[Tsundoku]

Illuyankas, on 17 May 2012 - 02:08 AM, said:

Did someone mention in the thread about the 'give the templar a shield directly from you equipping it (not just the inventory, you have to be wielding it at the time) to him and get kicked, then get kicked every time you try to log back on that character' glitch yet? Cause I saw it on headnovel from LH and I'm too tired to click the last page.

Look up ^ post #124, Luci:

http://forum.malazan...ndpost&p=961045

This post has been edited by Sombra: 17 May 2012 - 02:41 AM

[Lucifer's Heaven]

Sparrowhawk, sorry, but this post will mostly be stuff I've said to you already (though it's not in direct response to what you've said).

Tapper and Apt and stuff:
I'm not even going to bother reading that other article, it really does just sound like a whole bunch of rage. I'm sure there are some valid points there, but from the sound of it he kinda misses what is to me the problem with the whole online only shenanigans.

I agree with Gothos in that the online only is mostly due to the RMAH. Piracy is clearly a bit issue as well, as they are implementing systems that are unnecessary for RMAH security, but do make piracy harder. But the RMAH would definitely be their main priority. And it's not even about security for the RMAH, it's about greed. They could very easily have a similar set up to D2 or Dungeon Defenders. Let you make a character on their official servers, where you can get achievements and access the RMAH, or you can make one local side that you can play online with other people who local saved and have no RMAH (and can't get acheivements in DD). Characters cannot go from local to official and DD was nice enough to have the ability to make a local copy of your official character whenever you want.
There are absolutely no customer detriments and plenty of customer benefits to this version (and zero risks to RMAH security) over the online version.
However, that means that some people will play the offline mode and not have access to the RMAH (by choice). And Actizzard wants everyone to have access to it at all times. They're basically treating it like Farmville (don't force anyone to use it, but put it in faces often enough and people will buy, so put in in front of as many faces as possible, that's why they have all those invite a friend things). They make money on every RMAH transaction and will make it as omnipresent as possible. That is why there is no offline mode.

And that is my gripe with online mode, and why I think it is unfair to compare this to MMOs and many other games (though not all *coughAssCreed2cough*). And why they needed to do better at launch.

Just complaining about the problems that are inherent in any online only game is missing the point. Launch (and later problems) in MMOs to do with them being online are way more acceptable than the same in D3. Why? Because in an MMO playing it online is integral to the experience. Path of Exile will also be online only. It'll be run much like Guild Wars, and again, they are putting it online because they are giving you things in return. They're having features they couldn't do properly offline (and they're free to play, so they get a bit more slack). WoW couldn't BE the same game offline.
Heck it's why I like Steam and why it's acceptable to so many people. Sure it could have been an annoying DRM, but they give more back than they take away. Great deals on games, allowing you to redownload without hassle, keeping the game up to date, inter-game chat etc.
D3, D3 doesn't do that. It could be the same, even better (avoiding the inherent problems of online) with an offline mode. But instead they are forcing something on their customers that is only detrimental to the enjoyment of their product, purely for greed based reasons. And it's a product who's entire point is giving enjoyment.
That is not okay in and of itself.
But if they are going to do it, they need to lesson those detrimental effects as much as is humanly possible.
Problems that arise because of this unnecesary system are less tolerable, and that IS fair.

PS - I say "greed" because while they are a company and they should make money off their product, the RMAH would have made them plenty anyway. Especially with a DD style system most would have opted for official server characters given the choice. And they would have been well and truly into profit just off game sales (it's the most preorderd game in history on Amazon). On top of that they're going to the "morally bad" side of money making, where they're willing to shaft the customer to milk that last extra bit of money.

