So Bolty, when are the Diablo 3 Forums going up?

[Taem]

If I remember correctly, we were talking about the beta testing and what-not at least a year before D2 was officially released, but I can't remember for the life of me if the LL had the Diablo 2 forums up then or not. I think they were up but I could be incorrect. So anyways, this begs the question, when are the Diablo 3 forums going up? I think there is enough information out there now where we can start speculation about classes, monsters, skills, what we would like to see and dislike, that a separate branch of forums - on official Diablo III section mind you - should probably be devised for it, assuming of course that you will support Diablo 3 here at the LL :whistling:? If you think it's a bit premature (holding out for a release date?), then by all means, tear me a new one, however if my vote means anything, I'd like a separate cubby then the D2 forums to post my speculations and ideas on D3. Hope you don't mind me posting this instead of PM'ing it, but I thought if other members had similar thoughts on the subject, they could voice their opinion here.

[DeeBye]

I'm more interested in when Bolty gets a bunch of sweet sweet beta test invites to hand out to loyal and prolific Lurker Lounge posters:shuriken:

[Bolty]

I usually don't look to put forums for a game up until near beta, mostly because until then it's all hype and speculation without any kind of hard information. That said, I fully expect we'll cover D3 here at the Lounge - after all, it looks like its gameplay will continue in the Diablo tradition and it's what the site was founded on. (Don't reply with the "but Diablo2 is nothing like Diablo1" comments, I know, I know.)

That said, it's a similar situation to WoW - I just don't have the time/energy to run the site content-wise for Diablo3, but I also want the site to be more than just a forum. That means I'd be looking for someone to cover Diablo III strategy news, point out good strategy guides, maybe even run a strat section here and just generally be all hardcore like that. Someone to drive the Lounge's D3 section and run its forums as well (if they wanted to). All the stuff I did for the original Diablo and Diablo II back when free time was easy to spend.

The age of the private hobby-driven gaming website is over, at least when it comes to Blizzard titles. It's all gone commercial now, with megasites run by companies for profit. Yet, it's still possible for smaller sites to get that niche, like the Lounge used to with its hardcore D2 strat and game mechanics, and Elitist Jerks has now for hardcore WoW strat and game mechanics. It would be great to get that back again and be the niche D3 site. Know what I mean? Let's get Slashdotted! :)

To Deebye, sorry, everyone I knew at Blizzard is long gone. I had ins with the Blizzard North crew, and they've long since dissolved into other companies - even more so with the failure of Flagship Studios spreading everyone out far and wide. Maybe I shouldn't admit this, so I can get favors and special attention come beta time. Yeah, that's the ticket! I will call Morheim's private number that I have written down here, his special Bolty-Phone™ that I can tweak his ear with.

Last week I had someone email me out of the blue thanking me for a great Warrior guide I wrote. For Diablo 1. Written like 10 years ago. Yes, people still come here for D1 and D2 strategy, and Jarulf's Guide is still regularly downloaded. What a legacy the Diablo games have. Let's continue it here, m'kay?

So let's open up talk about this.

-Bolty

[Occhidiangela]

I usually don't look to put forums for a game up until near beta, mostly because until then it's all hype and speculation without any kind of hard information. That said, I fully expect we'll cover D3 here at the Lounge - after all, it looks like its gameplay will continue in the Diablo tradition and it's what the site was founded on. (Don't reply with the "but Diablo2 is nothing like Diablo1" comments, I know, I know.)

==

Last week I had someone email me out of the blue thanking me for a great Warrior guide I wrote. For Diablo 1. Written like 10 years ago. Yes, people still come here for D1 and D2 strategy, and Jarulf's Guide is still regularly downloaded. What a legacy the Diablo games have. Let's continue it here, m'kay?

So let's open up talk about this.

-Bolty

Wish I had the time. Don't see it hapening in the next year. If it does, I'll let you know.

Occhi

[DeeBye]

Wish I had the time. Don't see it hapening in the next year. If it does, I'll let you know.

Occhi

I have some time, but other than linking to http://www.blizzard.com/diablo3/ there isn't a whole lot to talk about. Diablo 3 news is slow:(

[Taem]

I have some time, but other than linking to http://www.blizzard.com/diablo3/ there isn't a whole lot to talk about. Diablo 3 news is slow:(

I'm in the same boat with the time situation, however with the amount of news, I disagree. Just because we don't have alpha and beta testers giving us in depth feedback on the game does not mean there isn't a lot to speculate or talk about. For instance, I have several battle.net questions and ideas I'd be interested in mulling over here, as well as game play footage (such as the potions Ala gauntlet style), classes not included (I'm disappointed several won't be returning), and much more. I suppose I could do this on any forums, but why, when I can cut out all the pubbies on these forums?

[Occhidiangela]

I'm in the same boat with the time situation, however with the amount of news, I disagree. Just because we don't have alpha and beta testers giving us in depth feedback on the game does not mean there isn't a lot to speculate or talk about. For instance, I have several battle.net questions and ideas I'd be interested in mulling over here, as well as game play footage (such as the potions Ala gauntlet style), classes not included (I'm disappointed several won't be returning), and much more. I suppose I could do this on any forums, but why, when I can cut out all the pubbies on these forums?

How do you know what will or won't be returning?

Occhi

[Taem]

How do you know what will or won't be returning?

Occhi

I read somewhere [official] that the Summoner was "replacing" the Necromancer. I really liked the Necromancer. Also, the Wizard is suppose to replace the Sorceress. These aren't my assumptions, but I think it was in the D3 FAQ. If your really interested, I could do some digging for links.

[Mirajj]

I suppose I could do this on any forums, but why, when I can cut out all the pubbies on these forums?

