn't want Blizzard to profit from the purchase.

[AgentPaper]

This. Between the RMAH and the 'manditory online', which not even SC2 requires (it does require a connection to verify, and for achievements, but not for play)... count me out. You couldn't pay me enough to play this game, for these two reasons. If someone tried to buy the game for me, I'd demand that they return it for a full refund, because I wouldn't want Blizzard to profit from the purchase.

See you on release day.

[Starwulf]

This. Between the RMAH and the 'manditory online', which not even SC2 requires (it does require a connection to verify, and for achievements, but not for play)... count me out. You couldn't pay me enough to play this game, for these two reasons. If someone tried to buy the game for me, I'd demand that they return it for a full refund, because I wouldn't want Blizzard to profit from the purchase.

Hmm, I was actually referring to other games in the future that will follow Diablo 3's model, not Diablo 3 itself. I have good internet now, I WILL be buying D3, likely pre-ordering it, probably the collectors edition at that. I can't wait!

*Squees*

So, while looking to see if it was true that D3's release date had been pushed back again(last I had heard was march), I came across an interesting article/poll from PCWorld, and apparently(and I only bring this up in amusement since I've been making a big stink about it from the start on these forums), I'm actually in the majority. 67% of people polled on PCWorld are angry that there is no offline single player ^^. Link here: http://www.pcworld.com/article/23707...iablo_iii.html

[Karoht]

@SC2
Yes, you can play it offline if you really must. You lose access to most of the game features, people have gone so far as to call it unplayable (an exaggeration but still relevant) in this "offline mode"


Okay, I'm lost.
Why the hell does offline single player matter so much to so many people?
Lets remove 'bad internet' from the equasion. I want an answer that doesn't involve 'bad internet' from people.

"I want to play by myself"
Click Private when you start a game. Solved.

"I want to just play with my friends"
Click Private or Friends Only when you start a game. Solved.

I want to play on the bus with my laptop on my way to school/work
Quite a few people have been quick to reject the idea of playing in a public place such as a Starbucks (which has free internet, and yes, I've played the Beta on my laptop at a Starbucks, it's fine), so if people are against it in a public place, why are people suddenly okay with it in another public place or on public transit?


@RMAH-Participation is 100% optional hence if you don't want to touch it, it's not going to affect you. Those other players that do use it? Yeah guess what, they don't affect you. And if you really really don't want RMAH to affect you, play Hardcore. No RMAH items allowed.

@Online Play is only there to support RMAH
RMAH is only there to prevent the dumb twits who went to 3rd parties to buy gear in the first place, and got hacked for beign dumb twits going to 3rd parties. It's also there because, if you are anything like me and have the worst luck in the world, you might never in your lifetime see the upgrade you are looking for.

[Starwulf]

@SC2
Yes, you can play it offline if you really must. You lose access to most of the game features, people have gone so far as to call it unplayable (an exaggeration but still relevant) in this "offline mode"


Okay, I'm lost.
Why the hell does offline single player matter so much to so many people?
Lets remove 'bad internet' from the equasion. I want an answer that doesn't involve 'bad internet' from people.

"I want to play by myself"
Click Private when you start a game. Solved.

"I want to just play with my friends"
Click Private or Friends Only when you start a game. Solved.

I want to play on the bus with my laptop on my way to school/work
Quite a few people have been quick to reject the idea of playing in a public place such as a Starbucks (which has free internet, and yes, I've played the Beta on my laptop at a Starbucks, it's fine), so if people are against it in a public place, why are people suddenly okay with it in another public place or on public transit?


@RMAH-Participation is 100% optional hence if you don't want to touch it, it's not going to affect you. Those other players that do use it? Yeah guess what, they don't affect you. And if you really really don't want RMAH to affect you, play Hardcore. No RMAH items allowed.

@Online Play is only there to support RMAH
RMAH is only there to prevent the dumb twits who went to 3rd parties to buy gear in the first place, and got hacked for beign dumb twits going to 3rd parties. It's also there because, if you are anything like me and have the worst luck in the world, you might never in your lifetime see the upgrade you are looking for.

