Diablo III - It's official

[Rodéric]

As I said before, Diablo 3 (and the series in general) is a treasure hunting game. That's its essence. Without the treasure hunting part, Diablo 3 will be no more than just a click-fest, i.e. not very interesting.

When I think treasure hunt, I think exploration, cleverness, maps, enigmas, hidden passages, ...
Diablo 3 is more like a gambling machine.

Also, just because you have that mechanism in game doesn't mean your gameplay have to be dull.

 

[Malo]

Does anyone know how the quest progression and co-op works? I have a few friends who play and we all have a few characters. It's kinda weird how the quest progression works if you aren't all playing the characters only together. Notably is the concept of "first kill" on bosses where you get your rare drops.

For example, 4 of us had just got to the cathedral lvl 4 then quit for the night. One of us finished the Skeleton King then all 4 of us got together again. As soon as that person joins, it advances the questline and when we killed the skeleton king (for 3 of us the "first kill"), he only dropped blues. One of us 3 then left the game, set the quest progression back to just before the Skeleton King and we joined his game. Killed the King and rares dropped for him, but not the remaining 2.

So for co-op, it's actually best to not do any progression further than your partner, or repeat parts by reversing quest progression for those who didn't complete yet. Surely the game could know if a player hadn't had their "first kill" yet and provide the phat loot?

 

[pcchen]

When I think treasure hunt, I think exploration, cleverness, maps, enigmas, hidden passages, ...
Diablo 3 is more like a gambling machine.

Also, just because you have that mechanism in game doesn't mean your gameplay have to be dull.

Well, yes, you can view Diablo series as a glorified pachinko machine.
Of course, Blizzard tried to make it a little better in Diablo 3, by adding randomly generated/selected dungeons and events, but I'm sure even a "casual" player can exhaust them in maybe one or two months.

And since Diablo 3 is not on a subscription model, it's probably not going to have routine content updates like a MMO. So I guess, at least before next expansion, it's just what it is now.

 

[pcchen]

So for co-op, it's actually best to not do any progression further than your partner, or repeat parts by reversing quest progression for those who didn't complete yet. Surely the game could know if a player hadn't had their "first kill" yet and provide the phat loot?

I think the majority of goodies (especially in and after nightmare mode) will come from random yellow (champion) mobs. This is to encourage people to explore instead of directly running toward the boss.

One problem right now is that 'resplendent chests' may spawn too frequently. They already removed one which spawns at a fixed location.

 

[Riptides]

but I'm sure even a "casual" player can exhaust them in maybe one or two months.

Try in about 6 days of playing casually. In that time the wife and I have hit and gotten achieves for ALL the random dungeons and events in normal. Even now it's become apparent that the entire game has been designed from the ground up to force you to buy gear off the AH instead of going and farming it.

The game itself is short, the areas aren't really all that randomized, nor are the dungeons. And frankly looking at the little amount of content and the expectation I'd want to repeatedly run through entire game 20 times total for all 5 classes.. Bleh.

There's no carrot in the game when all the loot can be purchased for gold/cash. I'm to the point I just vendor EVERYTHING for gold then buy my upgrades. But for what they brought to the table I'm considering just dropping the game altogether.

 

[Malo]

I think the majority of goodies (especially in and after nightmare mode) will come from random yellow (champion) mobs. This is to encourage people to explore instead of directly running toward the boss.

One problem right now is that 'resplendent chests' may spawn too frequently. They already removed one which spawns at a fixed location.

That's not what I mean. If you kill the Skeleton King for the first time, you get rares, guaranteed. If you kill him again, you will get blues and occasionally a rare every kill after that. It was the same way in D2. You kill one of the prime evils the first time in your characters life, you get a lot more rares that first kill than any consecutive kill.

 

[Grall]

I'll tell you it's not a problem at all.

Why should anyone be worried if someone on the other side of the world is creating a digital duplicate of a stupid item in a videogame? This is not a MMO.

In addition to what Pcchen said regarding this, there will also be PvP eventually in D3. If you want to PvP and actually enjoy it, it's important that you can play without either meeting a lot of people using the exact same duped, hacked super-gear that would kill you in two seconds flat, or otherwise be forced to use that same duped gear yourself in order to be at all competitive with all the other cheaters.

 

[Riptides]

That's not what I mean. If you kill the Skeleton King for the first time, you get rares, guaranteed. If you kill him again, you will get blues and occasionally a rare every kill after that. It was the same way in D2. You kill one of the prime evils the first time in your characters life, you get a lot more rares that first kill than any consecutive kill.

