When I first saw this thread, I was seriously disappointed. I liked having 8 players in a game, it seemed right for Diablo 2. But as spoken before, the graphics are drastically improved, the effects of battle would make the game more crowded, perhaps even frustrating, and also lets not forget. God forbid there would be spam bots made for Diablo 3, having 8 players per game is inviting them to join! Not many games besides baal runs, or any sort of run, trade, or duel came had the max capacity of players, it was unused space.
So though I like 8 player max, 4-6 sounds okay to me.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"From the smallest necessity to the highest religious abstraction, from the wheel to the skyscraper, everything we are and everything we have comes from one attribute of man - the function of his reasoning mind." ~ Ayn Rand
When I first saw this thread, I was seriously disappointed. I liked having 8 players in a game, it seemed right for Diablo 2. But as spoken before, the graphics are drastically improved, the effects of battle would make the game more crowded, perhaps even frustrating, and also lets not forget. God forbid there would be spam bots made for Diablo 3, having 8 players per game is inviting them to join! Not many games besides baal runs, or any sort of run, trade, or duel came had the max capacity of players, it was unused space.
So though I like 8 player max, 4-6 sounds okay to me.
Its also a different game so there might not be any need for grinding..But then again, there is always a good way to get exp, and it will be exploited...
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Not Even Death Can Save You From Me" ~ Diablo (II)
No. The player count debate is about how many friends you can play with and how many people can pvp in the same game. Seriously, how many times are you going to run through the acts until you get bored? 10,000? I got bored at about the 10th time through, I guess it takes some people thousands of times that. Playing with friends and pvping made the game fun for 6 years+. Those are the aspects of gameplay that will keep D3 going once pvm has become ancient: socialization and pvp.
Indeed this is 100% correct....not many ppl play threw d2 anymore with there friends...they pvp and trade...thats it...and its insanely addicting...moreso then the main parts of the game....if blizzard wants us to enjoy the pvm side of things moreso and longer this time around there better be more to do then run bosses over and over....id expect more pvp oriented content later on tho once things r a little more balanced since most ppl love pvp
No. The player count debate is about how many friends you can play with and how many people can pvp in the same game. Seriously, how many times are you going to run through the acts until you get bored? 10,000? I got bored at about the 10th time through, I guess it takes some people thousands of times that. Playing with friends and pvping made the game fun for 6 years+. Those are the aspects of gameplay that will keep D3 going once pvm has become ancient: socialization and pvp.
Hoping you got my sarcasm. Yea exactly, but why debate over max players if Diablo was fun because of hangin with friends and pvping. Wich is what i used it for myself. I dont understand the 4 player max if we want to play with friends and pvp. Who wants only three other people to duel with? Or three other Friends to play with? I have more than 3 other friends and Im sure everyone else does as well.
I don't know if it was this thread but i have read about making a similar system to Horde in Gears of War, or Zombie mode in Call of Duty World at War. Where you could face stronger and stronger enemies that was, not endless, but very close to impossible to beat when it gets really hard. And you couldn't respawn. That mode could contain units that all the participating players have fought before, this includes bosses. That way it would not ruin the normal rpg style game by showing all enemies in that mode.
Atleast i loved playing it in Gears of War, and i bet that blizzard can do it even better and make it even more fun. Then we get the chance to beat records while grinding, and we would have to play way more tactical since enemies would be approaching from everywere in any possible form.
YES, I love horde mode in gears 2, the arena in Kingdom Hearts, and the arena in Ratchet & Clank. Oh and the thing in Fable 2, forget what it's called though. This would be so fun to play in Diablo II, and it could add a whole to section to Ladder. It could update with patches and there could be a godly item reward to the person that first/second/third completes the arena, and then it resets in a month. Seems like a great idea to me, is there already a thread on it because if there isn't I'll make one
I'm leaning towards 5 max player. That's a reasonable number for a game and party for dungeons. That's enough for each class, if needed.
There's really no need for 8 players, like in Diablo 2. With 8 players, the group just steam-rolled the entire map..., there really wasn't any challenge even with the game maxed out, and the difficulty at the highest level. A problem solved in the next addition.
