Your thoughts on Reaper of Souls So far?

[Sargiean]

Im loving the witch doctor. I should have rolled this class originally.

LOVING IT. I cant stop playing D3.

My thoughts exactly - though maybe it's just because we have piranhas now? I originally rolled a Wizard, then DH, but I love the WD the most.

The game itself is far more polished then when D3 dropped. Not sure what it is, but it actually feels fun.

[Frozen Death Knight]

Design should be followed by function; if you want to create art for aesthetic's sake, become a painter or a sculptor.


Only because it seems to go against your personal sensibilities, which are what exactly? All your arguments seem to follow the pattern of "you're wrong because you're wrong."

I ask again, name me what possible downsides this would have, other than break an artificial design limit.

As I already told you, the evidence suggests otherwise. The path of least resistance with the most rewards are the path most people will take, so if Blizzard designed the game to make players want to co-op and people still just play singleplayer, then Blizzard for all intents and purposes will change that so co-op becomes worth doing.

Plus, we've already seen the results once of having co-op having no real benefits over singleplayer. People simply stopped grouping up and the community was next to non-existent. Compared to now when I run Rifts with my clan and do other rewarding activities with 4 player co-op, we are constantly socializing and having fun as a community, and the game is much better off because of it.

Heck, I don't mind not being fully efficient all the time when farming, and I usually just do singleplayer. Still, I have been hanging out with more people now than all of Vanilla D3, and having Blizzard promote that kind of gameplay by offering better rewards creates good incentive to having a healthy community. For instance, if in World of WarCraft it was possible to solo Raids while a whole raid group need a lot more effort to pull it off with no extra rewards to speak of, the raiding community would be dead. Multiplayer games where item hunting is involved need to promote group play to the best of their ability, or they will fail. Diablo 3 was designed as a multiplayer co-op game in mind to help promote a healthy community and while it is perfectly possible to solo everything if desired, the game needs the community to be successful.

[Fencers]

Design should be followed by function; if you want to create art for aesthetic's sake, become a painter or a sculptor.

No, that's just your view on it.

Function is only necessary for practical application. All things can be made academically. There is no limit or restriction. The whole of human history is agreement to this as is our internalized nature.

Only because it seems to go against your personal sensibilities, which are what exactly?

I am not stating any personal views. Your argument is flat out faulty.

All your arguments seem to follow the pattern of "you're wrong because you're wrong."

Game mechanics are an object reality (such as we know of). Creator intent can be stated expressly by creators.

At no point is an audience or the audience's relation to object reality (such as we know of) or artistic intent (stated or not) useful or important to a work.

Audience comes from the Latin; to listen or to hear.

Discussion of games based on personal reaction is limited. Games have an artistic and scientific component . One is inarguable, the other is indifferent to the audience's feelings.

When people talk about games on basis of how they feel about the game mechanisms it is almost always in error. Its a corruption of form by vulgar understanding.

I ask again, name me what possible downsides this would have, other than break an artificial design limit?

If I group with 3 others the difficulty will rise. With no incentive the risk out weights the reward.

Were the difficultly static between multiplayer and single player sessions, the benefit would weight in favor of the greater numerical advantage of multiplayer unaided.

That is actual logic.

[Deleted]

If I group with 3 others the difficulty will rise.

Except, it's not as black and white. Mathematically, sure, the health and damage of monsters becomes greater - how much greater doesn't seem to be listed anywhere, although from my experience it seems to be an insignificant increase.

However, the fact that there are 4 targets (and their pets, both temporary and permanent as well as possible followers if using Asheara) drops the actual difficulty of playing immensely. Monsters don't usually target all 4 players at once, and as long as the one that's being targeted can take one or two hits and avoid the rest, the monster is ripped into pieces meanwhile. Not to mention the fact that with 4 players, boss fights don't fail if one, two, or even three people die. Players can resurrect each other. And then there's, obviously, group buffs, and gaining power from people in your group.

It doesn't matter what kind of gear you are, or what difficulty level you're running at; if the other three aren't oneshot cannon fodder, then you're always being carried by the power of the group. When you go solo, you go solo. It's you the monster comes after. You got nobody to help you or heal you, you don't get extra buffs, your buffs aren't more powerful because there are players around, nothing.

