1.07 looks great

[Leonard McCoy]

Again subjective. I had fun you didn't. Neither of us is right or wrong here.[COLOR="red"]

You asked me what they failed to deliver. I told you. You don't fucking like it, that's not my fucking problem. I didn't ask you to respond to my posts but you interjected yourself into this conversation because you don't like negative opinions about your precious company. Take it like a fucking man.

[Deleted]

peace and love boys! \o/ please calm all down and free hugz for everyone

[Lolsteak]

There is no DRM in Diablo 3. It simply is an on line game, just like thousands upon thousands of programs or Aps that are being published and sold in modern broadband and wireless internet play.

A central server controlled system is simply an assurance against organised long term duping, stealing, copying and cracking.

I like it since it permits playing with and against others in a controlled centralised server setting ... with a nice armory and comparable stats to look at and analyse.

The RMAH permitted me to buy a 32 year old board wargame I was looking for. I will never forget this. Awesome. Blizzard should put it in with every new game they'll launch.

Yes, there is.

Diablo 3 requires persistent online authentication which is DRM.

[Orange Joe]

You asked me what they failed to deliver. I told you. You don't fucking like it, that's not my fucking problem. I didn't ask you to respond to my posts but you interjected yourself into this conversation because you don't like negative opinions about your precious company. Take it like a fucking man.

Failing to deliver something that is subjective isn't really failing to deliver. Like I said I had fun, so you are in fact wrong they did deliver something fun. It just wasn't fun for you.

If you post on a public forum expect to take criticism for your post. If you don't like it don't post.

---------- Post added 2013-01-16 at 02:50 PM ----------

Yes, there is.

Diablo 3 requires persistent online authentication which is DRM.

You need to learn what DRM is.

---------- Post added 2013-01-16 at 02:51 PM ----------

peace and love boys! \o/ please calm all down and free hugz for everyone

I will take your hug . I'm far from mad. You are talking to someone that is happy when they debate. I would even hug TonyIommi, I don't dislike him I just don't agree with him. Hence the debate.

[Lolsteak]

Failing to deliver something that is subjective isn't really failing to deliver. Like I said I had fun, so you are in fact wrong they did deliver something fun. It just wasn't fun for you.

If you post on a public forum expect to take criticism for your post. If you don't like it don't post.

---------- Post added 2013-01-16 at 02:50 PM ----------



You need to learn what DRM is.

---------- Post added 2013-01-16 at 02:51 PM ----------



I will take your hug . I'm far from mad. You are talking to someone that is happy when they debate. I would even hug TonyIommi, I don't dislike him I just don't agree with him. Hence the debate.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital...authentication

O'rly?

[Bad Ashe]

The problem with that and a ... client side PC game is that ... ONCE you open up the full game on a client side the copying, cracking of code and massive uncontrolled duping will take place on that client side.

You will no longer have control over the system of the avatars and their gear.

Rendering ALL long term play of Diablo 3 complete useless.

--->

Perhaps I can give another example:

Call of Duty on consoles has a very smart and quite good Elite playing tool, where players are rated and thousands of competitive things can be done (even competitions etc...).

Now on the PC side the Elite service tools couldn't be fully implemented. Why ? Because COD has a client side copy that would make ANY competitive play and awards WIDE open to cracks and cheats.

That's why COD on PC's is a sad little brother of console play: that's also the reason why PC games are DOOMED to always be server connected in ANY game that is to be played in a competitive manner.

----

That's also the reason why Rob Pardo said he didn't believe in pure solo games in the long run: these days ... you NEED the internet and its competitive and cooperative gameplay... and sadly for PC games that means ... server controlled play all the time.

Also PvP "fights" is just another form of competitive play these days. More and more people like to show off their avatars on the web. That's also a form of competition.

The last Blizzard Esports in China featured ... PvP in ... Raiding timers: Several top guilds were seeded with each other to beat a Raid (PVE content).

All cool things that can be done and seen by players and that only are possible with server controlled mechanics only.

I think Rob Pardo has more designer class than thousands of game forums combined, so I see where he is going to: games on the internet in a cooperative/competitive mode are played MUCH longer than solo games you ditch after purchase.

i know you're trying really hard to sound smart, but you just took my simple sentence and made a massive wall of ermahgerrrd.
if you think the game is so perfect, why arent you just playing it instead making of all these hostile posts in here telling everyone your opinion is the only relevant one?

[Orange Joe]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital...authentication

O'rly?

I guess I need to learn what drm is.

