07-03-2003, 10:19 AM
(This post was last modified: 07-03-2003, 10:40 AM by Hammerskjold.)
I agree with your first and second point. Hopefully 1.1 will satisfy both the die hard and the casual players.
I respectfully disagree with your third point however.
>3. Harder D2 is better. The ppl playing it now are die-hards and those can use the extra difficulty.
Well I still play D2C. And I occasionally play LoD. I play the majority of my games in single mode using "players 8". And I gotta tell ya, I don't exactly want or even like the original idea of making this game so hard in Hell mode, that solo 8 Hell is impossible. Ditto with the planned clvl 70+ experience penalty. If people enjoy playing your game that much, why are you (bliz) risking it by confusing tedium for longevity?
Challenge is one thing. But where does it reach a point of tedium or even absurdity? And where would anyone start to measure how difficult things should be? Should the yardstick begins and ends with a lvl 99 Amazon armed with the best toys? Screw the people who play solo or no twink, or god forbid single player?
I'd only be half surprised if the the next STSI for 1.1 was a Hell mode Wraith boss, with inherent Physical Immunity, tri-elemental immunities, magic immunity, and immune to poison. I guess now we'll see who can embarass the monster to death by typing curse words at it. We'd all be in real trouble if monsters are illiterate.
If I want to seek out extra difficulties, I can always try out a mod, or play with a self imposed restriction. And this is just my opinion. I have yet to see any character nerfs by blizzard bring about more variety. If anything those nerfs usually narrows buildstyles even more.
And while I'm on a rant. Here's another crazy crazy idea. In D1 most unrestricted characters who are above clvl 35-40+ don't really need any help clearing Hell\Hell. Yet multi player games did NOT die out. People for some odd reason still played together even though they can tackle things solo by that age. By Dog. Is it possible that people just like playing together?! I don't see the benefit of nerfing things so that players have an incentive to play together. I don't choose my playing partners on their choice of characters or abilities. I mostly base it on whether or not I can stand to be in the same game with them for 5 minutes or not.
ps.
Warblade:
>Ack! At that rate no one would ever use it because all the mercenaries would be running Prayer. No thanks.
Heh yeah, I think a large part of why the Paladin seems "weaker" in LoD is the competition he has to face with all those features. What with all those act2 mercs sporting all those nifty auras. I'm no game designer, so it might be cliched but one possible way of doing it would be to ensure that the player's aura\skills are always better\stronger\smells more minty than the mercenaries. The players are suppose to be the heroes after all. No need for nerfing the mercs (since they are a big selling point albeit an optional one in LoD), just boost a bit of the characters skills.
I respectfully disagree with your third point however.
>3. Harder D2 is better. The ppl playing it now are die-hards and those can use the extra difficulty.
Well I still play D2C. And I occasionally play LoD. I play the majority of my games in single mode using "players 8". And I gotta tell ya, I don't exactly want or even like the original idea of making this game so hard in Hell mode, that solo 8 Hell is impossible. Ditto with the planned clvl 70+ experience penalty. If people enjoy playing your game that much, why are you (bliz) risking it by confusing tedium for longevity?
Challenge is one thing. But where does it reach a point of tedium or even absurdity? And where would anyone start to measure how difficult things should be? Should the yardstick begins and ends with a lvl 99 Amazon armed with the best toys? Screw the people who play solo or no twink, or god forbid single player?
I'd only be half surprised if the the next STSI for 1.1 was a Hell mode Wraith boss, with inherent Physical Immunity, tri-elemental immunities, magic immunity, and immune to poison. I guess now we'll see who can embarass the monster to death by typing curse words at it. We'd all be in real trouble if monsters are illiterate.
If I want to seek out extra difficulties, I can always try out a mod, or play with a self imposed restriction. And this is just my opinion. I have yet to see any character nerfs by blizzard bring about more variety. If anything those nerfs usually narrows buildstyles even more.
And while I'm on a rant. Here's another crazy crazy idea. In D1 most unrestricted characters who are above clvl 35-40+ don't really need any help clearing Hell\Hell. Yet multi player games did NOT die out. People for some odd reason still played together even though they can tackle things solo by that age. By Dog. Is it possible that people just like playing together?! I don't see the benefit of nerfing things so that players have an incentive to play together. I don't choose my playing partners on their choice of characters or abilities. I mostly base it on whether or not I can stand to be in the same game with them for 5 minutes or not.
ps.
Warblade:
>Ack! At that rate no one would ever use it because all the mercenaries would be running Prayer. No thanks.
Heh yeah, I think a large part of why the Paladin seems "weaker" in LoD is the competition he has to face with all those features. What with all those act2 mercs sporting all those nifty auras. I'm no game designer, so it might be cliched but one possible way of doing it would be to ensure that the player's aura\skills are always better\stronger\smells more minty than the mercenaries. The players are suppose to be the heroes after all. No need for nerfing the mercs (since they are a big selling point albeit an optional one in LoD), just boost a bit of the characters skills.