Multiplayer is the easy mode of this game. And you get rewarded for it on top of everything.

I blame this damn social media "let's all socialize and hold hands and dance in circle and sing songs" -time we've been thrust in. No matter what, every game and service seems to want to push you into being a part of some commune, to share all your experiences with the world, to become one with random strangers and have fun and all that hippy shit. I gave up years ago hoping that there'd be an MMO where you could be a part of a multiplayer experience without being forced into holding hands with strangers but now it seems Diablo games are going the same way. I see a future where if you don't have a Facebook page of some sort and share your life constantly with the world, you get put in a mental institution because people will think there's something wrong with you. Oh well. Hope I die before that happens.

[klogaroth]

I gave up years ago hoping that there'd be an MMO where you could be a part of a multiplayer experience without being forced into holding hands with strangers but now it seems Diablo games are going the same way.

Every Diablo game has had a significant multiplayer aspect. It was the first game with battle.net. They aren't really "going the same way" with Diablo 3. They were always made that way.

[Fencers]

Except, it's not as black and white.

It doesn't matter how the difficulty rises or to what degree. Only that difficulty is raised. Even if the effective difference was 0.1%, the argument would still be valid in terms of design.

The numbers in actual practice are transitory.

[Deleted]

I am not stating any personal views. Your argument is flat out faulty.

Yes you are; you just fail to demonstrate why it should be your way.

Audience comes from the Latin; to listen or to hear.

´
Too bad we are not speaking latin here, so it is a moot point.

At no point is an audience or the audience's relation to object reality (such as we know of) or artistic intent (stated or not) useful or important to a work.

Don't be absurd... videos games are made for the consumer, which us, or the "audience," and as a commercial product it has a very important relationship with us. Stop speaking nonsense.

If I group with 3 others the difficulty will rise. With no incentive the risk out weights the reward.

Were the difficultly static between multiplayer and single player sessions, the benefit would weight in favor of the greater numerical advantage of multiplayer unaided.

That is actual logic.

Yeah... too bad it is still the same argument as before; aka, without absurd incentive, people will stop playing multiplayer. Apparently, according to you, we are only social creatures as long as we have something to gain from it.

Why that is, I have no idea; in my time playing various games, MMOs, I never saw anybody shun from grouping up just because we did not have something special to gain from it. The fun of playing with others is what should drive people to form communities. If it is the carrot on a stick then it is a forced and hollow behavior, and not genuine companionship.

- - - Updated - - -

I see a future where if you don't have a Facebook page of some sort and share your life constantly with the world, you get put in a mental institution because people will think there's something wrong with you. Oh well. Hope I die before that happens.

Unfortunately it is already too late for that; the future is already here. You can't take two steps in a discussion forum where someone isn't labeled as a social retard just because they might and do enjoy singleplayer more than multiplayer, and it is permeating every part of society now, judging by the funny looks I always get when I tell people I don't have a facebook page.

It would be almost funny if it wasn't so tragic.

[Xisa]

Except, it's not as black and white. Mathematically, sure, the health and damage of monsters becomes greater - how much greater doesn't seem to be listed anywhere, although from my experience it seems to be an insignificant increase.

However, the fact that there are 4 targets (and their pets, both temporary and permanent as well as possible followers if using Asheara) drops the actual difficulty of playing immensely. Monsters don't usually target all 4 players at once, and as long as the one that's being targeted can take one or two hits and avoid the rest, the monster is ripped into pieces meanwhile. Not to mention the fact that with 4 players, boss fights don't fail if one, two, or even three people die. Players can resurrect each other. And then there's, obviously, group buffs, and gaining power from people in your group.

It doesn't matter what kind of gear you are, or what difficulty level you're running at; if the other three aren't oneshot cannon fodder, then you're always being carried by the power of the group. When you go solo, you go solo. It's you the monster comes after. You got nobody to help you or heal you, you don't get extra buffs, your buffs aren't more powerful because there are players around, nothing.

Multiplayer is the easy mode of this game. And you get rewarded for it on top of everything.