Unmet pubbies could be the next big name in the game later...;)

[Lissa]

But Diablo2 is not like Diablo1


:whistling:

[Sir_Die_alot]

I'm more interested in when Bolty gets a bunch of sweet sweet beta test invites to hand out to loyal and prolific Lurker Lounge posters:shuriken:

I've been around almost a decade don't forget me!:wub:

[the Langolier]

I read somewhere [official] that the Summoner was "replacing" the Necromancer. I really liked the Necromancer. Also, the Wizard is suppose to replace the Sorceress. These aren't my assumptions, but I think it was in the D3 FAQ. If your really interested, I could do some digging for links.

That really just seems like a logical progression to me, not a replacement. Bringing back the same classes is boring. Look at D2 from D1 - the amazon is essentially the rogue, sorceress the sorcerer, and they decided to take two diverging takes on the warrior. They are just different takes on the same basic character type.

[Occhidiangela]

That really just seems like a logical progression to me, not a replacement. Bringing back the same classes is boring. Look at D2 from D1 - the amazon is essentially the rogue, sorceress the sorcerer, and they decided to take two diverging takes on the warrior. They are just different takes on the same basic character type.

Ah, but the NEcro. That was new. BG IM cheese and all that, Necro was IMO the best balanced class in terms of play. So many options, so many choices.

D & D style Magic User glass cannon or melee mancer, or summoner, or poison assassin . . . the one class that went somewhere new.

PS: I dislike what we see so far regarding the dress up of this witch doctor thing. Just a little too Blizzard cartoonish. All I can think of is a troll shaman or warlock from wc III or WoW.

The new magician looks like a more traditional D & D style MU, we shall see. The barb is ... well, the barb. :) What's not to like?

Occhi

[Lissa]

Ah, but the NEcro. That was new. BG IM cheese and all that, Necro was IMO the best balanced class in terms of play. So many options, so many choices.

D & D style Magic User glass cannon or melee mancer, or summoner, or poison assassin . . . the one class that went somewhere new.

PS: I dislike what we see so far regarding the dress up of this witch doctor thing. Just a little too Blizzard cartoonish. All I can think of is a troll shaman or warlock from wc III or WoW.

The new magician looks like a more traditional D & D style MU, we shall see. The barb is ... well, the barb. :) What's not to like?

Occhi

I'd disagree that the Necro was new. It's just that it took one speciality of the Sorcerer and expanded on it (remember the Sorcerer had the golem in D1).

[Kevin]

I'd disagree that the Necro was new. It's just that it took one speciality of the Sorcerer and expanded on it (remember the Sorcerer had the golem in D1).

Everyone could have golem in D1 (everyone could have anything...). And if you want to go that way, you can make links like that to every class in D2.

I'd argue though that your train of thought leads much more to the zon valk than what the necro had (even though the rogue was much closer to the zon) for example.

I suppose you could agrue they built the summoning tree off the golem since the necro does have golems, but the curses, the bone wall and cage the ability to build what at first blush looks like a caster as a melee character. It was a significant departure from the sorc.

The links to the other classes for the necro seem much weaker to me when looking at the original D2 classes. The paladin is closer to a warrior who got mana and used spells (I seem to recall D1 'paladin' guides that did just this or maybe I'm just remember the crazy things I did). The sorc to sorc is pretty clear as is rogue to zon (I played some melee rogues in D1 too). The barb to warrior is pretty clear. The necro is not nearly as clear of a link so I'm fine with saying it was new. I'm actually fine with saying all the classes were new because the game mechanics had such a large departure and there were significant differences even between the "obvious" links.

[Lissa]

Everyone could have golem in D1 (everyone could have anything...). And if you want to go that way, you can make links like that to every class in D2.

I'd argue though that your train of thought leads much more to the zon valk than what the necro had (even though the rogue was much closer to the zon) for example.

I suppose you could agrue they built the summoning tree off the golem since the necro does have golems, but the curses, the bone wall and cage the ability to build what at first blush looks like a caster as a melee character. It was a significant departure from the sorc.

The links to the other classes for the necro seem much weaker to me when looking at the original D2 classes. The paladin is closer to a warrior who got mana and used spells (I seem to recall D1 'paladin' guides that did just this or maybe I'm just remember the crazy things I did). The sorc to sorc is pretty clear as is rogue to zon (I played some melee rogues in D1 too). The barb to warrior is pretty clear. The necro is not nearly as clear of a link so I'm fine with saying it was new. I'm actually fine with saying all the classes were new because the game mechanics had such a large departure and there were significant differences even between the "obvious" links.

The point is, none of the characters in D2 were really *new*. They were all a rehash or refinement of the classes presented in D1, even the Necro.

[Roland]

The point is, none of the characters in D2 were really *new*. They were all a rehash or refinement of the classes presented in D1, even the Necro.

I'm going to have to disagree with you on that when it comes to the Necromancer. The rest of the original five are all extensions of one form or another (Barbarian and Paladin from the Warrior, Amazon from the Rogue, and Sorceress from the Sorcerer), but the Necromancer truly is unique (to Diablo). The Assassin is somewhat akin to the Bard, but still very different enough (especially in abilities and playstyle) that she's pretty unique, as well, and the Druid doesn't have a very direct cross, either (neither the Monk nor the Sorcerer really portray the same qualities as the Druid).

If you want to say that the Necromancer was just another "caster" class, and tie ALL caster classes to the Sorcerer, than yes, you could say he is just an extension of Diablo, but then Diablo itself was just the typical RPG archetype of the time. So, really, nothing original there. Diablo II at least expanded upon the archetypes a bit, and introduced some (for the time) new playstyles and mechanics compared with other games (at least, that I can recall). The Necromancer is not, and does not play as, your typical "wizard". The Curses tree alone is enough to prove that, even if the Necromancer is typical of any "necro" class these days.