The RNG weighs more to you getting rares the first time you kill a boss, but there's zero guarantee. I went to help a friend do Act III last night and I think I picked up something like 12 rares on the bridge run in a 45min playing session. Logged onto a low level mage and got a Legendary item just a few minutes later off a rare mob. And I've had one char in the live game so far not get any rares killing the SK.

 

[green.pixel]

Since Blizzard isn't the government, no one is forcing you to buy their games. If you can't live without offline mode, don't buy Diablo 3. It's just that simple. There are so many good games around, even in the same genre, e.g. Torchlight 2. Of course, you may want to complain that Blizzard ignores you, but that's about it. You know, the fact that Diablo 3 is online only was announced maybe a year ago. It's not a surprise move.

What I'm saying is, I think, at least most people I know (and probably the majority of Diablo 3 players) who play Diablo 3, want to play online. So they don't really care about offline mode, and offline mode is not going to help them. So stop saying something like "Blizzard should just add an offline mode then there will be no server problem!" because that's simply not true. (this is not directed at you)

Doesn't mean that we can't call out pubs and devs on their bullshit.

 

[AlphaWolf]

I said a significant number of Diablo 3 customers don't really want to play Diablo 3 in offline mode (at least for significant amount of time). So even if it has an offline mode, they are not going to fare any better compare to current situation. Is that clear for you?

And where did you pull that tidbit of information? From your sphincter I suspect. If the damn servers aren't up, which isn't all that uncommon, I'm sure all of those people would love to be able to play offline at least for that bit of time.

Me and my friends couldn't give a rats ass about item duping and stuff (I don't get the point of cheating the treasure finding, you may as well just tell people you beat diablo), none of us are going to spend a dime on the RMAH, the ability to play when internet is unavailable far outweighs the downsides of piracy/duping (which for me is nothing).

 

[snarfbot]

the enchantress is totally op, give her items with int and vitality and she helps a ton.

good aoe damage, armor buff, cc pretty sweet.

im using the eternal ally rune for my monk and they can soak up a bunch of damage and kill the minions while i beat the crap out of named mobs.

monks pretty beast, lvl 53 still in hell mode its fairly easy looking forward to inferno

 

[aaronspink]

It was enough to throw total internet bandwidth use up by 14%, focused directly at Blizz server locations

Highly suspect BS data requires proof. No proof has been given for this claim and none is readily available on the internet. The odds of this being correct are close to the odds of the US government showing up on my doorstep and handing me a check for 1 trillion dollars.

How often do you hear people calling MMO signing in to servers "always-on DRM"? Since they're exactly like Diablo, Diablo also relies on Battle.net connection for many essential functions of the game.

There is no persistent world in diablo. There is nothing MMO about diablo. There is NOTHING in D3 that requires an internet connection. D3 doesn't have anything that D2 didn't have.

There is only 1 reason to require an always on internet connection: to rip off their users.

 

[pcchen]

And where did you pull that tidbit of information? From your sphincter I suspect. If the damn servers aren't up, which isn't all that uncommon, I'm sure all of those people would love to be able to play offline at least for that bit of time.

Back in 2010, there were already 11 million users actively playing Diablo 2 and Starcraft on Battle.net (link). So try again, and next time trying to be more civilized.

 

[pcchen]

There is only 1 reason to require an always on internet connection: to rip off their users.

I really want to know how to rip off their users by providing free services? I mean, if they only make offline mode, they don't have to provide any servers. I think that'd be cheaper than providing servers, no?

 

[Cyan]

There is only 1 reason to require an always on internet connection: to rip off their users.

I couldn't agree more with what you say. If I had to say something it would be your comment, for awesomeness.

PC Gamer review says it all too with excellent wording, as expected from professional journalists -they give the game 9 out of 10 though-

http://www.pcgamer.com/review/diablo-3-review/

I have to start this with a warning, then a little tantrum, a few insults and a dash of paranoia. Apologies to those of you who already know what I’m going to say and are either fine with it or all raged out – you guys can skip this section. Diablo 3 can only be played online. You can play it on your own or co-operatively, but neither mode works when Blizzard’s servers are down, and neither mode is fun when Blizzard’s servers are slow. In my six days of playing it, I got disconnected twice and experienced unplayable lag five times, each time when my own internet connection was working fine. At times, the servers were down for hours.

That’s pathetic. There are valid reasons for forcing multiplayer characters to play online, but none for excluding an entirely offline single player mode. If you don’t have a connection you can reliably play multiplayer games on, don’t buy Diablo 3. Skip the rest of this review. Blizzard have chosen to exclude you completely, and I’m genuinely pissed off by the hostility and callousness of that decision.

