Diablo III Forum Activity

Category: News Archive

Hits: 1933

Written by BuckGB on March 5th, 2010

Tweet

Cool. We like them too. Just because of the nature of having those types of scripted scenes in random environments it's going to be more of a flavor thing. We wouldn't want to get anywhere near replacing random monster spawns in randomized environments with scripted scenes. But having cultists chanting, zombies eating a corpse, monsters terrorizing townspeople, etc. all that stuff definitely helps the world feel more alive.

...

I think I can safely and accurately say that the amount of scripting will be appropriate to the area and story being presented.

Which gives you no real information. My favorite type of post! MIYAAHAHAHAHA!

We're glad the changes in 1.13b are being well received. We don't think we've hit every issue obviously, there are still quite a few, as well as feature requests, etc. that we hope to address in future patches.

But, 1.13b won't be the final version of this patch. Work is already in progress and near completion on a 1.13c that addresses a few additional issues. This new version will require new patches to be generated and tested, but it won't be making its way to the PTR as we don't feel the changes warrant it.

We plan to give a one week warning before a Diablo II ladder reset, which will coincide with the release of 1.13. You're not likely to hear any updates on release schedule before that one week warning.

The portals to the dungeons were a bit wacky in the demo. Only the timed dungeons, as far as I remember, wouldn't let you port back out from where you came in. And after you entered the portal base would actually shatter and the sand effects would stop and all sorts of neat stuff. That was the point of those dungeons though, find the exit in 3 minutes or you die. But I believe some of the non-timed dungeons were slightly buggy in that exiting from the entrance you came in from would sometimes put you at the other exit, and some fun stuff like that.

I wouldn't take the dungeon entrance/exit design used for one dungeon in a demo as an indication of how they'll work anyway. Also that dungeon had magical portals because it's the type of dungeon that would have magical portals. It wouldn't have magical portals if it was a normal cave.

In general though for entrances/exits, yeah clearing a dungeon just to back track the whole thing is kinda lamesauce, so we probably won't do that. Maybe in some specific cases where it makes sense.

Currently our list of weapons the monk class can use is one handed swords, polearms, combat staves, and fist weapons. That could potentially change, but its probably pretty likely those will be the weapons the monk can equip.

The flavor of the monk we're working on now is a very strong connection between a small and focused group of weapon types, and the skills that use them.

...

I talked to Jay a bit more about weapon restrictions last Friday and there are actually going to be some changes over all the classes to increase the weapon types usable by each by a small bit. Reason being that it looks like we probably have the bandwidth to handle it, and people just really like being able to use a lot of different weapon types to experiment with. One example he gave of an addition people were asking for (and someone here mentioned) was 2h swords for wizards, which is planned to be added now. Work hasn't really begun on these changes so its not set in stone, but it's likely this will affect the monk most substantially.

Which isn't to say everyone can use everything, there are still some fairly specific restrictions. Most restrictions with this new plan would be for 'flavor' reasons. Wands will probably be wizard only because they're very 'magicy' feeling, and their projectile component is somewhat unique. Wizards probably won't be lugging around 2h maces because it just doesn't feel like they should be smashy-smashy characters. etc.

We're planning for a Mature ESRB rating, which is what Diablo and Diablo II were rated. Of course the translation of that rating to the systems used in other countries may differ.

Sure, it's a valid point that by making items BoE you can't break a character down to trade directly for similarly rare items for a different character. But that's also what helps create a stable economy.

...

The trading economy in WoW is still based on a gold standard, and while it has inflated substantially in the 5 year life of the game, it's still relatively stable. There have been spikes to be sure *coughOgri'lacough*, and probably not enough there to regularly siphon gold out of the economy *lolmountslol*. But some of that is likely by design. It hasn't been a completely linear incline I'm sure, but to say it's worthless because there's been inflation is missing the fact that it works in WoW, has worked in countless games, and continues to work. But Diablo III is not an MMO, and you can only really make some superficial comparisons.

...

You seem to be confusing BoE (Bind on Equip), with BoP (Bind on Pickup). We do not have Bind on Pickup items. Except for quest items and things like that obviously.

...

I want to downplay or even kill this notion now. We do NOT need to drop items more frequently because of Bind on Equip. Let's not kid ourselves here - the economy in Diablo II is broken. The "fix" for this broken economy is to, every so often, wipe it clean. All characters and items are swept into the trash bin that is non-ladder and we have a pristine economy ready to welcome trading with open arms... until it turns to crap and the whole cycle begins again. This wonderful dystopia also comes with incentives to play there (rankings/unique items/etc.) and it all works to help create a somewhat stable economy. For a little while.

