A few ideas of how to save D3

[FireIceTalon]

Yes, this only applies to the people in Inferno, since anyone who has not played it yet is in no position to comment on it - whether they agree with me or not. But within that group, I'd say 50% unhappy is being very conservative - I'd venture to say there are quite a bit more who are dissatisfied than those who think it is fine as is. And even if it is 50/50, the people who are unhappy should be catered to, because any change isnt going to effect the people who dont care anyways. Blizz could reduce monster dmg in Inferno by 50%, take out the super cheezy affixes like Vortex, Shielding, and Invulnerable Minions, and there would STILL be plenty of challenge to keep the majority happy.

Also (and this is subjective but I'm not the only one saying it) why is the jump in difficulty from Act 1 to Act 2 so friggin huge? Act 2 is harder than Act 3 or 4, which just doesn't make any sense......although, this is true in EVERY difficulty, though it really only matters with Inferno since that is where the game really starts.

One of my good friends from Germany has already beat Inferno in its entirety (and he was well into Inferno before they nerfed the Wizard), has a char with incredible gear doing over 50K DPS, even he said it was one of the most tedious and unfun things he's done in a game. But at the end of the day, he is a PvP player also, so thus Inferno is kind of a necessary evil. If items were mlvl dependent like in D1 instead of difficulty dependent, we probably wouldnt care so much.

[Chesspiece_face]

And even if it is 50/50, the people who are unhappy should be catered to, because any change isnt going to effect the people who dont care anyways. Blizz could reduce monster dmg in Inferno by 50%, take out the super cheezy affixes like Vortex, Shielding, and Invulnerable Minions, and there would STILL be plenty of challenge to keep the majority happy.

Implying that people who are happy with it is equivilant to them not caring is a rather blinded statement. I'm rather certain that they care just as much as you do, they just disagree. And besides, Blizzard has already stated they plan to bring down the spikiness of the damage in Inferno. Until they implement that change I think it is premature to go looking for any other major alterations to the way the game plays.

[Elric of Grans]

I would say the spikiness exists in other difficulties too. I have almost finished Nightmare, and did most of it while only half paying attention (talking to people, eating, etc). There were just a couple of times, however, where it suddenly went insane for 10-15 minutes, then back to auto-pilot. I anticipate this will become more pronounced in Hell, and even more so in Inferno. There is a fundamental issue that needs tweaking, which should resolve this across all difficulties (assuming Blizzard works it out properly, rather than ham-fisting it in Inferno).

[FireIceTalon]

It exists in the lower difficulties, but not nearly as badly. Parts of hell difficulty do get tedious at times, but at least there, you can just hit the AH up and make a moderate upgrade for a decent price - to bring the difficulty to a manageable level. But small upgrades in Inferno just don't suffice - you need BIG upgrades. My char could use a ton of upgrades but I need millions in gold, which I don't have. The only thing I can do at this point is complete Act 1, and re-run it again, collect every gold pile i can, and sell any halfway decent items I might find on the AH. Maybe if I'm lucky ill actually FIND an upgrade, but I am not counting on it. And this will take a long while, just to make even one really good upgrade - but that seems to be the nature of Inferno. You will have to spend MILLIONS of gold if you want to beat Inferno, and probably millions more if you really want to make a truly outstanding char (which I do, because I am a PvP player - and playing high end PvP requires the absolute cream-of-the crop gear).

[Chesspiece_face]

It exists in the lower difficulties, but not nearly as badly. Parts of hell difficulty do get tedious at times, but at least there, you can just hit the AH up and make a moderate upgrade for a decent price - to bring the difficulty to a manageable level. But small upgrades in Inferno just don't suffice - you need BIG upgrades. My char could use a ton of upgrades but I need millions in gold, which I don't have. The only thing I can do at this point is complete Act 1, and re-run it again, collect every gold pile i can, and sell any halfway decent items I might find on the AH. And this will take a long while, just to make even one really good upgrade - but that seems to be the nature of Inferno. You will have to spend MILLIONS of gold if you want to beat Inferno, and probably millions more if you really want to make a truly outstanding char (which I do, because I am a PvP player).