First, I do hope I made it entirely clear that I only posted that link in amusement, since my internet is no longer a factor, I just thought it was interesting to see a poll that had supported my viewpoint. Not trying to piss anyone off on this thread ^^

I think the issue is, it is solely internet related. Even with good internet, there will be times when you just aren't able to connect. Either your ISPs servers are down, you're out of range of WiFi, someone else is using it(not so much anymore in these days, most wireless connections support multiple connections), or you just flat out don't want to be logged onto the internet. Combine that with the fact that previous games didn't require it, and you have your answer. People don't like change(myself included, I fully admit), and this irritates them.

Also, keep in mind(and now that I think of it, this may very well be the most important thing of all), that some people are on a Data Cap, and this is actually my new worry. If I have to be connected to the internet to play D3 all the time, that means my pitiful 5GB cap is going to be constantly ticking down, and that just isn't something that I would have to worry about if there was an Offline single player mode. 5GB goes fast, I'm already learning that, and if you're a hardcore Diablo player, even if you have a 10GB cap, you'll be completely through it halfway through the month if you're playing about 4 hours a day or so(which is about 2 hours less then what I averaged back in the day on D2).

[Karoht]

My reply was not directed at you Starwulf.

But I am seeking a non-internet related answer to this question, and so far it doesn't exist beyond "I shouldn't have to if I don't want to" or my personal favorite, "D2 had it"

Comparing a game from 10+ years ago to today and bemoaning a missing feature is like complaining that the Blue Ray re-release of Star Wars Ep1 doesn't have a VHS option, on the basis that it did have a VHS option back then.


========
In other news, with the new patch, I gave Demon Hunter another go.
I enjoyed the class far more this time, but it is still not high on my priority list.
Wizard now gets Ray of Frost very early, and Disintigrate much later. It's interesting, not what I was expecting of it.
Barbarian got some damage buffs, but I think they tweaked some of the damage on the Barbarian only weapons.
Runes are fun. They aren't drop based, you simply get them as you level along.
New Skill system is okay. A bit awkward at first, and you can still have your pick of any ability you want in any slot. At first I thought you had to have a defensive ability in that defensive slot, turns out you don't. The names on the slots is more or less a suggestion of sorts.
Also, the default potion button is now Q. Q for Quaff. I was amused once I realized that. It works well there. You will likely be using 1-2-3-4 for abilities, Q there feels more natural than it did in the 5 slot. Now I just need to find uses for the W-E-R keys. Or I might try changing 1-2-3-4 to A-S-D-F and see how that goes. And as soon as I can bind all my attacks to my all my mouse buttons, I'm really in gear.

[Chen]

I think the issue is, it is solely internet related. Even with good internet, there will be times when you just aren't able to connect. Either your ISPs servers are down, you're out of range of WiFi, someone else is using it(not so much anymore in these days, most wireless connections support multiple connections), or you just flat out don't want to be logged onto the internet. Combine that with the fact that previous games didn't require it, and you have your answer. People don't like change(myself included, I fully admit), and this irritates them.

Cloud gaming does seem to be the new paradigm that video games are moving towards. It allows game producers to protect their intellectual property without having to create individual DRM per product. There's effectively DRM since you need their servers to be running though. Still, this method seems to be MUCH more effective than the current other DRMs that they have on games. Steam is a great example of this.

Also, keep in mind(and now that I think of it, this may very well be the most important thing of all), that some people are on a Data Cap, and this is actually my new worry. If I have to be connected to the internet to play D3 all the time, that means my pitiful 5GB cap is going to be constantly ticking down, and that just isn't something that I would have to worry about if there was an Offline single player mode. 5GB goes fast, I'm already learning that, and if you're a hardcore Diablo player, even if you have a 10GB cap, you'll be completely through it halfway through the month if you're playing about 4 hours a day or so(which is about 2 hours less then what I averaged back in the day on D2).

Where are you getting those numbers from? I've seen some posts on Diablofans site that was something like 4-5 megs for 20 min of gameplay (someone had done some sort of bandwidth monitoring). That might be a bit conservative but 20-30 megs/hour is pretty standard for MMO type games so it might be about right for Diablo. Even at the high end estimate that gives you over 150 hours with 5 gigs, which is more than 5 hours per day. I'd imagine this will start becoming much less of an issue as this type of gaming is pushed forward too. Bandwidth limits only seem to be increasing from what I can tell so eventually it will hardly be an issue. I mean any of the companies around here have had 20 gig as the minimum limits for quite a long time now (several years). There are even popular cell phone plans that are getting up there near the 5 gig range, so I'd imagine regular broadband will just continue to increase as well.