[Deleted]

Keep the thread on topic and civil please, things have become rather heated in here.

[Frozen Death Knight]

Accept that the game is fucking TRASH. Accept that you have BAD FUCKING TASTE IN VIDEO GAMES. Accept that people don't like diablo and will continue to bitch about it until something is done. Accept all of that AND TAKE IT LIKE A FUCKING MAN. Instead of coming on forums and berating fellow customers because you have some misplaced and misguided loyalty to a company that doesn't need it and doesn't care.

Regardless of what opinions anyone here might have of the game (good, bad, whatever), this kind of attitude is just as obnoxious as some of the posts you respond to, at times. You may be banned now, but I hope you take that time and think about how to assess the forums if you wish to be taken seriously at all.

---

Anyway, the dueling system is on the PTR, apparently. Seems pretty okay, but the video I just watched where people dueled was kind of terrible, to be honest (the player who recorded barely did anything but die several times).

We'll be interesting to see what happens along the line. Just hope Blizzard do not sit on their hands and do nothing, since they need to take a serious look at the current states of the game.

[Deleted]

Rob Pardo said he didn't believe in pure solo games in the long run

That doesn't mean pure online games are the way to go in the long run. Why can't we have a mix?

[Shinzai]

I'm not sure what the big fuss about PvP in D3 is. They're clearly not releasing it in full because it's more than likely ridiculous to balance and if they release it unbalanced, huge crowd A will complain, if they release it with artificial balancing aids, eg stat or item limits, then huge crowd B will complain. If it's not fully fleshed out and perfectly formed, people will complain regardless.

When was PvP ever anything other than a novelty or gank fest in a Diablo game?

[Koji2k11]

only good thing about 1.0.7 is the increased xp on higher mp levels

[VXFadhel]

If you didn't play after patch 1.05 you really can not even make an argument.

MP play says High as does the Key hunting and Paragon extra 100 levels. You really played a very different game at launch.

--- NEW ---

Patch 1.07 will bring crafting through grinding with BIND on ACCOUNT gear.

So crafted gear in 6 out of 13 slots will be a blast to play (as it is Bind on Account and can not be bought on the AH).

I dont mind people defending their favorite games till their last breath, just curious, how long do you think its enough for a 'player' to make an argument about a game? Since you mentioned 1.05...
If Im not mistaken the game has been delayed due to it "not being ready, and gonna be released when its ready", so the game was not "ready" when it got released? Or are you gonna use the "its the fans fault for rushing the devs to release it"?

Edit: And before you use the "all games gets fixes after they're released as well", games weren't that broken. The fact that the item problems not being fixed yet since release, speaks volumes.

Just because you say its a different game doesn't make it a different game. While I understand that you can't judge a game "now" based on how it was, we can use it as a reference. You can check my posts before the game was released if you want. If what it takes to please you and keep you playing is, just adding a "insert new completely random crafting" recipe, others are not.

[yack346]

Im just excited for the dueling part. Blizzard should of definitely come out with the dueling earlier though.

[Deleted]

Why should we have to? I really can't think of any other product except movies where you are kept so much in the dark, especially none where you can't file a complaint/get reimbursement if the seller fail to deliver.

I kinda agree with Slozon here (even though not with all his stalwart defense of everything that has been or not been done).

You don't have to but it is healty to do so.
You don't have but you should cause you can't or should not buy a game in a close box without knowing enough about it.

You too say that the first 12-14 levels were not enough to evaluate the game, so your decision was to buy it based on expectation raised from devs that of course will not ever ever *ever* go on their website/forum and say

"this game will be fucking craptastic, it will be the most horrible experience ever"
nor will say
"we've made just this average game and we would like to sell it overpriced"
unless they really *really* are a masochistic bunch.

The moment you saw that the box would cost 60 euro you, considering all the above, you should have gone "wait, what?" honestly
The company can be blamed to have not provided the game you expect, but one should also take responsibility for taking rash actions without enough information.

Once upon a time when gaming company would not communicate in such a direct way I suppose you as well as I and of tons of others used to get informed about games through reviews and magazines that were supposed to be written by "experts" in the field. As of today I follow 2 or three different magazines blogs about Videogame before buying *anything* so that I can have an idea of what I'm actually purchasing. instead of going "OMG NEW GAME I NEED BUY IT NAU"

[Redblade]

You don't have to but it is healty to do so.
You don't have but you should cause as you well said you can't buy a game in a close box without knowing enough.