Crafting is actually a viable option for upgrades and can often be cheaper or more efficient than going straight to the Auction House. This will only increase in viability after the next patch as I believe Blizz has stated they are going to lower the cost of high level crafts. If you're not finding viable upgrades on the AH for reasonable prices (and I believe inflation will keep the prices going up for the quality items in the foreseable future) or you are just unwilling to use the AH for other reasons try balancing out the gear you sell vs. the gear you salvage and then work on crafing up pieces that you need upgrades for. Even if you don't get pieces that you need, you will often get pieces that can sell for good prices to other people.

So far I've invested maybe 400k into crafting pieces and I've sold two of the quality pieces for ~1 million.

[Ashock]

By your own logic: 50% of the people in Inferno are dissatisfied. People who are actually in Inferno are the extreme minority of people playing the game. Thus, people that are dissatisfied with Inferno are, in fact, the vast minority.

Even if you want to extrapolate that position to exclude people not in Inferno you are still making the argument that blizzard should cater to half of their players over the other half. Wonder why you think they should cater to that 50%. Oh yeah, because that is the side you are on.

Ok. Ask yourself this. What are you going to do once you hit lvl 60 and once you beat Inferno (if you ever do that is).

Now, lemme ask you this. What did you do when you beat Baal, or when you beat Diablo pre-LOD in D2?

[Mavfin]

Along the same lines as Treesh:

Ashock's vision of 'saving' D3 would not be saving anything. The *only* point I have *any* desire at all for is the third one, about the chat channels, and that's pretty minor.

The other four I have zero desire for. If you want to go back to D2, by all means, do so. This is D*3*, and points 1,2,4,5 just tell me that you just want a modernized D2 and nothing more. So, definitely count me out on Ashock's or RedRadical's versions of 'saving D3'. I don't think it needs to be saved. Is it perfect? No, but the perfect game doesn't exist. Things will be patched, including the over-spikiness in Inferno, but, I hope they keep the essential 'hard to be hard' flavor of Inferno, and not give in to the people who think it's wrong that they couldn't full-clear it in the first two weeks.

As far as what will we do after we beat Inferno Act IV? Same thing we did in D2. Farm for better gear, and/or build new characters. Once we've farmed Act IV Inferno on all classes, then we can start running variants for the sheer fun of trying it. There's no rule that says you always must do everything the min/max way, and there's not 9 or 24 people you're holding back if you do it your way, either. If someone wants to play the AH, of course, they can do that, but, I'm more likely to sell than buy.

The game is only limited by the assumptions you take to the game with you. If you only play the 'accepted' way, then, well, that's not D3's fault. That's you limiting yourself.

If the game is totally broken to you, then don't tell me you want to 'save' the game because you love it. No, you love the old Diablo I/II, and I don't want just that in a new wrapper.

[Chesspiece_face]

Ok. Ask yourself this. What are you going to do once you hit lvl 60 and once you beat Inferno (if you ever do that is).

Now, lemme ask you this. What did you do when you beat Baal, or when you beat Diablo pre-LOD in D2?

I'll probably do what I am doing now. Enjoy awesomely tense fights with champ packs. As far as I am concerned that is the end game, and I am there. I am also fine with that because it is thouroughly enjoyable. Gear then is a secondary concern as it is not necessary to have the best gear to satisfy this goal.

It seems to me you can play this game to actually Play it and enjoy the often-times hectic and crazy encounters. Or you can play this game to push the loot button, in which case you will most likely be disappointed as (unlike D2 where you could do mindless and non-threatening runs ad nauseum, or just trade for an endless supply of dupes) in this game you actually have to play to get your rewards, whether that is throwing down with champ packs for your items or farming gold to auction items.

[FireIceTalon]

By your own logic: 50% of the people in Inferno are dissatisfied. People who are actually in Inferno are the extreme minority of people playing the game. Thus, people that are dissatisfied with Inferno are, in fact, the vast minority.

