Support NeoGAF

[Sothpaw]

I can't help but feel that your arguments are getting weaker with every response.

"There are no "resources" to take on the challenging task of balancing other than extensive playtesting by the kind of players who are likely to imbalance the game and look at it in ways that Blizzard didn't. These people are, inherently, not employed by Blizzard."

You stated there are no resources to take on the challenging task of balancing other than testing by people who are inherently not employed by blizzard (assuming you mean hardcore gamers).

At this point I'm not surprised you think I'm the one with the weaker arguments. I did get a good laugh out of the no resources post though so thanks for that.

 

[Fugu]

No, see, what I was hoping was that you would give me something to respond to instead of dismissing my argument. I mean, the whole "your argument makes me laugh" stuff would be classic if this were a movie or something, but this is an internet discussion board. Whatever, you'll illicit no more responses from me.

 

[Sothpaw]

No, see, what I was hoping was that you would give me something to respond to instead of dismissing my argument. I mean, the whole "your argument makes me laugh" stuff would be classic if this were a movie or something, but this is an internet discussion board. Whatever, you'll illicit no more responses from me.

Edited out my post because it was too harsh. Sorry; had a difficult day at work and I took it out on you.

There are no "resources" to take on the challenging task of balancing other than extensive playtesting by the kind of players who are likely to imbalance the game and look at it in ways that Blizzard didn't. These people are, inherently, not employed by Blizzard.

Anyway...time is a resource. It takes time to implement balance changes based on feedback by the community. That's all I wanted you to admit was wrong with your post.

That said, we are way off track here so I'm going to just agree to disagree with you.

 

[sykoex]

Awesome, pausing is in.

http://us.battle.net/d3/en/forum/topic/4662478087#2

We added pause if you're not in a multiplayer game.

 

[Shakala]

Was disappointed to find out that my laptop can't run this game that well.... is it pretty well optimized already?

 

[~Kinggi~]

Awesome, pausing is in.

http://us.battle.net/d3/en/forum/topic/4662478087#2

I thought i was able to pause in the open beta when i went to the game menu :/

 

[FieryBalrog]

I thought i was able to pause in the open beta when i went to the game menu :/

Yes, it was in the beta. If you're in a solo game, putting up menu pauses it.

 

[Fugu]

Edited out my post because it was too harsh. Sorry; had a difficult day at work and I took it out on you.



Anyway...time is a resource. It takes time to implement balance changes based on feedback by the community. That's all I wanted you to admit was wrong with your post.

That said, we are way off track here so I'm going to just agree to disagree with you.

I'm talking about pre-release balance. The game isn't out yet. It doesn't take a lot to look at changes and make them after the game is out; what prevented Blizzard from doing that after Diablo 2 was released wasn't resources but financial incentive.

I thought i was able to pause in the open beta when i went to the game menu :/

Me too, although that was mostly because the menu says "the game is NOT PAUSED" when you are in a multiplayer game.

 

[Teknoman]

Sounds good. Thanks.

Not really big on competitive MP but I like a bit of co-op.

Diablo series co-op is some of the most co-op fun you'll have on the PC...or any platform for that matter.

EDIT: They need to add "Disable mini-map". I can work just fine with a large map brought up with the tab/M key.

Was disappointed to find out that my laptop can't run this game that well.... is it pretty well optimized already?

I've read that this version isnt that well optimized compared to the retail build, but i'm not sure if that just means missing settings, or actual performance improvement.

 

[Lain]

I never owned D2, so yesterday I tried to reinstall my D1 copy on Win7 64 to pass some time while the day comes for D3 release and was surprised that it worked out perfectly.
Man, replaying D1 was fun, even if the game looks ugly nowadays for me, especially after this open beta (even if the characters for D3 look so low poly).

