The Ring of Royal Grandeur (armory) has become the most sought after item in Diablo 3, as its legendary affix is basically mandatory for all end game gearing decisions, given the power of partial Item Set bonuses. The hard part is finding one, as it’s one of the five legendary items that can only be obtained from Act One Horadric Caches. This is good in a way, as it’s the sole remaining item/profit-based reason players have to do *anything* other than RiftRiftRift. (Given the game’s design direction in recent months, I’m frankly surprised the RoRG hasn’t been turned into a Greater Rift Guardian drop.)
Most players hunt RoRGs with brute force, by grinding hundreds of Act One bounties as quickly as possible, which usually means split-farming on Normal difficulty. That’ll work, eventually, but is there a better way? A user in our Diablo 3 community forum named Horadrimm says yes, there’s a trick to it, by following a method players are calling the “Junger Rules.” Quote:
I got 5 RORGS with very minimal effort and so can you!!
How it works: The game has a pity timer, meaning that if you don’t get a legendary within an hour or so it drops one for you automatically. The goal the aforementioned method of farming is to ensure that pity drop is in your horadric cache and not in the world.
What to do:
Do not kill any mobs except those required for objectives. Do not kill goblins. Do not open chests including resplendent chests. Do not destroy breakables (pots, barrels, looting bodies etc). Do not pop fortune shrines. Do not kill mobs from required cursed chest and shrine event objectives until the timer has run out.
Avoiding a legendary drop in the world increases the chance the pity timer drops one in your cache.
First off, the guy who invented this was apparently named Junger, so now it’s called the “Junger Rules.” Which is fine, but how the hell did they avoid the obvious pun and call it the “Junger Games?” So that’s what I’m calling it, since I’m all about obvious puns.
As for the technique, the theory is that since the game has a “pity timer” that increases your chances of finding a legendary item the longer you go without finding one, you can exploit this by obtaining a Horadric Cache after not finding any Legendaries for some time. Hence not killing Goblins, not opening golden chests, avoiding random Elites, etc. This is a sacrifice since it’ll lower your total legendaries found, but boost your chances of finding that all-important RoRG.
Does it work? Some players swear it does, others say it doesn’t. And thus we’re plunged back into the conspiracy theories that are inevitably spawned by item hunting in a game where we don’t know exactly how item drops work. I think the principle is sound, as the pity timer is real, but I’m not at all sure the stated rules are how it should be done.
First of all, we don’t know when items in a Horadric Cache are determined. The Junger Gamers say the legendary pity timer works when you find the Cache, but that seems contrary to what we know about how Horadric Caches determine their item drops. Remember early in RoS, when players were storing Caches up in Normal and opening them on Torment 6? That was a real exploit, easily observed since it caused Imperial Gems to drop from Caches found in Normal. (Which made it seem that items in Caches were determined when the Cache was opened. NOT when it was found.)
Blizzard confirmed that exploit by hotfixing it and adding an internal tag to unopened Caches that tracked what difficulty level they were found on, and the level of the character that farmed them. (So if you find bags with a lvl 70 and open with a lvl 60, all the items will be lvl 70.) Bliz later expanded on that in Patch 2.0.5 when they boosted the chances for legendary items to drop from Caches found on Torment 2 and higher.
Furthermore, Bliz recently confirmed that items from Caches roll their smart drop according to the class of the character that opens the cache. It doesn’t matter who farms the cache in terms of what items drop. That matches my experience and testing as well, as I once farmed a bunch of caches with my DH and my Barb, and then opened them with a WD and got almost all INT gear, plus several Witch Doctor-restricted items.
Greater Rifts (GRs, initially known as Tiered Rifts) are a higher level of Nephalem Rift, meant to provide a greater challenge and greater rewards for players geared well enough to take them on. Greater Rifts are timed, and *must* be completed within 15 minutes to earn rewards. All treasure in Greater Rifts, with usually a legendary item or two, comes from the Greater Rift Guardian (GRG) which is an upgraded version of the regular Rift Guardians.
