After watching the D3 gameplay video again on the official Diablo 3 website, I would have to say that I would be comfortable with 4 players. When all players are in the heat of battle, there is a lot of effects going on. I'm not worried about my performance being impacted. I'm worried about losing sight of my freakin character!
that was eactly what i was thinking it is a nice even numbers you could have 2 barbaians taking damage or 2 healers for the one barbarian
Healer's? Oh there better not be more then a few sub par healing abilities...
You want heals? Stack vampiric equipment.
Personally I don't really care what the player cap is. If I don't like playing in the chaos of the cap, I'll put a cap to my tastes on the games I make.
Yeah Blizzard is just looking for an easy way out. I mean, if they were serious, they would definitely be able to balance 8 Wizards in a single game multiplying themselves into 5 another.
Because 40 wizards = tactical play.
And because the only thing in D2 that was done by anything near 8 people were Baal runs. That was so much fun, right.
4 player is just great.. more than that its not gonna be fun.. they want us to stay togheter and 4 is ok. more than that ure just gonna loose ure character because there is alot of thing and mobs in diablo 3. IM entiredly satified with 4 players max.
Yeah, it is hard. I think that it makes sense gameplay-wise to only have four, but then I get sad thinking about only being able to play with three of my friends at a time.
Just rotate which friends you play with at what times I know I wanted at least 6 players, but the more I think about it, 4 might be better.
My friends are gamers. But they also have lives. Jobs, girlfriends, wives. All 6 of us cannot, realistically, play at the same time all the time.
The only exception to this is LAN parties. Yeah, there's probably no LAN connection multiplayer in D3, but you can probably all join the same game through Bnet. I mean, I'm sure there will be password protected rooms you can create so only your friends can join.
But even taking that into consideration, you'll play, what. Every weekend? What about the other 5 days of the week when you're all busy with your different schedules and play times?
Or maybe you LAN 7 days a week, I dunno, people are crazy.
Yeah Blizzard is just looking for an easy way out. I mean, if they were serious, they would definitely be able to balance 8 Wizards in a single game multiplying themselves into 5 another.
Because 40 wizards = tactical play.
And because the only thing in D2 that was done by anything near 8 people were Baal runs. That was so much fun, right.
Can't you see people are bitching here? Take that logic somewhere else
Honestly never thought about how much lag some of the new abilities could generate... Also we don't know how other abilities stack, what happens with overlapping slow time spells? Can locust swarm stack? etc...
Yeah, I do not play that much. But I remember being in the Private Group here for Diablo 2, and it would have not been as fun if we were limited to four people.
No i meant L4D and TF2, because they were mentioned before and are good examples for the mechanism: The more players the LESS dependence to one other single teammate.
Slow:
If 2 players are up against a 2.000 hitpoints monster and one dies ,50% teampower are lost, the remaining player will probably die too.
If 10 players are up against a 10.000 hitpoints monster and one dies, 10% teampower are lost, the other players will probably survive.
The steps are smaller so the team can adapt better.
The same goes for anything, not just damage.
If 2 players choose to skill "Dark damage" they might rush a level where all monsters are vulnerable to it, but if they meet a single monster immune to it, they are stuck. While if only one player has it, they might kill 50% slower in most places.
In a 10 player game options are wider, its less "all, half or nothing".
In general: the more players, the more flexible the gameplay.
But your two descriptions go against your argument.
You're presenting the 2 player example as more fun, yet you're defending the 10 player example?
Quote from "Ftero" »
Yeah, I do not play that much. But I remember being in the Private Group here for Diablo 2, and it would have not been as fun if we were limited to four people.
Hah! Our games were hardly anywhere above four.
But yes, the logic in this argument (despite the poor example) is a good one. More people for social reasons = more fun for the players.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
It's the decisions you make when you have no time to make them that define who you are.
to build on a previous post. It would be cool to have the option of 8 players but honestly:
1. When I first get the game I will want to go at a slow pace. Based on D2 I will have 10 years to get good at D3 and the expansions. Therefore I will almost always quest alone.
2. I do not want to see trading primarly occur through trading games. Never made any sense to me to join a random trading game and show everything I have in case someone needs something. I would like a trading area like in Guild wars where people and post and trade right there. So again, no need for lots of players there.