 

[HenryHSH]

I never owned D2, so yesterday I tried to reinstall my D1 copy on Win7 64 to pass some time while the day comes for D3 release and was surprised that it worked out perfectly.
Man, replaying D1 was fun, even if the game looks ugly nowadays for me, especially after this open beta (even if the characters for D3 look so low poly).

I played Diablo 2 about a year ago then tried to go back to Diablo 1 but couldn't. D2 was a giant step forward that I found it really hard to go back to D1.

 

[mbmonk]

I was a 3D graphics snob by the time D2 released so I skipped it. 2D sprites?..... HELLL NO!!!


I feel so stupid now.

 

[Suairyu]

I played Diablo 2 about a year ago then tried to go back to Diablo 1 but couldn't. D2 was a giant step forward that I found it really hard to go back to D1.

I just went from D1 to D2. So far, D1 is superior in the atmosphere and horror stakes. Its also much, much harder out the gate.

But, D2 has its own obvious strengths already. I can see the two co-existing in my replay time easily.

 

[Fugu]

Diablo has a lot going for it in the realm of single-player, but the skill system, item variety and multiplayer balance in Diablo 2 are just so, so much better that it certainly has much more replayability. The rogue and warrior just feel so gimped after you've played the sorcerer, and the number of items just doesn't even come close.

 

[Yoshichan]

Awesome, pausing is in.

http://us.battle.net/d3/en/forum/topic/4662478087#2

woooooooow!

 

[ZealousD]

I just went from D1 to D2. So far, D1 is superior in the atmosphere and horror stakes. Its also much, much harder out the gate.

But, D2 has its own obvious strengths already. I can see the two co-existing in my replay time easily.

D1 is rather strange in its difficulty. It starts off not too bad, but eventually when you get to Hell you have to take potions pretty much intravenously. Not really any good way to grind out to avoid that, either.

 

[SamuraiX-]

Awesome, pausing is in.

http://us.battle.net/d3/en/forum/topic/4662478087#2

PIMPIN' PIMPIN'!

 

[TylerD]

Awesome, pausing is in.

http://us.battle.net/d3/en/forum/topic/4662478087#2

Sheeeit. This is old news brah. I noticed this back in patch 14 or something.

I was very pleased.

 

[Dire]

Does anybody have a friend invite left? My wife was working while I skeleton kinged through the beta weekend and wants to give it a go this weekend. Thanks.

 

[Csokis]

News.

• The PvP system is still in a period of change and there is no definite schedule for its launch but the PvP system will be a completely open game mode. However, skills in their nature will remain the same, such as damage output, stun period, for example, may be reduced in PvP.
• Nothing specific has been decided regarding public testing of the PvP mode but do not rule out a similar system to World of Warcraft’s Patch Test Realm (PTR).
• It is hoped PvP mode will be in the game by the end of 2012.
• In PvE mode there will be no means to kill other players as that ruins the fun of the game.
• If demand is high they will consider having a Chinese interface with English audio.
• The expansion pack will provide new places, equipment and increase the difficulty but there will and there *might* not be an increase to the level cap. (Updated with better translation info.)
• There will be no ladder in Diablo 3.
• Skills should be similar as they are in the beta, possibly minor fine tuning will only be required.
• Character customization was a little more elaborate to begin with. Initially 8 or 9 hair and beard colours were designed for the Barbarian but once in game it made such a tiny difference and when wearing a helmet the differences could not be seen at all so they decided against this level of customisation.
• Dyes will allow you to customise your equipment. An invisible dye on body armour will make your character look as if they do not have body armor on.
• The third artisan (Mystic) will return (possibly in an xpack) but her role will be useful.
• The interface will not change but possibly minor tweaks.
• Jay has not beaten inferno difficulty, as a solo player or in a 4-player multiplayer game
• If a player was to read the lore, interact with the environment, access 80% of the game content then you are looking at 15-20 to complete normal difficult.

Source: IncGamers

 

[Suairyu]

15-20 hours content? Huh. Guess my decision to be conservative in my calculations was the right one. Still, given my first beta run took me four hours, I'm sure I'll be closer to 20 rather than 15.