Difficulty: Greater Rifts are numbered as a measure of their difficulty. A level 1 Greater Rift is very easy, equivalent to Normal difficulty (or less.) Greater Rifts scale up quickly though, and will become challenging for any player ability. Level 8 is equivalent to about Torment 1, Level 15 is equivalent to about [Torment 3, and Level 25 is approximately the same as Torment 6. There should be an infinite number or Greater Rift levels since each one merely increases the hit points and damage of the monsters by some percentage.
Shrines: There are virtually no shrines or pylons in Greater Rifts. Pylons are seen occasionally, but their bonuses last only 15 seconds (instead of the usual 30) and Blizzard specifically said that Conduit Pylons would not be found in Greater Rifts since they are so powerful they would skew the entire rift Leaderboard system.
No Respecs: Characters can reallocate their Paragon Points while in a Rift, but can not access their inventory or skill menus (respec) while in a Greater Rift. It is possible to return to town mid-GR, and players can respec and make repairs then, though it’s not recommended since the GR is a timed race. This is a feature designed to limit exploits via equipment or skill changes, so players can’t change gear or skills to be more effective against a single target before they reach the Greater Rift Guardian for instance.
Rewards: Items and gold do not drop in Greater Rifts, and there are no chests or other clickables. All treasure comes from defeating the Greater Rift Guardian, who drops a huge amount of stuff, about double that of a normal Rift Guardian, and has a very high probability of dropping at least one legendary item. (Note that the lack of gold and chests hurts the effectiveness of legendary items such as Goldwrap and Harrington Waistguard that proc up in effectiveness via gold pickups or chest/clickables opening.)
Progress Bar: The progress bar in a Greater Rift increases gradually from killing trash mobs, but jumps up by larger amounts for Elite kills. (Elites drop objects that look a bit like gooey health orbs, which count for big boosts in the progress bar when collected.) This is a feature designed to keep players from simply rushing past Elites to more quickly finish the rift by killing trash mobs, as can be done in normal Nephalem Rifts, and players will fill their progress bar more quickly by killing Elites than by skipping them, except in very rare long Elite battles.
Accessing and Process
- # Get a Greater Rift Keystone level 1 from completing a Nephalem Rift. – Drop rate still being determined.
- Use the GR Keystone to open a portal to a Greater Rift at the regular Nephalem Obelisk next to Orek.
- Kill all the mobs in the Greater Rift before the timer runs out.
- No regular or champion mobs drop loot in Greater Rifts.
- The Rift Guardian will drop loot regardless if the timer has run out or not.
- If the Rift Guardian is killed before the timer runs out he will drop a Greater Rift Keystone.
- The Keystone’s level is determined by how quickly the Greater Rift was cleared. The quicker, the higher the GR key fragment.
Progress Bar and Rift Speed
The progress bar in a Greater Rift looks the same as the bar in a normal Nephalem Rift, with two added slider needles, displayed above and below the bar. The total bar coloured in orange, and the icon above it show your current progress towards completing the rift. The icon below it and any colour in blue shows how fast you need to progress to complete the rift in time.
When players are battling through a Rift that’s just at the limit of their killing power, they will often see their progress dropping behind and the bar showing blue, before they kill a couple of Elites in a row and see the bonus from Elites shoot them back up ahead of schedule.
- Socketing Tiamat's Rebuke, Baranar's Star
- Patriarch The_Snowman, Frost Zealot
- assassin finisher issues
- About Bounties
- Caption This! #13 (2014 Edition)
- So, I'm quitting. What to do with items.
- RoS: How are you Demon Hunters doing?
- Things you love because they kick arse!
- Walk before you can Crawl(ers): Ray of Frost bug
- Lesser used Uniques and Sets
- Anyone playing Diablo 1?
- Heavens fury and Crit/no Crit
Blizzard Defends Diablo 3′s Four Player MaximumPosted 29 Mar 2013 by
Blizzard announced that Diablo 3 Maximum Players would be “four or five” way back in 2008. It was something of a controversial decision at the time, and the debate continued for a while (looking in the archives I found an “On The Drawing Board” article I wrote about it in March 2009). Eventually they decided on four, and the issue seemed settled. However, as the Diablo 3 community regularly proves Faulkner’s famous maxim, this issue has come back to life with the advent of the Diablo 3 PlayStation game’s debut.
