Level cap is arbitrary. It could be 60 or it could be 500. When it's 60, as Bash, claims it works well with increasing your power each time you level. If it were 500 you'd get levels every few minutes and be getting minuscule improvements each time -- this would be ultra lame. 99 doesn't work for D3 so we get 60... that's completely fine with me and to be honest the WoW comparisons here are really misplaced. Next people will be like "ZOMG I saw the color red in Diablo, but they used the color red in WoW too! WTF Blizzard stop cloning WoW!"
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
You must find the courage to step through this gate...
For me this is awesome news. A level 60 cap means they can add extra levels in expansions, wich is a feature that i particulary love in wow and any other rpg.
Very sweet news.
Meaning that they didn't reduced to 60 because they were having problems with it, they want to make more money by releasing lame ass downloadable (must-buy) content to raise the cap and rip people off.
I have this strange, strange feeling that D3 is not going to live up to diablo's name(in other words, FAIL). And this is the kind of news that just enforces that..
Get real, folks, the diablo you all knew is dead, a few years ago i said right here in this forum that D3 had a pretty good chance of being blizzard first bust (i was flamed to death ofc), and what you know, its not even beta and its already looking that way.
I find it really surprising that people assume that you NEED to reach the level cap to have a fulfilling game experience.
The opposite has been true in diablo2 - it was always about the items. Leveling held very little weight (esp 70/80+) and I don't really think this needs to change. Not saying Blizz as said it will - but condensing the number of levels down to 60 seems so imply that levels will hold a bit more weight than they did compared to d2
Made some quite lengthy posts in this thread explaining a bit more detail Battlenet Thread (username evilstarship - theres 2 posts)
30 levels of normal, 20 levels of nightmare, 10 levels of hell... thats pretty good logic. I just hope that getting to level 60 won't be too easy, and that the final boss on hell will just be insanely difficult. What endgame stuff do you think they have planned?
i'm expecting events of sorts after you hit 60. kill the "final" boss. then a demon army is spotted to X place. you go investigate and kill its leader(s).
things like this more or less
30 levels of normal, 20 levels of nightmare, 10 levels of hell... thats pretty good logic. I just hope that getting to level 60 won't be too easy, and that the final boss on hell will just be insanely difficult.
He did say that we could expect a similar difficulty as reaching 99 for the 60 cap somewhere in there, I think. On that basis, unless you thought reaching 99 was really easy in II, it should be good. I might be mistaken, though.
30 levels of normal, 20 levels of nightmare, 10 levels of hell... thats pretty good logic. I just hope that getting to level 60 won't be too easy, and that the final boss on hell will just be insanely difficult.
He did say that we could expect a similar difficulty as reaching 99 for the 60 cap somewhere in there, I think. On that basis, unless you thought reaching 99 was really easy in II, it should be good. I might be mistaken, though.
i think he said it was about as hard as to get to 80-85 (playing the game, not being rushed, naturally) because the last 10-15 levels didnt really make a difference and it didnt feel like such a big accomplishment anyway (never motivated me in the 5 years i played and never got to 99 because it was simply boring, so i get his logic).
its just that they intend to make the level cap mean something and not have the game to end after you hit it (which was pretty much it in Diablo II unless you wanted to grind for something - that you could do with a level 85-87 character anyway).
The main replayability of d2 was the never ending level cap for most players AND the loot people got while doing that.
I didn't do baal runs just for the loot, or just for the XP.. I did it for both. Hopefully you wont be 60 or somewhere close when you end hell. I like the feeling of running dungeons for XP and the Loot.
They will probably pin this down in some sort of way and find a sweet spot for all of us.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The little boat gently drifted across the pond exactly the way a bowling ball wouldn’t...
Its not diablo w/out 99, this isn't fucking warcraft, and since when did blizzard start doing things things the easy way (except for wow) i was hoping for a quality game
(goes and weeps for blizzard's sake in a corner)
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"You can just hang outside in the sun all day tossing a ball around or you can sit at your computer and do something that matters"--Cartmen
Chaos, Panic, Disastor, my work here is done.
Make it idiot-proof and somone will make a better idiot.
The main replayability of d2 was the never ending level cap for most players AND the loot people got while doing that.
