I was thinking the Hex too, but it's a good amount more expensive than the regular Naga and the Naga Molten. I was leaning toward the Diablo 3 SteelSeries one, but after reading more about the Naga and how it is very comfortable, I think I'll ultimately be going with the Naga Molten.
The Hex is more expensive than the regular Naga? Aren't they both $70?
Yea the Hex is like 80 bucks + on amazon whereas the regular Naga is around 65 and the Molten Naga is 70.
I was thinking the Hex too, but it's a good amount more expensive than the regular Naga and the Naga Molten. I was leaning toward the Diablo 3 SteelSeries one, but after reading more about the Naga and how it is very comfortable, I think I'll ultimately be going with the Naga Molten.
I already have an entry gaming mouse and it is great for every-day use, but I have a few bucks lying around and wanted to indulge myself with a more gaming-dedicated mouse. I've narrowed it down to these two:
Comfortability is my main criteria, especially how your hand feels after 3+ hours of nonstop clicking. My hands are more on the smaller end if that helps at all.
Force's Diablo 3 play-throughs will suffice for now. I'm enjoying his work. Good to see 1080p Diablo 3 in full screen with good audio and decent commentary.
Force's Diablo 3 play-throughs are the worst pieces of crap that i have seen from him on his channel. wtf is he doing, hes rushing through the classes thinking that THAT is what we want after 2 weeks of streams of 1 hour beta. its not like hes doing something we havent seen and stopped watching while ago. in my case anyway. srsly there are 1080p streams out there whit better overall quality then his "playthroughs".
what we want to see is the lore, step by step quests, testing of each spell on the mobs or boss, spell cost comparison, item comparison, class comparison, resource management etc.
not here is the rundown of the beta while i talk about nothing and skip every dialog, because i KNOW THAT U HAVENT SEEN THAT FOR 67 trillion times, and then i will do all the stuff that u "dont" want to see. hes press ffs. not some 14 year old hungry for clicking. hes first video updates for diablo 3 are fail to me. ill w8 to see what will follow.
Seriously take a chill pill. I understand it must be frustrating following a game for this long and not being able to get the beta when it opens, but understand also that all the material people like Force and others put on the web is supplemental matterial. Back in the day none of this was available. If you didnt get into beta, you didn't get in, and that was that. I suggest stop qq'ing and relax. People follow games so intensively that they forget ultimately only a very small percentage of people get into beta. The game is still going to come out... we all stand to profit. Just appreciate what you are given.
Just to be clear: Sixen lists this as official release date. Does that mean he has confirmation from Blizzard officials that this is true, or is this still still speculation?
4player ingame, 4 player max party. more player in pvp.
with more than 4 player world got "cleared" too easy
if more than 4 player on the screen, u dont seem much "significant" anymore
too many skills beeing sued and hard to folow all that
Yea, the reply in these threads have convinced me to accept it more. I mean I accepted it before, just had that itch. Still going to be a little frustrating only being able to play with 3 of my friends at a time, but I'll get over it if the end-game is truly superb and is catered best for 4-people only.
I appreciate your suggestion, and you're right that after you hit clvl ~70 you just did runs and maybe pvp.
Blizzard IS addressing this, however, and have stated that they will have more 'end-game content' for us so we don't just do runs for loot.
I get the impression you really appreciated the social atmosphere of D2, which for many, WAS the best part about it. From the looks of things, Blizz wants to ramp up the pace a bit by keeping it at that lower player limit. I, myself, wish I could kick players off my game for just hanging out in town. If there's 4 players actually fighting, and 3 back at town chillin and dickin' around, then they should leave. It increases the hit points of the monsters, making the game harder. If you're not going to play with us, create your own game. Its rather rude actually, IMO to join a game and 'do whatever you wanted'. You're making the game harder, and we need your help to play. So play with us.
Anyway, I think i'd like to see maybe 6 player limit, but no more. There IS a lot happening on the screen and I'm giving the benefit of the doubt to Blizz for their 'balancing' purposes. We shall see how it plays when it is released!
DKR
Agreed, and I understand your point about the chillin and dicking around part. Maybe then restrict it to private games only, for those percentages who have 7 friends online at the same time and want to do mostly social stuff all in one game.
This is all personal opinion of course, but what I loved about Diablo 2 was that 4 players could be questing together in one zone while 2 others would be just in town trading / chilling / looking at there stash, and 2 others players could be any-where else doing there own thing or questing together.
didnt they say that there may be more then 4 players in the same game, but max 4 together in one party?
If that is the case then I retract everything I said. That works perfectly fine for me. Can someone please confirm?
Want to first make it very clear that I completely understand the reason why Blizzard placed a 4-man limit to the parties. I saw gameplay videos with 4 people and it was just insane the amount of detail and spells that were going across the screen. Also the balancing issues of having more than 4 players would make the game too easy. What I am proposing here is just an idea and wanted to hear input. I am getting the game regardless and have learned to always trust in Blizzard in the long-run.