D1 is rather strange in its difficulty. It starts off not too bad, but eventually when you get to Hell you have to take potions pretty much intravenously. Not really any good way to grind out to avoid that, either.

What I did like about it is that you could have the weakest enemy in the world, something you 1HKO without a problem, but if there were eight of them and they managed to surround you you are fucked. It was all about slowly creeping through the dungeons, positioning yourself near walls to keep your back guarded. Was terrifying at times.

Diablo II has the high movement speed so in a way it feels like Doom or Quake sometimes - you use movement rather than position to act as your defense. It's a nice contrast.

Also, Blizzard are right - the first three hours of D2 are absolutely no harder than the Diablo III beta.

 

[sykoex]

Will this game have scheduled weekly downtime like WoW? Being that it's always online. I don't play SC2 so I'm not sure whether Blizz only does that with WoW.

 

[Dire]

...
That said D2's build variety will be completely eclipsed by D3. The amount of variety in actual skill functionality due to the rune effects is astronomical for this style of game. You'll have builds focused around using the full gamut of 6 attacks and builds that spam one heavy resource attack with 5 defensive abilities.
...

Can you elaborate on why you feel this way?

In general I felt that Diablo 3 had a wide gamut of skills but ultimately there was not an enormous difference between them. In Diablo 2, for comparison, a skellymancer and a melee poison necro are practically two entirely different classes. Same thing for a martial arts assassin or a trapsin or many of the other numerous viable builds.

D3 seemed to have a massive amount of skills available, especially when factoring in runes, but ultimately they all somehow felt and seemed like utilities rather than completely character [re]defining. And the 'locking in' of skills seems likely to even further minimize the relevance of choice. For instance, in D2 every sorceress there is has static field hotkeyed. There will certainly be other similar must-have skills in D3. If a number of your skills are locked in to these must-haves then again your choices for customization go further down.

And the lack of skill specialization makes all the D3 options seem even more diluted. In particular how is equipment supposed to specialize your character when it's impossible to specialize in skills? This isn't a rhetorical question, I'm hoping I just missed an announcement somewhere or something. What I mean here is that in D2 if you find a wand that is +3 to summon skeleton, +3 to skeleton master, +1 to necromancer skill levels then what you have is an amazingly powerful wand if you create a skelemancer and a fairly useless wand otherwise. Is there are a comparable way in D3 for equipment to impact builds and specializations? I did not see it in the beta on item 'drops' up to level 29. In D2, item/build synergies start at level 1. So far as I can tell from D3, I should be able to dump my equipment from my wizard right onto my witchdoctor and have it be just about as effective. That's seems kind of strange. Again, I assume I'm just missing something? A lot of the fun in D2 was picking up some strange item and creating a new character around it. In D3 I just handed my strongest 2-h weapon straight from my barb to my witch doctor, and it worked just as well. That's neat, but it left very little excitement when it came to getting items which is ultimately what Diablo is all about.

I enjoyed playing D3, but I'm just not really seeing the massive customization some others are. If I did I would be buying this on day 1, but as is I don't expect to be coming back to this game over and over again so I'm going to wait for the price to drop and launch bugs/balance issues to be ironed out before I pick up a key so I can try to get the best possible experience when I do play through it.

 

[koji]

Awesome, pausing is in.

http://us.battle.net/d3/en/forum/topic/4662478087#2

Great news!

 

[DieH@rd]

Awesome, pausing is in.

http://us.battle.net/d3/en/forum/topic/4662478087#2

This was active during open beta, everything would pause if i was in the game menus. [singleplayer sessions]

 

[Naeblish]

Can you elaborate on why you feel this way?

In general I felt that Diablo 3 had a wide gamut of skills but ultimately there was not an enormous difference between them. In Diablo 2, for comparison, a skellymancer and a melee poison necro are practically two entirely different classes. Same thing for a martial arts assassin or a trapsin or many of the other numerous viable builds.