I didn't do baal runs just for the loot, or just for the XP.. I did it for both. Hopefully you wont be 60 or somewhere close when you end hell. I like the feeling of running dungeons for XP and the Loot.
They will probably pin this down in some sort of way and find a sweet spot for all of us.
its confirmed that the end-game in Diablo III will not be the same as in Diablo II (endless grind of the same bosses/places over and over again till you get the level cap - that wasnt my definition of fun).
what's not said so far - and we should expect more about in Blizzcon is how end-game will be shaped.
Its not diablo w/out 99, this isn't fucking warcraft, and since when did blizzard start doing things things the easy way (except for wow) i was hoping for a quality game
(goes and weeps for blizzard's sake in a corner)
is that right?
so Diablo 1 that had a level cap of 50 isnt Diablo, right? it was Warcraft?
seriously dude, its not about the level cap, its about the feeling and the features the game offers. that's Diablo, not the number of the level cap. Grow up and learn to deal with changes.
Level cap is arbitrary. It could be 60 or it could be 500. When it's 60, as Bash, claims it works well with increasing your power each time you level. If it were 500 you'd get levels every few minutes and be getting minuscule improvements each time -- this would be ultra lame. 99 doesn't work for D3 so we get 60... that's completely fine with me and to be honest the WoW comparisons here are really misplaced. Next people will be like "ZOMG I saw the color red in Diablo, but they used the color red in WoW too! WTF Blizzard stop cloning WoW!"
If level caps are arbitrary then why have a level cap? You yourself are putting arbitrary limits on what a level constitutes. The reality is that you're putting an arbitrary limit on something that you claim is arbitrary in itself.
The reality is that level cap is not arbitrary and it tells you a lot about the game. For example, the level cap is Titan Quest is 65 and was raised in an expansion. As a result, Titan Quest has a much different type of character structure, character design, and character progression than Diablo 2. This is ignoring the obvious differences in class design but that's a rather moot point as both share the common characteristic of having multiple trees.
You are partially right in saying that you would level up much faster in a game that has 500 levels ONLY IF the game is designed to get you through all 500 levels when you reach the end of the game.
In both Titan Quest and Diablo 2 you are not designed to reach the level cap by the time you beat the game. In fact, you're not supposed to be close to it. In TQ you're usually 15-20 or so levels lower than the cap after you've beaten the final boss. In D2 you're usually around 30-40 levels lower than the cap after you've beaten the final boss.
Of course, these numbers are arbitrary because D3 isn't being designed with this in mind. The end game, according to Blizzard, won't revolve around the same things that Diablo 2 and TQ did. Seeing as how the end game in D2 and TQ revolved around killing X boss over and over or going through Y area over and over, this tells me that... I'll be level 60, or very close to it, by the time I fight the final boss on the hardest difficulty.
The alternative is being level 45-55 by the time we fight the final boss.
In other words, we can make two assumptions with the second assumption having two more assumptions:
1. Because we know that the end game will not primarily feature killing bosses and monsters for loot, we have to assume that the end game will functionally be the end of the game and levels will functionally show us how much time we have left until we beat the game.
2. We will reach the end game at a level that is lower than almost any other ARPG and, because of how skill points currently work, our characters will have fewer points to spend.
A. This means that our characters will be highly specialized with points spent to modify single, powerful abilities (similar to the metagame of D2 but very different than TQ).
B. Our characters will have a hand full of skills we can spend a few points in to and then modify if we so desire, effectively defaulting our characters to a jack of all trades and master of none (due to the lower character level).
Anyway, level cap tells us a good deal about the possibilities on the content of the game. Having no level cap tells us that killing monsters endlessly will be the end of the game. Having a level cap doesn't tell us much. However, having a characteristically low level cap coupled with what has been said and what we have seen, we can tell a great deal about the game.
In fact, I'm sure if a group of us sat down, tossed away expectations, and went in to a discussion about everything that has been revealed, we'll have a concept of the game that is close to what to expect along with a few other possibilities incase X or Y is revealed.
In other words, we can make two assumptions with the second assumption having two more assumptions:
1. Because we know that the end game will not primarily feature killing bosses and monsters for loot, we have to assume that the end game will functionally be the end of the game and levels will functionally show us how much time we have left until we beat the game.
2. We will reach the end game at a level that is lower than almost any other ARPG and, because of how skill points currently work, our characters will have fewer points to spend.
