Diablo 3 news. It's an MMO.

[Stark]

Shhhh - nobody but us played Sacred 2, which is why D3 using heaps of ideas from it is 'original'.

[Vendetta]

Y'know, I even heard that D3 might just, and this is going to be a wild and craaaazy thing for blizzard to meddle in, be playable on a proper controller.

I guess that Blizzard haven't been completely living under a rock for the last 11 years, even if their fanbase have.

[Stark]

Hey hey - that'd be IMPOSSIBLE right?

I'm interested in a lot of D3's ideas, but not in playing it on PC. Shame really.

[Stofsk]

I guess we'll see how D3 ends up handling it.

If you can town portal as easily as you can pause, it probably won't matter, you just TP to a safe location if you need to step away.
Sacred 2 had no pausing, and it was quite easy to just zone to somewhere safe by teleporting there if you had to.

That actually won't help if it logs you out after a set period of time in which you've been idle.

[Stark]

Are we inventing policies now? Regardless, if you're at a port it doesn't matter if you're logged out, unless it spawns you somewhere retarded.

[Stofsk]

Are we inventing policies now?

That's what the guy said happened in the beta. He had to answer the phone or something and he got logged out after he had been idle for a time.

Regardless, if you're at a port it doesn't matter if you're logged out, unless it spawns you somewhere retarded.

Yes I know, but it is still annoying and if you haven't gotten to a checkpoint you'll lose progress.

[Stark]

Uh what? You're complaining it's like an MMO and then using words like 'checkpoint'?

I'm confused. Do you know how MMOs work? Does EVE have checkpoints? Shit, did DIABLO have checkpoints?

All you might lose is your position, which is quite annoying enough. Of course, head in the sand people would complain if you reappeared exactly where you were as in MMOs, because then you could get trapped (as you can in MMOs). Good thing you have teleporters, really. or - heaven forbid - friends to help out.

[Stofsk]

I'm not complaining about the use of checkpoints. I'm just saying that getting logged out for being idle is annoying.

It's a problem that won't have a drastic impact on gameplay - you won't lose items or whatever - but it's just annoying.

[Stark]

Since your anecdote is both amazingly vague and in testing, I really don't see the issue. Just set afk and the user pruner will ignore you.

It's a real shame that nerds unable to handle change focus on what are really trivial issues (and even probably non-existent issues) to the total exclusion of all the interesting things Blizzard are trying in D3. They appear to have stolen all the good ideas from other q diabls, which is pretty exciting since I doubt Blizzard even gives a shit aout Diablo anymore outside sandpit Battle.net people afraid of MMOs.

[Molyneux]

Since your anecdote is both amazingly vague and in testing, I really don't see the issue. Just set afk and the user pruner will ignore you.

It's a real shame that nerds unable to handle change focus on what are really trivial issues (and even probably non-existent issues) to the total exclusion of all the interesting things Blizzard are trying in D3. They appear to have stolen all the good ideas from other q diabls, which is pretty exciting since I doubt Blizzard even gives a shit aout Diablo anymore outside sandpit Battle.net people afraid of MMOs.

Pardon me if "cannot play the fucking game" is a "trivial issue".
Again: not every user has a stable Internet connection. I don't want to be prevented from playing the games I've bought when the router goes down.

[Stark]

I care about people in that situation even less than Blizzard does, so cry me a river. I've been online for all my gaming for years and my hair hasn't fallen out. If you think your living in a sewer/gravel pit somehow makes D3 a bad game, you're an idiot.

[White Haven]

'People with bad net connections can fuck off because I don't have a bad internet connection.' Wow. Seriously, I knew you were a raging asshole, but that's putting it bluntly even for you.

[Stark]

Dont get weepy on me, babyface. Why should I care about something that doesn't affect me, wouldn't bother me if it did, and is probably blown out of proportion by nerds?

Because you say so?

Forgive me for being concerned about the actualgame instead of screeching OH EMM GEE DRM NET LOGIN NO PLANE PLAYING. I'm more interested in the skill system and layout than old Molyneux's domestic problems. The laugh is I don't even like Diablo, but not being a one-note net alarmist I don't have to rage about this stuff.

Sacred 2 only working is a good start for a q dial, whether or not Molyneux can play it. Uh oh!