There’s certainly a debate to be had over whether 4, 5, 6 or 8 players would be better. That’s mostly opinion, and any “facts” provided in that argument are pretty subjective. One man’s “screen is overcrowded” is another’s, “needs moar exploding cowbell.” What’s less subjective are bad arguments attempting to prove that the 4 player limit is due to the console. That, I think, is just a dumb argument, and not just because it assumes that Blizzard would hobble their 12m+ selling PC/Mac version of the game for a minor feature on the console much less important console version.
No, it’s because it’s not true, as many other games demonstrate. For instance, how does every Shooter and other open world, MMO-esque console game handle this? Generally by limiting it to 4 players in a game on the same machine, since that’s how many controllers there are, and/or the split screen display would be a problem. But those types of games almost always allow many more than 4 for online play, with 8, 16 or 32 in deathmatches. There’s zero reason Blizzard couldn’t have done the same thing with D3, with a limit of 4 on one machine and up to 6 or 8 when playing online. (Like how the PC/Mac limits it to 1 per machine, with a higher amount online.) They didn’t do that because they feel that 4 is a better max number than 8, for many, many reasons they’ve related many, many times.
Lylirra’s got a lot more patience than I do for this (and all other issues), since she offered a very thorough explanation in the B.net forums.
we should be able to at least have parties of 5 instead of 4. that would at least be a good thing….
We know some players will always prefer to have more than four people in a group, and we respect that completely. Even so, while a larger party size may seem appealing in concept (and even in practice for other games), there are a number of factors which contributed to us deciding on four players for co-op in Diablo III.
First off, the four-player limit isn’t in any way related to the number of classes you can play. One reason we actually preferred the idea of four-player co-op as opposed to five was that we felt if the number was five, then players might feel as if it was mandatory to have one of each class in their party. This couldn’t be further from the truth. We want players to feel like they can charge through Sanctuary with their friends regardless of whether they have four different classes represented or (for example) a group with two Barbarians and two Witch Doctors.
We also wanted group buffs (like auras and shouts) to feel meaningful in both solo and group play. Right now, you buff yourself and others by the same amount. We like that shouts are good and auras are strong, and that my contribution to the group via my buffs feels significant. But as group sizes get larger, the best player buffs would potentially need to be nerfed either by:
We don’t like the idea of these sorts of nerfs and want to avoid them as much as possible, which is part of the combined reason why we aren’t eager to increase the maximum size of groups.
Another factor we considered is that of player contributions. We like that you can really notice the contribution of each person at four players. No matter what size group you have, whenever you add another person to a group, each player’s personal contribution is diminished. This has some bad side effects. For example, if you swing at a monster, it feels good when you’re doing enough damage to see its health bar move. At four players, it’s already possible to be punching a monster and not feel like you’re doing any damage because the bar is moving slowly. This stigma would get worse as you add more people to a group.
Other factors we considered were that of screen noise and the number of players you can follow. At four players, we felt that you were still able to easily keep track of your party-members, but that beyond this size it became more and more difficult to monitor everything on screen. Additionally, the screen noise and spell effects generated by five players simply felt too overwhelming (this is something we tested quite extensively).
In summation, we’re pretty happy about the size of four-player groups. HOWEVER, we know that the multiplayer aspect of Diablo III needs improvement and are already looking into ways that we can further incentivize co-op farming and efficiency in patch 1.0.8. Wyatt is currently working on a developer journal about this very topic, so we hope to share even more information soon.
That “five player max for five classes” argument was popular back in 2008 also, but I find it pretty weak. D2 had 5 classes. D2X had 7. Did anyone ever play a game with exactly one of each classes in D2C or D2X? I played thousands of MP games over B.net, and never cared to, wanted to, or needed to do so. Furthermore, if D3C has 5 classes and a 5 char per game limit, what do they do when D3X adds another class (or two)? Up the limit per game to 6 or 7?