We could have drop rates in Diablo III with the exact same frequency as Diablo II, and by making the highest items BoE, create a far more stable economy. But just adding in BoE items obviously isn't going to totally fix things all by itself. It's important to note that BoE items are not the one stop fix for all economic issues. It's going to take a lot of different attacks from a lot of different angles to ensure we have a nice stable economy. Bind on Equip items are just one of those attacks.

...

We don't plan on making any items BoE except for those of a high "end-game" level, so that sort of invalidates your point of creating an issue for lowbies.

Also, what you're describing there is a result of there being an enormous gap in World of Warcraft between what a new player can earn while leveling normally and what a level-capped player can amass; not an inherent issue of having items Bind on Equip. The prices are high because people are willing to pay them, and they're willing to pay them because they have a lot to spend. The reason they have a lot to spend would logically stem from there not being enough systems or features designed to remove it from the economy as fast or as near as fast as someone can earn it. So the difference between what new players can afford and what high end players are able to spend becomes this huge unmanageable gap.

It's an economic issue to be sure, but not one created by BoE.

PUGs are not PUGs any more. The only difference between a PUG for these end game raids and a guild run is that the people don't always know each other, and they've maybe never done this specific instance with the same group before. And that's not always the case either.

You have vent, you have experienced leaders (ideally), you have requirements to link achievements that you've finished it before, you have gear scores validating that they at least have the stats to be able to contribute, etc.

These aren't a random smattering of players, these are hand picked people that are able to be verified that they know the content, have completed it, and are geared to a reasonable level.

Anyway, even being a "PUG" I doubt many if any are attempting hard modes. But I've been away a month or so, so maybe they are now.

But I would argue to the ends of the earth that there's nothing wrong, and a lot right, with allowing as many people as possible to see the conclusion to story archs they have been following for years and ultimately the conclusion to the expansion they purchased.

That's not to say there shouldn't be content that's very difficult and maybe only the best and most organized teams can complete it, and I believe there is that content, but should it take the form of content that completes a story arch that started with WC3 and that many if not most players are playing to see play out?

I think it's widely recognized that some new content for end game is a desired addition. It's not something we could include in this patch for many reasons, but we do have plans to continue full point release patches (ie 1.14). What those could contain is still up in the air, but we have plans. Diabolical plans! MUWAHAHAHAHAHA

What I don't think is a correct way to look at this though is that the experience curve is "wrong", and that using unbalanced experience gains from an easter egg (cows) "fixed" a problem. We're all aware of the extreme amount of time is takes to level to 99 but we can't look at it from an angle of it being broken just because it takes a long time. Why does it take so long, what was the original intent, are there any ways (legit or not) to decrease the time, and does any of this still apply to the game as it is now?

And it's just not a very high priority. The game has been functional with its experience curve for a very long time. There are other, more pressing changes to be made.

Choice of gender is completely aesthetic.

We don't want to force players to pick one or the other based on something like stats. If you choose a barbarian you're choosing a barbarian, regardless if it's male or female.

Separating them creates a choice at the start of the game that will have long-lasting repercussions on how your character behaves without actually knowing what those effects will be at creation.

It forces the veteran player to choose one over the other for specific builds. "You can't be the best jugger-barb unless you pick the male barbarian", as an example.

It effectively doubles the amount of classes to be balanced against each other. Assuming the differences are big enough to matter, and if not then what would be the point anyway?

...

No, my point was that if the differences between the genders was enough to make an impact, read: meaningful, then each gender would be considered best used for specific directions to take that character. "You'd be stupid to pick a female barb if you wanted to take your barb 'in this direction', and you'd be stupid to pick a male barb if you wanted to go toward 'this other direction'."

It's not something we want to place on gender choice. It's that simple. There are plenty of places variation and nuance can and will be, there's no reason it has to be on gender choice, and there are very good reasons why it shouldn't be.

Brower and the crew rock it. It's going to be awesome.

I know most of you aren't into the whole WoW thing but if you visit the below link, which is a pretty awesome promotion in general, and scroll down there's a link to listen to the song 'Invincible' which is used somewhere in Icecrown (Arthas' lair). It's extremely WoW in flavor, but I think maybe gives a good sense of the quality and composition that we're at now.

http://www.worldofwarcraft.com/wowanniversary/battlecry/

Hopefully the little snippets on the Diablo III site give a good impression that the Diablo music is in fact Diablo music. And comparing Diablo III, to WoW, to StarCraft II there's an obvious care and attention to each game and the settings and emotion and tone.

That's my feeling anyway. I work here I guess it's hard to take my word as anything but towing the company line but really I've always loved the music in Blizzard games and it just keeps getting better and better.

Item crafting and/or augmentation isn't something we've discussed/revealed yet. I think it's obvious there will be some ability to change an item after you've picked it up off the ground, but what that will actually entail is a secret to be revealed later.

• Prev
• Next