Topic: Diablo 3 (Read 68362 times)

Boro_Bandito · « **Reply #150 on:** 16 Oct 2008, 09:30 »

And yet now the wizard is going to have teleport and slow time! Duriel type enemies beware!

Catfish_Man · « **Reply #151 on:** 16 Oct 2008, 10:23 »

Duriel was absurd. One of my early sorcs went through 20 *TOMES* of town portal fighting him. Enter->Portal up->Lightning Duriel->Get oneshotted->Rinse->Repeat. These days I'm a lot better at it (I don't play lightning sorcs anymore, I pump vitality instead of energy, post-expansion mercs can tank, and I know how to use static field now), but it's still harsh on Normal difficulty. Two meteorb sorcs on hell difficulty Duriel was easy though. Took about 30 seconds.

est · « **Reply #152 on:** 16 Oct 2008, 16:55 »

To compound the difficulty, I am not sure that Duriel's freeze could be resisted, could it? As in, you could have high cold resist and yet he'd still freeze you because it was a boss special thing. I also remember reading about Hardcore players having to level up way more than normal before getting to Duriel because they couldn't just take a few deaths to get the jorb done.

Man, now I kind of want to try out a Hardcore character again. I played about with one way back when, but didn't really bother with it after a while. The concept seems a bit more appealing to me nowadays.

Alex C · « **Reply #153 on:** 16 Oct 2008, 17:06 »

Yep, it's unavoidable. Duriel's really about the only npc in the game I ever considered grinding experience to beat. He doesn't have the highest stats in the game by a longshot, but he's really nasty relative to the level you're likely to face him at.

Orbert · « **Reply #154 on:** 17 Oct 2008, 10:27 »

I read a guide once that said Duriel has Holy Freeze, same as the Paladin aura, except he has to actually touch you. "Cannot be Frozen" doesn't help, nor does Cold Resistance. "Half Freeze Duration" supposedly works, but that's not much help if he's hitting you every couple seconds.

will: wanton sex god · « **Reply #155 on:** 17 Oct 2008, 11:30 »

^ bingo, its holy freeze.
the main reason duriel sucks so bad is theres a good couple seconds of lag when you first enter his chamber. hes hard to run from since hes got holy freeze AND charge which knocks you and stuns you, while youre moving so slowly. so yeah, sometimes you died before his room even loaded

satsugaikaze · « **Reply #156 on:** 18 Oct 2008, 06:49 »

I find it's easier with two players: 1 to set up a town portal and 1 to distract. Mercs help too, but they usually die in a few hits.

The second dude has a town portal outside the tomb for rinse-and-repeat. =)

kaseysaidmaybetomorrow · « **Reply #157 on:** 09 Apr 2009, 16:54 »

I need it to come out.

I actually just started playing D2 because my boyfriend has been playing it since it came out. He talked me into it and I'm kind of hooked. It was tough though, because I have Leopard and due to the incompatibilities I just kind of had to steal it from his computer to make it work for me.

Orbert · « **Reply #158 on:** 10 Apr 2009, 09:27 »

It's okay. You do what you have to do to feed your addiction.

satsugaikaze · « **Reply #159 on:** 11 Apr 2009, 08:19 »

The latest character update is kinda awesome.

Although I don't know why every single demo video on the page involves him getting owned at the end by a zombie or falling debris o_O

Catfish_Man · « **Reply #160 on:** 11 Apr 2009, 09:26 »

...because that character is an april fool's joke.

Avec · « **Reply #161 on:** 11 Apr 2009, 10:32 »

I think everything that was appealing in Diablo 2 Classic will be taken away, case and point; MONTHLY FEES.

el_loco_avs · « **Reply #162 on:** 11 Apr 2009, 10:34 »

wait. what? monthly fees?

McTaggart · « **Reply #163 on:** 11 Apr 2009, 10:37 »

You're going to have to back that up.

Avec · « **Reply #164 on:** 11 Apr 2009, 10:45 »

Find the video demo, I believe it's somewhere in here.