My proposal is this:
For players who have not beat the game on all difficulties yet, they are forced to play in 4-player limit games. However, after you beat the game in all difficulties, an option is unlocked for players to create games that allow more players than four (5-8). Honestly, after you hit level 70 in Diablo 2, all you did was do unofficial pvp, run baal, mephisto, cow runs. Who cares about balancing, the purpose at that point is just to do a run and speed is the essence.
My reason for this is I feel like Blizzard is restricting and taking out a-lot of the elements that made Diablo 2 such a great game for me. This is all personal opinion of course, but what I loved about Diablo 2 was that 4 players could be questing together in one zone while 2 others would be just in town trading / chilling / looking at there stash, and 2 others players could be any-where else doing there own thing or questing together. Having that kind of environment where you and 7 of your friends could do whatever they wanted in the realm of Diablo was a sense of flexibility that increased my appreciation and fun-factor within the game.
Again, I am not bashing on the 4-player limit. I am sure Blizzard went through a-lot of work to get that number and I am sure game-play will be best with that number. I just feel having that option I mentioned above after finishing that achievement would bring back a flexibility that was a big reason why many loved Diablo 2.
What do you guys think? Please try to keep the direct criticisms to a minimum.
For me personally, I completely understand the 4-player limit and I am ok with it. My frustration (albeit small) is I still can't help but feel like Blizzard is restricting alot of the elements that made Diablo great for me personally. This is all personal opinion, but I feel they should have an option unlocked after you beat the game where you can have more than 4 players. This way, Blizzard is guaranteed you played it once through with the restricted limit they put on, and the rest if just up to the players flexibility.
Yes... having games of 8 players was madness and made the game too easy, but just having the ability to have 7 of your friends be on the same screen or same game world was an intangible factor that increased my appreciation for the game. 4 might be actually questing together, while 2 are in town soliciting or just chillin / chatting and 2 others might be somewhere else. That flexibility is what I'm arguing for.
0
Yea the Hex is like 80 bucks + on amazon whereas the regular Naga is around 65 and the Molten Naga is 70.
0
0
SteelSeries Diablo 3 Specific Mouse
http://steelseries.c...iablo-iii-mouse
Pros : Specifically made for Diablo 3.
Razer Naga (Molten or original)
http://www.amazon.co...35465849&sr=8-2
Pros : Pretty much the only mouse I'll ever need for any games.
Comfortability is my main criteria, especially how your hand feels after 3+ hours of nonstop clicking. My hands are more on the smaller end if that helps at all.
Appreciate any help!
0
Seriously take a chill pill. I understand it must be frustrating following a game for this long and not being able to get the beta when it opens, but understand also that all the material people like Force and others put on the web is supplemental matterial. Back in the day none of this was available. If you didnt get into beta, you didn't get in, and that was that. I suggest stop qq'ing and relax. People follow games so intensively that they forget ultimately only a very small percentage of people get into beta. The game is still going to come out... we all stand to profit. Just appreciate what you are given.
0
1st to say
TYVM!
1
0
Yea, the reply in these threads have convinced me to accept it more. I mean I accepted it before, just had that itch. Still going to be a little frustrating only being able to play with 3 of my friends at a time, but I'll get over it if the end-game is truly superb and is catered best for 4-people only.
0
Agreed, and I understand your point about the chillin and dicking around part. Maybe then restrict it to private games only, for those percentages who have 7 friends online at the same time and want to do mostly social stuff all in one game.
0
If that is the case then I retract everything I said. That works perfectly fine for me. Can someone please confirm?
0
My proposal is this:
For players who have not beat the game on all difficulties yet, they are forced to play in 4-player limit games. However, after you beat the game in all difficulties, an option is unlocked for players to create games that allow more players than four (5-8). Honestly, after you hit level 70 in Diablo 2, all you did was do unofficial pvp, run baal, mephisto, cow runs. Who cares about balancing, the purpose at that point is just to do a run and speed is the essence.
My reason for this is I feel like Blizzard is restricting and taking out a-lot of the elements that made Diablo 2 such a great game for me. This is all personal opinion of course, but what I loved about Diablo 2 was that 4 players could be questing together in one zone while 2 others would be just in town trading / chilling / looking at there stash, and 2 others players could be any-where else doing there own thing or questing together. Having that kind of environment where you and 7 of your friends could do whatever they wanted in the realm of Diablo was a sense of flexibility that increased my appreciation and fun-factor within the game.
Again, I am not bashing on the 4-player limit. I am sure Blizzard went through a-lot of work to get that number and I am sure game-play will be best with that number. I just feel having that option I mentioned above after finishing that achievement would bring back a flexibility that was a big reason why many loved Diablo 2.
What do you guys think? Please try to keep the direct criticisms to a minimum.
0
Yes... having games of 8 players was madness and made the game too easy, but just having the ability to have 7 of your friends be on the same screen or same game world was an intangible factor that increased my appreciation for the game. 4 might be actually questing together, while 2 are in town soliciting or just chillin / chatting and 2 others might be somewhere else. That flexibility is what I'm arguing for.