• 0

    posted a message on The Follower Blues
    Quote from TheTinCanHitMan

    You seem to be putting him down for not having "facts" as you put it, yet this statement is so groundless this almost sounds satirical if you weren't so critical. First of all there is truth in it. Blizzard CAN balance it to make it work in pvp, but what does this have to do with his argument? He's stating/justifying the reasons blizzard chose not to add PvP, so I don't see what the big deal is.

    Quote from Jackzor

    ... no matter how much they balance it, followers will either end up being essential or useless based on the builds people find.

    Thanks, I'm glad you made that easy for me.

    Now that we've settled that, there is no reason followers can't be made to be optional via checkbox. There is no scenario in which an OPTIONAL feature is somehow essential.
    Again, until this basic fact is acknowledged this debate simply can't move forward.

    As for "personal attacks", there are no personal attacks here, there's only people spreading obvious misinformation and me having a hard time correcting all the lies. If people had been telling the truth to begin with this debate would have been rather straight forward.

    I'm not trying to personally attack people or intentionally make them look bad, but when somebody posts something that clearly isn't true and I have to clarify, well, they end up looking bad.
    Posted in: News & Announcements
  • 0

    posted a message on The Follower Blues
    Apparenty blatantly lying is ok on this forum but pointing it out is not.

    So I'll just finish this conversation with you jackzor by informing you that d4 is coming out next week so this debate is irrelevant, d3 mercs have been declared better than the current follower system and that your posts are all about rift online and not actually about d3. I'm glad we all had this conversation with the unbiased moderators allowing blatant lying and abusing moderator privileges when people merely point out obvious BS.
    Posted in: News & Announcements
  • 0

    posted a message on The Follower Blues
    Well again jack you can't post without lying. There is no scenario where where an OPTION is somehow essential.

    I'll say it again; there is NO REASON this can't be balanced. There is no reason any feature can't be balanced and again I'm not even going to start discussing options until you stop lying and ironically start calling everyone else childish.

    There's honestly no reason to read the rest of your essay because I read the first few lines and saw BS.
    Posted in: News & Announcements
  • 0

    posted a message on The Follower Blues
    Quote from Jackzor

    Quote from Legatus1982
    Mercs were never essential even in d2 and they most certainly CAN be balanced. Who are you to tell blizzard what they can and can't do? Have you ever programmed a diablo game?
    A good place for you to start in this debate would be saying something that is true.

    And I dont really care if mercs or followers can be used in pvp, but again I'd prefer having the option. If they aren't balanced in pvp, don't use them in pvp.
    Well, for starters, I'm not telling Blizz to do anything. Their own playtesting and iterations led them to the current conclusion to the follower 'problem,' and I'm simply pointing out the reasoning behind it.

    And I'm honestly sick and tired of everyone saying 'I just want the option.' Of course you do. That doesn't mean that Blizzard should sacrifice quality just so that you have more options. We all know that its not a realistic solution to just have it be a checkmark. If it doesn't work or isn't balanced, it shouldn't be in the game. Period. There are plenty of other options in D3, we don't need more that don't meet Blizz's quality standards.
    It IS as simple as a checkbox. And there ISN'T a reason why bliz can't nerf/buff/modify until it is balanced and works if they wanted to take the time.

    Edited for PG-13ness.
    Posted in: News & Announcements
  • 0

    posted a message on The Follower Blues
    Quote from Jackzor

    If (with an emphasis on if) there was a way to actually make it optional across the board, then sure, it should be implemented. But theres just not. So its not in the endgame.

    And as for the number of people disappointed, there was an equally large crowd complaining that followers would be essential.

    Because you still haven't provided a valid reason that I can see; all I see is you telling everyone else you don't care what they get because you want it your way. And that is pissing me off to be honest.
    Consider other people please.
    Did you even read my posts? I pointed out multiple different ways that followers would be almost impossible to balance in a way that makes them both useful and non-essential. If you can't see a valid reason in there its your own fault.
    Mercs were never essential even in d2 and they most certainly CAN be balanced. Who are you to tell blizzard what they can and can't do? Have you ever programmed a diablo game?
    A good place for you to start in this debate would be saying something that is true.

