well, diablo 1 had only 4 players. That game was AWSOME!! But i think that with 4 players, you wont get the easy way out. In diablo 2, you can have 1 of all classes in the game. Which if a monster fire resist, you have a melee char there to counter. With 4 players, you might not have a certian special class to help kill something.
It was actually between 4 or 5 players in one game...having 5 seems more logical from a distance, being able to play all classes in one game..From a design stand point, all those spells on the screen could increase lag.
They did say that they want people to play together, and each and every additional player COULD reduce this experience
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Not Even Death Can Save You From Me" ~ Diablo (II)
Left 4 Dead works fine with four players, and four players in a Diablo II game worked really well too. I'd also like to say that Blizzard has MMO's for larger teams, and are probably using Diablo III for an RPG with tightly woven teams.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
It's the decisions you make when you have no time to make them that define who you are.
Left 4 Dead works fine with four players, and four players in a Diablo II game worked really well too. I'd also like to say that Blizzard has MMO's for larger teams, and are probably using Diablo III for an RPG with tightly woven teams.
Thats a bad comparison.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Not Even Death Can Save You From Me" ~ Diablo (II)
id rather 4 players to be honest. It makes the game more fun. Look at other games with max 4 players. Left 4 Dead for instance. It gives the game a greater dependence on teamwork and strategy. I feel like more than 4 people will result in spamming area skills and chaotic moshpits like in Baal runs. 4 is plenty.
This raises a good point. Still, I think 6 is a happy medium for both parties (those who like the smaller groups, and those who like the larger ones).
I never did enjoy 8 player games in Diablo 2. I suppose it would be different if I had 8 friends to play with, and we all stuck together. But, most of my 8 player experiences resulted in essentially "zerg rushing" through each area. If someone died it was like, "catch up to the group, see ya".
Anyway, what they could also do is just allow players to set the max number of players allowed to join a game. It's been years since I've played D2, I can't remember if this feature was in the game.
I compared Diablo III to Diablo II and threw Left 4 Dead in because it's a game I frequently play.
Quote from "Lusida" »
Yea, but L4D = rock-paper-scissors, while TF2 is all about nuances and offers more depth/strategy and if one member fails, the rest of the team can react and handle it. If you fail helping your mate in L4D hes pretty much done. The more players (not talking about 1000, just 8), the more flexible the strategy, the better the meta game, thats the point.
I think you mean Diablo III, but still, when playing Diablo II I often find myself in situations where if my teammate dies, so do I.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
It's the decisions you make when you have no time to make them that define who you are.
Sure there are issues for dueling and trading games, but 4 is a good number for actually playing the game.
This is why i feel like blizz should make 3 game types when creating or hosting games, one could be a tradng specific game letting players open up tables t show of gear to trade, possblility of allowing more than 4 max players for this game option. A dueling or an arena sort of game where once again maybe more than 4 players can join, this mode would also allow for bets and wagers. and the final mode would obviously be the adventure or main story mode i guess.
This is why i feel like blizz should make 3 game types when creating or hosting games, one could be a tradng specific game letting players open up tables t show of gear to trade, possblility of allowing more than 4 max players for this game option. A dueling or an arena sort of game where once again maybe more than 4 players can join, this mode would also allow for bets and wagers. and the final mode would obviously be the adventure or main story mode i guess.
Thats my idea criticize ME!
thank
Actually I like that idea... I'd prefer having 8 players be an option, but that would help out several things. Not to mention I opened a thread on the Suggestions board about PvP gametypes...
I think 4 is a little small for online standards. I'd like to see 5. 6 was still pretty good, imo. Even if it gets confusing, its still good to have that many slots available, for things like dueling and what-not.
Apparently people missed this post, because this should have ended the thread.
Quote from "chumm121" »
Right let me put it to you this way, and this is a message for the jackass who came up with max 4 players and the jackass who thinks its a good idea...
Number 1 ? now you think of the amount of players (online) who are going to want to join servers. With 4 players max, each game is going to fill up instantly, no question. Joining a game with a buddy will almost be impossible.
Number 2 ? If you just want 4 players, why not just set up the game with a max number of 4 players? Much better option than completly limiting the server capacity.
Number 3 ? This isn?t a first person shooter, most modern day graphics cards will be able to handle the physics and graphic effects, trust me. Im sure blizzards servers are more than capable of holding more than 12 players let alone 4.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
zsfh-maz of UsWest, 95 BvB king
"Because "half-assed" is not a "style"." - DragoonWraith, champion of character customization and legimitate art direction in D3
its both performance based and gameplay based. there were comments in interviews or gameplay videos (i cant remember which exactly) that currently it was 4 but it might be 5. if you look at the gameplay demo when the female versions show up it gets a little hard to see whats goingon.this is, i believe, the main logic behind a low player cap. i agree 8 is awesome but that just isnt going to happen.
personally the jump from 4 to 5 seems huge to me. even though its only one player is seems to be the jump from small party to large party. dont ask why. i guess im insane. but im pulling for 5 max.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Apparently freezing yourself is fatal. HOW ARE YOU PEOPLE COPING?!
its both performance based and gameplay based. there were comments in interviews or gameplay videos (i cant remember which exactly) that currently it was 4 but it might be 5. if you look at the gameplay demo when the female versions show up it gets a little hard to see whats goingon.this is, i believe, the main logic behind a low player cap. i agree 8 is awesome but that just isnt going to happen.
personally the jump from 4 to 5 seems huge to me. even though its only one player is seems to be the jump from small party to large party. dont ask why. i guess im insane. but im pulling for 5 max.