I blame this damn social media "let's all socialize and hold hands and dance in circle and sing songs" -time we've been thrust in. No matter what, every game and service seems to want to push you into being a part of some commune, to share all your experiences with the world, to become one with random strangers and have fun and all that hippy shit. I gave up years ago hoping that there'd be an MMO where you could be a part of a multiplayer experience without being forced into holding hands with strangers but now it seems Diablo games are going the same way. I see a future where if you don't have a Facebook page of some sort and share your life constantly with the world, you get put in a mental institution because people will think there's something wrong with you. Oh well. Hope I die before that happens.

Diablo literally created Battle.net, Blizzard's multiplayer platform.

The game was designed as a group experience. The reason you are given followers is to take some of the pressure off of you to simulate group play.

Humans are also social by nature. If you really do hate having to be around others...yes, there IS something wrong with you.

[Fencers]

Yes you are; you just fail to demonstrate why it should be your way.

There is no "my way". There is Blizzard's way. Which they have stated and demonstrated.

You are just disagreeing with Blizzard's goals and methods. Which is fine, but that is contra to Blizzard's practice.

Too bad we are not speaking latin here, so it is a moot point.

Um, etymology is never a moot point. Understanding language is like one of the most important vectors of communication.

It's how we know we know we are speaking with & on the same terms of intellectual engagement.

Don't be absurd... videos games are made for the consumer, which us, or the "audience," and as a commercial product it has a very important relationship with us. Stop speaking nonsense.

Are not musical pieces made for the audience as well?

Yet composers have stated since post-Mozart that the art (music) as related to the consumer is irrelevant. Most 20th century art asserts such and we can't "go back" as a human culture.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Weiner

The idea of decadence is one of classicism. 20th century invention absolves that.

Yeah... too bad it is still the same argument as before; aka, without absurd incentive, people will stop playing multiplayer. Apparently, according to you, we are only social creatures as long as we have something to gain from it.

You are continuing to view this is a context that is of your own perception, based on your own values.

But that is not how Blizzard sees it or leverages their design. You can disagree with their POV and design reasoning. However, it is a point of fact (reasonably certain) that the game systems operate in an exact manner.

To be grouped in Diablo 3 raises the difficulty of the game. This is done to counteract, to whatever degree, the numerical superiority of more thinking agents (players) interacting with the game. Without a rise in difficulty, the state of playing with other players would lack parity with playing alone.

Blizzard currently do not value the single player experience to the same degree as multiplayer in the Diablo franchise. Historically, never have and have stated that the game is inherently balanced under the supposition that Diablo is a multiplayer game as primary.

That one chooses to play solo is left to their own accord.

[Nivrax]

The effective difficulty decreases, by a ton. I can't find official world on it, but it's believe to be 50% extra health per player: http://www.diablofans.com/forums/dia...-op-too-strong
It does kinda feel that way. In 2 player party if I rush off I don't feel much diffrence until third party member comes in. So with 2 players you have minimum 200% damage with monsters having 150% hp. With 4 players it's 400% party damage to 250% monster health. That's about whole 40% less dps required per player if said person would play, and that is is when nobody have buffing skills which almost never happen. Nearly everyone run with at least 10% extra damage done for party members, which means that you pretty much only need half dps of what you normally would need to play solo. Furthermore, even with mobs having dr to crowd control, 4 players will almost constantly trigger maximum duration on stuns, even letting some people drop their cc and get more offensive skillset that they could use on their own. Finally, there is no increase in monster damage as far as I know since it was removed from Inferno, but you can have multiple healing between party members further strenghening them. And if THAT is not enough, on Softcore, dying on boss solo means reset, in multi everyone can res each other up to 9 times, being easier the bigger party is.

Playing multi is way easier than soloing stuff, by massive amount, in my opinion way too much and I agree with OP in the link I gave. Furthermore, even when you accept difficulty change, the trading/groping system is massivly flawed as it promotes class stacking (even more so with leniant hp gain which allows you to ignore diffrent party boosts), the most efficient way of getting upgrades, especially set gear, is playing with 4 same class characters as it allows swapping of double pieces between members. A Monk/DH/Wiz/Barb party will be gearing two-three times slower than a party of Wiz/Wiz/Wiz/Wiz, even though one could imagine game should strive for diversity.