[Starwulf]

Where are you getting those numbers from? I've seen some posts on Diablofans site that was something like 4-5 megs for 20 min of gameplay (someone had done some sort of bandwidth monitoring). That might be a bit conservative but 20-30 megs/hour is pretty standard for MMO type games so it might be about right for Diablo. Even at the high end estimate that gives you over 150 hours with 5 gigs, which is more than 5 hours per day. I'd imagine this will start becoming much less of an issue as this type of gaming is pushed forward too. Bandwidth limits only seem to be increasing from what I can tell so eventually it will hardly be an issue. I mean any of the companies around here have had 20 gig as the minimum limits for quite a long time now (several years). There are even popular cell phone plans that are getting up there near the 5 gig range, so I'd imagine regular broadband will just continue to increase as well.

I'm just going off my personal experience in the last week. I've downloaded a 275mb Patch for Skyrim, a 90mb graphic card driver update, 10 songs at about 7mb each, and yet in just 1 week I've gone through 1.12Gigs of Data, doing nothing more then I normally do(which is surf on this site, Echo Bazaar, and Bethsoft forums). If my data goes that fast just surfing the web, I hate to see what D3 is going to do it. I hope your numbers are correct, but right now, personal experience tells me it won't be like that.

[tyckspoon]

Standard browsing can actually be much more data-intensive than gaming- while the text of forums, for example, doesn't need much, the forums themselves will ask you to load avatars, sig files, random pictures people link, and other more bandwidth-costly stuff (you might be surprised how much less bandwidth you use if you go to your browser settings and disable showing images except by direct command.) The modern web is very multi-media heavy, which means it also uses more bandwidth in general, and digital content and data delivery (so those patches, updates, and songs you mentioned, which make up a bit more than 1/3 of the bandwidth you used so far) is especially heavy on it.

The game itself, on the other hand, just needs to send the game state back and forth between the client and server. That's simple data that can be expressed in a very streamlined form because no human ever really needs to be able to read it. That can be and has been done over a stable 56k modem, for sufficiently well-optimized netcode. So yeah, I wouldn't be too surprised if you wind up using more bandwidth to patch D3 than playing it.

[ShneekeyTheLost]

@SC2
Yes, you can play it offline if you really must. You lose access to most of the game features, people have gone so far as to call it unplayable (an exaggeration but still relevant) in this "offline mode"

I respectfully disagree. You can play the campaign just fine offline, if you don't care about achievements.

Okay, I'm lost.
Why the hell does offline single player matter so much to so many people?
Lets remove 'bad internet' from the equasion. I want an answer that doesn't involve 'bad internet' from people.

Umm... bad internet is a problem. If my ISP glitches for a minute or so, I just got kicked out of my game. I could have a T2 line in my house, and still end up with hiccups and glitches like that. Heck, my router could glitch out on me briefly. Or my power supply to any of the aforementioned parts. I've got a UPS battery on my tower, but it doesn't extend to my modem/router. Lightning strikes, random tornadoes taking down power lines... point is, power going down is not entirely uncommon, and I have to go manually power cycle, and got kicked off my game in the process.

"I want to play by myself"
Click Private when you start a game. Solved.

I want to play a game on my computer which isn't hooked up to the internet. Not solved.

I want to be able to play the game I purchased after Blizzard stops supporting it. I still play old DOS games like MoO2. I can do that long after the people who made it are shut down. I won't be able to with D3.

I also disagree, strongly, with the MMO-esque EULA that states that I'm not actually BUYING the game, merely renting a 'seat' from Blizzard and permission to access their game. This is one reason I don't play WoW or any other MMO.

When I drop $60 on a game, I want that game to belong to me. I want to have the option to sell it to my half-priced bookstore or other such retailer if I ever get bored with it. I want to be able to continue playing it twenty years from now if Blizzard happens to go down, or gets a portion (or the entirety) of their assets purchased by someone who shuts it down.

"I want to just play with my friends"
Click Private or Friends Only when you start a game. Solved.

