I just wrote like three pages of a reply and the forums lost it when I clicked Preview. ... *cry*
Ok what it boiled down to was:
Read my previous post. It seems like some people glossed over it.
- I'm happy most of you are happy about the change, and I know you're going to love the game.
- Those few of you who don't like it, you'll love the game too because you're wrong.
- Item pools are not limited by Act, or Boss, or anything like that. While you'll have a better chance to get better items in Act IV Inferno, you could get those same items in Act I, or even Hell.
- Our item pool philosophy is that you can break an urn and get the best item in the game - it's all a matter of chance. Running more difficult areas and taking on more difficult enemies will not always be the most efficient way to find upgrades. Previously, Inferno difficulty was mlvl 61 across all of Inferno, and now it starts at mlvl 61 and ramps up quickly in Act I and ends somewhere around 65 (?) in Act IV. We've only increased the difficulty.
- I'm aware of internal bets on how many months it will take someone to beat Inferno.
- A flat Inferno of mlvl 61 had a small curb of difficulty, and once that was over you had nowhere else to progress and no reason to. That's boredom.
- Boredom doesn't generally come from content repetition, it comes from lack of ability to progress, or ease of progression.
- By having a sharp increase in difficulty in Inferno we can encourage progression without having a brick wall of difficulty.
- I think that was about it. In any case, as I said, I know the vast majority of you are excited about the game, the change we made, and trying to progress in Inferno. Just don't feel bad when you have to go back to Hell.
With the recent revelation of the beginning of Inferno becoming slightly easier, did the rest become harder in compensation?
Yes, the Acts each get significantly more difficult than they were before when it was all one level.
Sorry, to clarify, the beginning of Inferno is not any easier than it was before. We've only made Inferno harder. (Source)
So, what is the incentive for players to fight their butt off in order to get to later Act in inferno? Just to prove because they can?
Achievements. Banner decoration. Bragging rights. ... Fun?
I mean it's like asking "Why do you play video games?", right? Most of the time the answer is "Because I enjoy it." and that's going to mean something different to everyone. When you hit 60 in Diablo III, you have everything available to you in the game as far as game systems go, you've beaten the game at least three times already on previous difficulties... why are you still playing?
If you want to hit Inferno and then be happy to just try to farm up a perfect gear set in Act I and never progress, and never want to try to test yourself against more difficult content ... well I might ask why you're building a perfect set, but whatever, if you're having fun more power to you.
Someone working hard to progress all the way to Inferno (Nightmare and Hell are no picnics) just to stop at Inferno and be happy with just playing Act I and never attempting to beat the game seems kind of unlikely. If you do that's cool, but it's a hypothetical situation that I think would be pretty rare because it just doesn't mesh with why people are playing, or what they need to do to achieve their goals.
So they're basically saying that late hell monsters will have a .00000001% likelihood of dropping "the best item" and late inferno monsters will have a .000001%.
What do you guys think of there being no real money auction house on hardcore? Does it sway you towards playing softcore if you weren't going to otherwise..?
Poll: Do you plan to play HC or SC?
(Vote): Softcore main
(Vote): Hardcore main
I'd like to play hardcore as my main game but.. as the casual gamer I try to be nowadays, it just seems too costly to die. We'll see.
I'm not sure that I fully get the Inferno changes, but it seems really "weird" if there's not some specific loot that can only drop from the last few acts. People will not be trying all that hard if there's nothing at all to gain from it. The allure is getting gibs on excluse, impossible, hard to get/reach shit, and you want to be the first to get your hands on it.
If it has same loot system, rareity as Act 1, that seems like a huge mistake lol.
1
YoMeR United States. Apr 05 2012 13:32. Posts 12435
gonna play 1 char through hell at least and test inferno maybe on softcore...then move on to hardcore and become a d3 baller
A lot of high value items worked similarly in D2. Hell Pindleskin could drop very high level items, but his odds to do so were extremely low. Hell Baal could drop very high level items with very, very low odds.