A. This means that our characters will be highly specialized with points spent to modify single, powerful abilities (similar to the metagame of D2 but very different than TQ).
B. Our characters will have a hand full of skills we can spend a few points in to and then modify if we so desire, effectively defaulting our characters to a jack of all trades and master of none (due to the lower character level).
Anyway, level cap tells us a good deal about the possibilities on the content of the game. Having no level cap tells us that killing monsters endlessly will be the end of the game. Having a level cap doesn't tell us much. However, having a characteristically low level cap coupled with what has been said and what we have seen, we can tell a great deal about the game.
In fact, I'm sure if a group of us sat down, tossed away expectations, and went in to a discussion about everything that has been revealed, we'll have a concept of the game that is close to what to expect along with a few other possibilities incase X or Y is revealed.
I've been an avid Diablo franchise fan for a long time and recently found this site for its great consolidation of Diablo lore and gameplay. Shameless kissing @$$ aside, I decided to reply to this post as my first because it's basis is woefully uniformed, as recently amusingly pointed out in a subsequent post to it. The "assumptions" articulated directly contrasted what Bash (or any other Blizzard rep) have already stated.
Assumption #1: Completely screwed the pooch on that one. If you actually decided to read what Bash stated you'd know that there will be "end game content." Implicitly, that means that the game will not be over after the "final" boss is defeated. There should be other quests (probably side quests) or dungeons to mess around with. There may also be PvP or clan PvP that is restricted to level 60 characters. (Seriously hoping for something like that.) There are any number of things that "end game content" can mean. It is incredibly narrow-minded to think that "end game content" simply means that the game ends and there is no other reason to play.
Assumption #2: Now I know you haven't been reading anything on Blizzard.com or this site. Bash has stated that we will be restricted to set number of skills that we may employ at any one time: 7. There are over 700 skills available to D3. How many skills are available to any one character is anyone's guess. Could be based on simple division of overall available and, then again, it's probably not.
Assumption A: This is about the only thing you wrote that I partially agree with based on the information that we have now. With the number of skills available, as it currently stands, and the ability to use only 7 of them at any given time, specialization only makes sense. Yet I believe that you are wrong in your assumption that each character will have only one dominant skill. That is too much like D2 in playability. If Blizzard is smart, they should make skill combinations for each character and not just the monk (if I remembered that tidbit correctly.) This will reward the player for skill (luck in the beginning) for design and usage of his character. There may be many different ways to play the same character (though, concededly, there is usually an uber one that everyone ascribes to) and play that character well. The skill tree really isn't a tree any longer, but a set of skills. Which 7 skill set will be the one that dominates a character design will take time to discover, if there is one at all.
Assumption B: This part of the post was simply stupid. How can you leap from character specialization to jack-of-all trades? I give you credit for thinking through the character specialization part with partial adequacy, but your belief that everyone will made their characters jack-of-all trades is simply close minded. Even D2 character builds were centered around one dominant killing skill, with a few complementary ones. A jack-of-all trades character in D2 had an incredibly difficult time killing monsters with efficiency and pace. While Blizzard may make and probably should make the higher level skills the most powerful for D3, they don't have to. Besides, a jack-of-all trades character isn't as fun to play as a specialized one and the overall gameplay mechanic isn't as fun if every character was made the same way as the one you own. Blizzard, from everything that has been released thus far, seems to be moving way from this style of game
It may be a slightly different type of Diablo game, but it will be one that I definitely look forward to playing.
All I know is, I'm very much looking forward to dinging 60 for the first time. I personally love that the maximum level is 60. Each level will be that much more rewarding, and I will feel more satisfied.
For those who compare D3 to WoW... wow. All I can do is shake my head. You will see, skeptics, you will see. :whistling:
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I make sure people go to jail. The only thing more fun is Diablo 3.
Didn't read all posts but I don't think anyone said what this news actually means development wise. I think it probably means a lot because looks like they've been on to this 60 level cap thing for some time now, because they know quite about how things work out with a 60 level cap and they must have been testing it a lot. I keep thinking that for them to have tested the level 60 cap with everything related to it means that game content like the whole four acts and most of the monsters have been completed. Otherwise, if they haven't been done, they won't be able to test this 60 level cap, right?
Let's speculate some more with this.