3. The only time I see having a full game is with boss runs and end-game leveling. I think 5 (I hope 5) is enough players to handle whatever we need to. I think some people might be stuck on 8 player games because we are used to rushers/runners in full games. There was really no need, ever**, for 8 player games. Yes, it will make it more annoying to find games that dont fill up in a second but my guess is that blizz will make runs take more time (so fewer of them) on top of the fact that there will be twice as many games to choose from.
Easy enough to have a 10-15 second delay on games being listed to people from the previous game have time to join the next.
**Some people might make the argument that duels need big games but I think blizz is cooking something up to take care of that.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Apparently freezing yourself is fatal. HOW ARE YOU PEOPLE COPING?!
Oh, usually they weren't - you're right. I am just saying it would have been inconvenient those times when we happened to have more than four that wanted to be in the game at the same time, either to communicate in-game or to take on a hard monster.
But perhaps in Diablo 3, if they are making the limit 4 players, you may not need more than four to take on those hard monsters?
You guys are comparing Diablo 3 with 4-5 players, while thinking of diablo2 with 4-5 players.
They are 2 separate games with a connected story, and similar mechanics. I said this before, and I'll say it again, the effects this time are really big, they are allowing A LOT MORE monsters to be on the screen at once. If I recall Bashiok said it was 100.
They want us to stick together when we play; not to have 3 people over here, and 5 people over there. With 4-5 people we can make communication between us easy; your team will probably need you so they wont tell you to just catch up.
It is hard enough with 4 people in the game trailer to see what is going on. THIS IS A DIFFERENT GAME.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Not Even Death Can Save You From Me" ~ Diablo (II)
It is hard enough with 4 people in the game trailer to see what is going on.
I've made this argument before. I agree. I urge you guys to check out the gameplay trailer on the official website. Pay close attention to the part where the barbarian and witch doctor activate the trap that freezes them. That's when the two other players come into the screen. We're now working with 4 players. As the barbarian and witch doctor unfreeze, do your best to keep up with each character as they tackle the immediate horde before them. I dare you, lol. It's not impossible, but if it takes you 3 or 4 seconds to locate each character... double that for 8 or more players, because you're dealing with that much more going on at once.
6-8 seconds to find yourself? You may already be dead.
id actually prefer to have a 10players maximum online. Because that way you can have the possibilities of 2 of each class. Just to make things simple
think that through...I think EVERYONE can agree 10 is way too much.. Most people agree on 4-6 Anything more, or anything less wouldn't be good.
I'm pretty good with 4-5. 4 seems like a very good group, but it can sometimes feel too small. I'll be happy with anything between 4-6, and 6 being my least favorite option. As long as it is balanced, and they can put many monsters on the screen without lag, then i'm good
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Not Even Death Can Save You From Me" ~ Diablo (II)
The only problem I could really see is this: In Diablo 2 because of the party limit you could throw in every class in one game. It made it diverse . So, say a few years down the road when a few more classes are added after the initial 5 you wouldn't be able to get in all of the classes. So it could result in people not even attempting to party up simply because they didn't like the classes that were in the room. And for that matter, will there be specific trading games to where you can get in more than 4 players?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"I want to say something but I'll keep it to myself I guess and leave this useless post behind to make you aware that there WAS something... "
-Equinox
"We're like the downtown of the Diablo related internet lol"
-Winged
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
"Because "half-assed" is not a "style"." - DragoonWraith, champion of character customization and legimitate art direction in D3
You want heals? Stack vampiric equipment.
Personally I don't really care what the player cap is. If I don't like playing in the chaos of the cap, I'll put a cap to my tastes on the games I make.
for pvp 6 is just fine
but 8 is just too much
most games wouldnt even have that many
besides players will constantly be joining and leaving anyway
due to content being completed they wanted to do or bordom in that game lol, or perhaps they want to join a trade game after finding an awesome weapon
anyway 4 is fine since 4 is usually what i played in diablo 2
in diablo 2 i found myself playing with 3 rather than even 4
mostly everyone was just doing baal runs anyway
but the point is i played with 4 players in d2 and it was too much for all the monsters there
so i dont see any point in more than 4 anyway
im fine with 6 as well
but 8 is just too much
maybe they could have trading servers that can hold 16 players and all it is is a town xD
nothing else just a town xD
Be my Buddy =^.^=
Because 40 wizards = tactical play.
