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.
0
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.
0
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.
0
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.
0
Edited for PG-13ness.
0
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.
0
Consider other people please.
0
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.
0
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 :'(
0
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 :'(
0
0
Hi! New guy here posting just because I've been lurking at this site for awhile checking up on d3 news BUT down to business
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.