Quote

http://www.gamespot.com/pc/rpg/diablo3/video/6193136/diablo-iii-live-demonstration?tag=videos;title;12

Dimmukane · « **Reply #165 on:** 11 Apr 2009, 11:32 »

I'm pretty sure there would've have been huge internet ragez going on if they were planning on adding monthly fees by now. Blizzard have never said anything about Battle.net costing the players anything whatsoever.

imapiratearg · « **Reply #166 on:** 11 Apr 2009, 11:43 »

Quote from: Avec on 11 Apr 2009, 10:45

Find the video demo, I believe it's somewhere in here.

Quote
http://www.gamespot.com/pc/rpg/diablo3/video/6193136/diablo-iii-live-demonstration?tag=videos;title;12

Nope, nothing. I even checked the comments.

Avec · « **Reply #167 on:** 11 Apr 2009, 12:31 »

When I used to play D2 and the news first hit I'm almost positive they mentioned monthly fees. You can hold it against me, but I'm willing to bet Blizzard won't make the mistake of not charging for online play again.

Dimmukane · « **Reply #168 on:** 11 Apr 2009, 12:59 »

I don't think they ever saw it as a mistake. Warcraft 3 came out after Diablo 2 and was free to play. I mean, tons of games, including a bunch of Diablo clones, are free to play online. What probably happened was someone extrapolated the comparisons to WoW's art style and UI and assumed that Blizzard said they were gonna charge for it, entirely out of context, and that's what you heard.

Seriously, it's not gonna happen. That is the easiest way to alienate one of the hugest fanbases in the world. It would've been a PR nightmare and worldwide boycotts against Blizzard would have ensued. Something like that would not happen without getting a very noticeable reaction.

imapiratearg · « **Reply #169 on:** 11 Apr 2009, 13:51 »

Charging for Battle.net play would be like shitting on the keyboards of everyone who loved Diablo II and then smearing it under all of the keys.

Which is a lot of people.

Avec · « **Reply #170 on:** 11 Apr 2009, 13:54 »

I'm really curious if you're aware of how business works.

imapiratearg · « **Reply #171 on:** 11 Apr 2009, 13:54 »

I don't, but that is what it would be like for me.

Avec · « **Reply #172 on:** 11 Apr 2009, 14:01 »

Look at it like this, with the cult Diablo already has, they'll make more money with half the fan base and a monthly fee of let's say 10 dollars. The majority of the people I've dealt with were in their 30's and were foreign, who seemingly could manage a minute addiction.

Joseph · « **Reply #173 on:** 11 Apr 2009, 14:11 »

...Or they could sell many, many more copies of the game for $60 or whatever, crank out a couple expansions for more money, and easily make a profit.

I definitely wouldn't be getting the game if it required me to pay a fee to play online.

Avec · « **Reply #174 on:** 11 Apr 2009, 14:23 »

I'm in no way supporting the monthly fees, but let's be realistic.

KvP · « **Reply #175 on:** 11 Apr 2009, 15:17 »

There's always been a lot of crowing about charging for Battle.net but I remain skeptical of the claims of its apparent unworkability. People said the same thing when they started charging for WoW (battle.net was a free service for many years prior to that) and they still ended up with a never-before-seen number of players. Griping on the internet is easy to ignore and the number of people who will protest by not playing will be minimal from a sales standpoint, as long as the game works and is as well designed as Blizzard's games have been in the past and Blizzard doesn't gouge (and if they charge for battle.net they probably won't).

The internet is a warped prism through which to view future possibilities. Remember NMA and Fallout 3? They kicked and screamed about the wrongness of it all throughout development. I'd wager at least 90% of them bought the game on release. Remember when Ron Paul was going to be a formidable force in the '08 elections? Yeah. The number of Ron Paul voters is probably the number of highly principled gamers (at best), and more people will have bought D3 than voted. High-profile games to gamers are as candy to children. The only circumstances under which it isn't wanted is when it's bad.

0bsessions · « **Reply #176 on:** 11 Apr 2009, 15:28 »

The reason Blizzard will probably not charge for Battle.net is WoW. Doing something like that, unless it came with a discount on WoW (Much like Sony's Station Plan a few years back that you could access their entire range of MMOs for $30 a month), would serve only to cut into WoW's userbase.

