Hi,
There is a lot of pretty good evidence that the price limit is a bug. That it, as well as a lot of other things, should have scaled with the difficulty level.
The problem with "bug" is that it usually means a programming error such as the mana shield bug from early on that reduced the effectiveness of mana shield as its level increased -- a simple screw up in one part of one formula. However, as anyone that knows computer modeling knows, there are at least three types of bugs:
1.) The model does not represent reality. In game terms, this means things that are not internally consistent in the game world. Such as two handed weapons doing only slightly more damage than one handers, or the ability of all classes to learn all spells. These reflect either lack of design (the game was just thrown together and tweaked until it was "fun" (a la Buzzard)) or poor design choices (the designers didn't sit down at a spreadsheet and play "what if").
2.) The equations do not represent the model. The designer knew *what* he wanted but was mathematically clueless as to how to implement it. D1 is rife with this, as shown by all the modifiers that change something by a percentage of the base value and then other modifiers that add a constant -- the two are exactly the same in effect but were not supposed to be in intent (the Prima Strategy Guide has the minor value that, since it was written with the input of the developers, their intent is known, It is a sad commentary on their ability when the intent is compared to the implementation).
3.) The programmers screwed up. This is the type of bug that most people can agree on. Examples are the decreasing effect mana shield (fixed), the god mode mana shield (still in the game), the drop and belt click on pickup dup (still in game?) and a few dozen more. These are due to poor testing and poor communication between the designers and the testers.
Now, there are two extremes: the one I subscribed to before Diablo was pretty much anything goes, including hacking the code. But, that was because I only played two kinds of games back then. Single player which are a competition between the designer and the user and server based multiplayer, where hacking the server (if possible) was part of the game. Of course, after (and sometimes before) taking the game apart like a cheap watch, it was always fun to see if one could beat the game "fairly".
With Diablo, I encountered something new to me. An online community of mostly clueless people. I could not play with those people in the manner that I had played with online players in the past, and since these were indeed people and not just bots in a single player game, taking advantage of them (or of loopholes in the game, which amounted to the same thing) was not something I was comfortable with. That pushed me somewhat towards the opposite extreme, more or less "playing it how it was intended", where the interpretation of what was intended was pretty much decided by community consensus. And in the DSF community (which gave birth to the Lurker Lounge as well as a few other groups) pretty much anything falling into error type 3 was considered "cheating". One can quibble with the use of the term "cheating" if no one is being cheated (and I often have). One can also point out that by using exploits, one is "cheating" others of a gaming experience they have some right to expect. But, ultimately, like chowing down on your neighbors, the morality of exploiting bugs is determined by community standards. Anyone who is a member of that community accepts those standards. That is not a requirement, it is a tautology. A community, just like a game, is defined by its rules.
--Pete
There is a lot of pretty good evidence that the price limit is a bug. That it, as well as a lot of other things, should have scaled with the difficulty level.
The problem with "bug" is that it usually means a programming error such as the mana shield bug from early on that reduced the effectiveness of mana shield as its level increased -- a simple screw up in one part of one formula. However, as anyone that knows computer modeling knows, there are at least three types of bugs:
1.) The model does not represent reality. In game terms, this means things that are not internally consistent in the game world. Such as two handed weapons doing only slightly more damage than one handers, or the ability of all classes to learn all spells. These reflect either lack of design (the game was just thrown together and tweaked until it was "fun" (a la Buzzard)) or poor design choices (the designers didn't sit down at a spreadsheet and play "what if").
2.) The equations do not represent the model. The designer knew *what* he wanted but was mathematically clueless as to how to implement it. D1 is rife with this, as shown by all the modifiers that change something by a percentage of the base value and then other modifiers that add a constant -- the two are exactly the same in effect but were not supposed to be in intent (the Prima Strategy Guide has the minor value that, since it was written with the input of the developers, their intent is known, It is a sad commentary on their ability when the intent is compared to the implementation).
3.) The programmers screwed up. This is the type of bug that most people can agree on. Examples are the decreasing effect mana shield (fixed), the god mode mana shield (still in the game), the drop and belt click on pickup dup (still in game?) and a few dozen more. These are due to poor testing and poor communication between the designers and the testers.
Now, there are two extremes: the one I subscribed to before Diablo was pretty much anything goes, including hacking the code. But, that was because I only played two kinds of games back then. Single player which are a competition between the designer and the user and server based multiplayer, where hacking the server (if possible) was part of the game. Of course, after (and sometimes before) taking the game apart like a cheap watch, it was always fun to see if one could beat the game "fairly".
With Diablo, I encountered something new to me. An online community of mostly clueless people. I could not play with those people in the manner that I had played with online players in the past, and since these were indeed people and not just bots in a single player game, taking advantage of them (or of loopholes in the game, which amounted to the same thing) was not something I was comfortable with. That pushed me somewhat towards the opposite extreme, more or less "playing it how it was intended", where the interpretation of what was intended was pretty much decided by community consensus. And in the DSF community (which gave birth to the Lurker Lounge as well as a few other groups) pretty much anything falling into error type 3 was considered "cheating". One can quibble with the use of the term "cheating" if no one is being cheated (and I often have). One can also point out that by using exploits, one is "cheating" others of a gaming experience they have some right to expect. But, ultimately, like chowing down on your neighbors, the morality of exploiting bugs is determined by community standards. Anyone who is a member of that community accepts those standards. That is not a requirement, it is a tautology. A community, just like a game, is defined by its rules.
--Pete
How big was the aquarium in Noah's ark?