D3 seemed to have a massive amount of skills available, especially when factoring in runes, but ultimately they all somehow felt and seemed like utilities rather than completely character [re]defining. And the 'locking in' of skills seems likely to even further minimize the relevance of choice. For instance, in D2 every sorceress there is has static field hotkeyed. There will certainly be other similar must-have skills in D3. If a number of your skills are locked in to these must-haves then again your choices for customization go further down.

And the lack of skill specialization makes all the D3 options seem even more diluted. In particular how is equipment supposed to specialize your character when it's impossible to specialize in skills? This isn't a rhetorical question, I'm hoping I just missed an announcement somewhere or something. What I mean here is that in D2 if you find a wand that is +3 to summon skeleton, +3 to skeleton master, +1 to necromancer skill levels then what you have is an amazingly powerful wand if you create a skelemancer and a fairly useless wand otherwise. Is there are a comparable way in D3 for equipment to impact builds and specializations? I did not see it in the beta on item 'drops' up to level 29. In D2, item/build synergies start at level 1. So far as I can tell from D3, I should be able to dump my equipment from my wizard right onto my witchdoctor and have it be just about as effective. That's seems kind of strange. Again, I assume I'm just missing something? A lot of the fun in D2 was picking up some strange item and creating a new character around it. In D3 I just handed my strongest 2-h weapon straight from my barb to my witch doctor, and it worked just as well. That's neat, but it left very little excitement when it came to getting items which is ultimately what Diablo is all about.

I enjoyed playing D3, but I'm just not really seeing the massive customization some others are. If I did I would be buying this on day 1, but as is I don't expect to be coming back to this game over and over again so I'm going to wait for the price to drop and launch bugs/balance issues to be ironed out before I pick up a key so I can try to get the best possible experience when I do play through it.

They have confirmed that there will be + skill affixes, but i don't know if they mean + all skills or + individual skill, or both.

The fact that you feel like you could create classes within classes in D2, comes from the fact you would completely specialize in 1-2 skills, and create your build around those skills. How is that not possible in D3? You can specialize in a whirlwind barb, choose it as your main skill and build your gear and other skills around it. And THEN you choose the runes and specialize even further. Some runes completely alter skills in such a way that it is possible to create a build centered on that single rune.
For example, this corpse throwing barb.
Or a build that is centered around a single stat (critical hit): Crit barb.
Some passive skills are so unique you can build your skill-set around them: Non summoning spirit witch doctor.

The skills already grant diverse builds (single damage, aoe damage, buffs, debufs, healing, crowd control, summoning, utility, movement) but the runes offer an incredible amount of customization. You can specialize with them (resource return, damage, attack speed, critical hit, stun etc) or just create more all around support. I think long after the game is released, people will still find new builds that may seem weak at first, but prove to be devastating with the correct skill/rune/gear combination.

 

[Fugu]

D1 is rather strange in its difficulty. It starts off not too bad, but eventually when you get to Hell you have to take potions pretty much intravenously. Not really any good way to grind out to avoid that, either.

Let a black death hit you until your base health is below thirty and use mana shield. You won't need potions anymore.

Naeblish: As discussed several times on this page and in in this thread, the viability of those builds is untested (due to the game not being out) so their discussion in balance is about as relevant as the discussion of a firebolt sorceress, a build that may have appeared possible before the exposition of actual damage numbers and late-game facts but one that we now know clearly not to be viable.

I'm surprised at 15-20 hours. I would have expected longer.

 

[AndersTheSwede]

I have decided to go Witch Doctor for my first play through. The Monk is great, but Witch Doctor seems to have a deeper set of abilities, plus I like classes not so click-per-second dependent.

I remember in the lead up to D2 I was all amped for the Paladin, turned out he wasn't really for me and I regretted starting as him and took to the Necro.