Believe it or not, the above quote is barely even the start of the thread, as Lylirra returned for numerous follow ups. Click through to
endure read the whole thing.
Lylirra: Yup! (That’s actually called out a little later in my reply, too.)
Also, console 4 player co-op = decision to limit to 4 players on PC
Lylirra: I know the “PC vs. Console” debate is its own sort of Eternal Conflict, and that it’s super popular right now to blame every design decision you disagree with on the development of a PlayStation 3 version. In the end, if that’s really what you want to believe in your (sin) heart of hearts, so be it. We may not totally understand why you believe that, but we can respect your opinion — because, hey, you’re a human being and you deserve it. <3
As I've said before, though, the PC experience defined the console experience, not vice-versa. The core of the console game is based on the PC game — you get all the same content, systems, classes, skills, and runes on the console as you do on PC. Our goal when developing Diablo III for console was to deliver that same visceral gameplay you get with a mouse and keyboard, just on a different platform. We wanted the experience itself to be authentic, in as many ways as possible. (Quick FYI: the console version didn't actually go into full development until the game was released last May.)
That said, the console version is its own game, and we've made a variety of tweaks to the PlayStation version of Diablo III so it makes sense on that platform, including a complete re-design of the UI and character controls, as well as combat pacing and boss fights. I point this out because it means we have the latitude to make adjustments to the PC game for console as appropriate, and that our decision to go with four-player co-op on the PC (as opposed to 5-player or 8-player co-op) was based on our goals for what would make a great PC game. Not because it's what console co-op would need.
It's a disservice to game design — as well as your feedback and healthy discussion in general — to boil everything down to "well, you just did it because of console." Especially since you’re essentially ignoring everything we’re trying to talk to you about in the process. There were a number of different reasons that led us to decide on four players for multiplayer games in Diablo III, and none of them related to the development of console. You may agree with some of those reasons and disagree with others, or disagree with all of them — and that's okay! Critiques are good, so long as they're relevant. Unfortunately, reducing all your arguments to glorified strawmen isn't very relevant. (Nor does it give us a lot of useful feedback on which to base further improvements.)
I find this to be a huge issue with your moderating skills on these forums. You allow people to get away with saying some crazy stuff, continually, and it does affect the community to a large degree.
Lylirra: Being incorrect or having an opinion that goes against the grain isn’t a violation of any of our forum rules or guidelines.
Having said that, though, if you feel moderation could be improved, feel free to hit up email@example.com. Moderation is ultimately handled by a separate team, but we’ll make sure your feedback gets to the right place.
Lylirra .. but what about the new rolls/dives classes have. We dont have it on pc…
Lylirra: We added Evade to the console version of the game for two main reasons:
The first is because, fundamentally, the way you move your character around on the console vs the way you move your character around on the PC is pretty different. With a keyboard and mouse in a game like Diablo III, not only can you see a bit farther (because of how we’ve positioned the camera), but you can also literally point to a spot on the map, click it, and your character will move there on its own. Since the console version uses direct control with the joystick, your movement feels more visceral and gutsy, but it has its own limitations. You don’t have that same sort of omniscience over where your character is going to go. To get from point A to point B on a map, for example, you have to manually direct your character to that spot, navigating all the obstacles individually along the way. It’s super fun, and with Evade, we’re just giving some additional mobility to console players to balance out not being able to point-and-click.
The second reason is that the Evade ability just feels super (and forgive my eloquence here) console-y. We want the game to feel natural when using a controller, and being able to dodge and roll around really plays up that fantasy. It’s one of those elements that just “fits” on the console version super well, but doesn’t necessarily make sense for PC.
Here’s a pretty good interview to check out if you’d like to learn more: http://www.ign.com/videos/2013/03/22/10-minutes-of-diablo-3-on-ps3-pax-east-2013
You’ve said most of this before. I don’t think the issue is that people don’t understand your stance, the issue is that they think you are lying.