So I should never buy a game ever again, or only after X time has passed? This in a time where pre-orders is combined with special offers hence would force me to pay more in some cases as well. On top of this it's Diablo 3, this gives an expectation of what it is you are getting, with any game.

You too say that the first 12-14 levels were not enough to evaluate the game, so your decision was to buy it based on expectation raised from devs that of course will not ever go on their website/forum and say

"this game will be fucking craptastic, it will be the most horrible experience ever"
nor will say
"we've made just this average game and we would like to sell it overpriced"

No they won't, they didn't give enough information regarding the differences from Diablo 2 either though, something that they could have done.

The moment you saw that the box would cost 60 euro you, considering all the above, you should have gone "wait, what?" honestly
The company can be blamed to have not provided the game you expect, but one should also take responsibility for taking rash actions without enough information.

Or we could expect the company that delivers the product to provide enough information about it, something we expect by default when it comes to any other product, the exception again being movies.

Once upon a time when gaming company would not communicate in such a direct way you and I suppose tons of others used to get informed about games through reviews and magazines that were supposed to be written by "experts" in the field. As of today I follow 2 or three different magazines blogs about Videogame before buying *anything* so that I can have an idea of what I'm actually purchasing. instead of going "OMG NEW GAME I NEED BUY IT NAU"

I never put any weight to paper reviews, I work under the simple principle of "if I can't try it I won't buy it", something that the industry picked up on years and years ago and as such knows that the test experience needs to be representative of what the game is. Now if Blizzard had a full beta, if they had informed us about how desperate they where to re-invent the wheel, informed us that TDM wouldn't see the light of day at all instead of PvP will be added soon™, made us aware of that they didn't have a clue when it came to the loot system nor drop rates and as such would have to change it enough times to remove any faith in it's integrity, do you think 6 million people would go buy it? Do you really think it's their own fault for buying a sequel that isn't being defined in a way where you learn it has nothing to do with it's predecessor beyond the name and some story elements?

[Orange Joe]

So I should never buy a game ever again, or only after X time has passed? This in a time where pre-orders is combined with special offers hence would force me to pay more in some cases as well. On top of this it's Diablo 3, this gives an expectation of what it is you are getting, with any game.



No they won't, they didn't give enough information regarding the differences from Diablo 2 either though, something that they could have done.



Or we could expect the company that delivers the product to provide enough information about it, something we expect by default when it comes to any other product, the exception again being movies.



I never put any weight to paper reviews, I work under the simple principle of "if I can't try it I won't buy it", something that the industry picked up on years and years ago and as such knows that the test experience needs to be representative of what the game is. Now if Blizzard had a full beta, if they had informed us about how desperate they where to re-invent the wheel, informed us that TDM wouldn't see the light of day at all instead of PvP will be added soon™, made us aware of that they didn't have a clue when it came to the loot system nor drop rates and as such would have to change it enough times to remove any faith in it's integrity, do you think 6 million people would go buy it? Do you really think it's their own fault for buying a sequel that isn't being defined in a way where you learn it has nothing to do with it's predecessor beyond the name and some story elements?

I expect a Ferrari when I buy a ford.

[Deleted]

So I should never buy a game ever again, or only after X time has passed? This in a time where pre-orders is combined with special offers hence would force me to pay more in some cases as well.

Good point, but also would save you the entire costs in case you don't like the game, your choice in regard of risks versus rewards though.

On top of this it's Diablo 3, this gives an expectation of what it is you are getting, with any game.

I see the point but disagree, sequels always try to change the formula this is true for almost every sequel, Stronghold and Stronghold 2 varied greatly even though the core of the game was the same (building a castle) but the way you managed economy changed (not for the best)

That's the hard part of actually making a sequel of a game, be too true to the old and people will complain that is just a reash and you're trying to money grab, change too much and people complain that it is not true to the legacy. it is quite a sad situation.

No they won't, they didn't give enough information regarding the differences from Diablo 2 either though, something that they could have done. Or we could expect the company that delivers the product to provide enough information about it, something we expect by default when it comes to any other product, the exception again being movies.

disagree. There were several blog post about the new systems at least since 2011, skill systems, changes to the systems and stats. Some of them released even too soon like the one in regard of crafters when they had to go back and scrap one, the Mystic.

For example: http://us.battle.net/d3/en/blog/4475014 this was published in february
http://us.battle.net/d3/en/blog/3435571 this in 2011

basically every change and aspect in the game was published through blog posts, so information were there, were they describing things enthusiastically? of course they were.