[Molyneux]

Dont get weepy on me, babyface. Why should I care about something that doesn't affect me, wouldn't bother me if it did, and is probably blown out of proportion by nerds?

Because you say so?

Forgive me for being concerned about the actualgame instead of screeching OH EMM GEE DRM NET LOGIN NO PLANE PLAYING. I'm more interested in the skill system and layout than old Molyneux's domestic problems. The laugh is I don't even like Diablo, but not being a one-note net alarmist I don't have to rage about this stuff.

Sacred 2 only working is a good start for a q dial, whether or not Molyneux can play it. Uh oh!

Yes, because the entire setup required to play the game shouldn't be discussed in the same thread as the game is part of.
I'm not sure if you're trying to troll, or just being an idiot. I have a sneaking suspicion that it's the latter.

I'll spell this out slowly and clearly in hopes of you understanding it: a game company requiring online connectivity for a game with single-player story is a bad idea. It is a great way of pissing off customers and cutting out part of your potential user base. Despite your shiny gold-plated never-never-hardly-ever internet connection, not every PC gamer has access to a perfect connection.

The skill system and layout can suck a nice thick cock when I can't get to the game that implements them. When my Internet connection decides to be pissy, I don't want to be stuck staring at a login screen for a game on which I laid down a decent chunk of money. This is a legitimate concern, and by claiming that it doesn't matter you're having roughly the same effect on your image as you would if you decided to take a nice big dump in the middle of a city street.

Understand it now, or do I need to say it again, but slower for the less intelligent Starks in the audience?

[D.Turtle]

Except that Blizzard can (and other companies have) say: That group of people with no good Internet connection is small enough as to be irrelevant. Instead, requiring everyone to have a constant Internet connection enables them to implement additional features utilizing that Internet connection.

They did the same thing with Starcraft 2 and LAN gaming.

[Stark]

Yes, because the entire setup required to play the game shouldn't be discussed in the same thread as the game is part of.
I'm not sure if you're trying to troll, or just being an idiot. I have a sneaking suspicion that it's the latter.

I'll spell this out slowly and clearly in hopes of you understanding it: a game company requiring online connectivity for a game with single-player story is a bad idea. It is a great way of pissing off customers and cutting out part of your potential user base. Despite your shiny gold-plated never-never-hardly-ever internet connection, not every PC gamer has access to a perfect connection.

The skill system and layout can suck a nice thick cock when I can't get to the game that implements them. When my Internet connection decides to be pissy, I don't want to be stuck staring at a login screen for a game on which I laid down a decent chunk of money. This is a legitimate concern, and by claiming that it doesn't matter you're having roughly the same effect on your image as you would if you decided to take a nice big dump in the middle of a city street.

Understand it now, or do I need to say it again, but slower for the less intelligent Starks in the audience?

Too bad I didn't say it 'shouldn't be discussed in the same thread as the game is part of'. I said I don't give a fuck, and neither does Blizzard. You can bloo bloo and q.q all you want, but that doesn't make me wrong.

I love how you say it's a 'bad idea' when Blizzard obviously know what it'll do to sales and DON'T CARE. It's almost as if they have another product making infinite money and are making D3 for a laugh, isn't it? But here we learn that Molyneux not wanting to talk about something because he 'can't get to it' is totally fine and acceptable, but Stark simply not caring that Molyneux won't play it is hideous and wrong and might make White Haven cry. Time to grow up and realise the market isn't you personally, champ.

D.Turtle, Blizzard guys have literally said outright that if you want a game to play offline or on a plane or in the rain or with green eggs and ham, D3 isn't it and buy something else. I'm not sure how much clearer they can make 'we don't care about Molyneux'. Sadly, there are those who aren't living in a cave and are interested in the game... but lets just flood the thread with OMG TEH ONLINZ SO EV0L spam, because nerds love the sound of their own voices.

Has anyone heard more details on how the skills system will work? I understand it's modified basic skills (like Sacred2) but with a kind of socketing rather than the binary choices of S2. That's certainly a big step up from the irreversible, unclear and badly tooltipped skills in S2, but I think most people are used to a tiered system like Titan Quest, so I wonder how they'll try to tier the skill modifications.

[weemadando]

Apparently you unlock skill slots every few levels so you have more ability to SYNERGISE your skills which you also unlock by levelling up.