[Beezulbubba]

I think I will wait another 12 years until Diablo IV comes out. Maybe by then a dungeon crawl, loot hoarding game will become interesting again.
#############
Diablo III review (the best review ever!) >>>> LINK

[Sparrohawk]

BeardstadSlaphammer, on 17 May 2012 - 02:47 AM, said:

I think I will wait another 12 years until Diablo IV comes out. Maybe by then a dungeon crawl, loot hoarding game will become interesting again.
#############
Diablo III review (the best review ever!) >>>> LINK

Yep. In spite of the massive money bag they've unleashed, some heads will undoubtedly be rolling for their numerous fuckups. I shall truly treasure the news reports on such consequences.

One hopes they learn a few lessons, perhaps

[Gothos]

Tapper, on 16 May 2012 - 10:17 PM, said:

Do I feel sorry for them? Definately! I want alt146, Gothos and Silencer and others to be able to play this game.

fuck you, I have 50 mbps with no limits, this ain't the thirld world you know!

[Morgoth]

Gothos, on 17 May 2012 - 11:34 AM, said:

Tapper, on 16 May 2012 - 10:17 PM, said:

Do I feel sorry for them? Definately! I want alt146, Gothos and Silencer and others to be able to play this game.

fuck you, I have 50 mbps with no limits, this ain't the thirld world you know!

If you keep saying that it might even become true someday

[QuickTidal]

I think Luci may have put it better than I.

@Tapper: I think my main gripe is you seem to be under the impression that "because other games or programs are online, or other games have sketchy online launch glitches" that suddenly makes it okay. It certainly does not and it smacks of poor business. It's DEFINITELY the publishers fault. They publish the game. They choose how many servers they hire to handle the players. As far as the online only single player...it's NOT required. That's inherent in the "Single Player" part. A single player option should not have ANY reason to be online if you don't want to. It should be self-contained. Consoles do this with their games. Ex.: My XBox 360 has never been online, nor do I plan to ever make it go online.I played the entirety of SKYRIM without ever having to go online. That's what I'm talking about here. If you WANT to go online and play with others, fine throw that option in. Mentioning stuff like email...really? email REQUIRES the internet and online to work...games do NOT. It's a nice perk if it's useful...it is not useful in a single player mode of an RPG. What's funny, is I have pretty badass internet connection and I could play D3 no problem...but for me it's a principle thing. Just because Blizzard exercises a loophole around the RMAH thing does not make that suddenly okay. Acceptance of things like "error ridden launches in the past" does NOT make that okay. If we accept that as the status-quo "oh well, what can you do?" then we have already lost.

I'll give you an example. San Diego Comic Con registration 2010 (for the 2011 show). They used the same amount of servers they always did but totally misinterpreted the new demand from new fans and twice registration was totally crashed. Finally on the third try (MONTHS later after much analyzing of data) they hired a room full of extra servers and registration went off without a hitch. This proves to me that it IS possible to handle fan demand...you just have to spend the money up front to do so, and Blizzard decided (like apparently other gaming companies) that saving that cash and fixing the issues AFTER the game launched was okay. It's not okay. It's REALLY not okay for a game like this where fan demand should have been overthought a hundred times.

Saying "yeah it sucks that so and so can't play, but tough nuts I guess" is accepting that this is the norm and therefore okay. It's not okay and Blizzard should be taken to task for such shenanigans. Remember, this is a company that flogs the SHIT out of their existing titles by adding bullshit expansion packs...instead of working on new and unique titles. It's fucking pitiful to watch and Blizzard is as much to blame as any corporation that gets up to such crap.

[Tapper]

QuickTidal, on 17 May 2012 - 02:58 PM, said:

I think Luci may have put it better than I.

@Tapper: I think my main gripe is you seem to be under the impression that "because other games or programs are online, or other games have sketchy online launch glitches" that suddenly makes it okay.

Honestly, I hate launch issues - I agree with you on that not being OK. I'm a big Paradox fan and their initial full releases are nearly unplayable, each and every time, and the patches often mean that old save games can't be relaunched. That's a pain and that is not OK. But I disagree vehemently with the sentiment that a single player game can't be online.