You could be right. There is nothing however to stop them from setting a lvl 60 cap in theory then building the game around it instead of building the game and then fitting a level cap as you suggest.
I take your point, they could still have a long way to go on the game though. Also they may be purposefully slowing down development to fit in with other blizzard releases like cataclysm. Good to know that they are making progress though. I don't think the amount of levels is important I think the amount of content is important.
Assumption A: This is about the only thing you wrote that I partially agree with based on the information that we have now. With the number of skills available, as it currently stands, and the ability to use only 7 of them at any given time, specialization only makes sense. Yet I believe that you are wrong in your assumption that each character will have only one dominant skill. That is too much like D2 in playability. If Blizzard is smart, they should make skill combinations for each character and not just the monk (if I remembered that tidbit correctly.) This will reward the player for skill (luck in the beginning) for design and usage of his character. There may be many different ways to play the same character (though, concededly, there is usually an uber one that everyone ascribes to) and play that character well. The skill tree really isn't a tree any longer, but a set of skills. Which 7 skill set will be the one that dominates a character design will take time to discover, if there is one at all.
I'm not sure that there will be a 7 skill set which dominates a character design. It all depends on how each individual player wants to play the game. With no synergies (I think) there will be many more active skills used, and with the rune alterations to skills, I don't think any 7 skill set will dominate unless the best runes are available really easily. Even if this is the case, surely there would be allowance in those 7 skills to experiment for your own playing style (eg, if you don't like to constantly be spamming to keyboard to perfectly time every skill use)
Also, there is much more variety in the classes than D2, as you'd expect, which will make it fun to experiment, if not simply because the Barbarian looks and feels tougher than your weak ranged mage.
I'm not sure that there will be a 7 skill set which dominates a character design. It all depends on how each individual player wants to play the game. With no synergies (I think) there will be many more active skills used, and with the rune alterations to skills, I don't think any 7 skill set will dominate unless the best runes are available really easily.
actually that's exactly how it is:
Official Blizzard Quote:
@Theeliminator2k You can spend into seven skills at a time, total. These are active skills and don't include passives.
thing is that Diablo III end-game wont be anything like Diablo II end-game.
we wont be mindlessly be running bosses for loots and xp as it was but we'll get to do something else that's kinda secret at this point.
i can't wait for more info on this, but i'm rather interested in the solution, because frankly, Diablo II end-game was too boring and never motivated me enough to reach the level cap because i didnt see a point.
I'm not sure that there will be a 7 skill set which dominates a character design. It all depends on how each individual player wants to play the game. With no synergies (I think) there will be many more active skills used, and with the rune alterations to skills, I don't think any 7 skill set will dominate unless the best runes are available really easily.
actually that's exactly how it is:
Official Blizzard Quote:
@Theeliminator2k You can spend into seven skills at a time, total. These are active skills and don't include passives.
thing is that Diablo III end-game wont be anything like Diablo II end-game.
we wont be mindlessly be running bosses for loots and xp as it was but we'll get to do something else that's kinda secret at this point.
i can't wait for more info on this, but i'm rather interested in the solution, because frankly, Diablo II end-game was too boring and never motivated me enough to reach the level cap because i didnt see a point.
Beat me to the response. I very much agree with the kill Baal (or Diablo and Baal)...log out...repeat (for hours and hours) grind. It was boring as hell after about the (insert subjective hour mark here) hour of it. I always had to create another (different) character just to keep it fresh.
Hopefully Blizzcon won't let us down and give us some concrete answers...
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Meaning that they didn't reduced to 60 because they were having problems with it, they want to make more money by releasing lame ass downloadable (must-buy) content to raise the cap and rip people off.
I have this strange, strange feeling that D3 is not going to live up to diablo's name(in other words, FAIL). And this is the kind of news that just enforces that..
The opposite has been true in diablo2 - it was always about the items. Leveling held very little weight (esp 70/80+) and I don't really think this needs to change. Not saying Blizz as said it will - but condensing the number of levels down to 60 seems so imply that levels will hold a bit more weight than they did compared to d2
Made some quite lengthy posts in this thread explaining a bit more detail Battlenet Thread (username evilstarship - theres 2 posts)
things like this more or less
He did say that we could expect a similar difficulty as reaching 99 for the 60 cap somewhere in there, I think. On that basis, unless you thought reaching 99 was really easy in II, it should be good. I might be mistaken, though.
i think he said it was about as hard as to get to 80-85 (playing the game, not being rushed, naturally) because the last 10-15 levels didnt really make a difference and it didnt feel like such a big accomplishment anyway (never motivated me in the 5 years i played and never got to 99 because it was simply boring, so i get his logic).
its just that they intend to make the level cap mean something and not have the game to end after you hit it (which was pretty much it in Diablo II unless you wanted to grind for something - that you could do with a level 85-87 character anyway).