I'm leaning towards 5 max player. That's a reasonable number for a game and party for dungeons. That's enough for each class, if needed.
There's really no need for 8 players, like in Diablo 2. With 8 players, the group just steam-rolled the entire map..., there really wasn't any challenge even with the game maxed out, and the difficulty at the highest level. A problem solved in the next addition.
This does not have to do with the fact there was 8 players this has to do with the fact that they did not make the difficulty scale properly with # of players in a game
This does not have to do with the fact there was 8 players this has to do with the fact that they did not make the difficulty scale properly with # of players in a game
I just, simply think that 4 players FOR SINGLE PLAYER QUESTS ONLY is a reasonable, and comfortable number to play..
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Not Even Death Can Save You From Me" ~ Diablo (II)
I believe there won't be a single player option in Diablo 3. Blizzard is trying to encourage players to play online 100% to have a successful interaction with other players to achieve the greatest affect out of their game.
Not being able to bring other people on a quest is stupid.
Assuming that there won't be a single player mode after all this time and all that has been announced is even more stupid. Shockingly stupid. I hope I misunderstood.
Four for the story. Eight for PvP and we're golden. Too much for PvP was not that fun either. 8 was just enough chaos to be fun and not be lost, yet a little too much for PvE.
Four for the story. Eight for PvP and we're golden. Too much for PvP was not that fun either. 8 was just enough chaos to be fun and not be lost, yet a little too much for PvE.
The point is that, while four for the story may be the most fun for some people, LOTS of other people loved the chaos of 8 players questing together. I know this to be true because my big group of friends all loved the chaos, I loved the chaos, and lots of people who've posted on this thread loved the chaos. All we're getting at is that just because some people like playing with only 4 people doesn't mean EVERYONE should have to play with only 4 people.
Once more, if Blizzard really feels like 4 is best then implement a reward system for those playing with 4 people.
People keep arguing that "if the max players is 8, then most people will play with 8" well then obviously it can't suck too bad if it's what most people are doing.
So for the love of god blizzard, Reduce Graphics When Playing With Many Players!!!
I could easily, EASILY see this being a graphics option that's already going to be in the game. For example, in WoW you had the option to lower the quality of spell effects and weather effects, I'm sure there'll be something similar in D3 that would solve that problem.
Yeah yeah, this isn't happening. Just like the retarded idea of "big" and "little" items. Not happening, the cap will be at least six.
We hear similar things all the time, like with level caps: "MAYBE THERE WON'T BE A LEVEL CAP AT ALL", which is always bullshit. Guildwars 2 will have a cap of around sixty.
Why do they feel compelled to say or think such absurdities? I guess to look cool and edgy, as though nothing is a holy cow.
In some cases it's apparent that it is a good idea and will happen, such as ditching attributes and ToHit
I believe there won't be a single player option in Diablo 3. Blizzard is trying to encourage players to play online 100% to have a successful interaction with other players to achieve the greatest affect out of their game.
lol, what I said was worded the wrong way, I meant multilayer story
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Not Even Death Can Save You From Me" ~ Diablo (II)
And the chaos will be even bigger now with the new effects. And blizzard are afraid that the special effects will ruin the playability if you are too many. Some people will accept the lost visibility and remember that it is because they choosed to play as 8. But some will only think like: "Damn blizzard for making the visibility so bad." They will see the negative effects and not the positive because they have never had the discussion we are having now. About what is positive and negative.
So for the love of god blizzard, Reduce Graphics When Playing With Many Players!!!
That was that, problem - solution
Yea, I completely agree, and feel the same way about this.
I know that once the game is out, people won't complain that much, about it. Even if they do complain, blizzard will think they did something right (can't ever please everyone). Whatever they do, will be best for the game.
But as a compromise between these 2 arguments between 4 and 6 (definately NOT 8) 5 still isn't such a bad number. I am willing to settle on 5.
I admit the chaos was fun, but I imagine they play-tested it, and are going to decide this once they complete the major parts. They will then fine tune the game according to the number of people per a game.
I doubt that they will reduce the effects so that low-end systems will be able to handle 5++ people. they want their game to look, and play well; they won't make it play worse, so that a few people can have 1 extra friend.