KvP · « **Reply #177 on:** 11 Apr 2009, 16:51 »

Possibly, but all failures of competing MMOs aside I don't think we've seen a compelling case for market saturation in the multiplayer gaming world. Diablo 3 will be a different beast from WoW. It isn't an MMO and presumably it won't require the sort of time commitments that WoW does. That opens up a lot of player markets that WoW hasn't tapped.

Chesire Cat · « **Reply #178 on:** 11 Apr 2009, 17:45 »

Im with obsessions on this one, making a pay for play MMORPG will be poaching from Blizzards own userbase. Unless Diablo 3 is marketed to be a WoW killer, I doubt they will charge for it.

And this is based of market analysis and not my personal opinion on how swell the guys at Blizzard are, because that is a rather inaccurate barometre (or in this case thermometre) to go by.

Alex C · « **Reply #179 on:** 11 Apr 2009, 18:18 »

There's compelling reasons for going either direction. The benefit of charging is obvious, so I won't bother touching on that. As for why it would remain free, I would like to point out that charging a monthly subscription raises expectations that Blizzard may not be comfortable taking on at this point. Quite simply, people cut you more slack when your service is free, and battlenet would have a large player base to cater to even if charging money did end up thinning the herd. Keep in mind the vast majority of Blizzard employees work in WoW customer service as it is. Such a move could still probably end up being quite profitable if handled correctly, but on the other hand it really may not really be worth all the fuss when you consider the costs and how much of the playerbase you could cannibalize, particularly since Bnet already serves as a great gateway drug into online gaming and the Warcraft universe as it is. A lot of online gamers are still teens who can't hold credit cards or cannot convince their parents to blow a wad of money on perhaps the nerdiest of hobbies. There's benefits to keeping those kids in-house and I guarantee you that there's people playing WoW right now who got into online gaming in the first place thanks to Bnet.

Zanzan · « **Reply #180 on:** 11 Apr 2009, 20:52 »

Quote from: est on 15 Oct 2008, 22:51

Oh god, I am not sure if he qualifies as the hardest boss, but the fallen seraphim in Hell is annoying as all hell because he has a gazillion hitpoints and is resistant to most things. It took me forever to kill the bastard.

Also:

Weee!

That's now my wallpaper! Yay!

Anyway, dug my D2 CDs out of cryo-storage and started playing a week ago when I heard about D3 being announced. Already in Hell mode ... damn Blizzard.

Boro_Bandito · « **Reply #181 on:** 12 Apr 2009, 09:51 »

I pity da fool who doesn't read the whole topic and then posts without contributing anything to the conversation anyway.

I don't think they'll create a monthly charge for Battle.net with Diablo 3 simply because with it there will come the expectation of it being updated regularly for new content. Monthly pay for MMOs with new content added regularly works because they aren't following a linear storyline. Diablo has always been a pretty standard RPG hack-n-slash in that it follows a pretty linear quest path with a very clear game end, even with the LoD expansion. I agree with Obsessions, I'm betting it makes more sense to release the game, have free B.net and release a couple expansions, then ignore the game for another ten years, heh.

Dazed · « **Reply #182 on:** 12 Apr 2009, 09:55 »

Also, amongst the reasons they charged monthly for WoW service was that it's hosted server-side. Battle.net, I'm pretty certain, has always been hosted client-side. So, really, given that Battle.net has always been free, and given the reasons Jon and Boro etc just stated, to start charging for it now would create a massive PR shitstorm that I'm sure they don't want to deal with.

Felrender · « **Reply #183 on:** 12 Apr 2009, 11:23 »

I actually want to play the Archivist, joke or not.

LORENADO!

Beren · « **Reply #184 on:** 12 Apr 2009, 18:10 »

It's already been stated that Battle.net will remain free for both D3 and the upcoming SC2.

Avec · « **Reply #185 on:** 12 Apr 2009, 18:16 »

Could you link me to that, please?

Avec · « **Reply #186 on:** 12 Apr 2009, 18:27 »

Alex C · « **Reply #187 on:** 12 Apr 2009, 18:31 »

"With Battle.Net we're definitely looking at possible different features that we might be able to do for additional money. We're not talking about Hellgate or anything like that. We're not going to tack things on. I think World of Warcraft is a great example to look at. We charge people if they want to switch servers or if they want name changes, things that aren't core to the game experience, they're really just optional things that some people want. It takes us some development work to do it, so it makes sense to charge for it. We would never do something like say to get the full game experience, you'll have to pay extra."