I never put any weight to paper reviews, I work under the simple principle of "if I can't try it I won't buy it", something that the industry picked up on years and years ago and as such knows that the test experience needs to be representative of what the game is. Now if Blizzard had a full beta, if they had informed us about how desperate they where to re-invent the wheel, informed us that TDM wouldn't see the light of day at all instead of PvP will be added soon™, made us aware of that they didn't have a clue when it came to the loot system nor drop rates and as such would have to change it enough times to remove any faith in it's integrity, do you think 6 million people would go buy it? Do you really think it's their own fault for buying a sequel that isn't being defined in a way where you learn it has nothing to do with it's predecessor beyond the name and some story elements?

I don't really put "weight" on reviews I use them to form a general idea, that's also why I follow more than one especially when the writers have completely different styles and tastes. They still have to describe the features you just have to see through the embellishment. The thing that I agree with you is that the PvP removal/addition has been very badly communicated and handled.

The loot system they probably created it in good faith, but they had to contend with both old school Diablo II players and with people coming from other games that necessitates a more constant and reliable approach to upgrades. The constant adjustment to the loot system was not entirely unexpected to me.

O don't misunderstand me. I perfectly capable of seeing the mistakes here and there and what could have been done better or not. Just sharing my thoughts and what a life of gaming have taught me:

If you don't have information on things (either you don't find them, or who should give them to you don't provide them) wait until you have them and then decide. Fame, legacy and so on don't mean shit, every company no matter how good they have been or are can always makes mistake, or come out with a bad product. *No one* never make mistakes.

Be diffident of promotions or excessive marketing. Not always they're up for good and they may be there for creating a smokescreen between the reality of the expectations and the reality of the product.

I'm not here for a war, this is my opinion, take what you want from it. peace out and cuddles

[Redblade]

Good point, but also would save you the entire costs in case you don't like the game, your choice in regard of risks versus rewards though.

Sure it would, my point is more that the developers build hype, want you to pre-order and make promotions to that cause, something that negates the "ofc they will speak enthusiastically about their game and paint it in the best light possible" defense.

I see the point but disagree, sequels always try to change the formula this is true for almost every sequel, Stronghold and Stronghold 2 varied greatly even though the core of the game was the same (building a castle) but the way you managed economy changed (not for the best)

That's the hard part of actually making a sequel of a game, be too true to the old and people will complain that is just a reash and you're trying to money grab, change too much and people complain that it is not true to the legacy. it is quite a sad situation.

Not saying it's an easy road to walk but at the same time putting D2 and D3 side by side I don't think anyone could have anticipated how different they would be at end game, pre-launch based on blogs and half of act 1 open beta.

disagree. There were several blog post about the new systems at least since 2011, skill systems, changes to the systems and stats. Some of them released even too soon like the one in regard of crafters when they had to go back and scrap one, the Mystic.

For example: http://us.battle.net/d3/en/blog/4475014 this was published in february
http://us.battle.net/d3/en/blog/3435571 this in 2011

basically every change and aspect in the game was published through blog posts, so information were there, were they describing things enthusiastically? of course they were.

Yet they say nothing, the lack of beta experiences beyond Skeleton King forces us to assume Blizzard knew how to balance drop rates, crafting results compared to drops and stats in general, not to mention skills. I'm not talking about a huge open beta here either, a few thousand players would have been more than enough to highlight the issues and provide a balanced information about the game, in retrospect I can see why it wasn't in Blizzard's interest to provide that though.

I don't put "weight" on reviews I use them to form a general idea, that's also why I follow more than one especially when the writers have completely different styles and. The only thing that I agree with you is that the PvP removal/addition has been very badly communicated.
The loot system they probably created it in good faith, but they had to contend with both old school Diablo II players than with people coming from other games that necessitates a more constant and reliable approach to upgrades. The constant adjustment to the loot system was not entirely unexpected to me.

Yeah I read various forums and what not regarding games that I have no idea about, still though trying it is the rule and I expect any type of trial to be fairly representative of the game, D3 is one of the few that in retrospect didn't say much at all about the game.

As far as the changes to the loot system, I was expecting something, the IAS nerf was fine, annoying but fine as it was early. The first change to drop rates to include lvl 63 items in all acts and what not was needed and acceptable but that was borderline time wise, that was their chance to sort the loot system once and for all but they didn't, they keep making changes that affects it in major ways to this day.

[Deleted]

we seems to be established into our well affirmed perspectives. ^^
My lunch break is almost finished though so I will probably pass some time playing some games on Kongregate or looking if there is some brand new Kickstarter that may be worth my money