Done with the server

[Srs Not Ames]

I wasted a huge part of my childhood playing d2, Ill be there for d3 bro's. I pre ordered my copy months ago.

[Hammertime]

diablo 3? why? got that big boy game fate diablo style free with the laptop naw mean

[Silikten]

bye

[oldfish]

Id buy diablo3 but id rather not fund Kotick's plan of invading the next 20 solar systems

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[Smedy]

i think many who were fans of d1 & d2 will have issues with d3.

It's as always catering to shit heads that hate to compete but want multiplayer.

For instance, you slay a boss. In classic diablo the items fell to the ground and whomever clicked that shit quickest got it.

In diablo 3 each player will have 1 item drop that only you can loot, so everyone gets a piece of the cake without competing.

Also no open pvp in diablo3.

It's just like all the new games, takes zero skill, you gain points from dying (just less points) and nothing really makes any sense.

1990-2000 never forget when games were hard and winning made a difference.

[Lazortag]

Originally Posted by Smedy [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

It's as always catering to shit heads that hate to compete but want multiplayer.

For instance, you slay a boss. In classic diablo the items fell to the ground and whomever clicked that shit quickest got it.

In diablo 3 each player will have 1 item drop that only you can loot, so everyone gets a piece of the cake without competing.

I'd expect someone on the blue server to think of this as "competing"... but you Smedy? I'm surprised.

[Lulz Sect]

Originally Posted by Smedy [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

It's just like all the new games, takes zero skill, you gain points from dying (just less points) and nothing really makes any sense.

1990-2000 never forget when games were hard and winning made a difference.

[stormlord]

Originally Posted by Smedy [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

i think many who were fans of d1 & d2 will have issues with d3.

It's as always catering to shit heads that hate to compete but want multiplayer.

For instance, you slay a boss. In classic diablo the items fell to the ground and whomever clicked that shit quickest got it.

In diablo 3 each player will have 1 item drop that only you can loot, so everyone gets a piece of the cake without competing.

Also no open pvp in diablo3.

It's just like all the new games, takes zero skill, you gain points from dying (just less points) and nothing really makes any sense.

1990-2000 never forget when games were hard and winning made a difference.

Well in open loot schemes, these're the problems:
1) Players have to distribute manually
2) Items can be ninja looted

I will say that it's not necessary to reward every player with the same item(s) when they kill a monster. What's more important than this is having multiple paths of progression that compliment each other. If the paths of progression work against each other then you end up with a conflicted rat race where the players have to claw for every scrap of food. If you get the progression paths right then you automatically fix the loot tables too. For example, a well designed boss will drop lots of useful items for many different types of players, not just one or two or a fraction of them. A well designed quest system is inclusive, so it will reward players for helping each other complete quests. (many games get this wrong and require people who're doing quests to be at a similar stage in order to effectively help each other) Bad designs divide players and cause stress.

But you know, the diablo series of games has always catered to action gamers. But more than that, these games aren't about role-playing or realism. A small change like this, in perspective, is not significant. And keep in mind that now players won't have to argue about who gets what and there won't be any ninja looting and no more complaints about this to the HR department, so this means they'll have more time for something else.

For example, lets say that they remove heal potions in the future and just have players regain to full hp out of combat when they sit down. This means players don't have to worry about heal potions anymore. Does this ruin the game? Not necessarily. It just means that the players can now focus on something else. So the game can broaden its scope. Maybe it can move to something even more interesting than before.

All of this doomsdaying about changes in games presumes that the games never add anything in the place of what they remove. They say it's a slippy slope and that games will become so rundown and simple that only a 2 year old would want to play them. This thinking is simply incorrect. Games do not reduce in complexity. They just move things around to satisfy the desires of players. They follow the latest trends in opinion.

[Mafakka]

Diablo 3 is terrible [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.] At least first act is. If it's the same shit (complete act1-4, advance to nightmare), I'm not down.

d2jsp.org is your friend.

[Titanuk]

Originally Posted by Srs Not Ames [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

A parting message... PUT IN GLOBAL OOC YOU DUMB FUCKS YOUR SERVERS GUNNA BE DEAD IN LYKE TREE MONTHS, FUCKIN CHIT MANG.