Even if you want to extrapolate that position to exclude people not in Inferno you are still making the argument that blizzard should cater to half of their players over the other half. Wonder why you think they should cater to that 50%. Oh yeah, because that is the side you are on.

Ok. Ask yourself this. What are you going to do once you hit lvl 60 and once you beat Inferno (if you ever do that is).

Now, lemme ask you this. What did you do when you beat Baal, or when you beat Diablo pre-LOD in D2?

I will try out the other classes once my DH has beat Inferno and has a level of gear comfortable enough to PvP with. Most here don't like PvP - I love it. I had soooo much fun on D1 playing PvP with friends - it is really a true test of a players skill IMO, because you face an opponent with a mind instead of a set AI. It is not without its flaws, but damn is it fun.

Also, I think the first char is the hardest, because you really have to build that char up, max out two artisans, and just grind grind grind. Once u do that, I think rolling the rest of your chars will be a little easier since you wont have to pump gold into the artisans anymore except to craft, and you can use your main to farm items or gold to pass down to your other chars.

[Kevin]

Ok. Ask yourself this. What are you going to do once you hit lvl 60 and once you beat Inferno (if you ever do that is).

Now, lemme ask you this. What did you do when you beat Baal, or when you beat Diablo pre-LOD in D2?

Just to chime in. When I beat Hell/Diablo or Hell/Baal in D2 I played another character. The game was over, I could handle all the content it had (because I didn't rush to those bosses I progressed in the order the game was built). I rarely had a toon higher than late 70's because of this. Sure I did some cow runs just for giggles, I did some loot farming on toons that had beaten the content (Pindle, more Baal kills), but generally the game was done. Unless I had friends that wanted to romp on higher level stuff because they were farming for a new build or something or I was doing that, the big toons were generally done.

In this game I expect to try a different build (set of skills) and see if I can beat the content with that style on the big toon. I'll probably keep playing capped toons just for the fun of the champ packs too.

If I get all the classes to 60 and beat Inferno Diablo (without skipping stuff) then I might stop playing the game but by then I would expect I would have put in thousands of hours of game play and really that's enough.

Of course since at least half of my 10 toons are hardcore I'll also likely be bringing a replacement toon up (though I haven't had to do that yet, though I'm only in early Act I Hell right now)

I don't need a game to be longer than that. Mass Effect got about 120 hours of play time for me and that was going through the whole game at least 3 times (and if I get ME 3 there is a good chance it will get more because I might just play 1-2-3 with a new character). It was well worth the money. Diablo 3 has already gotten like 50 hours and will get hundreds more. It will likely get about as much as D2 actually which was also in the thousands but did get old, especially since single player D2 could become a snore in a hurry, even on my first play through, and I have not run into that with D3 yet. It might not get as much time as D1 did.

I might do some PvP in D3 as well, because well I can change my skills around for it, something you couldn't do in D1 and D2 which I approached as the PvM games they were built to be and it wasn't worth my time for most PvP, especially random since I was likely going up against someone with duped/hacked gear. D3 solves that problem so far as well.

[kandrathe]

I might do some PvP in D3 as well, because well I can change my skills around for it, something you couldn't do in D1 and D2 which I approached as the PvM games they were built to be and it wasn't worth my time for most PvP, especially random since I was likely going up against someone with duped/hacked gear. D3 solves that problem so far as well.

Blizzard really should look at WHY games like Halo, Counter-strike, Team Fortress, HL2,etc have a large and dedicated PVP community. Frankly, I think it's because the "versus" is more Red v. Blue, where each class offers a strategic advantage to the current team. I would be more interested if it were team oriented, with PVP zone maps, with varied objective types (CTF, Rescue, onslaught, etc.). I wouldn't be so much into the free for all -- "every one for themselves" -- OMG he got my ear -- "Hey, friend, why'd you go hostile on me???" -- style from DII. To me that was less of a game and more like Id venting of our inner 12 year old psyche (without the strippers -- that was Duke Nukem).