The main replayability of d2 was the never ending level cap for most players AND the loot people got while doing that.
I didn't do baal runs just for the loot, or just for the XP.. I did it for both. Hopefully you wont be 60 or somewhere close when you end hell. I like the feeling of running dungeons for XP and the Loot.
They will probably pin this down in some sort of way and find a sweet spot for all of us.
(goes and weeps for blizzard's sake in a corner)
Chaos, Panic, Disastor, my work here is done.
Make it idiot-proof and somone will make a better idiot.
www.zendeath.com
its confirmed that the end-game in Diablo III will not be the same as in Diablo II (endless grind of the same bosses/places over and over again till you get the level cap - that wasnt my definition of fun).
what's not said so far - and we should expect more about in Blizzcon is how end-game will be shaped.
is that right?
so Diablo 1 that had a level cap of 50 isnt Diablo, right? it was Warcraft?
seriously dude, its not about the level cap, its about the feeling and the features the game offers. that's Diablo, not the number of the level cap. Grow up and learn to deal with changes.
If level caps are arbitrary then why have a level cap? You yourself are putting arbitrary limits on what a level constitutes. The reality is that you're putting an arbitrary limit on something that you claim is arbitrary in itself.
The reality is that level cap is not arbitrary and it tells you a lot about the game. For example, the level cap is Titan Quest is 65 and was raised in an expansion. As a result, Titan Quest has a much different type of character structure, character design, and character progression than Diablo 2. This is ignoring the obvious differences in class design but that's a rather moot point as both share the common characteristic of having multiple trees.
You are partially right in saying that you would level up much faster in a game that has 500 levels ONLY IF the game is designed to get you through all 500 levels when you reach the end of the game.
In both Titan Quest and Diablo 2 you are not designed to reach the level cap by the time you beat the game. In fact, you're not supposed to be close to it. In TQ you're usually 15-20 or so levels lower than the cap after you've beaten the final boss. In D2 you're usually around 30-40 levels lower than the cap after you've beaten the final boss.
Of course, these numbers are arbitrary because D3 isn't being designed with this in mind. The end game, according to Blizzard, won't revolve around the same things that Diablo 2 and TQ did. Seeing as how the end game in D2 and TQ revolved around killing X boss over and over or going through Y area over and over, this tells me that... I'll be level 60, or very close to it, by the time I fight the final boss on the hardest difficulty.
The alternative is being level 45-55 by the time we fight the final boss.
In other words, we can make two assumptions with the second assumption having two more assumptions:
1. Because we know that the end game will not primarily feature killing bosses and monsters for loot, we have to assume that the end game will functionally be the end of the game and levels will functionally show us how much time we have left until we beat the game.
2. We will reach the end game at a level that is lower than almost any other ARPG and, because of how skill points currently work, our characters will have fewer points to spend.
A. This means that our characters will be highly specialized with points spent to modify single, powerful abilities (similar to the metagame of D2 but very different than TQ).
B. Our characters will have a hand full of skills we can spend a few points in to and then modify if we so desire, effectively defaulting our characters to a jack of all trades and master of none (due to the lower character level).
Anyway, level cap tells us a good deal about the possibilities on the content of the game. Having no level cap tells us that killing monsters endlessly will be the end of the game. Having a level cap doesn't tell us much. However, having a characteristically low level cap coupled with what has been said and what we have seen, we can tell a great deal about the game.
In fact, I'm sure if a group of us sat down, tossed away expectations, and went in to a discussion about everything that has been revealed, we'll have a concept of the game that is close to what to expect along with a few other possibilities incase X or Y is revealed.
I've been an avid Diablo franchise fan for a long time and recently found this site for its great consolidation of Diablo lore and gameplay. Shameless kissing @$$ aside, I decided to reply to this post as my first because it's basis is woefully uniformed, as recently amusingly pointed out in a subsequent post to it. The "assumptions" articulated directly contrasted what Bash (or any other Blizzard rep) have already stated.