Quote

It certainly does not and it smacks of poor business.

Perhaps, but they're swimming in cash so they're doing something right.

Quote

It's DEFINITELY the publishers fault. They publish the game. They choose how many servers they hire to handle the players.

And there's a demand/supply thingie and once again, Blizzard can do whatever they like. Imho, I paid 59.99 for the game - 49.99 like for any initial full game, 10.00 for servers for as long as I want to play the game. I really don't care if that starts today, tomorrow, or in two weeks or two years time. 10.00 for a few years worth of fun, whenever I like? Good deal.

Quote

As far as the online only single player...it's NOT required. That's inherent in the "Single Player" part. A single player option should not have ANY reason to be online if you don't want to. It should be self-contained.

No, the playing experience should be self-contained without outside interference. It says nothing about anything else. If I were to start splitting hairs over this, then by your definition, a browser game of solitaire would be multiplayer because it requires web-access, too.

Quote

Consoles do this with their games. Ex.: My XBox 360 has never been online, nor do I plan to ever make it go online.I played the entirety of SKYRIM without ever having to go online. That's what I'm talking about here. If you WANT to go online and play with others, fine throw that option in.

Funny you mention a bethesda product, which usually requires a gazillion patches and also has a lot of fan modding to enhance the experience, with the distribution of both being online. Furthermore, Xbox Live and whatever service Sega has for the Playstation, offer free games, and goodies, that are once again DLC. QT, as much as I want to like your argument and wish for it to be true, if you say with a straight face that you get the full gaming experience as it was meant to be 100% every single time, you're not being honest - because with the web being so widespread and fast, developers rely on it as well, also for pure single player games, like Skyrim, Fallout and the Total War games.
There would be no PC-gaming without the web.
Console gaming may be different, and is perhaps easier to design for companies, even, due to technical limitations being known, and input methods for the gamer being limited. But PC gaming, the web is vital.

Quote

Mentioning stuff like email...really? email REQUIRES the internet and online to work...games do NOT.

Except for a few I already mentioned, and for the others, there's patches, authentication, registration, distribution, trailers, PR, DLC and the disappearance of the brick-and-mortar stores... it's all going online.

Quote

It's a nice perk if it's useful...it is not useful in a single player mode of an RPG. What's funny, is I have pretty badass internet connection and I could play D3 no problem...but for me it's a principle thing. Just because Blizzard exercises a loophole around the RMAH thing does not make that suddenly okay. Acceptance of things like "error ridden launches in the past" does NOT make that okay. If we accept that as the status-quo "oh well, what can you do?" then we have already lost.

I'm fine with this being against your principles. I'm not so fine with you wanting to make it mandatory for some reason or other - and frankly, yes, we have already lost - the day where a day 1 game is going to be faultless has long gone by, as is the day and age where patches were being published through the cds/ dvds that came with gaming magazines.
Business in gaming is now often like construction work: 96% is done, and if the client doesn't complain or doesn't notice the remaining 4%, good riddance, if they do, they patch. It is a bad business model and it is probably not what the designers want, either, but it comes from further on up - costs are spectacular for design nowadays and it must be earned back asap.

Quote

I'll give you an example. San Diego Comic Con registration 2010 (for the 2011 show). They used the same amount of servers they always did but totally misinterpreted the new demand from new fans and twice registration was totally crashed. Finally on the third try (MONTHS later after much analyzing of data) they hired a room full of extra servers and registration went off without a hitch. This proves to me that it IS possible to handle fan demand...you just have to spend the money up front to do so, and Blizzard decided (like apparently other gaming companies) that saving that cash and fixing the issues AFTER the game launched was okay. It's not okay. It's REALLY not okay for a game like this where fan demand should have been overthought a hundred times.