I think the difference in drop rates between late inferno vs the rest of the game will be very significant, even though you still won't be picking up godlies every second step in late inferno. It is kind of interesting that, when he mentioned the in-house bet blizzard employees have on how quickly inferno will be defeated, he seems to imply that the over/under cut off is some time (significantly?) greater than one month. It isn't underheard of for developers to have no fucking clue on that sort of thing -- but that is still a long horizon and indicates a seriously tough difficulty mode.
+-
Last edit: 05/04/2012 17:08
1
Svenman87 United States. Apr 05 2012 15:27. Posts 4636
On April 05 2012 12:32 YoMeR wrote:
gonna play 1 char through hell at least and test inferno maybe on softcore...then move on to hardcore and become a d3 baller
But it's not like they don't know how to make encounters stupidly hard. I remember C'thun from wow, it was lolhard. And The 4 Horsemen.
The C'thun fight was unbeatable for awhile, and they had to nerf it. And most guilds were stuck on 4 Horsemen for a very long time too. If they want they can just make it so hard that no one in their team makes it, and then make it a little bit harder, that should do the trick lol.
1
TheHuHu3 United States. Apr 05 2012 19:08. Posts 5544
Blizzard's approach is to prevent D2's way of grinding which was cow level / Baal runs every five minutes. They want you to actually play the game. I like it.
But she so angry, they killed and raped her family, now she's one pissed woman, out for blood!! Rarr, fzzst
1
NotSorry United States. Apr 09 2012 18:45. Posts 2603
On April 05 2012 17:06 Mariuslol wrote:
But it's not like they don't know how to make encounters stupidly hard. I remember C'thun from wow, it was lolhard. And The 4 Horsemen.
The C'thun fight was unbeatable for awhile, and they had to nerf it. And most guilds were stuck on 4 Horsemen for a very long time too. If they want they can just make it so hard that no one in their team makes it, and then make it a little bit harder, that should do the trick lol.
C'thun was unbeatable, not because it was a hard encounter but that there was no way possible in the game to reach the number requirements for it (they wanted it to be a cockblock to keep people busy cause they had no clue how long nax was going to take), even with every piece of perfect gear for 40 players, every stacking world buff/potion/spell, having all 40 members soulstoned before the encounter you could not possibly put out the dps required to end the fight, then they nerfed it slightly and half the world beat him over night. 4H was just a really shitty gimmick that forced you to bring 8 tanks and pray that you didn't get double RNG missed on taunts the fight itself was very simple and rather low on the numbers to make up for the movement required.
Also, comparing what you can do with a 40man raid encounter and what you can do with a solo player is a bit different...
We have now sunk to a depth at which restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men.
aye, I was in one of the guilds who beat him over night, and I loved that 4horsemen blocked out the rest of the guilds on the server, so we'd go collect loot from that dragon thingyh and Kel Thuzad for ourself. Nom nom nom.
Just saying they can make it "unbeatable" if they want".
Also, back then, in most 40 man raids, 20 people at least were really bad. At the time I felt it was possible if it was 39 other me's, but that might be flawed thinking lol.
My in game ego at the time was rather large, I was a friendly elitist, bubbly douche lol.
1
Svenman87 United States. Apr 09 2012 21:53. Posts 4636
On April 09 2012 20:46 Mariuslol wrote:
Also, back then, in most 40 man raids, 20 people at least were really bad. At the time I felt it was possible if it was 39 other me's, but that might be flawed thinking lol.
My in game ego at the time was rather large, I was a friendly elitist, bubbly douche lol.
I feel this way in all team games... When I was playing CS competitively especially. Watching people miss easy shots or doing retarded things was like WTF - I've always been very quiet though on mic. I came from a CAL-M clan where we had minimal chatter on vent, it's translated into other games. Very annoying play WoW, LoL, anything that needs coordination to hear 4 people screaming random shit.
