DiabloFans

Qft... this isn't a subscription or even cash item store game, and the extremely large majority of players never use the RMAH.. so don't reference that.

Blizzard has no obligation to give you free DLC.. if you want new content, go bitch on the blizz forums about how you are willing to pay $15 every two months for 5 hours of DLC content.

First and foremost - none of you understand content versioning -- especially Blizzard's.

The expansion will go from 1.X.X.X-> 2.0.0.0 (the build and patch number will be different). This is what blizzard does in ALL their product lines. They ALWAYS increment the first version number by 1 for expansions.

The second and third sets of numbers are dependent on the company, but imply the type of release. The second set is implies MAJOR releases, and the third patches. Arguably some of these patches could have incremented the second version number... but blizzard adamantly told us that v1.1.0.X would be our PVP patch.

The fourth number is the build number. This number means practically nothing to the external person. This is normally used during source control to refer to exactly what compile your particular application is. Some companies have a rolling build queue that forces the dev environment to recompile with EVERY set of checked in changes... while others have scheduled dev builds. Point is... this implies the exact set of changes in that current iteration.

Lastly, a version does not increment in batches of 10 (IE 1.0.9.0 does NOT go to 1.1.0.0). You could quite seriously have a 1.0.47.162983 version.

Quote from RookOyb

If they TRULY tested their content before releasing the game to the public, the pets not being viable for NM, Hell and Inferno would have easily been spotted.

Took them 3 months to figure out a solution to all these problems that could have been resolved by doing more testing in the beta rather than limiting us.

I just do not understand why they released a BETA to the public rather than a full game. It should have been sold for 15$ not 60$.

STFU - $60 isn't that big a cost.... I bought my wife a copy for $55 -- she played through normal only and I don't even care. You and everyone else on this board played for at least 200+ hours and got more than a great value for your money. Even if you didn't... we've all bought those 8 hour playthrough console games for $60....

Affected by MF - Yes
Guaranteed Rare - No

Blizzard did a fairly good job of explaining WHY it seems so hard to find upgrades except on the AH... but people don't seem to understand or want to understand.

There is a statistical bell curve in which stats will roll on gear. If you roll high on one... it doesn't mean you'll roll high on the next, and so on for all 6 affixes (if you get lucky and roll a 6 affix in the first place). Thus said.. if half your stats suck.. half of your stats should be okay. So the majority of your items drops should be 5/10.

Where it becomes even more difficult is that random ... well is random. Now say you actually rolled a 9.5 on all your affix rolls... now you have to roll the die again on what affixes you need and how well they synergize to your build. With all the affix combinations available... and only some being optimal... this makes it so that even if you got amazing rolls... it may be a useless piece of gear.

In addition to the Random * Random factor... you also have the fact (as blizzard exlained) that as you get better gear, it requires that much more luck to make the gear better.

While a 5/10 has a range that it can improve between 5 and 10... a 9 only has a range between 9 and 10.

If you roll an 8 its a huge improvement over the 5... but its garbage compared to your 9. It becomes even harder if you are at like a 9.8.... now even a 9 is junk.

Quote from The_Coby

Quote from Theungry

When a European company develops a game that Americans care about, you can have your revenge. Deal?

Dude, we paid for this 50 Euros, please do not be American.

Dude we saved europe from war two times .... please don't be european ;).]

^--- See what i did there... took a totally irrelevant fact and tried to make an argument. Just like you did.

Quote from tyrael98

Quote from Agreach2

Quote from Sabvre

If blizzard does this often enough... it won't be that bad. They just need to ban gold sellers before they hit $60 earned back. Even if they are able to sell enough to earn $55... eventually it will become unprofitable when they keep getting banned.

I was under the impression that many of the botters used compromised accounts...meaning they don't repurchase the game, they just steal more accounts.

me too, but some are obviously bought as the battle tag is agkskgsfs, and some are normal names.

they don't steal accounts for the most part... most people that are hacked don't end up losing their accounts... they lose all their items and possibly characters.

Those particular hackers just steal items and sell them to get gold rather than botting the actual gold.

If blizzard does this often enough... it won't be that bad. They just need to ban gold sellers before they hit $60 earned back. Even if they are able to sell enough to earn $55... eventually it will become unprofitable when they keep getting banned.

Quote from Draesh

It does not include the dual wielding passive, however it does include the activation bonus you get from the mantra as I already stated. You saying that I cant hit 100% avoidance is not enough "proof". Block stats are additive while dodge stats are multiplicative (this is a fact), when you combine them no one knows if they are additive or multiplicative unless you have done tests to support your claim?

Again... Dodge and Block are two separate stats.

Your point about block being additive is moot. Block: 32+11+8 is separate from Dodge: 1-(.25*.25*.25(etc)).
Dodge is rolled once.
If dodge fails.
Block is rolled once.

Your whole theory is broke and sorry to say... you do not know what you are talking about.

Lol ... Not much of an accomplishment sir

Quote from Bagstone

That's cute. Now compare average income from two European countries that have the Euro. Let's say Germany and Estonia. Or Denmark and Estonia.

You mean like how the average household income in Maryland is $70k/year but in Mississippi it's just under $37k/year? By the prevailing logic in this thread, if RoS costs $40 in Maryland it should cost $20 in Mississippi. If an iPhone costs $450 in Maryland it should cost $225 in Mississippi. Yet we know that's never how it has worked when you make a purchase on the internet. If you want local prices you use a local shop. Period.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_income

While the Eurozone may not be a "United States of Europe" the whole purpose of the Eurozone was economic and monetary, you can't simply scoff at the idea that member nations are not, economically and monetarily inter-related. They are - that's the whole fucking point. And that is very much like the United States of America whether you want to understand the parallels or not.