Yea, I think its safe to assume that it is either 4 or 5 characters in game. I will be happy with either of them.
but I guess giving the option of 5 in one game is for the best, if someone wants 4 people, they can set it as the limit. But, like you said the logic of this is to get people to see what they are doing, and be able to use real team work. In Diablo II (I know its no comparison) but when a sorceress starts blasting her orbs, and a paladin uses hammers killing a few monsters at the same time, there is a major lag spike.
It is a trade off of number of players, and number of monsters, and detail of graphics. You could tell, that there will be more monsters on the screen at once, so it isn't as crazy as you make it seem. Blizzard isn't making a game like Crysis, they will make it low settings so average users can use it. But, they will probably give graphics details options.
And BTW I feel that 5 players is making it a big group, but if they make the cap 4, all games will have 4; if the cap is 5 all the games will have 5...
Not that many people use those options...
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Not Even Death Can Save You From Me" ~ Diablo (II)
I hope that diablo III multiplayer runs similar to that of guild wars (i.e. it is instanced). Since the towns probably won't be as big as in GW, the player cap per server should be considerably less. Then, within towns, there will be a very active multiplayer community involving trading, etc. Parties can still be capped to 4 or 6 or whatever (i'm hoping more than 4).
However, if d3 multiplayer runs similar to d2 multiplayer, then games are hosted by players themselves and capped to something small like 6 players. I guess serious trading will then happen initially through a general chatroom lobby area? Players who want to trade then make a server and join it and trade. This way sounds really dumb. But it's simple and less costly than something better.
Blizzard, you have so much money from WoW, don't go cheap on us for D3!!!!
It was actually between 4 or 5 players in one game...having 5 seems more logical from a distance, being able to play all classes in one game..From a design stand point, all those spells on the screen could increase lag.
They did say that they want people to play together, and each and every additional player COULD reduce this experience
It's the decisions you make when you have no time to make them that define who you are.
Thats a bad comparison.
This raises a good point. Still, I think 6 is a happy medium for both parties (those who like the smaller groups, and those who like the larger ones).
I never did enjoy 8 player games in Diablo 2. I suppose it would be different if I had 8 friends to play with, and we all stuck together. But, most of my 8 player experiences resulted in essentially "zerg rushing" through each area. If someone died it was like, "catch up to the group, see ya".
Anyway, what they could also do is just allow players to set the max number of players allowed to join a game. It's been years since I've played D2, I can't remember if this feature was in the game.
No it's not.
I compared Diablo III to Diablo II and threw Left 4 Dead in because it's a game I frequently play.
I think you mean Diablo III, but still, when playing Diablo II I often find myself in situations where if my teammate dies, so do I.
It's the decisions you make when you have no time to make them that define who you are.
This is why i feel like blizz should make 3 game types when creating or hosting games, one could be a tradng specific game letting players open up tables t show of gear to trade, possblility of allowing more than 4 max players for this game option. A dueling or an arena sort of game where once again maybe more than 4 players can join, this mode would also allow for bets and wagers. and the final mode would obviously be the adventure or main story mode i guess.
Thats my idea criticize ME!
thank
They haven't decided on the player cap, the last they said is that the game works best with five people but are looking into increasing that.
However, they confirmed that it won't have LAN support.
What do you think?
CyberPunk RP Nexus
"Because "half-assed" is not a "style"." - DragoonWraith, champion of character customization and legimitate art direction in D3
personally the jump from 4 to 5 seems huge to me. even though its only one player is seems to be the jump from small party to large party. dont ask why. i guess im insane. but im pulling for 5 max.
Yea, I think its safe to assume that it is either 4 or 5 characters in game. I will be happy with either of them.
but I guess giving the option of 5 in one game is for the best, if someone wants 4 people, they can set it as the limit. But, like you said the logic of this is to get people to see what they are doing, and be able to use real team work. In Diablo II (I know its no comparison) but when a sorceress starts blasting her orbs, and a paladin uses hammers killing a few monsters at the same time, there is a major lag spike.
It is a trade off of number of players, and number of monsters, and detail of graphics. You could tell, that there will be more monsters on the screen at once, so it isn't as crazy as you make it seem. Blizzard isn't making a game like Crysis, they will make it low settings so average users can use it. But, they will probably give graphics details options.
And BTW I feel that 5 players is making it a big group, but if they make the cap 4, all games will have 4; if the cap is 5 all the games will have 5...
Not that many people use those options...
Has a definitive MP player-limit been set?
"No."
That was from the "you can say I have a plethora of questions" thread, link below.
http://www.diablofans.com/forums/showthread.php?t=18350
However, if d3 multiplayer runs similar to d2 multiplayer, then games are hosted by players themselves and capped to something small like 6 players. I guess serious trading will then happen initially through a general chatroom lobby area? Players who want to trade then make a server and join it and trade. This way sounds really dumb. But it's simple and less costly than something better.
Blizzard, you have so much money from WoW, don't go cheap on us for D3!!!!
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
CyberPunk RP Nexus