Build I'll be targeting at the end of Normal:

Build

 

[mbmonk]

EDIT: Wrong thread. Apologies.

 

[Internets]

15-20 hours surprised me quite a bit as well

But, how long did it take to beat D2 on normal? if i remember correctly, it took me quite a while, it sure felt longer than 15-20 hours

if D3 takes as long as D2, then i that's okay i think

 

[dLMN8R]

Diablo II could easily be beaten in 15-20 hours on Normal.

 

[Yoshichan]

I have decided to go Witch Doctor for my first play through. The Monk is great, but Witch Doctor seems to have a deeper set of abilities, plus I like classes not so click-per-second dependent.

I remember in the lead up to D2 I was all amped for the Paladin, turned out he wasn't really for me and I regretted starting as him and took to the Necro.

Build I'll be targeting at the end of Normal:

Build

What does Sacrifice + Pride do?

edit: woops, I saw that you linked the build! My bad~

 

[Chittagong]

The only Diablo I have played is this beta, which I found quite easy, and completed Torchlight which was really easy until the last boss. Wondering which difficulty I should go into Diablo 3? Would be a shame if I blasted through bored... But I am a noob too.

 

[Kalnos]

The only Diablo I have played is this beta, which I found quite easy, and completed Torchlight which was really easy until the last boss. Wondering which difficulty I should go into Diablo 3? Would be a shame if I blasted through bored... But I am a noob too.

It isn't like Torchlight. You can't play any difficulty but the easiest and then after completing it you're allowed to play the progressively harder difficulties as a 'new game +' sort of style. The Hell/Inferno difficulties should be moderately difficult for anyone I would imagine.

If you're really that worried about being challenged I would just play hardcore.

 

[thetrin]

The only Diablo I have played is this beta, which I found quite easy, and completed Torchlight which was really easy until the last boss. Wondering which difficulty I should go into Diablo 3? Would be a shame if I blasted through bored... But I am a noob too.

The beta is the first 1/4 of the first act. Don't worry. You'll get your shit kicked in.

Also, you're meant to play through the game once on normal, and then on the next difficulty, and then the next, and so on. You retain your character throughout. You won't even hit cap playing on normal.

It isn't like Torchlight. You can't play any difficulty but the easiest and then are completing it you're allowed to play the progressively harder difficulties as a 'new game +' sort of style. The Hell/Inferno difficulties should be moderately difficult for anyone I would imagine.

If you're really that worried about being challenged I would just play hardcore.

Yeah. Considering no one in Blizzard has finished Inferno, I don't think it will be an issue.

 

[krameriffic]

False dichotomy.

Accessibility does not remove richness and depth. WoW and SC2 (and War3, D2, and BW before them) are some of the deepest and most thoroughly analyzed games ever made, yet also accessible. Probably millions of man hours have gone into, and will continue to go into, these games. Right now, I will wait to make a judgment on D3, but I see no reason why it should break the trend.

It's extremely different for one simple reason: WoW and SC2 derive their depth of gameplay not from the game itself, but from the people playing it, the competitive nature of the games. In WoW, whether it's super-competitive raiding by sponsored guilds or arena and BG PvP, the only reason people plumb to such depths is because they want to be the best at the game. The very same thing in Starcraft 2. It's actually a very simple game on the surface, it's the people playing it who make it so complex. It's got such talent digging into it (for a variety of reasons) that they dig out every last bit of complexity that exists within it.

For the types of games you listed, there is complexity and richness and depth if you really, really dig into them in ways that 99% of players never will. Now I'm going to go ahead and assume that you never played MedianXL, so you can't really understand what I mean when I talk about how much more complex and deep it is than Diablo 2 or WoW (it's not really directly comparable to SC2). If people dug into MedianXL a tenth as hard as they do into Blizzard's major games, I can't imagine what they would find. And I'm sure Diablo 3 will have some interesting things waiting in it. But I guarantee you this: it won't be as interesting as some of the stuff in that mod.