And as to Diablo always being multi, it was only partially true. It was pretty much required to be always ONLINE since otherwise you had no access to ladder and most of high-end stuff (or you just used save editor in single). However interaction between players was totally opposite of what it is now. Diablo II punished you for farming or playing with other players. System of first-click get it made it so it never was worthwile to group with anyone unless you played in melee/had autoclicker. You almost never had games where people just ran campaign or were killing monster 'for fun'. Grouping together was done mainly for people to boost each other in tristram/tomb/diablo/cow/baalruns, the last one being the 'end game' for many, where main reason for grouping was having bigger xp boost than playing solo. The bread and butter of people interaction was trading.
People like to remember DII with rose tinted glasses but truth is, it was game when YOU and only YOU mattered and playing together was way less rewarding unless you could 'leech' other people. If amount of players didn't increase xp gain, you wouldn't even see powerleveling runs, everyone would be playing solo.

It's only now that Diablo III focuses on 'playing together' multiplayer aspect, by giving you up to 50% easier games, extra free magic find, quadruple chache farming (which still smells exploity more than chest runs were) and outstanding 16-times more efficient Inferno-ring forging. However, we lost ability to trade items, which was main reason of player to player interaction in original game.

But I digress...

[Deleted]

Humans are also social by nature. If you really do hate having to be around others...yes, there IS something wrong with you.

You clearly have no idea about Finnish culture.

Also, in case you weren't aware, according to studies, as much as 50% of the human population are introverts. Not to mention that if you'd rather socialize with people who are on your level on whatever measure you use, and you happen to be at least slightly above average yourself, half of the people aren't people you'd want to spend your time with.

[Beazy]

And as to Diablo always being multi, it was only partially true. It was pretty much required to be always ONLINE since otherwise you had no access to ladder and most of high-end stuff (or you just used save editor in single). However interaction between players was totally opposite of what it is now. Diablo II punished you for farming or playing with other players. System of first-click get it made it so it never was worthwile to group with anyone unless you played in melee/had autoclicker. You almost never had games where people just ran campaign or were killing monster 'for fun'. Grouping together was done mainly for people to boost each other in tristram/tomb/diablo/cow/baalruns, the last one being the 'end game' for many, where main reason for grouping was having bigger xp boost than playing solo. The bread and butter of people interaction was trading.
People like to remember DII with rose tinted glasses but truth is, it was game when YOU and only YOU mattered and playing together was way less rewarding unless you could 'leech' other people. If amount of players didn't increase xp gain, you wouldn't even see powerleveling runs, everyone would be playing solo.

It's only now that Diablo III focuses on 'playing together' multiplayer aspect, by giving you up to 50% easier games, extra free magic find, quadruple chache farming (which still smells exploity more than chest runs were) and outstanding 16-times more efficient Inferno-ring forging. However, we lost ability to trade items, which was main reason of player to player interaction in original game.

But I digress...

Thats the way ARPGs were designed. And the massive limitations you had to deal with developing a game where 90% of your user base was still using modems that could only transfer up to 104 kb a second. I doubt It was even remotely possible to have 8 or even 2 active server threads for all players in a single game.

[Deleted]

Um, etymology is never a moot point. Understanding language is like one of the most important vectors of communication.

And yet, not a requirement, nor does the etymology of said language add anything to the discussion at hand. At best it functions to double the length of your post, which you could have just as easily achieved by copy&pasting any non-relevant placeholder text.

E.g. http://www.lipsum.com

Trust me, I have nothing against intellectual exchange but not at the expense of the subject at hand, and not in this medium.

Are not musical pieces made for the audience as well?

We are not talking about music; we are talking about video games, and I dare say that music as a commercial product is not immune to a relationship with its consumers.

You are continuing to view this is a context that is of your own perception, based on your own values.

Of course I am, most of us do, though to my benefit I am also pretty good at relating to the points of view of a lot of other people, and most important, different people.

But that is not how Blizzard sees it or leverages their design. You can disagree with their POV and design reasoning. However, it is a point of fact (reasonably certain) that the game systems operate in an exact manner.