I WILL AGREE, that if they can keep good effects, good AI, keep lag on a minimum, and manage to make the effects not give you a seizure [when used at once], then ok..
I still think 4 is good number for story..
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Not Even Death Can Save You From Me" ~ Diablo (II)
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
So though I like 8 player max, 4-6 sounds okay to me.
Its also a different game so there might not be any need for grinding..But then again, there is always a good way to get exp, and it will be exploited...
Indeed this is 100% correct....not many ppl play threw d2 anymore with there friends...they pvp and trade...thats it...and its insanely addicting...moreso then the main parts of the game....if blizzard wants us to enjoy the pvm side of things moreso and longer this time around there better be more to do then run bosses over and over....id expect more pvp oriented content later on tho once things r a little more balanced since most ppl love pvp
Hoping you got my sarcasm. Yea exactly, but why debate over max players if Diablo was fun because of hangin with friends and pvping. Wich is what i used it for myself. I dont understand the 4 player max if we want to play with friends and pvp. Who wants only three other people to duel with? Or three other Friends to play with? I have more than 3 other friends and Im sure everyone else does as well.
Sounds like a fun time to me.
I'm still hoping it's about 6 for pve. For pvp, the sky is the limit. Or... their servers, rather.
woot!!!!!!!!
YES, I love horde mode in gears 2, the arena in Kingdom Hearts, and the arena in Ratchet & Clank. Oh and the thing in Fable 2, forget what it's called though. This would be so fun to play in Diablo II, and it could add a whole to section to Ladder. It could update with patches and there could be a godly item reward to the person that first/second/third completes the arena, and then it resets in a month. Seems like a great idea to me, is there already a thread on it because if there isn't I'll make one
There's really no need for 8 players, like in Diablo 2. With 8 players, the group just steam-rolled the entire map..., there really wasn't any challenge even with the game maxed out, and the difficulty at the highest level. A problem solved in the next addition.
Diablo III Kore
'a fan creation out of pure boredom'
This does not have to do with the fact there was 8 players this has to do with the fact that they did not make the difficulty scale properly with # of players in a game
I just, simply think that 4 players FOR SINGLE PLAYER QUESTS ONLY is a reasonable, and comfortable number to play..
I believe there won't be a single player option in Diablo 3. Blizzard is trying to encourage players to play online 100% to have a successful interaction with other players to achieve the greatest affect out of their game.
Diablo III Kore
'a fan creation out of pure boredom'
Assuming that there won't be a single player mode after all this time and all that has been announced is even more stupid. Shockingly stupid. I hope I misunderstood.
Once more, if Blizzard really feels like 4 is best then implement a reward system for those playing with 4 people.
People keep arguing that "if the max players is 8, then most people will play with 8" well then obviously it can't suck too bad if it's what most people are doing.
We hear similar things all the time, like with level caps: "MAYBE THERE WON'T BE A LEVEL CAP AT ALL", which is always bullshit. Guildwars 2 will have a cap of around sixty.
Why do they feel compelled to say or think such absurdities? I guess to look cool and edgy, as though nothing is a holy cow.
In some cases it's apparent that it is a good idea and will happen, such as ditching attributes and ToHit
lol, what I said was worded the wrong way, I meant multilayer story
Yea, I completely agree, and feel the same way about this.
I know that once the game is out, people won't complain that much, about it. Even if they do complain, blizzard will think they did something right (can't ever please everyone). Whatever they do, will be best for the game.
But as a compromise between these 2 arguments between 4 and 6 (definately NOT 8) 5 still isn't such a bad number. I am willing to settle on 5.
I admit the chaos was fun, but I imagine they play-tested it, and are going to decide this once they complete the major parts. They will then fine tune the game according to the number of people per a game.
I doubt that they will reduce the effects so that low-end systems will be able to handle 5++ people. they want their game to look, and play well; they won't make it play worse, so that a few people can have 1 extra friend.
I WILL AGREE, that if they can keep good effects, good AI, keep lag on a minimum, and manage to make the effects not give you a seizure [when used at once], then ok..
I still think 4 is good number for story..