I don't want to have to deal with the additional lag involved in not having a direct LAN connection. Not solved.

I want to play on the bus with my laptop on my way to school/work
Quite a few people have been quick to reject the idea of playing in a public place such as a Starbucks (which has free internet, and yes, I've played the Beta on my laptop at a Starbucks, it's fine), so if people are against it in a public place, why are people suddenly okay with it in another public place or on public transit?

I don't get this one, simply because I wouldn't be doing this kind of gaming on a laptop in the first place.

@RMAH-Participation is 100% optional hence if you don't want to touch it, it's not going to affect you. Those other players that do use it? Yeah guess what, they don't affect you. And if you really really don't want RMAH to affect you, play Hardcore. No RMAH items allowed.

It still encourages account cracking FAR more than the current system does. Why spend hours and hours trying to farm the rare mats worth cash when I can hack someone's account and jack their stuff to sell for real cash?

@Online Play is only there to support RMAH
RMAH is only there to prevent the dumb twits who went to 3rd parties to buy gear in the first place, and got hacked for beign dumb twits going to 3rd parties. It's also there because, if you are anything like me and have the worst luck in the world, you might never in your lifetime see the upgrade you are looking for.

The regular AH on WoW fits the bill nicely. There's no need to bring real money into it. You want this item that can be traded? Fine, go to your AH, and buy one. Don't have the gold? To quote Assoc. Prof. Evil... get a job, learn a trade, farm some gold. There's plenty of ways to get enough in game gold to purchase anything you really want on it.

We've all seen those stupid game shows where people would do ridiculously insane things for a handful of cash, while being publicized to the airwaves as a certifiable loon and laughingstock. Now you have the anonymity of the internet to prevent you from being a laughingstock.

It brings in an entirely new, and very ugly, dimension. Heck, there were cheats and scams and cracks on WoW, even when gold had no 'real' value. Now you've got gold legally 'worth' something. Cue all that, multiplied a thousand-fold. Blech.

[Karoht]

I've been doing some maths!

Disclaimer-I suck at math.

So I was wondering about the number of combinations of abilities for a character.
Assuming 6 active slots with 24 abilities per class to choose from, and 5 possible runes to place in each slot, as well as 3 passive slots with 24 abilities to choose from, the number of possible combinations is 44505.

Now from there I postulated on how much diversity could occur with different modifiers.
What if there were 6 runes per ability? 7? 8?
What if they add more abilities per class?
What if they add more passives?
What if they allow 7 active slots?
What if they allow 4 passive slots?
What if they allow more than 1 rune per ability?
What if they allow runes on passives?
The number of combinations rapidly spun out of control. Any 2 of the above sent the number of combinations upwards of 200K. Any 3 and the numbers climbed upward into absurdity.
I am pretty sure that my math is just raw combinations and not entirely unique combinations (no 1 ability is used more than once, no passive is used more than once), as it's been rather a long time since high school math. But dang. Scaleabilty and depth is definately there.
What is interesting to note is, if you look at the abilities like a grid, if they add certain 'layers' they get a massive surface area or shape. So they will need to be careful or they will have too many combinations of stuff to balance and test out.

My prediction for the first expansion:

Spoiler

Show

-1 new rune type because it expands the existing abilities, which would likely be easier to test and balance. Graphic changes are already easy for them to test in this capacity, additional effects per ability isn't as big to balance as 1 new ability with many graphic changes and many effects.
-Probably 1+ new passive and 3+ new abilities per class.
-1 new class. I say this only because of previous track record which is largely meaningless. For all we know, 5 classes could be the sum total of classes for both expansions. But I would think that they will try and sweeten the pot of both expansions with 1 new class.
-Mystic.
-New act or acts of story, bosses, weapons, etc. New gem types added to Jeweler, new ranks added for both professions (currently caps at level 10)
-New Hireling type (see new class for disclaimer)

My prediction for the second expansion (yes, they've got two planned, not one):

Spoiler

Show

-2 runes per active ability
-1 rune per passive ability
-New abilities, passives, etc.
-Possible additional progression type.
-1+ new rune types (I figure they'll cap at either 8 or 10)
-1 new class (see above for obligatory disclaimer)
-New act or acts of story, bosses, weapons, etc.
-New Hireling type (see new class for disclaimer)

[AgentPaper]

For each skill slot, assuming you turn on elective mode, you can choose one skill and then choose one of 5 runes for that slot, or no rune. For your first skill you have 24 options, times 6 rune options for each for 144 options. For your second skill you have only 23 options since you can't pick the same skill you chose for the first slot, but still 5 rune options for each, so 138 total options. For your third, you have two less choices, and so on. For your passive slot you have 24 options, then 23, then 22.