For the rest of us, it’s worth knowing that the $60/£45 price for Diablo 3 doesn’t mean you’ll always be able to play it. The game itself would have to be phenomenally good for all this to be worth putting up with.

 

[Cyan]

Back in 2010, there were already 11 million users actively playing Diablo 2 and Starcraft on Battle.net (link)..

The greatness of Diablo 2 is that of all those players perhaps there were as much playing offline. People in countries with unreliable connections, people who couldn't pay internet... people moving... among thousands of other circumstances.

I think it was Malo who said Diablo 3 wasn't for him because he had to travel from USA to Hong Kong frequently...that's an example.

The current trend of DRM is just making legal gaming such an unbelievable uphill struggle it's silly.

I had two disconnects yesterday, had to repeat about an hour of gaming. Personally I would tolerate such bugs in an MMO game where you are interacting with other players to get through all the aspects of the game.

However, with Diablo 3 you can do everything on your own and soloing the game, so why should you tolerate lag and server-side errors? which just make your overall gaming experience less enjoyable...

 

[pcchen]

The greatness of Diablo 2 is that of all those players perhaps there were as much playing offline. People in countries with unreliable connections, people who couldn't pay internet... people moving... among thousands of other circumstances.

Of course, back in the days of Diablo 2, broadband internet connection is scarce and expensive. It'd be very stupid to make it online only. Today is, of course, different.

I think it was Malo who said Diablo 3 wasn't for him because he had to travel from USA to Hong Kong frequently...that's an example.

Sure, there are people who can't play Diablo 3 simply because it's online only. But they won't buy it either. I don't see why it's "ripping of" its users.

The current trend of DRM is just making legal gaming such an unbelievable uphill struggle it's silly.

I said that before, but I'll say it again: if Diablo 3 has an offline mode, but like Diablo 2, you can't transfer offline characters to battle.net, do you think those who mostly play online are going to play offline when the server is down?

If you agree that they probably won't, then the question now becomes how many of their players play mostly online.

I had two disconnects yesterday, had to repeat about an hour of gaming. Personally I would tolerate such bugs in an MMO game where you are interacting with other players to get through all the aspects of the game.

Yes, that's unfortunate. But on the other hand, you don't lose your items and your progress (the xp and gold you earned). If your computer crashes, or suffer a power outage, you probably will lose all items and progress you got during that time. So online is not all downside.

However, with Diablo 3 you can do everything on your own and soloing the game, so why should you tolerate lag and server-side errors? which just make your overall gaming experience less enjoyable...

Well, I don't think "it can be played solo so it must have an offline mode" is a valid argument. I'm sure a lot of Facebook games can be played solo, but they don't have offline mode (and, with their business model, they won't ever have offline mode).

 

[Malo]

I think it was Malo who said Diablo 3 wasn't for him because he had to travel from USA to Hong Kong frequently...that's an example.

I believe it was Mize (never been to Hong Kong ) but the point is valid regardless.

 

[aaronspink]

I really want to know how to rip off their users by providing free services? I mean, if they only make offline mode, they don't have to provide any servers. I think that'd be cheaper than providing servers, no?

Then they can't make money off of charging users to get slightly different less sucky stats on an item. A large motivation for online only is so that users cannot create their own items and therefore will have to RMT via blizzard.

I'm awaiting the day the scandal breaks that a bliz employee is creating the best items in the game and RMTing them via bliz's auction house.

 

[aaronspink]

I said that before, but I'll say it again: if Diablo 3 has an offline mode, but like Diablo 2, you can't transfer offline characters to battle.net, do you think those who mostly play online are going to play offline when the server is down?

If the game is programmed correctly there is no valid reason that you couldn't go from offline to online back to offline. And no, duping/creating valid items is not a valid reason.

Yes, that's unfortunate. But on the other hand, you don't lose your items and your progress (the xp and gold you earned). If your computer crashes, or suffer a power outage, you probably will lose all items and progress you got during that time. So online is not all downside.

I've known numerous people who have lost 10s of levels and 10s of hours of gameplay in d3 precisely because it is online and run by perhaps the last company in existence you would ever want to trust something online to.

Well, I don't think "it can be played solo so it must have an offline mode" is a valid argument. I'm sure a lot of Facebook games can be played solo, but they don't have offline mode (and, with their business model, they won't ever have offline mode).

They aren't charging you $60 for the privilege of not being able to play either. That and they are several orders of magnitude more reliable than bliz.