Please tell me this entire banter hasn't been because you disagree with me on the principle that I disagree with Blizzard

To be grouped in Diablo 3 raises the difficulty of the game. This is done to counteract, to whatever degree, the numerical superiority of more thinking agents (players) interacting with the game. Without a rise in difficulty, the state of playing with other players would lack parity with playing alone.

I never said there shouldn't be scaling of difficulty in group play; in fact, this entire time, I've been saying the challenge and returned benefits should be equal. The incentive to play in groups should come from the desire to play with friends, not because you get more stuff that way. As SydänYö pointed out, this is not the case.

[Constraint]

I'm sure I'm one of the only ones, but I still dislike RoS, although not as much as I loathed D3, because there's no permanent decisions for your characters. That was literally my favorite thing about D2, just leveling character after character every new ladder season, not just sticking to the same few and magically turning them into anything you want whenever you want to.

[Fencers]

And yet, not a requirement, nor does the etymology of said language add anything to the discussion at hand.

I talked about the audience and their relation to a work or product.

We are not talking about music; we are talking about video games, and I dare say that music as a commercial product is not immune to a relationship with its consumers.

We are talking about the artistic license of content creators.

Creators get to decide how they want to create their art. Your relation to it is irrelevant once the content is produced. A creator may change their work, alter it or dislike your reception of the work. However, the work itself is immune to your disposition.

Please tell me this entire banter hasn't been because you disagree with me on the principle that I disagree with Blizzard

I don't disagree with your position on Blizzard's decisions.

I am saying that their design decision is directly counter to your ideas. Historically, the franchise is designed to promote multiplayer play over solo play. There is no extreme measure Blizzard go to promote this- that is the design of the game. The mechanics are in service to that design. Regardless of our (audience) position to those decisions.

I never said there shouldn't be scaling of difficulty in group play

I did not presume that you said such. It's just a statement of the mechanics and their reasoning to Blizzard's design.

[Deleted]

We are talking about the artistic license of content creators.

No we're not; you are. I am interested solely on the practical implementation of their design decisions and that is what I have been talking about. As I said, design should not overrule function, not in a practical application anyway, such as a video game.

Creators get to decide how they want to create their art. Your relation to it is irrelevant once the content is produced. A creator may change their work, alter it or dislike your reception of the work. However, the work itself is immune to your disposition.

For a static work perhaps, but D3 is an evolving product and both future changes and additions may and are, in fact, known to be affected by public feedback. I'm also not about to storm the Blizzard headquarters and demand that they do as I say; it is their game and they can do whatever they want with it. Neither of these facts however invalidates my point.

[MonsieuRoberts]

A lot more fun since 2 weeks after release, when I last really played. I'm not penalized for wanting to experiment with my abilities, and a lot of the pitfalls of the older gear system are gone, although I wish they'd get rid of "lower level requirement". Seeing loot drop that I can actually USE? Well, that's amazing, almost like that's how the game was intended to be...*cough*

If you liked D3 but didn't like Jay Wilson's vision, give it a shot. If you're really occupied with other games, I'd pass.

[deadman1]

Painfully mediocre.
Full disclosure, not a big fan of the genre.

[Noorri]

Haven't heard anything yet that has made me even consider buying it. No way it is worth paying so much for.

[Joey Ray III]

and reasonable people telling them that D2 vanilla was pretty awful compared to Lord of Destruction

hmm, it's not the first time i see someone saying D2C was bad. it was perfectly fine. it had some balance issues and it was a bit buggy (actually, for blizzards standards back then it was buggy as fuck) but most of it got fixed in couple of patches (which were more frequent then today). and unlike D3 it didn't have major design flaws or broken systems and many people played classic even after LoD was long out (cause it was a bit different experience). also unlike RoS, LoD didn't have to 'fix' anything about D2C, it just added more cool stuff on top.

anyway, RoS. still like it, putting major hours in it as predicted. i have some beefs - most legendaries are totally unimaginative and smart loot 'prevents' me from playing alts (i'd cry if I got int TF ;p not a big issue though since i only wanna play my monk atm anyway) but other then that enjoying it alot.