StarDestroyer.Net BBS

But will it be as good as Moonstone? [/nostalgy]

Vympel wrote:I hear they're planning to patch D2 to play in superior, 320x480 resolution. Wow.

What was the reason again why they released D2 in godawful 640x480 again?
That was even worse than going for a more cartoonisch look in D3. At least the latter won't be as bad as Poké-WoW.

wautd wrote: What was the reason again why they released D2 in godawful 640x480 again?

Engine limitations. See previous talk about it not being able to render shit properly as it was.

I recall that even at 640x480 the performance was pretty abysmal at the bottom end of the system requirements, and that was local only with nothing like network synchronisation to trouble it.

Heres a Question.. How many people stopped playing after reaching Hell because, every-time you died, not only would you loose up to 250,000 gold, or more, but you would loose the last 40-min worth of experience gained?

Crossroads Inc. wrote:Heres a Question.. How many people stopped playing after reaching Hell because, every-time you died, not only would you loose up to 250,000 gold, or more, but you would loose the last 40-min worth of experience gained?

Pussy. Just don't die. Problem solved.

Some builds are easier than others. Sorcs, Bowazons and Javasons are ranged so they tend to be 'safe'. Necromancers that summon an army of skeletons are the safest (and most boring) class to play. The biggest problem is with melee classes, of those there are two varieties: sword and board, and two-hander glass jaws. Shields, especially with enough dexterity to get max block, do a hell of a lot to mitigate damage in Diablo. If you give up a shield, you're putting yourself more at risk and you trade damage reduction and high resists for the greater damage that comes from a two-hander. In that case, you have to be careful and high life leech becomes practically mandatory. Even a Zealot is a safe character to play despite being a melee class, because you do a lot of damage per second and you have max block and huge defence thanks to holy shield. Vitality is the only stat that is everyone's friend.

Now, try playing Diablo as a hardcore player. Better yet, play it on battle.net as a hardcore player. That's when lag kills you rather than monsters. (first and only time I played a Javazon hardcore on Battle.net and she died in Act 1 Nightmare of all places - lagged and then wiped out in seconds by a ghost bosspack in the Countess' tower; my friend was playing a Necromancer with a whole lot of skeletons so he survived, the prick )

Crossroads Inc. wrote:Heres a Question.. How many people stopped playing after reaching Hell because, every-time you died, not only would you loose up to 250,000 gold, or more, but you would loose the last 40-min worth of experience gained?

Um. I stopped playing Hell because I didn't want to lose my HC character to a TPPK PKer. I hear they got rid of that hack in the latest patch? Thank God. I have no wish to go back, but at least people can now play on open games now.

Play HC and you'll never want to go back. It's just boring without the constant threat of permanent death hanging over your head.

Stofsk wrote:Pussy. Just don't die. Problem solved.

Dude needs to play a good roguelike, with permadeath by default and no pretense of ever being the least bit fair.

Remember when they made rougelikes as accessible and multi-centric as Diablo?

Hang on, they never did that.

DudeGuyMan wrote:

Stofsk wrote:Pussy. Just don't die. Problem solved.

Dude needs to play a good roguelike, with permadeath by default and no pretense of ever being the least bit fair.

Play "Dwarf Fortress" and then get back to me about asking that.

Dwarf Fortress fascinates me, but falls below a level of presentation that I'm prepared to accept. I play ZangbandTK as my roguelike of choice, despite a lack of updates, because it actually comes with a nice isometric tileset and an actual GUI.

Vendetta wrote:

wautd wrote: What was the reason again why they released D2 in godawful 640x480 again?

Engine limitations. See previous talk about it not being able to render shit properly as it was.

I recall that even at 640x480 the performance was pretty abysmal at the bottom end of the system requirements, and that was local only with nothing like network synchronisation to trouble it.

Mind you they did up it to 800x600 with the expack (tauted as High Resolution graphics at the time ).

DudeGuyMan wrote:Dwarf Fortress fascinates me, but falls below a level of presentation that I'm prepared to accept. I play ZangbandTK as my roguelike of choice, despite a lack of updates, because it actually comes with a nice isometric tileset and an actual GUI.

I played a lot of ZTK back in the day, but the interface being built on needlessly tiered keyboard menus was just lame. Roguelikes actually don't have that much complexity; a decent UI would let you play it on a controller. Nerds just hate any move toward 'playable'.

Vendetta wrote:I recall that even at 640x480 the performance was pretty abysmal at the bottom end of the system requirements, and that was local only with nothing like network synchronisation to trouble it.

Oh, yes. I played it on a Cyrix 333 with 64MB of RAM and the performance was absolutely appalling after a while. Restarting the game would get performance back up to something approaching playable for a time so I can only presume it was a memory leak of some description. When I dared venture onto Battle.net the performance was even worse.