You don't level your skills individual, you use the SYNERGY and item buffs for that and you can swap them in and out at any time at no re-spec cost.

That's the basics.

[Stark]

Do the skills still have levels (controlling damage etc) or are they entirely buffed by items and the stuff you've got slotted?

[D.Turtle]

Has anyone heard more details on how the skills system will work? I understand it's modified basic skills (like Sacred2) but with a kind of socketing rather than the binary choices of S2. That's certainly a big step up from the irreversible, unclear and badly tooltipped skills in S2, but I think most people are used to a tiered system like Titan Quest, so I wonder how they'll try to tier the skill modifications.

The Blizzard site has a skill calculator that shows the system.

You get additional skills unlocked as you level up. And you get additional active slots for those skills as you level up (up to 6). The active skills can be switched at any time. Skills automatically get better and stronger as you level up.

With the runestone system they've apparently went with one they described a month or two ago: Unattuned runestones of various ranks and colors drop. You then equip them with a certain skill, at which point they are attuned to that specific skill, modifying it and gaining additional random perks. They can be switched out for other runestones at will, however they are permanently attuned to a specific skill. So, once its a runestone of bash, its always a runestone of bash, but it can be switched with other runestones of bash (or unattuned runestones).

The ranks of runestones dropping are dependent on the difficulty level you are playing on.

[Molyneux]

Yes, because the entire setup required to play the game shouldn't be discussed in the same thread as the game is part of.
I'm not sure if you're trying to troll, or just being an idiot. I have a sneaking suspicion that it's the latter.

I'll spell this out slowly and clearly in hopes of you understanding it: a game company requiring online connectivity for a game with single-player story is a bad idea. It is a great way of pissing off customers and cutting out part of your potential user base. Despite your shiny gold-plated never-never-hardly-ever internet connection, not every PC gamer has access to a perfect connection.

The skill system and layout can suck a nice thick cock when I can't get to the game that implements them. When my Internet connection decides to be pissy, I don't want to be stuck staring at a login screen for a game on which I laid down a decent chunk of money. This is a legitimate concern, and by claiming that it doesn't matter you're having roughly the same effect on your image as you would if you decided to take a nice big dump in the middle of a city street.

Understand it now, or do I need to say it again, but slower for the less intelligent Starks in the audience?

Too bad I didn't say it 'shouldn't be discussed in the same thread as the game is part of'. I said I don't give a fuck, and neither does Blizzard. You can bloo bloo and q.q all you want, but that doesn't make me wrong.

I love how you say it's a 'bad idea' when Blizzard obviously know what it'll do to sales and DON'T CARE. It's almost as if they have another product making infinite money and are making D3 for a laugh, isn't it? But here we learn that Molyneux not wanting to talk about something because he 'can't get to it' is totally fine and acceptable, but Stark simply not caring that Molyneux won't play it is hideous and wrong and might make White Haven cry. Time to grow up and realise the market isn't you personally, champ.

D.Turtle, Blizzard guys have literally said outright that if you want a game to play offline or on a plane or in the rain or with green eggs and ham, D3 isn't it and buy something else. I'm not sure how much clearer they can make 'we don't care about Molyneux'. Sadly, there are those who aren't living in a cave and are interested in the game... but lets just flood the thread with OMG TEH ONLINZ SO EV0L spam, because nerds love the sound of their own voices.

Has anyone heard more details on how the skills system will work? I understand it's modified basic skills (like Sacred2) but with a kind of socketing rather than the binary choices of S2. That's certainly a big step up from the irreversible, unclear and badly tooltipped skills in S2, but I think most people are used to a tiered system like Titan Quest, so I wonder how they'll try to tier the skill modifications.

Obviously, I didn't say it slowly and clearly enough. That's all right. It's not your fault that you're an idiot.

Here's a quick bit of information: if you hadn't gone out of your way to insult people for bringing up a legitimate concern about the game? I wouldn't still be posting on this thread. By acting like a jackass, you have accomplished nothing but prolonging the discussion of the online-only requirement in this thread, distracted attention from the topic you want to talk about, and lowered my opinion of your intelligence considerably.

Idiot.

[weemadando]

Obviously, I didn't say it slowly and clearly enough. That's all right. It's not your fault that you're an idiot.

