You're simply under the illusion that there was a choice in the first place, if you read into the details behind the change you would understand that progressive difficulty makes more sense.
Why are people throwing "it was an illusion" out whenever they feel like it - no matter the topic.
How would it be an illusion of choice to pick act 1 zombies to kill instead of act 4 whatever-monsters in the old Inferno?
Seems like a real choice.
Well since you are now in the category: I don't believe blizzard, it will be easy. There is not much else to speak with you since you already have a fictional way of viewing the game.
Hm, I dont think I said it would be easy. I said it wouldn't cut it. Which is not the same thing at all
1) It is "just another difficulty", exactly like Hell, just harder. Which isn't exactly mindbogglingly interesting.
2) You get better gear while you progress through it. The difficulty has a hard limit set by its design => While you grind gear Inferno will become easier. Doens't matter if it takes 1 month or 6 months. Doesnt matter if it will still be challenging after 6 months either.
If content keeps scaling forever after (up to being outright impossible to beat), then even the very best player with the most godly gear would be able to start up a game and challenge himself again. Also after 6 months or 5 years.
Then why are you complaining, there is far more potential for a long game with a linear progression rather than a flat one.
Oh I get it I think. You mean once you reached max gear/level it's better to be able to farm 4 acts rather than 2 ?
Hmmm meh I agree on that part.
Yeah that is it. I'm not saying there aren't obvious benefits to the new way Inferno works - it will be much easier for Blizzard to offer challenges in Inferno for everyone. If everything in Inferno was equal, then some people would find it too easy and some too hard. The new scaling makes it easier to offer a challenge to more people, but it comes at the (imo) great cost of limiting the available content for any given progression point. As an example some people will be "forced" to play act 1 or 2, because they cant handle 3-4 yet, others will feel "forced" to only do act 3-4 because they have out-geared/out-skilled act1-2 after some time. Whereas before, you could pick any area you wanted.
I wont judge if the above tradeoff is worth it, I just think this change means that even more so than before, the game will need to get more types of end-game to keep the game interesting at lvl 60.
Well since you are now in the category: I don't believe blizzard, it will be easy. There is not much else to speak with you since you already have a fictional way of viewing the game.
Hm, I dont think I said it would be easy. I said it wouldn't cut it. Which is not the same thing at all
1) It is "just another difficulty", exactly like Hell, just harder. Which isn't exactly mindbogglingly interesting.
It does not offer anything new compared to Hell, just higher numbers - irregardless of how difficult it is.
2) You get better gear while you progress through it. The difficulty has a hard limit set by its design => While you grind gear Inferno will become easier. Doesn't matter if it takes 1 month or 6 months. Doesn't matter if it will still be challenging after 6 months either.
If content keeps scaling forever after (up to being outright impossible to beat), then even the very best player with the most godly gear would be able to start up a game and challenge himself again. Also after 6 months or 5 years.
And I approve of this change, it made no sense to me to have a flat level playing field, why would I ever go past act 1 ever in inferno if there was the exact same chance of end game items.
Because you wanted a change of scenery?
One of the points of Inferno originally was that you would not be confined to a specific area which were in line with your current strength, but instead could choose to play in the act or area you happened to prefer to play in.
It meant that all 4 acts were end-game, instead of just the last act being end-game.
This change also pretty much means that Inferno is "just another difficulty" like the others.
To be honest, Blizzard should have removed Nightmare dificulty a long time ago, it makes very little sense to have it, other than for mindless repetitiveness.
Normal-Hell could have the lvl 1-60 progress, and Inferno would be end-game as it is now, but having that pretty much pointless difficulty stuck in the middle is weird - just like Nightmare was for the most part the difficulty you just wanted to get over with in D2, and that was with just 3 difficulties rather than 4.
This change also clearly underlines why the game will need some actual end-game content post-release. Inferno is unlikely to cut it.
Content which dynamically scales with the player and can keep offering challenge no matter how great gear you collect. No matter if it might comes through 'über' versions of bosses, Endless Dungeons, Horde Mode or all of them together - just something which can keep offering challenges, and mix up the gameplay more than the standard 4 acts.
Even though the theoretical best items might come from the later Acts, well-rolled items from earlier acts will still be better.
I think your not understanding what he meant correctly.
What that quote you just linked says is, that the best items in the game come from the later acts. Period. But of course, well rolled items from earlier will be better than poorly rolled items from later in inferno.
Yes you need to add the 'than poorly rolled items" but thats obvisouly what he means.
Nope it's not "obviously what he means".
It’s all because of the highly random items having lots of overlap in their power distribution curves
He is saying that a great item from act 1 will beat a bad item from act 4.
But a perfect item from act 4 will beat a perfect item from act 1.
It doesn't sound like a perfect item from act 4 will be a whole lot better than a perfect item from act 1 though, hence the "lots of overlap".
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
How would it be an illusion of choice to pick act 1 zombies to kill instead of act 4 whatever-monsters in the old Inferno?
Seems like a real choice.
I wont judge if the above tradeoff is worth it, I just think this change means that even more so than before, the game will need to get more types of end-game to keep the game interesting at lvl 60.
1) It is "just another difficulty", exactly like Hell, just harder. Which isn't exactly mindbogglingly interesting.
It does not offer anything new compared to Hell, just higher numbers - irregardless of how difficult it is.
2) You get better gear while you progress through it. The difficulty has a hard limit set by its design => While you grind gear Inferno will become easier. Doesn't matter if it takes 1 month or 6 months. Doesn't matter if it will still be challenging after 6 months either.
If content keeps scaling forever after (up to being outright impossible to beat), then even the very best player with the most godly gear would be able to start up a game and challenge himself again. Also after 6 months or 5 years.
I can't argue with that logic of course, but just out of interest, what is the use of Nightmare in your opinion?
One of the points of Inferno originally was that you would not be confined to a specific area which were in line with your current strength, but instead could choose to play in the act or area you happened to prefer to play in.
It meant that all 4 acts were end-game, instead of just the last act being end-game.
This change also pretty much means that Inferno is "just another difficulty" like the others.
To be honest, Blizzard should have removed Nightmare dificulty a long time ago, it makes very little sense to have it, other than for mindless repetitiveness.
Normal-Hell could have the lvl 1-60 progress, and Inferno would be end-game as it is now, but having that pretty much pointless difficulty stuck in the middle is weird - just like Nightmare was for the most part the difficulty you just wanted to get over with in D2, and that was with just 3 difficulties rather than 4.
This change also clearly underlines why the game will need some actual end-game content post-release. Inferno is unlikely to cut it.
Content which dynamically scales with the player and can keep offering challenge no matter how great gear you collect. No matter if it might comes through 'über' versions of bosses, Endless Dungeons, Horde Mode or all of them together - just something which can keep offering challenges, and mix up the gameplay more than the standard 4 acts.
But a perfect item from act 4 will beat a perfect item from act 1.
It doesn't sound like a perfect item from act 4 will be a whole lot better than a perfect item from act 1 though, hence the "lots of overlap".