Can we put this baby to rest now?

Avec · « **Reply #188 on:** 12 Apr 2009, 18:31 »

There's no going back now.

Edit: JA JA JA JA JA.

Beren · « **Reply #189 on:** 13 Apr 2009, 10:41 »

Ah, that wasn't even the post I remember, but that works too.

Felrender · « **Reply #190 on:** 13 Apr 2009, 11:52 »

Yeah, Activision is the retarded conjoined twin, not Blizzard.

el_loco_avs · « **Reply #191 on:** 14 Apr 2009, 03:00 »

It never really made sense to charge for a non-mmo. It's not even persistant world!

kaseysaidmaybetomorrow · « **Reply #192 on:** 09 Jul 2009, 20:09 »

I neeeeed it.

KvP · « **Reply #193 on:** 21 Aug 2009, 18:03 »

http://www.blizzard.com/diablo3/characters/monk.xml

Def my favorite D&D class. Good to see it's making it through to D3. Looks a bit like the D2 assassin, plus bells and whistles.

Alex C · « **Reply #194 on:** 21 Aug 2009, 18:33 »

Impenetrable Defense made me smile because ranged attackers could be pretty obnoxious in the Diablo series, particularly if they tended to flee as you approached (I hated the succubi in D1 when playing a warrior). Even if the reflect isn't very good as a counterattack, at least it'll be something I can bust out while a ranged buddy tags them.

Boro_Bandito · « **Reply #195 on:** 21 Aug 2009, 18:40 »

I thought I was going to play as barbarian for my first playthrough, I think I've just changed my mind.

est · « **Reply #196 on:** 21 Aug 2009, 19:01 »

So we've got what, Barbarian, Witch-Doctor, Wizard & now Monk. So all that is left is a ranger-type char, ie: a meld of the Amazon and the Druid from, D2.

There's only gonna be five classes to begin with, right? So that is pretty much that? With all the health globes falling all over the place you won't need a dedicated cleric class, with Barb and Monk we won't be getting another melee+healing class like the Paladin (and besides, it could be argued that the Monk is just another take on the Paladin), and it feels like any group would be pretty range-deficient with only the Wizard as ranged class. Maybe they will surprise us, but seeing as a Ranger/Hunter class fills in basically everything that is missing (ranged attacks, spears/javs, crowd control via nets/some sort of nature magic, animal companion summoning) other than straight up heals (which they could throw in I guess, as nature heals?) and solves the problem of the Amazon being sex-specific I thoroughly doubt it.

est · « **Reply #197 on:** 21 Aug 2009, 19:03 »

Also, with character-specific quests I could easily see myself playing through with Barb, Monk and Wizard. I never really liked the Druid or the Necro, so Witch Doctor doesn't really appeal, and if the final is a Ranger I won't have much interest in that either. Playing through three times with Barb, Wiz & Monk will do though!

Orbert · « **Reply #198 on:** 21 Aug 2009, 19:31 »

Sounds about right to me. I believe they said there would only be five classes (to start anyway), and we don't have anyone yet who specializes in ranged physical attacks.

I always play the game all the way through with each class at least once. In original Diablo, Warriors were easiest in the early game, but Sorcerors totally owned the higher levels. Rogues had a tough start, too, but eventually got pretty handy in the mid-game, then sucked about as badly as Warriors in the endgame. D2 and D2X were both much better balanced, and it really did come down to personal preference, but I managed to Matriarch/Patriarch each class at least once. I plan to do the same with D3.

Man, this game is taking forever to come out. Not complaining, it's just... okay, I guess I am complaining.

Alex C · « **Reply #199 on:** 21 Aug 2009, 19:46 »

Warriors were actually pretty nasty in the endgame of D1 (a well-built warrior can just smear Diablo) if you mastered the finer points of Tele-killing, but to do that you needed to find enough gear and shrines to bootstrap your way up to being able to cast the damned spell worth a crap to begin with. That was a real feat in and of itself.

THESE FORUMS NOW CLOSED (read only)

Author Topic: Diablo 3 (Read 68362 times)