[Kevin]

Blizzard really should look at WHY games like Halo, Counter-strike, Team Fortress, HL2,etc have a large and dedicated PVP community. Frankly, I think it's because the "versus" is more Red v. Blue, where each class offers a strategic advantage to the current team. I would be more interested if it were team oriented, with PVP zone maps, with varied objective types (CTF, Rescue, onslaught, etc.). I wouldn't be so much into the free for all -- "every one for themselves" -- OMG he got my ear -- "Hey, friend, why'd you go hostile on me???" -- style from DII. To me that was less of a game and more like Id venting of our inner 12 year old psyche (without the strippers -- that was Duke Nukem).

Well I actually did like battlegrounds in WoW (warfronts in Rifts and whatever they were called in SW:TOR) for some of those reasons. Rift and SW:TOR had pretty solid implementations with character scaling for level diff and stuff. I also didn't mind arenas in WoW when I had time, but the bleed over effects into the PvM game that caused were pretty harsh.

Most PvP in D2 was griefing unless you specified a duel and then it was generally dominated by specialized builds that in some cases required a buddy to help you level up in the PvM game because they just weren't good at that. But I did duel with friends in D2 from time to time as well.

Arena or team style PvP in D3 could be quite fun but it could still impose a grinding burden where you win not because of being better at PvP but because you were better able to get gear.

That's the big one, the games you mentioned don't have gear. Well they do, but it's not like if I spent 1000 hours farming single player Halo that I would have a huge gear advantage over someone who only played 3 hours of single player. In most RPG style games that is not the case. But like I said there were ways around it in the MMO's. I was killing L50 SW:ToR toons at L12 in PvP matches. I was still handicapped by lack of some skills but it wasn't just a wafflestomp because I had good gear for my level. Rift was similar and I leveled a few characters pretty much from PvP in that before I stopped playing because I didn't really know too many other folks that were playing.

If D3 can get around some of that PvP could be a blast and not just "damn it this guy had so much more time to get gear than me!" though you will still likely run into "Oh great a hydra sorc that no one has a found a way to counter with a witch doctor" type of situations (classes in that example were just pulled out of thin air that specific example is likely never going to happen but people should get the point).

But the biggest issue compared to other PvP type games is the base design. Brink was one of the most "RPG-esque" PvP games I played but most of the gear and stuff you could unlock from single player stuff was a fairly minor change in power. I had fun with that one, but again stopped playing because I still prefer to play with people I know, not just random folks (it also has issues still with dual monitors and tends to crash if I don't disable the 2nd monitor which makes me feel like I'm back in 1995 when dual monitors were rare or least the ability to run two was rare, now every card out there can generally drive 4+ displays at the same time)

[FireIceTalon]

The PvP on D1 in the legit community, was, as you can guess, very closed and quite esoteric in general. I played only with people I knew very well and who were legit, and we really tested everything and set the standard and boundaries for PvP in that game. Generally, we all had relatively pretty equal gear (within a couple points), and so duels came down to a person's ability, reflexes, a bit of luck, and of course, the latency situation. The lag was the biggest flaw of D1 PvP, and there were a select few builds that we banned cause they were proven to be OP or an unfair advantage over another class (Zen Sorc facing a warrior or rogue comes to mind).

I would really like a system similar to that on D3, where players face each other based on lvl, gear quality, as well as skill. OP builds will likely be discovered and the players can set rules so that such builds or particular skills are forbidden - Blizz doesn't really need to be involved in this. The people who truly love PvP will figure out all the mechanics, see what works and doesnt work, and root out all the OP builds and create our own rules so every duel is fair. I do not like being outclassed, nor do I like outclassing my opponents. Nothing is more fun than a fair duel where both players are equal in level and skill as well as items.

[kandrathe]

Arena or team style PvP in D3 could be quite fun but it could still impose a grinding burden where you win not because of being better at PvP but because you were better able to get gear.