Lylirra: If people think I’m lying then they don’t actually understand my stance very well.
In that video (around 7:14) a monster drops a “buff globe” that increases exp greatly for about 10 seconds. I have seen no official world on this mechanic, will this come to PC’s also?
Lylirra: It’s what we call a “power up” globe. Basically, there’s a small chance that whenever a health globe drops it’ll turn into a power up globe instead. These globes can provide the player with one of several small, temporary buffs (+MF/GF, +movement speed, +attack speed, etc) when picked up and last for very short period of time. They’re similar to Shrine buffs, but are designed to give players a quick boost during the middle of combat, rather than something you take from fight to fight.
Right now, there aren’t any plans to bring power up globes to the PC, but that of course may change as we continue testing and poring through your feedback.
“The core of the console game is based on the PC game — you get all the same content, systems, classes, skills, and runes on the console as you do on PC”
regardless of reasoning wouldn’t that be considered a lie? whether it’s consoley or not this is not true statement since console has offline mode and no auction house (pc) and they get a dodge button while pc does not… Not the same for each other. so “same content” is false
Lylirra: Yup! You’re correct that the console version will not have an auction house. Beyond that, since the console is based on the PC game, you get everything on the console as you do on PC (meaning you get all the same zones, events, monsters, bosses, classes, skills, runes, and systems like Infernal Machine, Brawling, and Monster Power on the console as you do on PC). Right now, we’re currently planning to ship with everything up to 1.0.7, potentially 1.0.8 depending on development time.
There are also some features on the console version that are not present on the PC version, but I covered that in the post you quoted:
“That said, the console version is its own game, and we’ve made a variety of tweaks to the PlayStation version of Diablo III so it makes sense on that platform, including a complete re-design of the UI and character controls, as well as combat pacing and boss fights.”
This is because the game was originally designed for PC and needed some adjustments in order to translate well to consoles, specifically the PlayStation platform.
If a feature or NPC that would be wildly popular and beneficial to the game (pick a hypothetical, random example) was doable on PC, but just not technically feasible on console, would that preclude it from ever being implemented on the PC because it would cause the games to diverge too much?
Are the platforms tied together as far as Expansions are concerned or is the console version really its own game. My concern is that the console will hold back the PC expansion’s release and content.
Lylirra: Working on getting you an answer to that. It’s a fair question, but I don’t know all the details off-hand.
Lol, why do you insist on telling others how to play?
Lylirra: The theory that we’re trying to aggressively redefine “what’s fun” has always saddened me. Our goal in designing Diablo III, and in supporting it post-launch, is to constantly iterate on its systems and content, incorporating new perspectives and feedback as we go. Each change we push is ultimately aimed at making Sanctuary more enjoyable for as many people as possible. Of course, “fun” is a pretty subjective term, so sometimes that means we’ll make a change that’s seen as unfavorable to a smaller group of players, but will (hopefully) be appreciated by larger portions of our player base.
We’re always reevaluating our design decisions, though, and working to make improvements based off player feedback. Iteration is key.
So you are saying Guildwars 2 got it wrong with the dodging built in?
Lylirra: No. Are you?
BS BS BS TheXelnaga here from 5 years counting feedback from Diablo 3 classic forums and longer then that on Diablo 2 forums , who has participated in every Diablo podcast under the sun, ask Bashiok who is TheXelnaga, I have been giving valuable feedback for years, I was giving feedback when Bashiok was MicahW as the Tyrael Icon. You guys have not been listening, I have mounds and mounds of data backed up on the internet way back machine I have been posting for years based on player feedback.
Lylirra: I really dig your passion. One important thing to keep in mind, though, is even though we may not have acted on your feedback in particular, that doesn’t mean we don’t value it, or that we haven’t made positive changes based on player input. Many of the improvements we’ve made since the game launched (as well as those currently planned for 1.0.8 and beyond) have been inspired, influenced, or guided by community discussion.
Hooray. We payed to be beta testers for consoles.
Lylirra: You keep using that word…
Well, that was fun. Anyone got any weekend plans?