    And I dont really care if mercs or followers can be used in pvp, but again I'd prefer having the option. If they aren't balanced in pvp, don't use them in pvp.
    Posted in: News & Announcements
  • 0

    posted a message on The Follower Blues
    Quote from Jackzor

    Quote from Legatus1982

    Look nobody is saying you guys are wrong for not wanting mercs or endgame followers. We're just saying there are lots of us who wanted them, and won't have them. And -I- am saying you have no justification in your argument, since you've always had the option of not using it. And you still have that option now. We, on the other hand, no longer have any option at all. They took it from us.

    Which is worse? Having the option or not having the option? That's the question you need to answer here, not "how much do i hate stupid mercs". There are other ways of getting people to go online, clear screen space, and balance the game, without taking away our options.
    And? You can actually make that argument for everything ever excluded from anything. That doesn't mean that they should be present.
    And the difference would be that in this case lots of us are hugely disappointed we can't have it. I have no idea why you are acting like this doesn't matter, but for those of us with common sense, a topic with such strong opinions on both sides should be optional. Why are you arguing this again? Because you still haven't provided a valid reason that I can see; all I see is you telling everyone else you don't care what they get because you want it your way. And that is pissing me off to be honest.
    Consider other people please.
    Posted in: News & Announcements
  • 0

    posted a message on The Follower Blues
    Quote from Jackzor

    Quote from sneakywombat

    You don't hear anyone complaining about characters being too reliant on gear. What if I want a gear-free build dammit? I don't want it to be even slightly harder for me if I choose to walk out there naked. You see where I'm going with this?

    Not a peep about characters being too reliant on their skills. Still waiting to hear about characters being too reliant on the services that artisans can provide. Why?

    Because these are systems that are built intimately into the mechanics of the game. And for better of for worse, so is the follower system. To make an entire system (which undoubtedly had months of work poured into it) void itself a third of the way into the game is simply bad problem-solving, and it's just plain silly.

    I'm not saying that we should recreate Diablo II's merc system here. Something is dreadfully wrong when you can't win the game without hiring help. I definitely think that needed major revision as well. But not THIS major. The solution I underlined would make it so your follower would be useful, but unnecessary. I think that's a fair compromise to everyone, honestly, because at the end of the day, it SHOULD be harder if you choose to venture out there all by your lonesome than if you had someone watching your back, amirite?
    But who says that you should have an NPC by your side in the first place? Especially if theres very few, very complicated ways of making it so you don't rely on them. If part of the Blizzard design mentality for D3 is that you are on a level way above a normal person, which it clearly is, and clearly was even before this announcement, then clearly the followers don't fit in very easily. And lets not forget that, given the problems with the D2 hireling system, it wasn't entirely obvious that it would return for D3. It was always a condition of if Blizzard could find a new way to implement them. And as much as you might theorycraft ideas you think just maybe might work, it hasn't worked in a lot of games for a reason. And it most certainly hasn't worked in a way that makes the player feel personally more power. Even people who have liked hireling systems would have to admit that having to worry about the survival of a weak NPC isn't fun.

    So, instead of fine tuning a system that, as I said in my last post, could easily shift in either direction (as in useless or too useful) just based on a person discovering a build, Blizzard made it help the 'newbies' and encourage them to go online. As much as people have argued that choice makes the system useless, and even an insult, those new players are ultimately a large part of the reason Blizzard is able to make the game. After all, they do make up for a lot of the sales. And lets not forget that, if the follower system does end up promoting online play, we would all benefit.

    As maka said, hardcore players ultimately make up for most of the hours played in a game, and as such they deserve recognition. For all we know, not allowing the follower system into the endgame is a favor to us. It means that Blizzard won't have to nerf any of your favorite skills because it got attached to some cheap follower build and was declared overpowered. You won't get screwed in the last few seconds of a boss fight because Diablo decided to target your follower and you suddenly don't have a reliable heal (or something of that sort.)

    If the follower system was going to inherit any of the problems of the D2 hirelings, I know I sure as hell wouldn't want it there. I think thats something we can mostly agree on. But thats just a really hard thing to do. I'm not saying Blizzard isn't up to the challenge or that its not a possibility for the future. In fact, it would be an obvious target for an expansion or even a content patch (if they are going to do anything like that.) That being said, the fact that they weren't able to devise some incredible system where followers are both not essential and optional isn't an atrocity.