Here's a quick bit of information: if you hadn't gone out of your way to insult people for bringing up a legitimate concern about the game? I wouldn't still be posting on this thread. By acting like a jackass, you have accomplished nothing but prolonging the discussion of the online-only requirement in this thread, distracted attention from the topic you want to talk about, and lowered my opinion of your intelligence considerably.

Idiot.

Molyneux, I mightn't like some of the choices, but it's a business decision.

And guess what, Blizzard seem to be pretty good at business.

Also re: the whole "always on" net thing. Seriously, how bad are people's connections? When was the last time you had your net drop out?

Even in STRAYA, with a decent router I get disconnected MAYBE twice a week.

Yes, for deployed servicemen, people travelling and hte like it's probably going to suck. But hey, you can always not play it and instead get Torchlight or something.

[Molyneux]

Obviously, I didn't say it slowly and clearly enough. That's all right. It's not your fault that you're an idiot.

Here's a quick bit of information: if you hadn't gone out of your way to insult people for bringing up a legitimate concern about the game? I wouldn't still be posting on this thread. By acting like a jackass, you have accomplished nothing but prolonging the discussion of the online-only requirement in this thread, distracted attention from the topic you want to talk about, and lowered my opinion of your intelligence considerably.

Idiot.

Molyneux, I mightn't like some of the choices, but it's a business decision.

And guess what, Blizzard seem to be pretty good at business.

Also re: the whole "always on" net thing. Seriously, how bad are people's connections? When was the last time you had your net drop out?

Even in STRAYA, with a decent router I get disconnected MAYBE twice a week.

Yes, for deployed servicemen, people travelling and hte like it's probably going to suck. But hey, you can always not play it and instead get Torchlight or something.

Thanks for actually speaking like a reasonable adult.
My internet has been more flaky than usual as of late; I was stuck with no internet for a good portion of Friday afternoon. Moreover, when I'm playing a game with a persistent online connection, there are enough speed hiccups that I generally have to expect to be DCed at least once or twice an hour - less so with games like Team Fortress, more so with MMOs - but unlike, say, Diablo, I expect those games to require my connection simply due to the multiplayer nature of the game.

As for not getting it - thank you, that's exactly what I'm planning on doing. I was already pissed off at Blizzard thanks to the crap they pulled with Starcraft 2, which I similarly have not bought.

[Sharp-kun]

but unlike, say, Diablo, I expect those games to require my connection simply due to the multiplayer nature of the game.

The thing is, Diablo 3 is effectivly a multiplyer game. Everything you do in single player can be used in multiplayer/sold online from what I know. The line between the two ingame seems pretty blurred at points.

It sucks if you've got a terrible connection, but if I'm selling and buying things ingame for real £ I don't want people potentially messing around offline then coming on. Maybe it would turn out fine but the risk is there if someone finds a loophole at which point Blizzard have a shitstorm on their hands. Sure, you could have a permenantly offline mode, but that's probably a lot of effort for a very small % of the playerbase.

I'd imagine that requiring you to be online also ensures everyone's playing the latest version. That way if a game breaking bug is found that allows you to farm Infinity+1 swords with ease they can quickly patch it and ensure that no one doesn't update and keeps farming to sell the weapons later.

[White Haven]

The solution, of course, was proposed long ago and mentioned numerous times since then. Allow a character to be created locally that will absolutely not be permitted online, period. All of a sudden nobody cares if you're cheating on your local-machine single-player character, because it can't impact anyone but you. Nobody cares if you find an exploit to duplicate Godslayer Scimitars, because you can't wield more than one or two anyway, and you can't sell them to other players online.

Personally, my ISP tends towards the stable...now. Until a week ago, it was hellaciously unstable due to leftover hurricane damage, and would drop frequently. Shit happens, and I would have been pissed if I couldn't play single-player games during periods of maximum instability. Especially with such an obvious fix to satisfy both aims.

[Sharp-kun]

The solution, of course, was proposed long ago and mentioned numerous times since then. Allow a character to be created locally that will absolutely not be permitted online, period. All of a sudden nobody cares if you're cheating on your local-machine single-player character, because it can't impact anyone but you. Nobody cares if you find an exploit to duplicate Godslayer Scimitars, because you can't wield more than one or two anyway, and you can't sell them to other players online.

As I said, why bother for what will ultimatly be a minority, and one I doubt they raelly care to cater to anyway?