OK, so you give me hell for comparing email to games and now you use an example of online registration for a one-time event against gaming? Eh, if my example can't stand, this can't either, brother

Quote

Saying "yeah it sucks that so and so can't play, but tough nuts I guess" is accepting that this is the norm and therefore okay. It's not okay and Blizzard should be taken to task for such shenanigans. Remember, this is a company that flogs the SHIT out of their existing titles by adding bullshit expansion packs...instead of working on new and unique titles. It's fucking pitiful to watch and Blizzard is as much to blame as any corporation that gets up to such crap.

Ehm, yes and no. It is not so much OK but it is nevertheless the norm. As for bullshit expansions... Blizzard doesn't offer €2,95 expansions that just add 2 different songs to the game, or 1 unit or mob or residence that wasn't there before (Bethesda's Wizard Tower and Horse types for Oblivion, for example). The expansions for diablo 2, WoW have been adding hours upon hours of gameplay, for example. There's a lot of bullshit DLC, but I think Blizzard is one of the few companies that doesn't deserve the flak.

[Tapper]

Anyhow, back on topic:

Started the game today, hit level 12 with my mage and 9 with the demon hunter, and got to say, the mage is fairly much easy mode so far. Kiting is a walk in the park, spells are powerful and due to everything being related to weapon damage, it is very easy to create a big hitting mage. The fact that you can make yourself immune to damage for certain amounts of time is also helpful. The demon hunter is a different cookie. It's much more based on micromanagement and target selection, which will make it the more fun class for the future, I guess, but I also wonder about the talents: I find the Smoke Screen perk to be distinctly unhelpful, for example, and Impale's use is limited compared to channeling Rapid Fire (but cheaper), where with the mage, all talents are usually at the least situationally valuable.

[Gothos]

I'd advise for Impale against Rapid Fire for the simple reason that it's not channeled. When you're running around trying to get away from stuff, you only get brief moments for getting that shot off. Make it count.

[Tapper]

Gothos, on 17 May 2012 - 10:11 PM, said:

I'd advise for Impale against Rapid Fire for the simple reason that it's not channeled. When you're running around trying to get away from stuff, you only get brief moments for getting that shot off. Make it count.

True. My biggest worry with Impale is that its damage is moderate only (250% vs Rapid Fire's 228% according to the talent calculator), which doesn't make it stand out as a coup de grace. With the kiting skills under the left mouse button, a quick Rapid Fire strafe is capable of some group damage in ways that Impale isn't (unless you add Chemical Burn), and with Web Shot, Rapid Fire's another perfect kiting skill for a quick turn around arrow spray.

Since the first build I'm wanting to try is one that will abuse the heck out of Cull the Weak, I'm mostly looking at:

Entangling Shot (Chain Gang), Rapid Fire (Web Shot), Caltrops (Jagged Spikes), Vault (any) OR Companion (Spider), Fan of Knives (Hail of Knives), Multishot (any).

That would be complete at level 30 or so, which makes it a far from optimalised one (I am going to have troubles during boss fights, for one) - but perhaps one that is good for outdoors kiting. I realise it is way different from your build, which is much more damage orientated

[Gothos]

my previous comp was more like this:
http://eu.battle.net...ZYdhQ!ac!aZaZaa

However, as I went further on, my build eventually morphed into what I'm using now on nightmare:
http://eu.battle.net...YdfP!aef!babbbZ

there's not enough praise in the world for Covering Fire and Ball Lightning. Just not enough praise.

[Lusipher]

I have a monk that just reached lvl 15 this morning, but I'm kinda surprised I'm still in Act I. I have a friend who just beat the game on normal and he's lvl ~30; are the other acts that short or does the xp per lvl increase quite a bit as you go along? I haven't found the game difficult at all really, but died twice due to my own stupidity. The first time was while standing in the poison the trees drop while in co-op; it hurts alot more than when solo. The second time, also in co-op, I just wasn't paying attention-too busy typing a witty remark to my friend. I hope Nightmare and Hell make things a bit more interesting.