To level the playing field, I would think they could build an optional leveled and class based gratis PVP kit that only applies in PVP map modes. I would make it very, very good comparable to some of the best possible gear (say 85 to 90% of optimal) -- then those that do want to do the grind or spend oodles on AH can continue to drive to 100% optimal if they want. Once you leave the PVP map or arena, that optional gratis gear is not available. But, I think you are right. We really do want the PVP outcomes to be based on skill choices and how they are used, rather than someone whose life is dominated by the quest for uber gear. Removing the PVP gear variable and providing combat venues would probably make PVP more desirable, and accessible to the most number of people.

I'm also thinking of Guild Wars, where the ultimate objective of the game is team PVP. The PVE component is a quest for skills, rather than gear.

Correct me where I'm wrong, (my opinion is as a 99% outsider (I don't PVP much in WOW), PVP for WOW has evolved into duel specifications and different sets of gear, containing special PVP stats (resilience and spell penetration) for damage reduction/enhancement. You improve your PVP gear by doing PVP, and eventually at max level everyone is kitted out pretty equally. Where WOW gets pathetic is when they build in expectations for the PVE geared player to occasionally jump into a PVP situation mostly naked and clueless.

[Ashock]

Where WOW gets pathetic is when they build in expectations for the PVE geared player to occasionally jump into a PVP situation mostly naked and clueless.

And that's the way it should be.

PVP is like being on a NYC subway. If you're naked and clueless, you're gonna get hurt. Of course, even if you are clothed and clueless, you're gonna get hurt too... and also robbed.

Basically, if you're clueless, in WOW and in RL you're gonna get hurt.

I see no problem with that.

[FireIceTalon]

PvP should be consensual and balanced - that is REAL PvP. Pk'ing someone who you out level or out gear hardly constitutes as true, competitive, skill-based PvP.

[kandrathe]

Basically, if you're clueless, in WOW and in RL you're gonna get hurt.

I see no problem with that.

I have no intrinsic problem with it, other than as I said, when they build into the game stuff which leads the PVE player into PVP. For example, in order to complete this quest chain you need to go into a battlegrounds and cap a flag. Or, a real life example, would be to lead the Japanese tourists through a ghetto crack house as a part of the standard get to know New York tour. Yeah, I signed up for the tour, but I didn't expect to get shot. If we choose to risk it, and jump into something naked and clueless, then yes, not an issue for me. When we are led there, then it's a bad design (plan).

[NotSoDarklord]

Act 2 is NOT harder than Act 3 and 4 (at least not for inferno). This is complete bullshit. The jump from Act 1 to Act 2 might be considered harder than the jump from 2-3 or 3-4 but that does not equate to the area being harder.

I'm inclined to believe you've never step foot in some of these areas RedRadical.

[Tal]

And that's the way it should be.

PVP is like being on a NYC subway. If you're naked and clueless, you're gonna get hurt. Of course, even if you are clothed and clueless, you're gonna get hurt too... and also robbed.

Basically, if you're clueless, in WOW and in RL you're gonna get hurt.

I see no problem with that.

Except when trying to do PvE requires you to PVP. Good luck if you're a PvE'er and you want What a Long, Strange Trip It's Been for the purple drake. I've helped a lot of folks who don't PvP to get those achievements done and it's a pain. Even more I hate when those times of the year come around and you join a Eye and see 12 players with 100k all run to the middle...

[FireIceTalon]

And that's the way it should be.

PVP is like being on a NYC subway. If you're naked and clueless, you're gonna get hurt. Of course, even if you are clothed and clueless, you're gonna get hurt too... and also robbed.

Basically, if you're clueless, in WOW and in RL you're gonna get hurt.

I see no problem with that.

Except when trying to do PvE requires you to PVP. Good luck if you're a PvE'er and you want What a Long, Strange Trip It's Been for the purple drake. I've helped a lot of folks who don't PvP to get those achievements done and it's a pain. Even more I hate when those times of the year come around and you join a Eye and see 12 players with 100k all run to the middle...

Wow. I actually agree with the above post - PvM and PvP should be separate realms, in any game really.