    Look nobody is saying you guys are wrong for not wanting mercs or endgame followers. We're just saying there are lots of us who wanted them, and won't have them. And -I- am saying you have no justification in your argument, since you've always had the option of not using it. And you still have that option now. We, on the other hand, no longer have any option at all. They took it from us.

    Which is worse? Having the option or not having the option? That's the question you need to answer here, not "how much do i hate stupid mercs". There are other ways of getting people to go online, clear screen space, and balance the game, without taking away our options.
    Posted in: News & Announcements
  • 0

    posted a message on The Follower Blues
    Look I think the bottom line here is they can make mercs work as a viable endgame component of d3 and not ruin others' experience.

    Don't like mercs? They can scale the difficulty similar to the way they did in d2; just count the merc as an extra player. Now you have the option and both options are viable.

    Mercs taking up screen real estate? Creating chaos? Don't use them. Difficulty scales down just for you.

    And let's be honest, the "mercs create chaos" argument is a joke. You're venturing into hell filled with demons bent on your destruction. You were expecting rainbows and unicorns?


    Let me have my mercs back :'(
    Posted in: News & Announcements
  • 0

    posted a message on The Follower Blues
    Am I the only one who's really disappointed there won't be mercs helping us in multiplayer hell mode?
    I loved mercs in d2 and I was really looking forward to having more options for my endgame merc in d3. Now it's like they took away half the game from me.

    And why even have them at all if you won't be able to use them in most of the game? Either make them always useable or don't put them in at all.

    I'm really going to miss my merc in endgame :'(
    Posted in: News & Announcements
  • 0

    posted a message on May 9th Conference Call
    Quote from ScyberDragon

    Quote from Legatus1982



    There is some conflicting information. An official post from (I would guess) Bashiok stating that they are aiming for a 2011 release, and this conference call where there are several people who have reported bliz saying "No games expected to be released this year"
    Can we get confirmation on that quote? I haven't listened to the call.

    Now, I think (and correct me if I'm wrong) that 2011 target is an older quote, and if they said no games releasing this year in the conference call, that would confirm my suspicions of a 2012 (or, gasp, dare I say it... later) release.

    They said in this call that they are still pushing for a 2011 release. The quote about no games in 2011 is also valid because they are not guaranteeing this release date. For a financial call, which this was, they need definite release dates. Therefore, as of right now, there are no games being released in 2011. However, Blizzard is still trying to get the game out by the end of the year.
    Ah, that does make sense I guess. Thanks for clearing that up :)
    Posted in: News & Announcements
  • 0

    posted a message on May 9th Conference Call
    Quote from ScyberDragon

    Mike Morhaime:

    Official Blizzard Quote:



    We are still pushing for a 2011 release

    nuff said

    Hi! New guy here posting just because I've been lurking at this site for awhile checking up on d3 news B) BUT down to business :P

    There is some conflicting information. An official post from (I would guess) Bashiok stating that they are aiming for a 2011 release, and this conference call where there are several people who have reported bliz saying "No games expected to be released this year"
    Can we get confirmation on that quote? I haven't listened to the call.

    Also, while a beta doesn't necessarily have to be 6 months, Q3 could be September, and it's still just a target. So here's what could happen:

    Target Q3 met and expectations of blizzard exceeded - July 1 beta, possibly Xmas release.
    -HIGHLY Unlikely that blizzard will ever meet our expectations of timetables.
    Target Q3 met, typical bliz timeline - August/September beta, Q1 2012 release.
    -Most likely scenario if all goes well, in my humble opinion.
    Target Q3 not met, uber blizzard timeline - October/November beta, Q2 2012 release.
    -Most likely scenario if something goes horribly wrong.

    Now, I think (and correct me if I'm wrong) that 2011 target is an older quote, and if they said no games releasing this year in the conference call, that would confirm my suspicions of a 2012 (or, gasp, dare I say it... later) release.
    Posted in: News & Announcements
  • To post a comment, please or register a new account.