Math:

(24 skill choices * 6 rune choices) * (23 skill choices * 6 rune choices) * (22 skill choices * 6 rune choices) * (21 skill choices * 6 rune choices) * (20 skill choices * 6 rune choices) * (19 skill choices * 6 rune choices) * 24 passive choices * 23 passive choices * 22 passive choices = 54,907,783,266,631,680 total builds

Of course, nobody is going to be using a build with an un-runed skill, since the runed skills are just strictly better, so a more realistic view is:

(24 skill choices * 5 rune choices) * (23 skill choices * 5 rune choices) * (22 skill choices * 5 rune choices) * (21 skill choices * 5 rune choices) * (20 skill choices * 5 rune choices) * (19 skill choices * 5 rune choices) * 24 passive choices * 23 passive choices * 22 passive choices = 18,388,505,520,000,000 total builds using runes in each slot.

An even more realistic view of actual viable builds is to assume that the player will follow the "recommended" setup of having a primary attack, a secondary, a defensive, a utility, and so on. Assuming that there's 4 skills for each of those 6 slots, and you're using runes in all of them, you get:

(4 skill choices * 5 runes) ^ 6 skill slots * 24 passive choices * 23 passive choices * 22 passive choices = 777,216,000,000 "viable" builds.

[Starwulf]

Standard browsing can actually be much more data-intensive than gaming- while the text of forums, for example, doesn't need much, the forums themselves will ask you to load avatars, sig files, random pictures people link, and other more bandwidth-costly stuff (you might be surprised how much less bandwidth you use if you go to your browser settings and disable showing images except by direct command.) The modern web is very multi-media heavy, which means it also uses more bandwidth in general, and digital content and data delivery (so those patches, updates, and songs you mentioned, which make up a bit more than 1/3 of the bandwidth you used so far) is especially heavy on it.

The game itself, on the other hand, just needs to send the game state back and forth between the client and server. That's simple data that can be expressed in a very streamlined form because no human ever really needs to be able to read it. That can be and has been done over a stable 56k modem, for sufficiently well-optimized netcode. So yeah, I wouldn't be too surprised if you wind up using more bandwidth to patch D3 than playing it.

That is good(and very reassuring) to know :)

[Karoht]

(24 *5) * (23* 5) * ...~snip~

Um, shouldn't that be (24 *5) plus (23 *5) or am I mixing up my statistics with my perms/combs?

[Suichimo]

Not sure if I should've just made a new thread for this or not, but oh well.

Diablo III is releasing on May 15th!

http://www.joystiq.com/2012/03/15/di...m-hell-may-15/

5/15/12

[Karoht]

Confirmed on the official site.
We have an authentic release date! Get your preorders ready. Plan your release parties! Man your battlestations!
This is not a drill.
Repeat, this is not a drill.

[Starwulf]

Confirmed on the official site.
We have an authentic release date! Get your preorders ready. Plan your release parties! Man your battlestations!
This is not a drill.
Repeat, this is not a drill.

HIP HIP HOORAY!

[Karoht]

Plan of Attack:
Monday May 15th. 6pm. Dinner at home. 10pm. Coffee + Apple Fritter for waiting in lineup. 11pm. Standing in the store in pre-lineup. 12am. Out the door ASAP with my Collectors Edition.
1230am-Home and complete install.
1am-Complete name reserve list:
Rushinqueen-Female Monk
Ragequit-Male Barbarian
Tingtang-Male Witchdoctor
Ujelii-Female Wizard
Miris-Female Demonhunter.
3am-Complete Skeleton King Questline with Monk/Witchdoctor combo with my fiance. Bed.

[Sila Prirode]

Since I'm digital downloading, and will probably have it installed before you guys that want the real life copy, any wishes for username reservations? I will probably be on EU, and if you reeeeeeally have to have a certain name, I'm more then happy to help.