If anything, your ignorance of how the USA actually works is showing. You keep portraying the USA as a homogenous area with no differences in income, no differences in cost of living, no differences in anything. $40 in Boston is the same as $40 in Los Angeles is the same as $40 in Dallas. But that's not how this country works at all. Maybe YOU should do a bit of research on how the USA works before you start down this "ignorant mericans" road.

Lylirra 18 minutes ago

@Toby: Thanks for the reports, folks! We're looking into the issue where players cannot see the "Beta: Reaper of Souls" option when in the Battle.net desktop app (and after successfully creating a PTR account).

The "use self-control" line of thought is tired. What boundaries Blizzard chooses to enforce in the scope of the multiplayer experience matters to many. It may not matter to certain individuals but it matters to a lot of people in the community what stance Blizzard takes. It matters to many what experience they are going to have in relation to their friends and in relation to the entire community. You can self-impose your own standards, and even if you have the self-control to enforce them on yourself, it can have a psychological toll on your experience if you know all your friends and the community at large are playing a completely different game on a completely different level. For many people that subconscious nagging ruins the experience. It may not be that way for some, but it is that way for many.

If you take this line of thought further you could just remove all boundaries. Blizzard could just put a FAQ up at the beginning saying that it is a sandbox game and you can impose whatever limits you want to optimize your fun. Add an NPC that creates infinite gold, create an NPC that dupes items for you, increase legendary drop rate to whatever you want it to be. I mean what you choose to do doesn't effect anyone else right? It's all about your fun. If those NPCs ruin your fun show some self-control man!

But there in lies the problem. What many consider fun is based upon what is happening in the game at large within the community. To dismiss that just because your personal fun isn't being infringed upon is just as selfish in a sense.

You can keep pushing this "if trading is not fun, then don't trade" rhetoric all day long, but if I am not trading and my friend I play alongside is and he is killing monsters three times faster then me, that affects me. My personal fun has been compromised because I can't ignore that. Him killing faster effects my experience gain and my drops since monsters die quicker to the actions he is partaking in outside my gameplay. The boundaries imposed upon him being inequitable to mine outside of our game together has infringed upon my ability to share a common experience with him in the context of the game at large. For many, that is the fun of the game, the ability to share a common experience with the community imposed by the boundaries of the game itself on everyone mutually.

Many people care about the structure of the game as it is defined and enforced by Blizzard and want to play a game where everyone in the community is held to the same standard of play. For them, therein lies their personal fun. It enforces a sense of camaraderie that we are all playing the same game with the same limitations. What those limitations are defined at matters immensely.

I am not using this argument to make a case for whether trading should or shouldn't be allowed. If you want to be able to trade and want to make a case for that in the context of the game, fine. I am all for that. But, please, talk about it in the context of finding loot and feeling a sense of reward in doing so. How do these choices affect everyone and their ability to share a common experience? But don't use that "self-control" argument as if it had any relevance. Boundaries set by Blizzard matters. What people around you are doing in a multiplayer environment matters. It may not matter to you, but if it matters to even just a minority it is still relevant and not dismissible.

Oh good Jesus you again? You've already brought this up and you've already been shouted down. I'm usually a little nicer but you need to go away. You bring ZERO proof / facts / logical thought to the table of discussion, and therefore you're not welcome.

Stop being a fucktard.

You are still demanding Blizzard fire people to appease some sense of vengence. Why the hell do you think that got deleted? Are you seriously that dense?

It got deleted for the same reasons as the first one.

rmrulz outlined it for you the first time here. Clearly you didn't learn a damned thing.

EDIT
Your first post:

So after all this time of there being an auction house available in D3, Blizzard finally figured out that the AH short circuits their "core reward loop".

But the truth is, this is false. Blizzard knew before releasing D3 that the AH diminishes a core gameplay mechanic of the Diablo franchise.

So now we must question who made the decision that would sacrifice a core element of Diablo and possibly jeopardize the franchise.

Jay Wilson is not responsible. He was only the director and second to Rob Pardo, producer of Diablo 3. The auction house would not exist if Pardo didn't give it the green light. The buck stops with him.

But fans and devs alike should ask themselves if they really want a person that was willing to sacrifice a core gameplay element of the Diablo franchise to be producer of future games.

They say the first step of solving a problem is admitting you have one. Blizz did that yesterday with the announcement of closing of the AH. But that would only be treating a symptom of the real problem. Now is a time for change, Blizzard. Someone must be held responsible.

You barely edited it. It's still just as inappropriate as it was then.

Don't see why people need to create a thread announcing their leave. Just screams, "hey look at me!".

Quote from Sabvre

Quote from Bleu42

Quote from Sabvre

Quote from DesmondTiny

Isn't the grandfather a 2h sword?

Crusaders are getting a passive that lets them 1H weapons that are normally 2H when wearing the class specific shield in exchange for a MS penalty.

You know what I'm thinking they might do? Let barbs go old school D2 and dual wield 2 handers!! CMON BLIZZ DOOOITTTTT

I hope not.... every class either currently uses a 2H, or supplements the one hand dps via dual wielding or an off hand item.

Using a shield will not supplement DPS (like every other class has some way of doing)...

Dual wielding 2H weapons will be way over powered...

Using a shield DOES supplement DPS as the shield's armor is factored into a Crusader's damage.

Quote from Sabvre

Quote from DesmondTiny

Isn't the grandfather a 2h sword?

Crusaders are getting a passive that lets them 1H weapons that are normally 2H when wearing the class specific shield in exchange for a MS penalty.

You know what I'm thinking they might do? Let barbs go old school D2 and dual wield 2 handers!! CMON BLIZZ DOOOITTTTT

Quote from Bubba

yet agian they want money!

Shut up