At this point, my build is mostly AoE with the dash ability for ease of movement-the gravity well-type ability+the roundhouse kick thing work very nicely together. I haven't gotten too far into the crafting aspect, but I've read that once you do, the merchants become largely useless as the crafted stuff is much better. Outside of the difficulty level and the issues laid out by QT above, my biggest complaint is that the music seems to be mixed really low, even after lowering the volume on other things. I loved Ulleman's (sp?) music from 1 and 2, it added so much to the atmosphere of the game, a feat he duplicated in some of the music he did for The Burning Crusade. In D3, I can hardly hear it to the point that there doesn't seem to be any music at all. Still enjoying the game overall, but D2 ranks better so far.

This post has been edited by Lusipher: 18 May 2012 - 01:26 PM

[Gothos]

xp per level increases considerably as you get higher, yes. and yes, the game gets more challenging, even on normal.

[Silencer]

Argh! I suddenly have a massive desire to play this bloody game. Why did I come into this thread!??!!? >.<

I have to resist...even though not buying it will never bother Blizzard in the slightest...principles, dammit! Aaaaaaargh.

[Toraneko]

Eh, I like it.

And since I'm a whore for Blizzard's artbooks I got the collector's edition, and now have Diablo's skull staring at me on my desk.

[Aptorian]

Okay I have reached Act 3 now. Tell me, does the story improve? Because so far the story has been absolutely atrocious, especially in Act 2. I am super underwhelmed by these "Lesser Evils". I am waiting for the story to pull a fast one on me but it seems very predictable. Act 3 seems to be picking up the pace, loved the cutscene, but I am dreading the possibility that they have stretched out the story and the really good bits and the conclusion will be found in the expansions.

Combat is awesome though. I've switched from a Barbarian to a monk. Seems much faster and you have to love his healing abilities.

[Dr Trouble]

Did anyone else create a joke battle tag for lols thinking you could change it later?

im afraid my c*ntsmasher name is going to bring up problems in the future...

Edit; Booyah! I can change it now! Must have been a temporary thing ... I'll not do that again in a hurry.

This post has been edited by Dr Trouble: 19 May 2012 - 06:05 AM

[Illuyankas]

So, you can customise your banner in this game, for multiplayer recognition and showing off.

 D3banner.png (753.11K)
Number of downloads: 0

(he's a lowbie wizard if you're wondering)

[Sparrohawk]

The banners do have their moments.

So, after having played all the way through to Nightmare Act 2 as of last night, here are my thoughts.

1. The game is seriously, seriously smooth. Once the trainer wheels come off (Act 1, normal mode), the game gets much entertaining. At level 30, your character has access to all their (un-runed) skills and the ability to feel beefcake is fairly hilarious. Playing with a friend makes this even more obvious. You can enter a room that has high-level enemies in it, and, as a result of your hurling powers about, demolish the room, send enemies flying and cause mass havoc. Good times.

2. Don't play this game for emotional story. It just isn't there.

3. On the (rather touchy) subject of online vs. offline:

They have not done the release well, and they know it. I suspect (and hope) heads are being torn from shoulders over how this went down; achievements are still buggy, there are latency issues from time to time, and I do NOT like seeing the 'server shutdown' message come through. I very much doubt that any of these things are game-breakers, and I have a few ideas on why Blizzard were so persistent on the issue. That's a different post, however.

None of those things are bad enough for me to not play. They are intermittent issues, and personally I care not at all for achievements so that particular bug is of no consequence to me. The ability for one of my friends to just drop into my game, kill some monsters for a bit, and then leave again is lovely. It's possible to ruminate on this forever, I've found, so I'll leave it there. Online-only is a bother, but a small bother for me.

Conclusion: If you're not objecting to the game on the basis of online-only, get it. If you liked Torchlight, D2, Titan Quest, or any of the others, this is probably the best one you'll play for a while.