Assumption #1: Completely screwed the pooch on that one. If you actually decided to read what Bash stated you'd know that there will be "end game content." Implicitly, that means that the game will not be over after the "final" boss is defeated. There should be other quests (probably side quests) or dungeons to mess around with. There may also be PvP or clan PvP that is restricted to level 60 characters. (Seriously hoping for something like that.) There are any number of things that "end game content" can mean. It is incredibly narrow-minded to think that "end game content" simply means that the game ends and there is no other reason to play.
Assumption #2: Now I know you haven't been reading anything on Blizzard.com or this site. Bash has stated that we will be restricted to set number of skills that we may employ at any one time: 7. There are over 700 skills available to D3. How many skills are available to any one character is anyone's guess. Could be based on simple division of overall available and, then again, it's probably not.
Assumption A: This is about the only thing you wrote that I partially agree with based on the information that we have now. With the number of skills available, as it currently stands, and the ability to use only 7 of them at any given time, specialization only makes sense. Yet I believe that you are wrong in your assumption that each character will have only one dominant skill. That is too much like D2 in playability. If Blizzard is smart, they should make skill combinations for each character and not just the monk (if I remembered that tidbit correctly.) This will reward the player for skill (luck in the beginning) for design and usage of his character. There may be many different ways to play the same character (though, concededly, there is usually an uber one that everyone ascribes to) and play that character well. The skill tree really isn't a tree any longer, but a set of skills. Which 7 skill set will be the one that dominates a character design will take time to discover, if there is one at all.
Assumption B: This part of the post was simply stupid. How can you leap from character specialization to jack-of-all trades? I give you credit for thinking through the character specialization part with partial adequacy, but your belief that everyone will made their characters jack-of-all trades is simply close minded. Even D2 character builds were centered around one dominant killing skill, with a few complementary ones. A jack-of-all trades character in D2 had an incredibly difficult time killing monsters with efficiency and pace. While Blizzard may make and probably should make the higher level skills the most powerful for D3, they don't have to. Besides, a jack-of-all trades character isn't as fun to play as a specialized one and the overall gameplay mechanic isn't as fun if every character was made the same way as the one you own. Blizzard, from everything that has been released thus far, seems to be moving way from this style of game
It may be a slightly different type of Diablo game, but it will be one that I definitely look forward to playing.
For those who compare D3 to WoW... wow. All I can do is shake my head. You will see, skeptics, you will see. :whistling:
First roll: Barbarian!
You could be right. There is nothing however to stop them from setting a lvl 60 cap in theory then building the game around it instead of building the game and then fitting a level cap as you suggest.
"One does not simply rock into Mordor."
"There's no I in Team America!"
"One does not simply rock into Mordor."
"There's no I in Team America!"
I'm not sure that there will be a 7 skill set which dominates a character design. It all depends on how each individual player wants to play the game. With no synergies (I think) there will be many more active skills used, and with the rune alterations to skills, I don't think any 7 skill set will dominate unless the best runes are available really easily. Even if this is the case, surely there would be allowance in those 7 skills to experiment for your own playing style (eg, if you don't like to constantly be spamming to keyboard to perfectly time every skill use)
Also, there is much more variety in the classes than D2, as you'd expect, which will make it fun to experiment, if not simply because the Barbarian looks and feels tougher than your weak ranged mage.
actually that's exactly how it is:
Official Blizzard Quote:
@Theeliminator2k You can spend into seven skills at a time, total. These are active skills and don't include passives.
thing is that Diablo III end-game wont be anything like Diablo II end-game.
we wont be mindlessly be running bosses for loots and xp as it was but we'll get to do something else that's kinda secret at this point.
i can't wait for more info on this, but i'm rather interested in the solution, because frankly, Diablo II end-game was too boring and never motivated me enough to reach the level cap because i didnt see a point.
Beat me to the response. I very much agree with the kill Baal (or Diablo and Baal)...log out...repeat (for hours and hours) grind. It was boring as hell after about the (insert subjective hour mark here) hour of it. I always had to create another (different) character just to keep it fresh.
Hopefully Blizzcon won't let us down and give us some concrete answers...