And because the only thing in D2 that was done by anything near 8 people were Baal runs. That was so much fun, right.
My friends are gamers. But they also have lives. Jobs, girlfriends, wives. All 6 of us cannot, realistically, play at the same time all the time.
The only exception to this is LAN parties. Yeah, there's probably no LAN connection multiplayer in D3, but you can probably all join the same game through Bnet. I mean, I'm sure there will be password protected rooms you can create so only your friends can join.
But even taking that into consideration, you'll play, what. Every weekend? What about the other 5 days of the week when you're all busy with your different schedules and play times?
Or maybe you LAN 7 days a week, I dunno, people are crazy.
Honestly never thought about how much lag some of the new abilities could generate... Also we don't know how other abilities stack, what happens with overlapping slow time spells? Can locust swarm stack? etc...
But your two descriptions go against your argument.
You're presenting the 2 player example as more fun, yet you're defending the 10 player example?
Hah! Our games were hardly anywhere above four.
But yes, the logic in this argument (despite the poor example) is a good one. More people for social reasons = more fun for the players.
It's the decisions you make when you have no time to make them that define who you are.
1. When I first get the game I will want to go at a slow pace. Based on D2 I will have 10 years to get good at D3 and the expansions. Therefore I will almost always quest alone.
2. I do not want to see trading primarly occur through trading games. Never made any sense to me to join a random trading game and show everything I have in case someone needs something. I would like a trading area like in Guild wars where people and post and trade right there. So again, no need for lots of players there.
3. The only time I see having a full game is with boss runs and end-game leveling. I think 5 (I hope 5) is enough players to handle whatever we need to. I think some people might be stuck on 8 player games because we are used to rushers/runners in full games. There was really no need, ever**, for 8 player games. Yes, it will make it more annoying to find games that dont fill up in a second but my guess is that blizz will make runs take more time (so fewer of them) on top of the fact that there will be twice as many games to choose from.
Easy enough to have a 10-15 second delay on games being listed to people from the previous game have time to join the next.
**Some people might make the argument that duels need big games but I think blizz is cooking something up to take care of that.
Oh, usually they weren't - you're right. I am just saying it would have been inconvenient those times when we happened to have more than four that wanted to be in the game at the same time, either to communicate in-game or to take on a hard monster.
But perhaps in Diablo 3, if they are making the limit 4 players, you may not need more than four to take on those hard monsters?
It is a different game, after all.
They are 2 separate games with a connected story, and similar mechanics. I said this before, and I'll say it again, the effects this time are really big, they are allowing A LOT MORE monsters to be on the screen at once. If I recall Bashiok said it was 100.
They want us to stick together when we play; not to have 3 people over here, and 5 people over there. With 4-5 people we can make communication between us easy; your team will probably need you so they wont tell you to just catch up.
It is hard enough with 4 people in the game trailer to see what is going on. THIS IS A DIFFERENT GAME.
I've made this argument before. I agree. I urge you guys to check out the gameplay trailer on the official website. Pay close attention to the part where the barbarian and witch doctor activate the trap that freezes them. That's when the two other players come into the screen. We're now working with 4 players. As the barbarian and witch doctor unfreeze, do your best to keep up with each character as they tackle the immediate horde before them. I dare you, lol. It's not impossible, but if it takes you 3 or 4 seconds to locate each character... double that for 8 or more players, because you're dealing with that much more going on at once.
6-8 seconds to find yourself? You may already be dead.
think that through...I think EVERYONE can agree 10 is way too much.. Most people agree on 4-6 Anything more, or anything less wouldn't be good.
I'm pretty good with 4-5. 4 seems like a very good group, but it can sometimes feel too small. I'll be happy with anything between 4-6, and 6 being my least favorite option. As long as it is balanced, and they can put many monsters on the screen without lag, then i'm good
-Equinox
"We're like the downtown of the Diablo related internet lol"
-Winged